Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume 1 for the Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility...

Draft Environmental Impact

Report

SCH# 2013091062

Volume 1 Chapters 1 through 11

Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project

Paramount Petroleum Corporation (PP13268)

Modification of Precise Development Plan No. 62, Map 102

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department

Bakersfield, California

May 2014

Alon Project WO #PP13268 I:\WP\LABELS\eir05-13rgf.nop.doc Sc 05/14/14

Center for Biological Diversity PO Box 549 Joshua Tree, CA 92252

City of Arvin P.O. Box 548 Arvin, CA 93203

Bakersfield City Planning Dept 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301

Bakersfield City Public Works Dept 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301

California City Planning Dept 21000 Hacienda Blvd. California City, CA 93515

Delano City Planning Dept P.O. Box 3010 Delano, CA 93216

City of Maricopa P.O. Box 548 Maricopa, CA 93252

City of McFarland 401 West Kern Avenue McFarland, CA 93250

City of Ridgecrest 100 West California Avenue Ridgecrest, CA 93555

City of Shafter 336 Pacific Avenue Shafter, CA 93263

City of Taft Planning & Building 209 East Kern Street Taft, CA 93268

City of Tehachapi 115 South Robinson Street Tehachapi, CA 93561-1722

City of Wasco 764 E Street Wasco, CA 93280

Inyo County Planning Dept P.O. Drawer "L" Independence, CA 93526

Kings County Planning Agency 1400 West Lacey Blvd, Bldg 6 Hanford, CA 93230

Los Angeles Co Reg Planning Dept 320 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012

San Bernardino Co Planning Dept 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, 1st Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415-0182

San Luis Obispo Co Planning Dept Planning and Building 976 Osos Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93408

Santa Barbara Co Resource Mgt Dept 123 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Tulare County Planning & Dev Dept 5961 South Mooney Boulevard Visalia, CA 93291

Ventura County RMA Planning Div 800 South Victoria Avenue, L1740 Ventura, CA 93009-1740

U.S. Bureau of Land Management Caliente/Bakersfield 3801 Pegasus Drive Bakersfield, CA 93308-6837

China Lake Naval Weapons Center Tim Fox, RLA - Comm Plans & Liaison 429 E Bowen, Building 981 Mail Stop 4001 China Lake, CA 93555

Edwards AFB, Sustainability Office 412 TW/XPO, Bldg 2750, Rm 204-38 195 East Popson Avenue Edwards AFB, CA 93524

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Division of Ecological Services 2800 Cottage Way #W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825-1846

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2493 Portola Road, Suite B Ventura, CA 93003

Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Office 75 Hawthorn Street San Francisco, CA 94105

U.S. Dept of Agriculture/NRCS 5000 California Avenue, Ste 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309-0711

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division 1325 "J" Street, #1350 Sacramento, CA 95814-2920

U.S. Postal Service Address Management Systems 28201 Franklin Parkway Santa Clarita, CA 91383-9321

State Air Resources Board Stationary Resource Division P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

So. San Joaquin Valley Arch Info Ctr California State University of Bkfd 9001 Stockdale Highway Bakersfield, CA 93311

Caltrans/Dist 6 Planning/Land Bank Bldg. P.O. Box 12616 Fresno, CA 93778

Caltrans/Dist 9 Planning Department 500 South Main Street Bishop, CA 93514

State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research 1400 10th Street, Room 222 Sacramento, CA 95814

State Dept of Conservation Director's Office 801 "K" Street, MS 24-01 Sacramento, CA 95814-3528

State Dept of Conservation Division of Oil & Gas 4800 Stockdale Highway, Ste 108 Bakersfield, CA 93309

State Dept of Conservation Division of Oil & Gas 801 "K" Street, MS 20-20 Sacramento, CA 95814-3530

Office of the State Geologist Headquarters 801 "K" Street, MS 12-30 Sacramento, CA 95814

California State University Bakersfield - Library 9001 Stockdale Highway Bakersfield, CA 93309

California Energy Commission James W. Reed, Jr. 1516 Ninth Street Mail Stop 17 Sacramento, CA 95814

California Fish & Wildlife 1234 East Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710

California Highway Patrol Planning & Analysis Division P.O. Box 942898 Sacramento, CA 94298-0001

Calif. Dept of Public Health Drinking Water Field Operations 4925 Commerce Drive, Suite 120 Bakersfield, CA 93309

Public Utilities Comm Energy Div 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102

State Dept of Toxic Substance Control Environmental Protection Agency 1515 Tollhouse Road Clovis, CA 93612

State Dept of Water Resources San Joaquin Dist. 3374 East Shields Avenue, Room A-7 Fresno, CA 93726

CalRecycle Dept of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery 1001 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95812

Kern County Airports Department Kern County Administrative Officer

Kern County Engineering, Surveying, & Permit Svs/Floodplain Kern County Engineering, Surveying,

& Permit Svs/Survey Kern County Env Health Services Department

Kern County Fire Dept Benny Wofford Kern County Fire Dept

Dave Goodell Kern County Library/Beale Local History Room

Kern County Library/Beale Sherry Gomez

Kern County Library Southwest Branch 8301 Ming Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93311

Kern County Parks & Recreation

Kern County Sheriff's Dept Administration Kern County Roads Department Kern County

Waste Management Department

Panama-Buena Vista School Dist 4200 Ashe Road Bakersfield, CA 93313

Fruitvale School Dist. 7311 Rosedale Highway Bakersfield, CA 93308-5738

Kern High School Dist 5801 Sundale Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93309

Kern County Superintendent of Schools Attention Mary Baker 1300 17th Street Bakersfield, CA 93301

KernCOG 1401 19th Street - Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93301

California Water Service Co 3725 South "H" Street Bakersfield, CA 93304

Kern County Water Agency P.O. Box 58 Bakersfield, CA 93302-0058

North of the River Rec & Parks Dist 405 Galaxy Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 1990 East Gettysburg Avenue Fresno, CA 93726

Golden Empire Transit 1830 Golden State Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301

Kern Mosquito Abatement Dist 4705 Allen Road Bakersfield, CA 93314

Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo Attention: Janet M. Laurain 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080

AT&T California OSP Engineering/Right-of-Way 4540 California Avenue, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93309

Kern Audubon Society P.O. Box 3581 Bakersfield, CA 93385

Los Angeles Audubon 926 Citrus Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90036-4929

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment Attn: Marissa Alexander 1999 Harrison Street – Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94612

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environmental/ CA Rural Legal Assistance Foundation 1012 Jefferson Street Delano, CA 93215

Communities for a Better Environment 1904 Franklin Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612-2922

Construction Materials Assoc of CA 1029 "J" Street, Suite 420 Sacramento, CA 95814

Defenders of Wildlife/ Cynthia Wilkerson, M.S. California Representative 1303 "J" Street, Suite 270 Sacramento, CA 95814

Friant Water Users Authority 854 North Harvard Avenue Lindsay, CA 93247-1715

Native American Heritage Council of Kern County/Fay Van Horn P.O. Box 1507 Bakersfield, CA 93302

Pacific Gas & Electric Co Land Dept 1918 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA 93301

Pacific Gas & Electric Co Land Projects 650 "O" Street, First Floor Fresno, CA 93760-0001

Sheppard Mullin Attn: Kendra Joy Casper 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071

Sierra Club/Kern Kaweah Chapter ***PUT IN BUCKET***

Southern California Edison P.O. Box 410 Long Beach, CA 90801

Southern California Gas Co 1510 North Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308

Southern California Gas Co Transportation Dept 9400 Oakdale Avenue Chatsworth, CA 91313-6511

Verizon California, Inc. Attention Engineering Department 520 South China Lake Boulevard Ridgecrest, CA 93555

Chumash Council of Bakersfield 2421 "O" Street Bakersfield, CA 93301-2441

David Laughing Horse Robinson P.O. Box 20849 Bakersfield, CA 93390

Kern Valley Indian Council Attn: Robert Robinson, Chairperson P.O. Box 401 Weldon, CA 93283

Kern Valley Indian Council Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 401 Weldon, CA 93283

Santa Rosa Rancheria Ruben Barrios, Chairperson P.O. Box 8 Lemoore, CA 93245

Tejon Indian Tribe Kathy Morgan, Chairperson 1731 Hasti-acres Drive, Suite 108 Bakersfield, CA 93309

Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians Chairperson 115 Radio Street Bakersfield, CA 93305

Tubatulabals of Kern County Attn: Robert Gomez, Chairperson P.O. Box 226 Lake Isabella, CA 93240

Tule River Indian Tribe Neal Peyron, Chairperson P.O. Box 589 Porterville, CA 93258

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians Attn: John Valenzuela, Chairperson P.O. Box 221838 Newhall, CA 91322

Carol Bender 13340 Smoke Creek Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93314-9025

Clifford, Jenkins & Brown 1430 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 900 Bakersfield, CA 93301

Crimson Resource Management Attention Kristine Boyer 5001 California Avenue, Suite 206 Bakersfield, CA 93309

Cuddy Valley Statistical 11667 Steinhoff Road Frazier Park, CA 93222

Native American Heritage Council of Kern County/Fay Van Horn P.O. Box 1507 Bakersfield, CA 93302

Janice Armstrong 25101 Bear Valley Boulevard PMB 20 Tehachapi, CA 93561

Joyce LoBasso P.O. Box 6003 Bakersfield, CA 93386

Kern Equestrians for Preservation of Trails Attn: Carolyn Belli 5025 Panorama Drive Bakersfield, CA 93301

Kern River Parkway Committee PO Box 1861 Bakersfield, CA 93303

Kern Wheelmen P.O. Box 9662 Bakersfield, CA 93389

LIUNA Attn: Arthur Izzo 4399 Santa Anita Avenue, Suite 204 El Monte, CA 91731

Northcutt and Associates 4220 Poplar Street Lake Isabella, CA 93240-9536

Thomas Roads Improvement Program PARSONS/Heather Ellison 900 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 201 Bakersfield, CA 93301

URS Corporation Planning Department 3500 Porsche Drive, Suite 300 Ontario, CA 91764

Vintage Production California, LLC 9600 Ming Avenue, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93311

Lozeau Drury LLP 410 – 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94607

Development Services Agency Special Projects/Fiscal Analysis

U.S. Air Force Attn: Steve Arenson Western Regional Environmental Officer 50 Fremont Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94105-2230

U.S. Army Attn: Philip Crosbie, Chief Strategic Plans, S3, NTC P.O. Box 10172 Fort Irwin, CA 92310

U.S. Army Attn: Tim Kilgannon, Region 9 Coordinator Office of Strategic Integration 721 - 19th Street, Room 427 Denver, CO 80202

U.S. Navy Attn: Steve Chung Regional Community & Liaison Officer 1220 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92132-5190

U.S. Marine Corps Attn: Patrick Christman Western Regional Environmental Officer Building 1164/Box 555246 Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5246

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC REVIEW This is to advise that the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project identified below. As mandated by State law, the minimum public review period for this document is 45 days. The document and documents referenced in the Draft EIR are available for review at the Planning and Community Development Department, 2700 "M" Street, Suite 100, Bakersfield, CA 93301 or on the Departmental website (http://pcd.kerndsa.com/planning/environmental-documents). A public hearing has been scheduled with the Kern County Board of Supervisors to receive comments on the document on: September 9, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. or soon thereafter, Chambers of the Board of Supervisors, First Floor, Kern County Administrative Center, 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. The comment period for this document closes on July 7, 2014. Testimony at future public hearings may be limited to those issues raised during the public review period either orally or submitted in writing by 5:00 p.m. the day the comment period closes. Project Title: RGF 5-13; Modification of Precise Development No. 62, Map 102; Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project by Paramount Petroleum Corporation (PP13268) Project Location: The project is located at 6451 Rosedale Highway at the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery. The site is located in Sections 27 and 28 of T29S, R27E, MDB&M. The project is situated on 22 parcels comprised of 448 acres, 422 of which are within the unincorporated area of Kern County and 26 within the City of Bakersfield. Project Description: The Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project is a Modification of a Precise Development Plan that would allow greater flexibility for the existing Refinery to utilize a variety of crude oils that can be processed on site. The project proponent is requesting Modification of Precise Development Plan 62, Map 102 to: 1) expansion of rail, transfer and storage facilities including an addition of up to three boilers; 2) process unit upgrades and/ or modifications; 3) repurposing of existing tankage; and 4) relocation and modernization of existing Liquefied Propane Gas (LPG) truck rack and upgrades to sales rack. The rail expansion would consist of the construction of a double rail loop from a new spur connection off of the existing BNSF Railway and would be fully contained on site. Most of the proposed process unit changes are minor in scope. The Refinery’s 70,000 barrels per day (BPD) maximum crude processing capacity would not be increased. The project site is within the jurisdiction boundaries of both Kern County and the City of Bakersfield, with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan map code designations of HI (Heavy Industrial) and SI (Service Industrial). The project site has the Kern County Zone Classifications of M-l PD (Light Industrial - Precise Development Combining), M-2 (Medium Industrial), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development Combining), and M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial - Precise Development Combining); and the City of Bakersfield Zone Classifications of M-2 (General Manufacturing) and M-3 (Heavy Industrial). Anticipated Significant Impacts on Environment: Air Quality; Biological Resources; and Hydrology and Water Quality Document can be viewed online at: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/eirs.asp For further information, please contact: Ross Fehrman at (661) 862-5017 or [email protected]

http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/eirs.asp

mailto:[email protected]

LORELEI OVIATT, AICP, Director Planning and Community Development Department To be published once only on next available date and as soon as possible Bakersfield Californian RGF cc: County Clerk (2) (with fee) California Native Plant Society/Kern Chapter

Environmental Status Board Kern County Archaeological Society Sierra Club/Kern Kaweah Chapter Native American Heritage Pres. Council/Kern County Communities for a Better Environment Supervisorial District No. 3 Center on Race, Poverty and Environment (2)

Lozeau Drury LLP 410 – 12th Street, Suite 250

Oakland, CA 94607

I:\WP\LABELS\EIR05-13rgf.noa.docx jc (5/14/14)

332 260 08 00 0 ALON BAKERSFIELD PROPERTY INC 7616 LYNDON B JOHNSON FY, # 300 DALLAS TX 75251-1105

332 260 04 00 8 DUP ALON BAKERSFIELD PROPERTY INC 7616 LYNDON B JOHNSON FY, STE 300 DALLAS TX 75251-1105


332 260 35 00 8 ALON BAKERSFIELD PROPERTY INC 14700 DOWNEY AV PARAMOUNT CA 90723-4526














368 040 42 00 5 ALON BAKERSFIELD PROPERTY INC 14700 DOWNEY AV PARAMOUNT CA 90723-4526







368 040 45 00 4 BACOFF L P 3265 W ASHLAN AV FRESNO CA 93722

332 020 03 02 3 BAKER JAMES & BEVERLY FAMILY TRUST P O BOX 1032 BAKERSFIELD CA 93302

452 110 11 00 9 BAKER JAMES & BEVERLY TRUST 8921 QUAIL HOLLOW CT BAKERSFIELD CA 93314-9779

452 110 13 00 5 DUP BAKER JAMES & BEVERLY TRUST P O BOX 1032 BAKERSFIELD CA 93302

368 060 61 00 6 BEASLEY R E & RUBY C FAMILY TR 15520 BLACK HAWK AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93314-7844

368 060 08 01 2 BEASLEY ROBERT E MARITAL TRUST 7612 CALLE NOBLEZA BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

332 280 16 00 9 BNSF RAILWAY CO PO BOX 961039 FORT WORTH TX 76161

332 280 29 00 7 DUP BNSF RAILWAY CO PO BOX 961039 FORT WORTH TX 76161



368 060 10 01 7 BOYD TYRUS L & MILDRED B EXEMPTION TRUST 7511 ROSEDALE HW BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

452 110 03 00 6 BRAGG INVESTMENT CO INC P O BOX 727 LONG BEACH CA 90801

368 040 39 00 7 CATALINA BARBER CORP PO BOX 45001 BAKERSFIELD CA 93384-5001

332 260 31 00 6 CHEMEX PROP INC 2525 CLINTONVILLE RD PARIS KY 40361-9053

331 021 02 00 2 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1501 TRUXTUN AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

368 040 20 00 1 DUP CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1501 TRUXTUN AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93301





502 010 15 00 6 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1600 TRUXTUN AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93301






368 040 01 00 6 COFFEE BRIMHALL LLC 9302 S GARFIELD AV SOUTH GATE CA 90280

368 040 02 00 9 DUP COFFEE BRIMHALL LLC 9302 S GARFIELD AV SOUTH GATE CA 90280





368 040 44 00 1 COFFEE ENDEAVOR LLC P O BOX 80656 BAKERSFIELD CA 93380

368 050 11 02 6 CORR THOMAS M 1586 3RD ST LOS OSOS CA 93402-1604

368 050 08 00 0 D & D NATURAL RESOURCES LLC 12850 ALLEN LN BAKERSFIELD CA 93312-3419

368 030 27 00 9 DAVIS FRED W & ERMA G TR 13901 WESTBURY AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93314-8964

368 030 29 00 5 DUP DAVIS FRED W & ERMA G TR 13901 WESTBURY AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93314-8964

332 260 21 00 7 DOLE ENTERPRISES INC 12850 ALLEN LN BAKERSFIELD CA 93312-3419

368 030 32 00 3 DUP DOLE ENTERPRISES INC 12850 ALLEN LN BAKERSFIELD CA 93312-3419

368 050 25 00 9 DUP DOLE ENTERPRISES INC 12850 ALLEN LN BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

368 060 27 00 8 DUP DOLE ENTERPRISES INC 12850 ALLEN LN BAKERSFIELD CA 93312-3419

368 060 11 01 0 DOUGAN NEWMAN S P O BOX 21713 BAKERSFIELD CA 93390

368 060 13 02 5 DUP DOUGAN NEWMAN S P O BOX 21713 BAKERSFIELD CA 93390

368 060 11 02 9 ELROD JERRY 210 OAK ST BAKERSFIELD CA 93304-2433

368 030 13 00 8 ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING (CA) INC 7001 CHARITY AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

368 050 10 00 5 ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING (CA) INC 3615 S HURON ST, # 200 ENGLEWOOD CO 80110

368 050 18 00 9 DUP ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING (CA) INC 7001 CHARITY AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

368 050 31 00 6 DUP ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING (CA) INC 7001 CHARITY AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

502 010 16 02 7 EOG RESOURCES INC P O BOX 4362 HOUSTON TX 77210-4362

332 260 34 00 5 EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC P O BOX 4369 HOUSTON TX 77210

332 020 03 03 2 FINKE WINIFRED W P O BOX 4973 DALLAS TX 77210

332 260 30 00 3 FREENY HOMER MICHAEL JR TRUST 2525 CLINTONVILLE RD PARIS KY 40361-9053

368 050 21 00 7 DUP FRUITVALE SCHOOL DIST * *

368 060 49 00 2 FRUITVALE SCHOOL DIST 7115 ROSEDALE HW BAKERSFIELD CA 93307

368 040 21 00 4 FWPW REAL ESTATE FUND LTD P O BOX 1185 RANCHO SANTE FE CA 92067

368 040 22 00 7 DUP FWPW REAL ESTATE FUND LTD P O BOX 1185 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067

368 060 83 00 0 GRAND SHANGRILA INTERNATIONAL INC 7100 SADDLEBACK DR BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

368 050 27 00 5 GRAY ALVIN 6803 ROSEDALE HW BAKERSFIELD CA 93308-5857

332 260 23 00 3 GREALISH INVESTMENTS 6906 DOWNING AV, # A BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

332 260 24 00 6 DUP GREALISH INVESTMENTS 6906 DOWNING AV, # A BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

332 260 25 00 9 DUP GREALISH INVESTMENTS 6906 DOWNING AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93308-5812

332 260 26 00 2 DUP GREALISH JOHN E JR 6906 DOWNING AV, U A BAKERSFIELD CA 93308-5812

452 100 20 00 2 GREALISH JOHN EDWARD JR 6700 ROSEDALE HW BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

452 100 21 00 5 DUP DUP GREALISH JOHN EDWARD JR 6700 ROSEDALE HW BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

332 260 07 00 7 GUINN GARY EARL P O BOX 1339 BAKERSFIELD CA 93302

368 030 23 00 7 GUINN PROPERTIES LLC 6533 ROSEDALE HW BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

368 050 28 00 8 HAMPTON FAMILY LIVING TRUST P O BOX 104 TAFT CA 93268

368 040 06 02 9 HARSEHSE CATTLE CO 3020 AYRES HOLMES RD AUBURN CA 95602-9778

368 070 15 00 6 HERRERA-NORAMCO RESOURCES P O BOX 821, # 16 WOODLAND HILLS CA 91365

368 060 08 02 1 HILLMAN MICHAEL & BEASLEY R E 7515 ROSEDALE HW BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

368 060 32 01 1 HOFFMANN BETH SEPARATE PROP TR 15520 BLACK HAWK AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93312

368 060 32 02 0 DUP HOOD L H 314 PLYMOUTH BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

368 060 47 00 6 HOOD L H ET AL 314 PLYMOUTH ST BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

368 060 81 00 4 HOT COFFEE LLC 5100 CALIFORNIA AV, # 234 BAKERSFIELD CA 93309-0718

368 050 24 00 6 JAC PROPERTIES 5302 EASTCOVE CT BAKERSFIELD CA 93306

368 060 14 02 8 JOHNSON BARBARA G 7405 ROSEDALE HW BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

368 060 10 02 6 JONES ROY M ET AL P O BOX 7407 BEND OR 97708

332 260 09 00 3 KBA ENGINEERING LLC P O BOX 1200 BAKERSFIELD CA 93302-1200

332 260 15 00 0 DUP KBA ENGINEERING LLC P O BOX 1200 BAKERSFIELD CA 93302-1116

332 260 27 00 5 DUP KBA ENGINEERING LLC PO BOX 1200 BAKERSFIELD CA 93302-1200

368 050 09 00 3 KERN HIGH SCHOOL DIST 5801 SUNDALE AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

368 060 75 00 7 LOWES HIW INC P O BOX 1112 NORTH WILKSBORO NC 28659-1112

368 060 82 00 7 LOWES HIW INC P O BOX 1000 MOORESVILLE NC 28115-1000

368 060 48 00 9 MARTIN WILLARD JAMES 3805 SUMTER DR BAKERSFIELD CA 93304-6747

368 060 32 03 9 MC ELWANY CHESTER F ET AL 1714 CHESTER AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

368 050 14 00 7 MTS STIMULATION SERV INC 7131 CHARITY AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

368 060 14 01 9 NGUYEN THUHOA THI & VU MAU THANH 10710 IRON CREEK AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93312

368 060 63 00 2 NO KERN WATER STORAGE DIST 3300 TRUXTUN AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

368 070 20 00 0 DUP NO KERN WATER STORAGE DIST 3300 TRUXTUN AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

368 060 65 00 8 NORTH KERN WATER STORAGE DIST P O BOX 81435 BAKERSFIELD CA 93380-1435

368 030 14 00 1 DUP NORTH KERN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT P O BOX 81435 BAKERSFIELD CA 93380-1435

368 030 25 00 3 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 1 MARKET PZ, STE 400 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-1004

368 060 62 00 9 REED H & A FMLY TR 2509 ALDER ST BAKERSFIELD CA 93301-2723

368 070 21 00 3 DUP REED H & A FMLY TR 2509 ALDER ST BAKERSFIELD CA 93301-2723

368 030 24 00 0 REED MARITAL TR H & A FMLY TR 2509 ALDER ST BAKERSFIELD CA 93301-2723

332 020 81 00 1 ROSEDALE LAND VENTURE I LLC 5400 ROSEDALE HW BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

368 030 28 00 2 SPOHN RICHARD A & SANDRA LIVING TR 13901 WESTBURY AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93314-8964

332 020 04 00 8 SUMMIT ENERGY LLC 4520 CALIFORNIA AV, # 310 BAKERSFIELD CA 93309-1190

452 110 04 00 9 DUP SUMMIT ENERGY LLC 4520 CALIFORNIA AV, # 310 BAKERSFIELD CA 93309-1190

332 280 05 00 7 SUNRAY PETROLEUM INC 5030 PARADISE RD, # B215 LAS VEGAS NV 89119-1225

332 280 06 00 0 DUP SUNRAY PETROLEUM INC 5030 PARADISE RD, # B215 LAS VEGAS NV 89119-1225









332 020 14 00 7 TRICOR ENERGY LLC 4520 CALIFORNIA AV, # 300 BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

332 260 05 00 1 DUP TRICOR ENERGY LLC 4520 CALIFORNIA AV, # 300 BAKERSFIELD CA 93309





368 060 02 00 5 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Caliente/Bakersfield 3801 Pegasus Drive Bakersfield, CA 93308-6837 *

502 010 05 00 7 DUP U S A * *

368 050 07 00 7 VAN FOSSEN FAMILY TRUST P O BOX 20095 BAKERSFIELD CA 93390

368 050 29 00 1 DUP VAN FOSSEN FAMILY TRUST P O BOX 20095 BAKERSFIELD CA 93390-0095

331 021 34 00 5 VINTAGE PRODUCTION CAL LLC P O BOX 27570 HOUSTON TX 77227-7570

452 110 07 00 8 DUP VINTAGE PRODUCTION CAL LLC P O BOX 27570 HOUSTON TX 77227-7570

502 010 18 00 5 DUP VINTAGE PRODUCTION CAL LLC P O BOX 27570 HOUSTON TX 77227-7570

368 060 13 01 6 WAGNER AUDREY 9021 VIOLA ST BAKERSFIELD CA 93307-6129

332 020 03 01 4 WALDRIP FAMILY TRUST 2818 FRUITVALE AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93308-5908

332 020 02 00 2 WALDRIP FAMILY TRUST JULY 25 1989 2818 FRUITVALE AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93308-5908

368 030 19 00 6 WESTSIDE INDUSTRIAL DEV CO 2301 FRUITVALE AV, # 4 BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

368 030 20 00 8 WESTSIDE INDUSTRIAL DEV CO 2301 FRUITVALE AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

368 030 21 00 1 DUP WESTSIDE INDUSTRIAL DEV CO 2301 FRUITVALE AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

368 030 22 00 4 DUP WESTSIDE INDUSTRIAL DEV CO 2301 FRUITVALE AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

368 050 13 00 4 WINKLE RANDY 33186 FAMOSO RD MC FARLAND CA 93250-9674

368 060 17 00 9 WISE JERRY D & MARYANN PO BOX 132315 SPRING TX 77393-2315

368 060 21 00 0 WISE JERRY D & MARYANN 6 PURPLE MARTIN DR THE WOODLANDS TX 77381

368 060 31 00 9 DUP WISE JERRY D & MARYANN PO BOX 132315 SPRING TX 77393-2281

452 110 12 00 2 AFFELD JOHN & CAROLYN 1740 N LEMON ST ANAHEIM CA 92801

I:\WP\LABELS\EIR05-13rgf.noa.addl.docx jc (5/14/14; 5/16/14)

Natural Resources Defense Council c/o Diane Bailey 111 Sutter Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104

Richard Drury; Christina Caro; Stacey Oborne Lozeau Drury, LLP 410 – 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94607

Tamara Zakim Earthjustice 50 California Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111

Evesto Attn: Gerald Hollins 1620 Palmetto, Suite C7 Pacifica, CA 94044

Earthjustice Attn: Adenike Adeyeye 50 California Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111

National Audubon Society 765 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825

Southern California Gas Co 1510 North Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308

Southern California Gas Co Transportation Dept 9400 Oakdale Avenue Chatsworth, CA 91313-6511

Smart Growth - Tehachapi Valleys P.O. Box 1894 Tehachapi, CA 93581-1894

State Department of Conservation Office of Governmental & Environmental Affairs 801 "K" Street, MS 24-02 Sacramento, CA 95814-3514

California Energy Commission James W. Reed, Jr. 1516 Ninth Street Mail Stop 17 Sacramento, CA 95814

State Dept of Public Health Drinking Water Field Ops 265 W Bullard Avenue, Ste 101 Fresno, CA 93704-1755

Calif. Dept of Public Health Drinking Water Field Operations 4925 Commerce Drive, Suite 120 Bakersfield, CA 93309

Vintage Production California, LLC 9600 Ming Avenue, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93311

Kevin Korenthal Assoc. of Builders and Contractors 1608 N. Road Bakersfield, CA 93380

Tracy Leach 1800 – 30th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301

David Wolf 7116 Copper Creek Way Bakersfield, CA 93308

Ed Ochoa Dept. of Justice Office of the Attorney General 110 West A Street, Suite 110 San Diego, CA 92101

Joe Selgrath 5400 Rosedale Highway Bakersfield, CA 93308

Megan Lorenz 2127 West 230th Street Torrance, CA 90501

Jerry L. McPherson Petroleum Markets Manager Southern California Gas Co. 555 W. Fifth Street. GT22A1 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1011

Kern County Farm Bureau 801 So. Mt. Vernon Bakersfield, CA 93307

Phillip Michael Beck 7837 Willis Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93306

Fred Millar 915 So. Buchanan Street, #29 Arlington, VA 22204

Sue Layman P.O. Box 21986 Bakersfield, CA 93390

Gabriel Godinez 1600 G Street Bakersfield, CA 93301

George J. Mihlsten Latham & Watkins LLP 633 West Fifth St, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007

Jim Scott and Katey Rouche Channel 17 News 2120 L Street Bakersfield, CA 93301

Bakersfield Californian P.O. Bin 440 Bakersfield, CA 93302-0440

Carey Cooper c/o Kline-Dinst 501 West Broadway, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92101

Rich O'Neil Sgt. ORVT Kern River Parkway Committee 208 Los Nietos Ct Bakersfield, CA 93309

KEPT Carolyn Belli 5025 Panorama Drive Bakersfield, CA 93306

Bakersfield City Parks & Rec Dept 4101 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301

California Water Service Co. 1720 North First Street San Jose, CA 95112

State of Calif Dept of Water Resources P.O. Box 42836 Sacramento, CA 94236

Fergus Morrissey Friant Water Authority 854 North Harvard Avenue Lindsay, CA 93247

R.L. Abbott and Associates 3200 – 21st Street – Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93309

Bakersfield City Planning Dept 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301

Bakersfield City Public Works Dept 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301

Norris School Dist 6940 Calloway Drive Bakersfield, CA 93312

Rosedale Union School Dist 2553 Old Farm Road Bakersfield, CA 93312

Law Offices of Christopher Kalis 5160 Village Creek Drive, #100 Plano, TX 75093

Lori Adams 7116 Copper Creek Way Bakersfield, CA 93308

Janet Laurain Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Blvd, #1000 San Francisco, CA 94080-7025

Latham & Watkins, LLP 633 West Fifth St, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007

Regional Env Office for Calif West Reg Enviro Office/ US Air Force 333 Market Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94105-2196

Adam Basco PFC Energy 1300 Connecticut Ave NW #800 Washington, DC 20036

Trishia Duncan 7609 Feather River Drive Bakersfield, CA 93308

Provost & Pritchard, Inc. 1800 – 30th Street, Suite 280 Bakersfield, CA 93301-1918

Barefield Larry & Flo 4204 Palisades Ci Bakersfield, CA 93308

Jim Cosper 3104 Fairhaven Drive Bakersfield, CA 93308

U.S. Army Attn: Philip Crosbie, Chief Strategic Plans, S3, NTC P.O. Box 10172 Fort Irwin, CA 92310

Jan de Leeuw 11667 Steinhoff Road Frazier Park, CA 93225

KEPT – Marci Cunningham 5301 Fallgatter Street Bakersfield, CA 93308

CSU Chancellor's Office Mr. Season Eckardt 401 Golden Shore, 6th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4210

CSU Bakersfield Office of the President 9001 Stockdale Highway Bakersfield, CA 93311-1022

Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P. O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Project Title: RGF 5-13; Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project by Paramount Petroleum Corporation Lead Agency: Kern County Planning Department Contact Person: Ross Fehrman Mailing Address: 2700 "M" Street Suite 100 Phone: (661) 862-5017 City: Bakersfield Zip: 93301-2323 County: Kern

Project Location: County: Kern City/Nearest Community: Bakersfield Cross Streets: Rosedale Highway and Kilmer Way Zip Code: 93308 Lat. / Long.: 35° 22′ 60″ N / -119° 4’ 18″ W Total Acres: 448 Assessor's Parcel No.: Multiple Section: 27 & 28 Twp.: 29S Range: 27E Base: MDB&M Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 99 Waterways: Kern River, Cross Valley Canal, Friant-Kern Canal

Airports: Railways: BNSF Railroad Schools: Vista West Continuation High School

Document Type: CEQA: NOP Draft EIR NEPA: NOI Other: Joint Document Early Cons Supplement/Subsequent EIR EA Final Document Neg Dec (Prior SCH No.) Draft EIS Other Mit Neg Dec Other FONSI

Local Action Type: General Plan Update Specific Plan Rezone Annexation General Plan Amendment Master Plan Prezone Redevelopment General Plan Element Planned Unit Development Use Permit Coastal Permit Community Plan Site Plan Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) Other Mod. PD

Development Type: Residential: Units Acres Water Facilities: Type MGD Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Transportation: Type Commercial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Mining: Mineral

X Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres 448 Employees Power: Type MW Educational Waste Treatment: Type MGD Recreational Hazardous Waste: Type

Other:

Project Issues Discussed in Document: Aesthetic/Visual Fiscal Recreation/Parks Vegetation Agricultural Land Flood Plain/Flooding Schools/Universities Water Quality Air Quality Forest Land/Fire Hazard Septic Systems Water Supply/Groundwater Archeological/Historical Geologic/Seismic Sewer Capacity Wetland/Riparian Biological Resources Minerals Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Wildlife Coastal Zone Noise Solid Waste Growth Inducing Drainage/Absorption Population/Housing Balance Toxic/Hazardous Land Use Economic/Jobs Public Services/Facilities Traffic/Circulation Cumulative Effects Other

Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation: Present Land Use: Alon Bakersfield Refinery Present Zoning: Kern County: M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial-Precise Development); M-2 PD (Medium Industrial-Precise Development); M2 (Medium Industrial); M-1 PD (Light Manufacturing-Precise Development). City of Bakersfield: M-2 (General Manufacturing and M-3 (Heavy Industrial) Present General Plan Designation: Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan – HI (Heavy Industrial) and SI (Service Industrial) Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary) The Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project is a Modification of a Precise Development Plan that would allow greater flexibility for the existing Refinery to utilize a variety of crude oils that can be processed onsite. The project proponent is requesting modification of Precise Development Plan No. 62, Map 102 to: 1) expansion of rail, transfer and storage facilities including an addition of up to three boilers; 2) process unit upgrades and/ or modifications; 3) repurposing of existing tankage; and 4) relocation and modernization of existing Liquefied Propane Gas (LPG) truck rack and upgrades to sales rack. The rail expansion would consist of the construction of a double rail loop from a new spur connection off of the existing BNSF Railway and would be fully contained onsite. Most of the proposed process unit changes are minor in scope. The Refinery’s 70,000 barrels per day (BPD) maximum crude processing capacity would not be increased. The project site is within the jurisdiction boundaries of both Kern County and the City of Bakersfield, with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan map code designations of HI (Heavy Industrial) and SI (Service Industrial). The project site has the Kern County Zone Classifications of M-l PD (Light Industrial - Precise Development), M-2 (Medium Industrial), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development), and M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial - Precise Development); and the City of Bakersfield Zone Classifications of M-2 (General Manufacturing) and M-3 (Heavy Industrial). Reviewing Agencies Checklist

SCH # 2013091062

Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X". If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S". S Air Resources Board Office of Emergency Services Boating & Waterways, Department of Office of Historic Preservation S California Highway Patrol Office of Public School Construction CalFire Parks & Recreation S Caltrans District # 6 & 9 Pesticide Regulation, Department of Caltrans Division of Aeronautics S Public Utilities Commission Caltrans Planning (Headquarters) S Regional WQCB # Central Central Valley Flood Protection Board Resources Agency Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission Coastal Commission San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers and Mtns Conservancy Colorado River Board San Joaquin River Conservancy S Conservation, Department of Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Corrections, Department of State Lands Commission Delta Protection Commission SWRCB: Clean Water Grants Education, Department of S SWRCB: Water Quality S Energy Commission SWRCB: Water Rights S Fish & Game Region # Fresno Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Food & Agriculture, Department of S Toxic Substances Control, Department of General Services, Department of S Water Resources, Department of S Health Services, Department of Housing & Community Development S Other San Joaquin Arch Info Center Integrated Waste Management Board Other S Native American Heritage Commission Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date 05/22/14 Ending Date 07/07/14 Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): Consulting Firm: Applicant: Address: Address: City/State/Zip: City/State/Zip: Contact: Phone: Phone: Signature of Lead Agency Representative: /s/ Date: 05/22/14 Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code.

Draft

Environmental Impact Report

SCH# 2013091062

Volume 1 Chapters 1 through 11

Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project

Paramount Petroleum Corporation (PP13268)

Modification of Precise Development Plan No. 62, Map 102

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department Public Services Building

Attn: Ross Fehrman, Planner I or, Jacquelyn Kitchen, Supervising Planner

2700 M Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370

(661) 862-8600

Technical Assistance by: Marine Research Specialists

3140 Telegraph Road, Suite A Ventura, CA 93003

(805) 289-3920

May 2014

Table of Contents Page

Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project i May 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report

VOLUME 1 1. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Summary .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Purpose and Use of the Draft EIR .................................................................................. 1-11 1.4 Project Overview ........................................................................................................... 1-13 1.5 Environmental Impacts .................................................................................................. 1-22 1.6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project .............................................................................. 1-33 1.7 Areas of Controversy ..................................................................................................... 1-40 1.8 Issues to Be Resolved .................................................................................................... 1-40 1.9 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................... 1-40 2. Introduction 2.1 Intent of the California Environmental Quality Act ........................................................ 2-1 2.2 Purpose of This Environmental Impact Report................................................................ 2-2 2.3 Terminology ..................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Decision-Making Process ................................................................................................ 2-4 2.5 Availability of the Draft EIR ........................................................................................... 2-6 2.6 Format and Content ......................................................................................................... 2-6 2.7 Responsible and Trustee Agencies ................................................................................ 2-10 2.8 Incorporation by Reference............................................................................................ 2-11 2.9 Sources ........................................................................................................................... 2-13 3. Project Description

3.1 Project Overview ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 3-5 3.3 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................... 3-6 3.4 Proposed Project Characteristics .................................................................................... 3-20 3.5 Entitlements Required .................................................................................................... 3-32

3.6 Construction ................................................................................................................... 3-32 3.7 Operation ....................................................................................................................... 3-33 3.8 Fire Protection and Safety System ................................................................................. 3-35 3.9 Cumulative Projects ....................................................................................................... 3-36 4. Environmental Analysis 4.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.1.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.1.3 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.1-24

4.1.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................. 4.1-37 4.2 Biological Resources .................................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.2.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.2.3 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.2-14

4.2.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................. 4.2-19 4.3 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 4.3-1 4.3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4.3-1 4.3.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.3-4 4.3.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.3-7

Table of Contents (continued) Page

Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project ii May 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................. 4.3-10 4.4 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.4.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.4.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.4-5

4.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................. 4.4-10 4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................... 4.5-1 4.5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4.5-1 4.5.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.5-1 4.5.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.5-7

4.5.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................. 4.5-12 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................ 4.6-1 4.6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4.6-1 4.6.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.6-1 4.6.3 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.6-27

4.6.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................. 4.6-41 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................... 4.7-1 4.7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4.7-1 4.7.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.7-1 4.7.3 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.7-14

4.7.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................. 4.7-25 4.8 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................. 4.8-1 4.8.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4.8-1 4.8.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.8-1 4.8.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.8-8

4.8.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................. 4.8-16 4.9 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................ 4.9-1 4.9.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4.9-1 4.9.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.9-1 4.9.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.9-2 4.9.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................... 4.9-5 4.10 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 4.10-1 4.10.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 4.10-1 4.10.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.10-1 4.10.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.10-11

4.10.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4.11-16 4.11 Public Services ............................................................................................................ 4.11-1 4.11.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 4.11-1 4.11.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.11-1 4.11.3 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.11-7

4.11.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................. 4.11-9 4.12 Transportation and Traffic .......................................................................................... 4.12-1 4.12.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 4.12-1 4.12.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.12-1 4.12.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.12-18

4.12.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4.12-23 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems...................................................................................... 4.13-1 4.13.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 4.13-1 4.13.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4.13-1 4.13.3 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.13-3


Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project iii May 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.13.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................. 4.13-6 5. Consequences of Project Implementation ................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Environmental Effects Found To Be Less than Significant ............................................. 5-1 5.2 Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot Be Avoided ........................................... 5-1 5.3 Significant Irreversible Impacts ....................................................................................... 5-3 5.4 Significant Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 5-3 5.5 Growth Inducement ......................................................................................................... 5-4 5.6 Energy Conservation ........................................................................................................ 5-4

6. Alternatives .................................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 6-4 6.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration ....................................................... 6-4 6.4 Alternatives Analyzed in This EIR .................................................................................. 6-5 7. Reserved for Responses to Comments (to be included with Final EIR) .................................... 7-1 8. Organizations and Persons Consulted ...................................................................................... 8-1 9. Preparers ..................................................................................................................................... 9-1 10. Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 10-1 11. Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................. 11-1 APPENDICES The following Appendices are included on the CD that is inserted in the front cover of Volume I of this EIR. VOLUME 2 Appendices

A Notice of Preparation/Initial Study and Comment Letters B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Technical Report C Biological Resources Technical Report D Cultural Resources Technical Report E Geology and Soils Technical Report F Hazards and Hazards Materials Technical Report G Noise Impact Technical Report H Transportation and Traffic Technical Report I Alon USA Bakersfield Refinery Soil and Groundwater Remediation Projects By David B.

Dunbar & Associates


Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project iv May 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report

List of Tables

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1. Project Statistics .......................................................................................................................... 1-12 1-2. Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................... 1-14 1-3. Project Tank Farm Upgrades ...................................................................................................... 1-14 1-4. Summary of Significant Impacts of the Project .......................................................................... 1-20 1-5. Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 1-34 1-6. Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Impacts after Mitigation ................. 1-41

CHAPTER 2 - INTRODUCTION 2-1. Summary of Written Comments on Notice of Preparation/Initial Study ...................................... 2-5

CHAPTER 3 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-1. Project Statistics .......................................................................................................................... 3-12 3-2. Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................... 3-15 3-3. Refinery Throughput 2003-2012 ................................................................................................ 3-19 3-4. Prior CEQA Review of Bakersfield Refinery ............................................................................. 3-21 3-5. Alon Bakersfield Crude Flexibility Project Summary of Baseline Conditions .......................... 3-23 3-6. Project Tank Farm Upgrades ...................................................................................................... 3-31 3-7. Anticipated Off-Road Construction Equipment (Hours of Operation) ....................................... 3-34 3-8. Anticipated Construction Trips (On-Road One-Way Trips) ....................................................... 3-34 3-9. Relevant Cumulative Projects other than Energy in Kern County ............................................. 3-41

CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Section 4.1 – Air Quality 4.1-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards (as of June 2013). .................................................................... 4.1-6 4.1-2. San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Air Quality Attainment Status. ................................................. 4.1-7 4.1-3. Ambient Air Monitoring Stations Within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Portion

of Kern County. ......................................................................................................................... 4.1-8 4.1-4. Air Quality Data (2008-2012) – Nearest Representative Monitoring Station. .......................... 4.1-9 4.1-5. Range of Valley Fever Cases. .................................................................................................. 4.1-23 4.1-6. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Significance Thresholds (tons per year, or tpy). ........................ 4.1-34 4.1-7. Criteria Pollutant Ambient Concentration Significance Thresholds. ....................................... 4.1-35 4.1-8. Storage Tanks With Potential Emission Increases Due to Proposed Project. .......................... 4.1-47 4.1-9. Modeled NO2, SO2, and CO Impacts. .................................................................................... 4.1-60 4.1-10. Modeled Particulate Matter Impacts. ....................................................................................... 4.1-60 4.1-11. Construction Activity Criteria Pollutant Emissions. ................................................................ 4.1-63 4.1-12. Permitted Source Criteria Pollutant Emissions

(Existing Operations) After Controls and Offsets) .................................................................. 4.1-64 4.1-13. Non-Permitted Source Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Proposed Operations). .......................... 4.1-65 4.1-14. Summary of Health Risk Assessment Results. ........................................................................ 4.1-66 4.1-15. Odor Complaints in Vicinity of Bakersfield Refinery Areas 1 and 2 (2005-2007). ................ 4.1-70 4.1-16. Cumulative Emissions Analysis – Approved/Proposed Projects Within One-Mile Radius of

Proposed Project. ..................................................................................................................... 4.1-73 4.1-17. Cumulative Emissions Analysis – Approved/Proposed Projects Within Six-Mile Radius of

Proposed Project. ..................................................................................................................... 4.1-73 4.1-18. San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 2020 Emission Inventory Projections. ..................................... 4.1-74 4.1-19. Kern County Portion of San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 2020 Emission Inventory

Projections. .............................................................................................................................. 4.1-75


Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project v May 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.1-20. Refineries within the San Joaquin Valley Air Ba Comparison of Emission Projections – Proposed Project, Kern County, and San Joaquin Valley Air Basin sin. ........... 4.1-75

4.1-21. Refineries within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. ............................................................... 4.1-76

Section 4.2 – Biological Resources 4.2-1. State or Federally Protected Species With Potential To Occur .................................................. 4.2-2 4.2-2. Special‐Status Species Evaluated for the Proposed Project ....................................................... 4.2-8

Section 4.4 – Geology and Soils 4.4.1 Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 5.5 of Greater within 50 Miles of the Proposed Project.... 4.4-2 4.4-2. Selected Regional Seismic Faults Capable of Producing Strong Ground Motion in

Project Area ............................................................................................................................... 4.4-3 4.4-3 Methods and Assumptions for Geologic Hazards and Soils .................................................... 4.4-10

Section 4.5 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.5-1 Global Warming Potential of Various Gases ............................................................................. 4.5-3 4.5-2. Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Excluding Main Line Rail). ........................... 4.5-15 4.5-3. Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Including Main Line Rail). ............................ 4.5-16

Section 4.6 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.6-1 Process Hazard Analysis Frequency Probability Descriptions .................................................. 4.6-9 4.6-2. Rail Incidents-Initiating and Contributing Causes ................................................................... 4.6-18 4.6-3 Summary of National and California Train Accident Data ..................................................... 4.6-19 4.6-4. Kern County At-Grade Crossings North of the Proposed Project ........................................... 4.6-21 4.6-5. Kern County At-Grade Crossings East of the Proposed Project .............................................. 4.6-22 4.6-6. California Hazardous Liquid Onshore Pipeline Incidents (2003 – 2012) ................................ 4.6-25 4.6-7. List of Proposed Storage Tank Changes .................................................................................. 4.6-52 4.6-8. Consequence Analysis Hazard Endpoints ................................................................................ 4.6-53 4.6-9. Maximum Distance to Fire Radiation Endpoints (1) ............................................................... 4.6-54 4.6-10. Distance to Endpoints for Toxic Vapor Cloud (1) ................................................................... 4.6-55 4.6-11. Distance to Overpressure Endpoint for Unit 21 Modifications (1) .......................................... 4.6-55 4.6-12. Existing and Projected Project Rail Accident Frequency ........................................................ 4.6-58

Section 4.7 – Hydrology and Water Quality 4.7-1. Historical Water Use ................................................................................................................ 4.7-12

Section 4.8 – Land Use and Planning 4.8-1 Parcels Included in the Proposed Project ................................................................................... 4.8-2 4.8-2. Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................................... 4.8-5 4.8-3 Project Consistency with Relevant Policies from the Metropolitan Bakersfield

General Plan ............................................................................................................................. 4.8-20

Section 4.10 – Noise 4.10-1 Definition of Acoustical Terms ............................................................................................... 4.10-6 4.10-2 Representative Environmental Noise Levels ........................................................................... 4.10-7 4.10-3 Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration ........................................................................... 4.10-10 4.10-4. Hourly Noise-Level Performance Standards for Non-transportation Noise Sources ............ 4.10-15 4.10-5 Noise Model Baseline Level Validation Results ................................................................... 4.10-17 4.10-6 Construction Noise Modeling Results ................................................................................... 4.10-19 4.10-7 Operational Noise Modeling Results ..................................................................................... 4.10-20 4.10-8 Cumulative Noise Modeling Results ..................................................................................... 4.10-23

Section 4.12 – Transportation and Traffic 4.12-1 Intersection Level of Service Definitions ................................................................................ 4.12-5


Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project vi May 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.12-2 Baseline Peak Hour Intersection Conditions ........................................................................... 4.12-6 4.12-3. Kern County At-Grade Crossings North of the Proposed Project ......................................... 4.12-10 4.12-4. Kern County At-Grade Crossings East of the Proposed Project ............................................ 4.12-11 4.12-5 Year 2015 without Project Peak Hours Summary ................................................................. 4.12-14 4.12-6. 2015 Without Project Vs. 2015 With Project Construction Peak Hour Los Summary ......... 4.12-26 4.12-7. Annual Project Site Trip Generation ...................................................................................... 4.12-26 4.12-8. Peak Hour Project Site Passenger Car Equivalent Trip Generation ...................................... 4.12-27 4.12-9. Baseline Vs. 2015 Project At Full Operation Peak Hour Los Summary ............................... 4.12-33 4.12-10. Year 2015 Without Project Vs. 2015 Project At Full Operation Peak Hour Los

Summary ................................................................................................................................ 4.12-33

CHAPTER 5 – CONSEQUENCES OR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 5-1. Summary of Significant Impacts of the Project ............................................................................ 5-2

CHAPTER 6 – ALTERNATIVES 6-1. Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 6-6

List of Figures

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1. Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 1-3 1-2. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................. 1-4 1-3. Project Site .................................................................................................................................... 1-5 1-4. Precise Development Key legend ................................................................................................. 1-6 1-5. Precise Development Area 1 (North of BNSF Railway Track) .................................................... 1-7 1-6. Precise Development Area 1 (South of BNSF Railway Track) .................................................... 1-8 1-7. Precise Development Area 2 (South of BNSF Railway Track) .................................................... 1-9 1-8. Precise Development Area 2 (North of BNSF Railway Track) .................................................. 1-10

CHAPTER 3 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-1. Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 3-2 3-2. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................. 3-3 3-3. Project Site .................................................................................................................................... 3-4 3-4. Precise Development Key legend ................................................................................................. 3-7 3-5. Precise Development Area 1 (North of BNSF Railway Track) .................................................... 3-8 3-6. Precise Development Area 1 (South of BNSF Railway Track) .................................................... 3-9 3-7. Precise Development Area 2 (South of BNSF Railway Track) .................................................. 3-10 3-8. Precise Development Area 2 (North of BNSF Railway Track) .................................................. 3-11 3-9. General Plan Designations .......................................................................................................... 3-13 3-10. Existing Zone Classification ....................................................................................................... 3-14 3-11. Cumulative Energy Projects ....................................................................................................... 3-40

CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Section 4.1 – Air Quality 4.1-1. Stationary Source Locations for Criteria Pollutant Modeling.................................................. 4.1-51 4.1-2. On-site Locomotive Source Locations (In Transit and Idling) – Daily and

Annual Criteria Pollutant Modeling. ........................................................................................ 4.1-52 4.1-3. On-site Locomotive Source Locations (In Transit and Idling) – Worst-Case

Hour Criteria Pollutant Modeling. ........................................................................................... 4.1-53 4.1-4. Stationary Source Locations for Health Risk Assessment Modeling. ..................................... 4.1-56


Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project vii May 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.1-5. On-site Locomotive Source Locations (In Transit and Idling) – Health Risk Assessment Modeling. ............................................................................................................. 4.1-57

4.1-6. Regularly Spaced Grid Receptors for Health Risk Assessment Modeling. ............................. 4.1-58 4.1-7. Residential and Sensitive Receptors for Health Risk Assessment Modeling. ......................... 4.1-59 4.1-8. Location of Maximum Modeled Criteria Pollutant Impacts. ................................................... 4.1-61 4.1-9. Location of Maximum Calculated Health Risks. ..................................................................... 4.1-67 4.1-10. Calculated Increased Cancer Risk Contours – Assuming Worst-Case Hypothetical

Residential Exposure (per million exposed). ........................................................................... 4.1-68

Section 4.2 – Biological Resources 4.2-1. Alon Proposed Project. .............................................................................................................. 4.2-3 4.2-2. Areas within the Alon Refinery that will be Disturbed. ............................................................ 4.2-4

Section 4.4 – Geology and Soils 4.4-1. Regional Fault Locations. .......................................................................................................... 4.4-4

Section 4.5 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.5-1 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................... 4.5-4

Section 4.6 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.6-1. BNSF Route through Kern County .......................................................................................... 4.6-15 4.6-2. Alon Bakersfield Refinery Hazard Zones ................................................................................ 4.6-56

Section 4.7 – Hydrology and Water Quality 4.7-1. Surface Water Features in the Bakersfield Area ........................................................................ 4.7-2 4.7-2. 100-Year Flood Zone in the Project Area .................................................................................. 4.7-4 4.7-3. Kern County Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin ..................................... 4.7-6 4.7-4. Hydrostratigraphy Beneath the Alon Bakersfield Refinery ....................................................... 4.7-7 4.7-5. Long-term Groundwater Elevations near Alon Bakersfield Refinery

(Well 29S27E26D002M) ........................................................................................................... 4.7-8 4.7-6. Groundwater Elevations in the Upper Aquifer Beneath the Alon Bakersfield Refinery

(Monitoring Well B-075, URS 2013) ........................................................................................ 4.7-9

Section 4.8 – Land Use and Planning 4.8-1. Project Site ................................................................................................................................. 4.8-3 4.8-2. Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................................. 4.8-4 4.8-3. General Plan Designations ......................................................................................................... 4.8-6 4.8-4. Existing Zone Classifications .................................................................................................... 4.8-7 4.8-5. Precise Development ............................................................................................................... 4.8-10 4.8-6. Precise Development Area 1 (North of BNSF Main Line) ...................................................... 4.8-11 4.8-7. Precise Development Area 1 (South of BNSF Main Line) ...................................................... 4.8-12 4.8-8. Precise Development Area 2 (South of BNSF Main Line) ...................................................... 4.8-13 4.8-9. Precise Development Area 2 (North of BNSF Main Line) ...................................................... 4.8-14

Section 4.10 – Noise 4.10-1 Existing Refinery and Surrounding Noise-Sensitive Land Uses ............................................. 4.10-2 4.10-2 Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................................. 4.10-2

Section 4.12 – Transportation and Traffic 4.12-1 Project Study Area ................................................................................................................... 4.12-2 4.12-2 Project Intersections ................................................................................................................. 4.12-4 4.12-3 Base Lane Configuration and Traffic Control ......................................................................... 4.12-7 4.12-4 Baseline Peak Hour Volumes and Intersection LOS ............................................................... 4.12-8


Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project viii May 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.12-5 Year 2015 Lane Configuration and Traffic Control .............................................................. 4.12-15 4.12-6 Opening Year 2015 Without Project Peak Hour Volumes and Intersection LOS ................. 4.12-16 4.12-7 Project Trip Distribution ........................................................................................................ 4.12-29 4.12-8 Project Study Assignment ...................................................................................................... 4.12-30 4.12-9 Net Site Peak Hour Volumes ................................................................................................. 4.12-31 4.12-10 Project at Full Operations (2015) Peak Hour Volumes and Intersection LOS ...................... 4.12-32

CHAPTER 6 – ALTERNATIVES 6-1. Alternative C: Linear Rail Unloading Facility ............................................................................ 6-10

Chapter 1 Executive Summary

Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project 1-1 May 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Chapter 1 Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction The Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, as Lead Agency, has determined that based upon preliminary analysis in an Initial Study, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the appropriate environmental analysis document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed “Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project” (“project”). The project is located at 6451 Rosedale Highway, on Areas 1, 2, and 4 of the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery, northwest of the City of Bakersfield. The exiting Refinery site is within Section 27 and 28 of Township 29 South, Range 27 East, in the Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M); specifically located on 22 parcels totaling 448.47 acres. 421.58 acres are within the unincorporated area of Kern County and 26.89 acres are located within the City of Bakersfield.

The purpose of the proposed project is to allow greater flexibility for the existing refinery to process a variety of crude oils on-site. To facilitate this request, the project proposes the following: 1. Expansion of existing and construction of new rail, transfer and storage facilities; to include

construction of a double rail loop from a new on-site spur connection off of the existing BNSF Railway and the addition of up to three boilers;

2. Construction of process unit upgrades and/ or modifications; 3. Repurposing of existing tankage; and, 4. Relocation and modernization of existing Liquefied Propane Gas (LPG) truck rack and

upgrades to sales rack.

The Refinery’s existing limit of 70,000 barrels per day (BPD) maximum crude processing capacity would not be increased. The project is described in detail in Chapter 3, Project Description.

This Executive Summary summarizes the requirements of the CEQA Statute and Guidelines, provides an overview of the project and alternatives, identifies the purpose of the Draft EIR, outlines the potential impacts of the project and the recommended mitigation measures, and discloses areas of controversy and issues to be resolved.

1.2 Project Summary Background The proposed “Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project” (project) is a request to expand existing crude receiving and processing options via construction of new railroad facilities and related infrastructure at the existing Alon Petroleum Refinery (detailed below).

The existing refinery is sited at 6451 Rosedale Highway in the heart of Metropolitan Bakersfield, within central Kern County (Figure 1-1). The project site is located within the governing boundaries of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) and is predominately within the unincorporated portions of Kern County (Figure 1-2). The refinery is within Section 27 and 28 of Township 29 South, Range 27 East, in the Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M); and is

County of Kern 1.0 Executive Summary

Alon Bakersfield Crude Flexibility Project 1-2 May 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report

generally bounded by Mohawk Street to the east, Rosedale Highway to the north, Coffee Road approximately ¼ mile to the west, and the Westside Parkway and Kern River to the south (Figure 1-3).

The existing refinery has been used as a petroleum refinery since 1932. Current refinery process units include crude distillation, delayed coking, hydrocracking, and catalytic reforming. Current products include gas oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and petroleum coke. The refinery also includes a number of ancillary and support facilities including steam boilers, process heaters, cooling towers, storage tanks and interconnecting pipelines; and a terminal with truck and rail loading facilities. The refinery has current environmental permits, including permits to operate from the SJVAPCD.

The existing refinery has a maximum rated crude processing capacity of 70,000 barrels per day (BPD). However, due to a 2008 bankruptcy of the prior owner, crude oil refining was temporarily suspended. In 2011, the Alon Bakersfield Refinery resumed refining in numerous process units to convert gas oil produced by its affiliated refinery in Paramount, California into finished fuels. The project proponent intends to resume operation of several existing process units under existing permits, including a return to crude oil refining.

Proposed Project Summary

The project proposes the Modification of Precise Development Plan No. 62, Map No. 102 to increase the refinery’s flexibility for receiving and processing a variety of crude oils and expand the existing crude terminal operations (the "project") by constructing a double rail loop. To facilitate this request, the project proposes: 1. Expansion of existing and construction of new rail, transfer and storage facilities; to include

construction of a double rail loop from a new on-site spur connection off of the existing BNSF Railway; and the addition of up to three boilers;



The refinery’s existing limit of 70,000 barrels per day (BPD) maximum crude processing capacity would not be increased.

The overall objectives of the project are to (1) provide greater flexibility for the existing refinery to utilize a variety of crude oils that can be processed in order to better manage operational costs and to increase efficiency of onsite production; and (2) expand the existing crude terminal operations of the facility.

In order to accomplish the project objectives, new facilities must be installed to enable crude delivery via unit train and transfer of crude into the refinery for processing and into the existing pipeline network for transfer to other refineries. As part of the project, minor unit efficiency upgrades and modifications are planned to enhance operating flexibility required to process crude oils with different physical properties. The Precise Development Plan is shown in Figures 1-4 through 1-8.



Figure 1-1. Project Location



Figure 1-2. Vicinity Map



Figure 1-3. Project Site



Figure 1-4. Precise Development Key legend



Figure 1-5. Precise Development Area 1 (North of BNSF Railway Track)



Figure 1-6. Precise Development Area 1 (South of BNSF Railway Track)


Alon Bakersfield Crude Flexibility Project 1-11 May 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report

The proposed project requires a modification to the Precise Development Plan to add rail facilities as a listed use in certain areas not currently identified as allowing rail, thus enabling expanded crude delivery to the refinery via unit train, which includes construction of the expanded rail facilities, unloading rack, and related refinery modifications. Other proposed modifications are expected to remain consistent with the PD Plan as they would result in the continued operation of the refinery within the existing refinery boundaries, no new refinery process units are proposed, and no increase in crude throughput is proposed.

Location of Existing Refinery Facility

The existing Alon refinery complex is sited on two non-contiguous sections of land, totaling approximately 541 acres, which are referred to as Refinery Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, and the sales terminal. The two complexes are connected by pipelines and fiber optic cables. A majority of the facility is located within the unincorporated area of Kern County; however, 26.89 acres are located within the City of Bakersfield (See Table 1-1, Project Statistics).

Location of Proposed Refinery Modifications

The proposed project area is located on 22 privately owned parcels, totaling approximately 448 acres and located within refinery Areas 1, 2, 4 and the sales terminal (see Figure 1-4). The remaining portion of the complex (not a part of the project) is located 1.5 miles north-northeast of the project area, in Area 3. The proposed changes to the project are detailed in Section 3.4, Project Characteristics.

1.3 Purpose and Use of the Draft EIR An EIR is a public informational document used for planning and decision-making purposes. The Kern County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will consider the information in the EIR, including the public comments and staff response to those comments, during the public hearing process. As a legislative action, the final decision is made by the Board of Supervisors, who may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the project. The purpose of an EIR is to identify:

• The significant potential impacts of the project on the environment and indicate the manner in which those significant impacts can be avoided or mitigated;

• Any unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated; and

• Reasonable and feasible alternatives to the project that would eliminate any significant adverse environmental impacts or reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

• An EIR also discloses growth-inducing impacts; impacts found not to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects. CEQA requires an EIR be prepared that reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency regarding the impacts, the level of significance of the impacts both before and after mitigation, and mitigation measures proposed to reduce the impacts. A draft EIR is circulated to responsible agencies, trustee agencies with resources affected by the project, and interested agencies and individuals. The purposes of public and agency review of a draft EIR include sharing expertise, disclosing agency analyses, checking for accuracy, detecting omissions, discovering public concerns, and soliciting counterproposals. Reviewers of a draft EIR are requested to focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional



specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate significant environmental effects.

Table 1-1. Project Statistics

APN Acres Jurisdiction MBGP

Designation Zone District Area 1:

332-260-12 3.99

County of Kern

SI (Service Industrial) M-2 PD (Medium Industrial PD Combining)

332-280-21 33.06

HI (Heavy Industrial)

M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial PD Combining) 332-280-22 9.38

332-260-34 14.13 M-2 PD (Medium Industrial PD

Combining), M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial PD Combining)

332-260-35 54.15 M-2 (Medium Industrial, M-2 PD (Medium Industrial PD Combining), M-3 PD (Heavy

Industrial PD Combining) Area 1 Totals: 114.71 acres (all County jurisdiction)

Area 2: 368-030-09 9.54

County of Kern


M-1 PD (Light Industrial PD Combining) 368-030-10 9.41 368-030-26 15.54 368-050-11 7.76 368-050-15 4.66 M-2 PD (Medium Industrial PD Combining) 368-040-07 1.14

M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial PD Combining) 368-040-09 8.46 368-040-27 87.58 368-040-42 60.03

368-070-06 25.76

SI (Service Industrial), HI (Heavy Industrial)

M-1 PD (Light Industrial PD Combining), M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial PD Combining)

332-280-17 11.18

City of Bakersfield

SI (Service Industrial) M-2 (General Manufacturing)

368-040-26 0.10 HI (Heavy Industrial)

FP-S (Flood Plain-Secondary) 502-010-43 0.59

M-3 (Heavy Industrial) 502-010-46 13.49 502-010-48 1.53

Area 2 Totals: 256.77 acres 229.88 acres within County jurisdiction 26.89 acres within City jurisdiction

Area 4: 368-040-06 46.09 County of

Kern HI (Heavy Industrial) M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial PD Combining) 368-040-32 30.90

Area 4 Totals: 76.99 acres (all County jurisdiction) Totals for Areas 1, 2, and 4: 448.47 acres

421.58 acres within County jurisdiction 26.89 acres within City jurisdiction

MBGP refers to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan



This Draft EIR is being distributed directly to agencies, organizations, and interested groups and persons for comment during a 45-day formal review period in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR process, including means by which members of the public can comment on the EIR, is discussed further in Chapter 2.0, Introduction.

1.4 Project Overview This section describes the local and regional setting, surrounding land uses, project objectives, and project characteristics. The project is described in further detail in Chapter 3.0, Project Description.

1.4.1 Local and Regional Setting The project site encompasses approximately 448 acres (Refinery Areas 1, 2, 4, and sales terminal), with 26.89 of those acres being within the City of Bakersfield, consisting of 22 privately owned parcels of land. The site is located northwest of the City of Bakersfield at 6451 Rosedale Highway generally in the unincorporated area of Kern County. The Refinery is generally bounded by Mohawk Street to the east, Rosedale Highway to the north, Coffee Road ¼ mile to the west, and the Westside Parkway and Kern River to the south (Figure 1-3). Access to the site is primarily from Rosedale Highway (Figure 1-9).

The proposed rail facilities, upgrades, and modifications at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery would be developed entirely within the existing refinery property boundaries. Most of the refinery is under the jurisdiction of Kern County; however, property near the southern and southeastern boundaries is within the jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield.

1.4.2 Surrounding Land Uses As noted in Table 1-2, project parcels within the jurisdiction of the County of Kern are classified by the Kern County Zoning Ordinance as M-l PD (Light Industrial- Precise Development), M2 (Medium Industrial), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development), and M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial - Precise Development) and are designated SI (Service Industrial) and HI (Heavy Industrial) by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP). Project parcels within the jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield are classified by the Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance as M-2 (Medium Manufacturing), M-3 (Heavy Industrial), and FP-S (Flood Plain - Secondary).

The land use in the surrounding area has historically been primarily industrial with the existing refinery, the former Sunland Refinery, and the closed PG&E gas powered electrical plant and oilfield support facilities. The adjacent land uses immediately surrounding the project site are primarily industrial. Other non-industrial land uses in the area include the Vista West Continuation High School located approximately 0.15 mile north of the nearest refinery fence line and 0.47 miles from the nearest process hazard (the product sales terminal), and residential areas to the west and the south, approximately one mile from the proposed project area. The school is located at the northern end of the area zoned as Limited Agriculture. The residential area to the south of the proposed project is located south of the Kern River. The Kern River corridor exists as an open space recreation area known as the Kern River Parkway, which includes parks and trails. The Kern River Plan Element Map indicates a hiking and riding trail along the northern side of the Kern River, south of the refinery property.



Table 1-2. Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses

Existing Land Use Existing Map Code Designations Existing Zoning Classification

Proj

ect S

ite Refinery,

Marketing Terminal, Maintenance Facilities, Laboratory Facility, Vacant Land.

HI (Heavy Industrial), SI (Service Industrial)

County of Kern: M-l PD (Light Industrial - Precise Development), M-2 (Medium Industrial), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development), and M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial - Precise Development). City of Bakersfield: M-2 (General Manufacturing), M-3 (Heavy Industrial).

Nor

th

Oilfield, Commercial Services, Retail Businesses.

SI (Service Industrial) County of Kern: A-1 (Limited Agricultural), C-2 PD (General Commercial - Precise Development), M-l (Light Industrial), M-l PD (Light Industrial - Precise Development), M-2 (Medium Industrial), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development). City of Bakersfield: A (Agricultural), M-2 (General Manufacturing).

Sout

h

Westside Parkway, Vacant Land, Open Space.

HI (Heavy Industrial), SI (Service Industrial), OS (Open Space)

City of Bakersfield: M-2 (General Manufacturing), M-3 (Heavy Industrial), FP-S (Flood Plain - Secondary), A-FP-S (Agricultural - Flood Plain - Secondary).

Eas

t

Manufacturing, Commercial Businesses, Industrial Services, Vacant Land.


County of Kern: M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial - Precise Development. City of Bakersfield: M-2 (General Manufacturing), M-3 (Heavy Industrial).

Wes

t

Vacant Land, Power Plant (closed), Commercial Businesses, Storage Facility, Gas Station.

HI (Heavy Industrial), SI (Service Industrial), GC (General Commercial

City of Bakersfield: C-2/P.C.D. (Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development), M-2 (General Manufacturing).

1.4.3 Project Objectives The objectives of the project are to provide greater flexibility for the refinery to utilize a variety of crude oils that can be processed in order to better manage operational costs and to increase efficiency of onsite production. In addition, the project would expand the existing crude terminal operations of the facility. In order to accomplish the project objectives, facilities must be installed to enable crude delivery via unit train and transfer of crude into the refinery for processing and into the existing pipeline network for transfer to other refineries. As part of the project, minor unit efficiency upgrades and modifications are planned to enhance operating flexibility required to process crude oils with different physical properties. Specific objectives include:

• Expand the Bakersfield Refinery’s existing crude terminal operations serving the Refinery and third parties.



• Increase the Bakersfield Refinery’s flexibility to access and refine a wider range of crude oils, so that the Refinery can better manage operational costs and increase efficiency.

• Improve the Refinery’s ability to receive crude by rail by installing equipment and facilities to enable crude delivery via unit train and transfer of crude into the Refinery for processing and into storage tanks and the existing pipeline network for transfer to other refineries.

• Implement efficiency upgrades and modifications to enhance the Refinery’s ability to process crude oils with different physical properties.

• Increase the flexibility to handle multiple products at the sales terminal loading rack.

• Maintain and improve existing Refinery functionality by relocating existing functions or equipment that are within the footprint of the project to other areas on the Refinery site.

• Locate new equipment on vacant land within the existing Refinery site where feasible, to ensure maximum efficiency and integration with the existing operations.

• Invest in a valuable asset recently acquired by the owner in order to improve operations and economic return.

1.4.4 Project Characteristics The objectives of the project are to provide greater flexibility for the existing refinery to utilize a variety of crude oils that can be processed in order to better manage operational costs and to increase efficiency of onsite production. In addition, the project would expand the existing crude terminal operations of the facility. In order to accomplish the project objectives, facilities must be installed to enable crude delivery via unit train and transfer of crude into the refinery for processing and into the existing pipeline network for transfer to other refineries. As part of the project, minor unit efficiency upgrades and modifications are planned to enhance operating flexibility required to process crude oils with different physical properties.

As noted above, the project proposes the Modification of Precise Development Plan No. 62, Map No. 102 to increase the existing refinery’s flexibility for receiving and processing a variety of crude oils and expand the existing crude terminal operations (the "project") by constructing a double rail loop. Most of the proposed process unit changes are minor in scope and are intended to increase the efficiency of the operation.

To facilitate this request, the project proposes: 1. Expanded Rail Facilities: Expansion of existing and construction of new rail, transfer and

storage facilities; to include construction of a double rail loop from a new on-site spur connection off of the existing BNSF Railway; and the addition of up to three boilers;






Expanded Rail Facilities

Proposed On-Site Rail Improvements

The project would construct a new double rail train loop to address crude that is already being transported to the existing refinery via unit trains. A new spur would connect to the existing BNSF Railway rail line that runs east-west, bisecting the refinery. This spur would enter the refinery at the northwest corner of Area 4, and tie into the new rail loops in Area 2 and Area 4 and total 27,900 linear feet of rail track (Figure 1-7).

The loop tracks would utilize existing rail spurs 103 and 104 as well as the existing east switch back to the BNSF mainlines. One of the rail loops would be equipped with steam stations to allow heavy crude to be offloaded. Steam for heating the rail cars, as well as the tankage, would be provided by three package boilers equipped with low nitrogen oxide (NOx) burners.

As a part of an independent modernization and consolidation project, the project proponent will also remove several of the buildings currently located on the proposed rail loop.

The existing LPG truck racks will be relocated and the LPG rail rack would be dismantled due to the new crude unloading alignment.

In addition, a grade separation (either an overpass or underpass) connecting Refinery Road and the Area 2 processing units would be constructed. The grade separation would ensure that there is unimpeded access to the Area 2 processing units for emergency responders.

New unloading facilities would be provided to allow offloading of crude oil from rail cars. The operating plan is to receive and unload two unit trains within a 24 hour period under the normal operational scenario on an annual average basis. The unit train would be configured with multiple Distributed Power Units (DPUs) and up to 104 tank cars. Based on maximum car capacity, the designed facility would be able to offload an average of 150,000 BPD into tankage.

As further described in the Tank Farm section below, new custody-transfer tanks would be installed to allow accurate metering of crude oil entering the facility. The project proponent does not expect to construct more than two custody transfer tanks and estimates their size to be between 10,000 and 25,000 barrels. One of the custody transfer tanks would be equipped with steam coils to permit the metering of heavy crude oils. After metering, the crude would be pumped to the floating roof crude tanks for either crude unit charge or storage for shipping of up to 150,000 BPD via 3rd party pipeline. In addition to the custody transfer tanks, the project proponent intends to install up to two 250,000 barrel crude oil storage tanks. Both of these new tanks would be equipped with steam coils to permit the storage of heavy crude oil.

Off-site Train/Rail Movements

The operation of unit and manifest trains to and from the project site expanded rail facilities would be performed by BNSF, on BNSF property, and on trains operated by BNSF employees. The movements of those trains within Kern County, to and from the project site, while described in this section of the EIR, may be preempted from local and state environmental regulations by federal law under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995.

While the potential impacts of those trains movements along the BNSF mainline within Kern County are described in appropriate chapters of this EIR, the County as CEQA Lead Agency, and other state and local responsible agencies could be preempted from imposing mitigation measures,



conditions or regulations to reduce or mitigate potential impacts of BNSF train movements on the mainline.

By contrast, all activities performed within the project site expanded rail facilities are not preempted by federal law since they would not occur on BNSF property and would not be operated by BNSF employees. The impacts of the activities that occur on the project site expanded rail facilities are described and evaluated in respective chapters of this EIR, and the County as CEQA Lead Agency, and other state and local responsible agencies have the authority to impose mitigation measures, conditions or regulations to reduce or mitigate potential impacts within the project site expanded rail facilities.

Transport of Bakken Crude Oil

The expanded train facilities, like the existing train facilities, have the potential to transport Bakken Crude Oil.

Located predominately in the northwestern part of North Dakota near the borders of Montana and Canada, Bakken crude is a low sulfur (sweet) light crude oil that is found in the Bakken formation, which covers an area of over 200,000 square miles. Bakken crude is a light crude oil that is assumed to be similar to West Texas Intermediate (WTI), which is used as a benchmark crude for pricing and for comparison with other crudes. This type of crude is very desirable because it is easily refined into products such as gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel, with 95% of it being used. Until the industry discovery of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling, Bakken crude was not possible to economically recover. The USGS estimates that there is approximately 7.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken formation and in 2013 the production from the Bakken field accounted for 10% of the oil production in the United States. Due to the present demand and production rate, existing pipeline capacity has been surpassed and the industry has been forced to transport Bakken crude by rail. Shipments into California have been increasing dramatically and are expected to make up 25% of California’s supply of crude oil by 2016. (Kern County Fire Department)

It has been difficult to find clear and verifiable information on the components and properties of Bakken crude. The assumption has been made by producers and shippers that Bakken crude has similar properties to that of other light “sweet” crudes. The Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and Safety Data Sheets (SDS) available for Bakken crude are similar, if not the same, as other light “sweet” crudes. Currently, Bakken crude has been classified as a Flammable Liquid (DOT Class 3), UN/NA 1267, Packing Group III, with the Packing Group indicating the degree of danger presented by the material when transported and is what determines the type of packaging required (Packing Group I has the highest hazard, Group III the lowest); however, no tests have been performed to properly classify Bakken crude. The Department of Transportation (DOT) presently has a project underway to research this issue and to determine if Bakken crude has been improperly classified. (Kern County Fire Department)

No one factor has been determined as to if or why Bakken crude is more volatile than other crude oils. Analyses of Bakken crude have produced inconsistent results with subjective reports of crude from the Bakken field containing high levels of Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S). In most cases the oil tested had been mixed with crude from other fields. Tests in the oil field have found low levels of H2S. There has also been some speculation that residual hydrochloric acid from fracking is present in Bakken crude and it is corroding the inside of railcars; however, this has not been proven. Other concerns have been placed on the tanks cars themselves. Typically, crude being transported by rail



are shipping in DOT-111 tank cars and in 2011 specifications for these cars changed to require more protection against damage from accidents. Many believe that tank cars being used that predate 2011 are not adequate for shipping crude and may be the reason behind recent accidents; however, this theory has not been proven, nor is there verifiable or objective information on whether or not inspections have been done on the inner lining of these cars to determine if there is any evidence of corrosion from water or other contaminants found in crude. (Kern County Fire Department)

Recent rail accidents transporting Bakken crude have called into question the safety of transporting by rail. Within the last year, there have been five major train accidents and derailments that were transporting crude oil: July 5, 2013 in Lac-Magantic, Quebec, Canada; November 8, 2013 in Aliceville, Alabama; December 30, 2013 in Casselton, North Dakota; January 7, 2014 in Plaster Rock, New Brunswick, Canada; and April 30, 2014 in Lynchburg, Virginia. The worst of the four was the July 5th Lac-Magantic derailment when 60 oil cars exploded “killing 47 residents, destroying 40 buildings, and spilling millions of litres of crude oil in the town and nearby lake and river” (Montreal Gazette, 2014).

In response to the growing concern of transporting crude by rail and in light of recent accidents, DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) released a Safety Alert on January 2, 2014 to notify the general public, emergency responders, and transporters of crude that the type of crude from the “Bakken region may be more flammable than traditional heavy crude oil” (PHMSA, 2014). Based on their preliminary inspections, “PHMSA is reinforcing the requirement to properly test, characterize, classify, and where appropriate, sufficiently degasify hazardous material prior to and during transportation” (Preliminary Guidance, 2014). PHMSA stresses the point that proper characterization and classification will “identify properties that could affect the integrity of the packaging or present additional hazards, such as corrosivity, sulfur content, and dissolved gas content” (Preliminary Guidance, 2014). Proper classification and in turn, proper assignment to the correct packing group, typically I or II for light sweet crude oil such as that coming from the Bakken region, assists emergency responders in properly handling potential accidents. These packing groups mean that the “material’s flashpoint is below 73 degrees Fahrenheit and, for packing group I materials, the boiling point is below 95 degrees Fahrenheit,” which means the materials can “pose significant fire risk if released from the package in an accident”( Preliminary Guidance, 2014).

On February 25, 2014, DOT released an “Emergency Order requiring all shippers to test product from the Bakken region to ensure the proper classification of crude oil before it is transported by rail, while also prohibiting the transportation of crude oil in the lowest-strength packing group” (DOT, 2014). This Emergency Order, which was instated immediately, requires “those who offer crude oil for transportation by rail” to “ensure that the product is properly tested and classified in accordance with federal safety regulations.”(DOT, 2014) The order goes further to now require all previously classified Class III crude oil shipments to now be “designated as Packing Group I or II, thereby requiring the use of a more robust tank car”(DOT, 2014).

Currently, as part of the ongoing investigative efforts, PHMSA and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have initiated “Operation Classification,” which is an “initiative involving unannounced inspections and testing of crude oil samples to verify that offerors of the materials have been properly classified and describe the hazardous materials” (Preliminary Guidance, 2014). The Operation Classification initiative started with focusing only on the “classification and packing group assignments that have been selected and certified by offerors” with tests measuring the “inherent chemical properties of the crude oil collected;” however, both agencies “have found it



necessary to expand the scope of their testing to measure other factors that would affect the proper characterization and classification of the materials” (Preliminary Guidance, 2014). Operation Classification is planned to be an ongoing project, with PHMSA continuing to collect data from Bakken crude as well as various other crude oil locations. Final results are expected by PHMSA in the near future and will be available to interested parties that will show gas content, corrosivity, toxicity, flammability, and certain other characteristics for Bakken crude oil in hopes to not only further inform transporters of crude about proper classification and characterization, but to help PHMSA, FRA, and others to identify any appropriate mitigation measures that need to be taken to ensure the continued safe transportation of these materials” (Preliminary Guidance, 2014).

Truck Loading Rack Modifications

The existing three lane LPG truck loading would be relocated east of the current location and a new lane would be added. The existing LPG rail car loading rack would be dismantled and any LPG rail loading would be conducted at the Enterprise LPG loading facility (Enterprise) located north of the Area 3. An existing pipeline connection between the refinery and Enterprise would be used to transport LPG. The relocation of the LPG truck rack and dismantling of the LPG rail rack is necessitated by the expanded rail facilities and construction of the new grade separation.

Sales terminal loading rack modifications would include conversion of some of the existing gasoline loading arms (the mid-grade gasoline loading arms) to jet/diesel service. Existing diesel arms would be dual purposed to permit the loading of both jet and diesel. Diesel and jet fuel have similar properties and therefore there is no increase in emissions or risk by dual purposing the loading arms. In addition, new jet/diesel loading arms would be constructed in lanes 5 and 6 of the sales rack.

Unit Upgrades and Modifications

All upgrades and modifications would be accomplished within the disturbed areas of the refinery. The refinery's overall crude oil refining capacity would not be increased above its current maximum rated crude processing capacity, the PD plan limit of 70,000 barrels per day of crude, calculated as an annual average. There may be capacity increases in individual process units to provide flexibility to manage additional light hydrocarbons that may be present in certain crude oils.

Most of the proposed process unit changes are minor in nature, e.g., new pumps, replacement of old compressors with state of the art equipment, additional control values and new heat exchangers. These minor changes are to increase the facility's operational and energy efficiency to permit the processing of a larger variety of crude oils.

Additional, more complex upgrades include the following: 1. Hydrocracker (HCU Unit 21) & CD Hydro (Unit 27): New or existing reactors, heaters,

vessels and associated equipment would be installed or upgraded. Specifically, a new reactor with associated equipment in the Hydrocracker Unit (HCU) Unit 21 would be installed. In addition, new hydrogen recycle compressor(s) and a hydrogen make-up compressor(s) would be installed. An existing heater would be modified and retrofitted with low NOx burners. Lastly, as a water conservation measure, new piping and instrumentation would be installed to allow recycling of wash water in the HCU.

Additionally, CD Hydro (Unit 27) unit modifications would also be made to ensure proper processing of additional light hydrocarbons in various crude oils. Modifications include the addition of a parallel reactor(s), vessels, new pumps and exchangers, the upgrading of existing



pumps and exchangers, and the modification and retrofitting of an existing permitted heater with low NOx burners.

2. Addition of a new "flash" tower to Unit 10: In order increase energy efficiency and to process a wider range of crudes, additional heat removal exchanger(s) would be added to the overhead system and pumps would be upgraded. To release light ends (propane and butane) from the incoming crude oil prior to it entering the atmospheric distillation tower a “flash” tower will be added, thereby improving the atmospheric tower “product cuts.”

3. Crude and Vacuum Unit (Unit 10/11). In order to process a wider range of crudes, the Crude Unit Atmospheric Crude Tower (10-V1) would be upgraded. This may include the addition of a crude "flash" tower and associated ancillary equipment to improve the unit's cuts. Other changes include new pumps, nozzles, a jet draw, and new and re-serviced exchangers. To improve temperature control on the unit heater’s existing Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) unit for Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) control and improve energy efficiency of heater 10-H1, a new heat recovery coil would be installed at the inlet of the SCR. In addition, a new jet treater would be located in either the Crude Unit or tank farm.

4. Mild Hydrocracking Unit (Unit 14). New pumps would be added and existing pumps and heater tubing would be upgraded. In addition, a new salt drier and water coalescer would be added to the kerosene product stream to improve the quality of the jet fuel product. Two existing Fractionator Overhead Compressors (14-C3A/B) would be replaced with state of the art compressors and associated equipment. This would reduce fugitive hydrocarbon emissions by upgrading the compressor seal. To improve the efficiency and reliability of the amine system, an existing Recycle Gas Scrubber would be upgraded and new (replacement) amine feed pumps would be installed. The upgrades would improve amine circulation rate thereby reducing amine loading, improve reliability, and the reduce potential for corrosion.

5. Naphtha Hydrotreater #1 and #3 (Unit 8 and Unit 26/22). Pumps, heat exchangers and fin fans would be upgraded in both Hydrotreaters. In addition, to increase Unit 8's energy efficiency, the existing charge heater (8-H1) convection section would be replaced. In Unit 26, an existing permitted heater would be modified and retrofitted with low NOx burners and upgraded heater tubes.

6. Sour Water (Units 15 and 23). In order to conserve water and reduce the facility's waste water discharges, a new steam reboiler for 15-V12 (Sour Water Stripper) would be installed. The project would also re-pipe the feeds and products for 23-V4 and 23-V5 to bypass the existing Phosam equipment (ammonia (NH3)) recovery section) which is no longer necessary. This modification eliminates production and storage of anhydrous ammonia.

7. The Wash Water Recycle project was designed to decrease the amount of Sour Water from the Hydrocracker. In the wash water recycle project, the amount of sour water export is reduced from approximately 35 GPM to 16 GPM; or about a savings of 10 million gallons of water a year.

8. Fuel Gas LPG Recovery Unit. In order to reduce the concentration of LPG in the refinery fuel gas, a new LPG recovery unit would be constructed and installed on the fuel gas system. The unit would consist of several fuel gas compressors; knock out drums and a non-ammonia refrigeration unit. The recovered LPG would be sent to the existing gas plant and the fuel gas would be burned in the refinery's process heaters and boilers.



9. Tank Farm Updgrades. New custody transfer tanks would be installed. Alon estimates their sizes to be between 10,000 and 25,000 barrels. A new jet treater would be located in either the tank farm or the crude unit. In addition to the custody transfer tanks, Alon intends to install up to two 250,000 barrel crude oil storage tanks. These new tanks are in addition to two new crude oil storage tanks the current PD plan permits Alon to construct. Table 1-3 provides a list of the new tanks with their proposed service.

Table 1-3. Project Tank Farm Upgrades

Tank Designation Estimated Capacity Proposed Service New Custody-Transfer Tank No 1

10,000 to 25,000 barrels Crude oil

New Custody-Transfer Tank No 2 (Heated)


New Crude Oil Storage Tank No 1 (Heated)

Up to 250,000 barrels Crude oil



Additional inter-tank piping and pumps would be added to facilitate movement of the crude from rail cars into the custody transfer tanks and storage tanks. The custody-transfer tanks would be equipped with vapor controls, either floating roofs or vapor recovery. The new crude storage tanks would have external floating roofs.

Tank farm and process unit inter-connecting piping would be reconfigured to allow the crude tanks additional flexibility for either crude unit charge, storage for shipping into third-party pipeline systems, or receiving crude from local crude sources. To facilitate inter-plant movement, new and modified piping, pumps and equipment would be reconfigured or added.

Lastly, some of the existing tankage would be repurposed by changing the current product storage. Some of the existing tank service changes will result in emission decreases. For example, the cutter oil/gas oil (Bunker "C") tank number 70-T80004 may be changed to fuel oil or asphalt service; the cutter oil/fuel oil tank number 70-T10014 may be changed to asphalt, bunker, or cutter oil service; some of the gasoline storage tanks may be used to store jet fuel; and tank 71-T 96M01 may be equipped with steam coils to permit the storage of heavy crude. Since the refinery wishes to retain the flexibility of returning the tanks to their original service, no emission reductions will be calculated from these anticipated service changes.

Several tank service changes are planned as follows:

• Four permitted but out of service tanks (tanks 70-T11003, 70-T10007, 70-T11008 and 70-T11009) would be put back in service as diesel, asphalt/vacuum tower bottoms, or slop oil/crude oil tanks;

• The current gas oil tank 70-T55006 would be converted to diesel service;

• The current sour water tanks 71-T24M02 and 71-T24M04 would be converted to diesel service;

• The current diesel tank 71-T96M03 would be converted to crude service; and



• The current anhydrous ammonia tank 85-T13C01 would be converted to propane service.

10. Fire Protection and Safety System Upgrades

• A new fire protection and safety system will be installed for the unloading rack. The fire protection and safety system will include fire detection equipment, fire monitors, safety showers, eyewash stations, hydrants, controls and piping. The monitors at the unloading rack will be capable of reaching all of the cars being offloaded and will have with foam generators.

• Each of the monitors will have self-educting nozzles with individual foam totes. The monitors shall be mounted at grade a minimum of 50’ away from unloading cars. The system will utilize the refinery’s existing fire water supply system. The system has a storage capacity of 3,000,000 gallons and capable of delivering up to 3,500 gallons per minute of water. The system includes 4 fire water pumps with pumping capacities between 1,500 gpm and 3,500 gpm.

1.5 Environmental Impacts Section 15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various, possible, new significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant, and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR. The County has engaged the public to participate in the scoping of the environmental document.

The contents of this Draft EIR were established based on a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (NOP/IS) prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, as well as public and agency input that were received during the scoping process. The comments to the NOP/IS are found in Appendix A of this document. Based on the findings of the NOP/IS and the results of scoping, a determination was made that this EIR must contain a comprehensive analysis of all environmental issues identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

1.5.1 Impacts Not Further Considered in this EIR As discussed in Appendix A (Notice of Preparation/Initial Study), the project was determined to have no impact with regard to the following impact thresholds. These issues are not analyzed further in this EIR.

Aesthetics • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

• Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Agriculture and Forest Resources • Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance



(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use..

• Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or Williamson Act contract.

• Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Productions (as defined in Government Code section 51104(g)).

• Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

• Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

• Result in the cancellation of an open space contract made pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or Farmland Security Zone Contract for any parcel of 100 or more acres (Section 15206(b)(3) Public Resources Code.

Biological Resources • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree

preservation policy or ordinance.

• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan.

Geology and Soils • Expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of

loss, injury, or death involving landslides

• Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse

Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Projects that comply with an adopted statewide, regional, or local plan for reduction or

mitigation of GHG emissions;

• Projects implementing SJVAPCD-approved “Best Performance Standards” (BPS) for the specific project type; or,

• Projects that achieve AB 32 targeted 29 percent GHG emission reduction compared to “business-as-usual.”

Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant

to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;



• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands;

• Would implementation of the project generate vectors (flies, mosquitoes, rodents, etc.) or have a component that includes agricultural waste. Specifically, would the project exceed the following qualitative threshold: The presence of domestic flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rodents, and/or any other vectors associated with the project is significant when the applicable enforcement agency determines that any of the vectors:

o Occur as immature stages and adults in numbers considerably in excess of those found in the surrounding environment; and,

o Are associated with design, layout, and management of project operations; and,

o Disseminate widely from the property; and,

o Cause detrimental effects on the public health or well being of the majority of the surrounding population.

• For a project located within the adopted Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;

• For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;

Hydrology and Water Quality • Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard

Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map

• Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Land Use and Planning • Physically divide an established community.

• Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

• Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

Noise • For a project located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would the

project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

• For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.



Population and Housing • Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new

homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).

• Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

• Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Recreation • Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such

that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

• Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Transportation and Traffic • Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change

in location that results in substantial safety risks.

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

• Result in inadequate emergency access.

• Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

1.5.2 Impacts of the Proposed Project

No Potential for Impacts to Occur Potential environmental effects of the project and mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of this EIR. After full analysis, the following effects were determined to have no potential for impacts to occur:

Air Quality • Impact 4.1-5: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Cultural Resources • Impact 4.3-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical

Resource as Defined in CEQA Guideline 15064.5

• Impact 4.3-3: Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature



Geology and Soils • Impact 4.4-1: Expose People or Structures to Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the

Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving the Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault

• Impact 4.4.3: Expose People or Structures to Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Seismic-related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction

• Impact 4.4-5: Be Located on Expansive Soil, as Defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), Creating Substantial Risks to Life or Property

• Impact 4.4-6: Have Soils Incapable of Adequately Supporting the Use of Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems Where Sewers Are Not Available for the Disposal of Wastewater

Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Impact 4.5-1: Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly, That May

Have a Significant Impact on the Environment.

• Impact 4.5-2: Conflict with any Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases.

• Impact 4.5-3: Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts

Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Impact 4.6-3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous

materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

• Impact 4.6-4: Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Hydrology and Water Quality • Impact 4.7-2: Substantially Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere Substantially with

Groundwater Recharge Such That There Would be a Net Deficit in Aquifer Volume or a Lowering of the Local Groundwater Table Level

• Impact 4.7-3: Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of the Site or Area, Including through the Alteration of the Course of a Stream or River, or Substantially Increase the Rate or Amount of Surface Runoff in a Manner Which Would Result in Substantial Erosion or Siltation On-site or Off-site

• Impact 4.7-4: Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of the Site or Area, Including through the Alteration of the Course of a Stream or River, or Substantially Increase the Rate or Amount of Surface Runoff in a Manner Which Would Result in Substantial Flooding On-site or Off-site

• Impact 4.7-5: Create or Contribute Runoff Water Which Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff



• Impact 4.7-6: Otherwise substantially degrade water quality

Land Use and Planning • Impact 4.8-1: Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation of an

Agency with Jurisdiction over the Project Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect

• Impact 4.8-2: Conflict with Any Applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan

• Impact 4.8-3: Contribute to Cumulative Land Use Impacts

Mineral Resources • Impact 4.9-1: Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource that Would

be of Value to the Region and the Residents of the State

• Impact 4.9-2: Result in the Loss of Availability of a Locally Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site Delineated on a Local General Plan, Specific Plan, or Other Land Use Plan

• Impact 4.9-3: Contribute to Cumulative Mineral Resources Impacts

Noise • Impact 4.10-2: Exposure of Persons to, or Generate, Excessive Ground Borne Vibration or

Ground Borne Noise Levels

• Impact 4.10-3: Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing without the Project

• Impact 4.10-5: Contribute to Cumulative Noise Impacts

Public Services • Impact 4.11-2: Increase Need for or Alter Police/Sheriff Protection Services

• Impact 4.11-3: Increase Need for or Alter School Services

• Impact 4.11-4: Increase Need for or Alter, Park Services

• Impact 4.11-5: Increase Need for Other Public Facilities

• Impact 4.11-6: Contribute to Cumulative Public Service Impacts

Transportation and Traffic • Impact 4.12-1: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures

of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.

• Impact 4.12-2: Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways - Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan LOS “C”.



• Impact 4.12-3: Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways - Kern County General Plan LOS “D”.

• Impact 4.2-4: Contribute to Cumulative Transportation and Traffic Impacts

Utilities and Service Systems • Impact 4.13-1: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional

Water Quality Control Board

• Impact 4.13-2: Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects

• Impact 4.13-3: Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects

• Impact 4.13-4: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed

• Impact 4.13-5: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments

• Impact 4.13-6: Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs

• Impact 4.13-8: Cumulative Impacts to Utilities

Less than Significant with Incorporation of Mitigation Measures Potential environmental effects of the project and mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of this EIR. After full analysis, the following effects were determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

Air Quality • Impact 4.1-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

• Impact 4.1-2: Violate any air quality standard as adopted or established by EPA or air district or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

• Impact 4.1-4: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Biological Resources • Impact 4.2-4: Interfere Substantially with the Movement of any Native Resident or

Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or with Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors, or Impede the Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites



Cultural Resources • Impact 4.3-2: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of an

Archaeological Resource Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15064.5

• Impact 4.3-4: Disturb any Human Remains, Including those Interred outside of Formal Cemeteries

• Impact 4.3-5: Contribute to Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts

Geology and Soils • Impact 4.4-2: Expose People or Structures to Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the

Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Strong Seismic Ground Shaking

• Impact 4.4-4: Result in Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil

• Impact 4.6-7: Contribute to Cumulative Geologic and Soils Impacts

Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Impact 4.6-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the

routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

• Impact 4.6-2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

• Impact 4.6-4: Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts

Hydrology and Water Quality • Impact 4.7-7: Place Structures within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area Which Would

Impede or Redirect Flood Flows

• Impact 4.7-8: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam

Noise • Impact 4.10-1: Exposure of Persons to, or Generate, Noise Levels in Excess of Standards

Established in the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance or Applicable Standards of Other Agencies

• Impact 4.10-4: Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing without the Project

Public Services • Impact 4.11-1: Increased Need for or Alter Fire Protection Services

Utilities and Service Systems • Impact 4.13-7: Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to

solid waste



Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to less-than-significant levels. Potential environmental effects of the project and proposed mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of this EIR. The following environmental impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable impacts (refer to Table 1-4, Summary of Significant Impacts of the Project).

Table 1-4. Summary of Significant Impacts of the Project

Resources Project Impacts Cumulative Impacts

Air Quality Construction impacts associated with the proposed project result in 10.43 tons of NOx, emissions, which exceed the 10 ton per year significance threshold adopted by the Board of Supervisors and the SJVAPCD Board. As such, project construction activities would result in a temporary significant and unavoidable impact.

Cumulative criteria pollutant emissions with respect to approved and proposed projects within one and six miles of the proposed project are presented in Section 4.1. Given the magnitude of potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with approved and proposed projects within one and six miles of the proposed project, the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department considers the project’s construction emissions and cumulative criteria pollutant emissions impacts to be significant and unavoidable.

Biological Resources

In the unlikely event of an oil spill along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks, there may be no oil spill containment or cleanup equipment immediately available, and it may take some time for emergency response teams to mobilize adequate spill response equipment. Depending upon the location of the spill this could allow enough time for the spill to impact sensitive habitat and plants and animal species. Therefore, oil spills along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks could be significant and unavoidable, depending upon the location of the spill.

Cumulative crude oil rail transportation associated with the proposed project, BNSF Railway and UPRR mainline crude oil transportation results in an elevated risk of an oil spill and potential impacts to biological resources that would be considered significant and unavoidable.

Hydrology and Water Quality

Implementing mitigation measures 4.7-1 would reduce spill-related impacts onsite. However, depending on the location of the spill (i.e., whether the spill drains into sumps and onsite treatment facilities and whether the leak is above ground or below ground), and the timing and adequacy of the spill response, there may be sufficient time for surface spills to infiltrate onsite soils and further impact underlying groundwater quality. Therefore, depending on these variables, water quality impacts could be significant and unavoidable. In the unlikely event of an oil spill along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks, there may be no oil spill containment or cleanup equipment immediately available, and it may take some time for emergency response teams to mobilize adequate spill response

The region of influence for water quality impacts would include all of the cumulative projects listed in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, as all of these projects overlie the same upper and lower aquifer that underlies the refinery. Potential spills from either of the three nearby refineries, as well as from any of the industrial facilities listed in Section 3.9 could contribute to existing high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the upper aquifer and potentially result in adverse impacts to drinking water supplies of the lower aquifer. Fluctuations of water levels in the wells within the Kern County Subbasin, installed at different depths, indicate that water moves not only within aquifers, but also around or through the less permeable sediments, suggesting that the lower aquifer could ultimately be affected by spills.




Resources Project Impacts Cumulative Impacts equipment. Depending upon the location of the spill this could allow enough time for the spill to impact water resources. Therefore, oil spills along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks could be significant and unavoidable, depending upon the location of the spill.

Impacts are considered significant and unavoidable, even with incorporation of SWPPPs, BMPs, and SPCCs at each of these facilities. In addition, cumulative crude oil rail transportation associated with the Alon Refinery and BNSF Railway mainline crude oil transportation results in an elevated risk of an oil spill and potential impacts to water quality that would be considered significant and unavoidable.

1.5.3 Significant Cumulative Impacts According to Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, the term cumulative impacts “refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Individual effects that may contribute to a cumulative impact may be from a single project or a number of separate projects. Individually, the impacts of a project may be relatively minor, but when considered along with impacts of other closely related or nearby projects, including newly proposed projects, the effects could be cumulatively considerable.

This EIR has considered the potential cumulative effects of the proposed project. Impacts for the following have been found to be cumulatively considerable:

• Air Quality

Result in a project level considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).

• Biological Resources

Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS.

Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Any Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, Regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Federally Protected Wetlands as Defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Including, but not Limited to, Marsh, Vernal Pool, Coastal, etc.) Through Direct Removal, Filling, Hydrological interruption, or Other Means.

• Hydrology and Water Quality Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements

Each of these significant cumulative impacts is discussed in the applicable section of Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR.

1.5.4 Growth Inducement



The KCGP, which works in tandem with the MBGP, recognizes that certain forms of growth are beneficial, both economically and socially. In accordance with Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must “discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” In addition, when discussing growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project, “it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment” (Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines) (CCR, 2005). Two issues can be considered when assessing the growth-inducing impacts of a project:

• Elimination of Obstacles to Population Growth: The extent to which additional infrastructure capacity or a change in regulatory structure will allow additional development in the County and region.

• Promotion of Economic Growth: The extent to which the proposed project can cause increased activity in the local or regional economy. Economic impacts can include direct effects, such as the direction and strategies implemented within the project area, and indirect or secondary impacts, such as increased commercial activity needed to serve the Kern Council of Governments’(COG) population growth forecasts for the project area.

The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to population growth is considered to be a growth-inducing impact. A physical obstacle to population growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways, water mains, and sewer lines, into areas that are not currently provided with these services is expected to support new development. Similarly, the elimination of change in a regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, can result in new population growth.

In the case of the proposed project, all public service infrastructures are currently available to the project site and will not require upgrades. Approval of the project would not facilitate development in the project area, and consequently, the proposed project would not result in growth-inducing impacts.

The increased crude oil import flexibility and process unit upgrades as a result of the implementation of the proposed project would not generate a secondary or indirect demand for other industrial services. Throughput of the refinery would remain at the historic maximum of 70,000 barrels per day. The only change would be an increase of crude oil imports via the upgraded rail terminal facility and unloading facilities.

Because the proposed project will not substantially alter the population projections adopted by the Kern COG, the secondary effects of increased demand for goods and services is independent of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce additional population growth in the County.

1.5.5 Irreversible Impacts Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines defines an irreversible impact as an impact that uses nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project. Irreversible impacts can also result from damage caused by environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to ensure that such consumption is justified. Buildout of the project would commit nonrenewable resources during project construction and ongoing utility services during project operations. During project operations, oil, gas, and other nonrenewable resources would be consumed. Therefore, an irreversible commitment of



nonrenewable resources would occur as a result of long-term project operations. However, assuming that those commitments occur in accordance with the adopted goals, policies, and implementation measures of the Kern County General Plan (KCGP), as a matter of public policy, those commitments have been determined to be acceptable. The KCGP ensures that any irreversible environmental changes associated with those commitments will be minimized.

1.6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR must address “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Based on the significant and unavoidable impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and noise, along with the proposed project objectives, several alternatives were considered as summarized below and discussed in detail in Chapter 6, Alternatives.

1.6.1 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration

Truck Transportation of Crude Oil The proposed rail loop and offloading facility will have the capacity to unload approximately two unit trains per peak day with approximately 104 tank cars each. Each DOT-111 tank car has a capacity of 34,500 gallons (821 barrels). The facility could handle up to 740 unit trains per year. The facility would be able to offload an average of 150,000 BPD into tankage with an annual crude oil/product throughput of 54,750,000 barrels. Crude oil in excess of the refinery annual capacity of 25,550,000 barrels per year would be exported to other refineries via pipeline at a rate of up to 150,000 BPD.

Trucks that transport crude oil have a capacity of 8,000 gallons. The use of trucks to transport crude oil would require approximately 287,400 truck round trips per year to achieve the same capacity as the rail unloading facility. This would result in an increase in air pollutant emissions and spill risk as compared to the proposed project. This alternative would not avoid any of the significant impacts associated with the proposed project, and would result in an increase in the severity of the significant impacts. In addition, this alternative would create new significant impacts for Transportation and Traffic, Greenhouse Gases and Noise.

Alternative Rail Unloading Sites An alternative rail unloading site would not offer any benefit over the current Alon Bakersfield Refinery site. The proposed project site is well suited to accommodating the modified rail spur, the collocation at the refinery serves to minimize additional pipeline transportation hazards and takes advantage of existing refinery assets and BNSF Railway mainline rail access. An alternative rail site would not avoid or lessen any of the significant impacts identified for the proposed project, and would likely result in greater impacts in areas such as Land Use, Biological Resources and Agriculture and potentially located on a secondary or branch rail line.

No Refinery Improvements An alternative that constructs the rail spur, but does not include the proposed refinery improvements would not allow the project the flexibility to process varying grades of crude oil and would not meet



the basic objectives of the project. The lack of refinery improvements would likely result in an increase in potential hazards associated with operating the refinery components that are proposed to be replaced.

1.6.2 Alternatives Analyzed in this EIR Alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and that would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives are analyzed below. Each alternative is discussed with respect to its relationship to the project’s objectives. Kern County has considered the following alternatives, which are also identified in Table 1-5, Comparison of Alternatives, and discussed individually below:

• Alternative A: No Project Alternative;

• Alternative B: Reduced Rail Deliveries; and

• Alternative C: Linear Rail Unloading facility.

Table 1-5 Comparison of Alternatives

Environmental Resource Project Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Air Quality: Cumulative net increase of nonattainment pollutants (construction)

Significant / unavoidable

Less severe Equivalent Slightly more severe

Biology: Substantial Adverse Effects to Special-Status Species and Habitat


Less severe Equivalent Equivalent

Biological resources: Contribute to Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts



Hydrology and Water Quality: Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements (operations)

Significant / unavoidable Less severe

Less severe, but significant unavoidable

Equivalent

Hydrology and Water Quality: Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements (cumulative)

Significant / unavoidable Less severe Equivalent Equivalent

Alternative A: No Project CEQA requires that the specific alternative of the “No Project” be evaluated along with its impacts as part of the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) (1)). For projects that are other than a land use or regulatory plan, the No Project alternative is the circumstances under which the project does not proceed. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal for another project, this No Project consequence should be discussed (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B)). The State CEQA Guidelines go on to say that the Lead Agency should analyze the impacts of the No Project Alternative by projecting what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project was not approved (Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(C)).



Air Quality The proposed project was found to have potentially significant impacts associated with NOx emissions during project construction on both a project level and cumulative basis. Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no construction emissions and this impact would be avoided.

Biological Resources Potential impacts to biological resources are all the result of crude oil transportation; in the case of the proposed project during rail transportation both on a project and cumulative basis. A reduction in the number of rail deliveries to the current baseline of 40 railcars per day would serve to reduce the risk of a unit train accident and oil spill that could impact biological resources that are directly associated with the proposed project. However, the proposed project would not affect the demand for crude oil, but would only influence how crude oil is delivered to regional refineries, thus shifting potential biological impacts to unit trains associated with other rail unloading facilities, or other modes of transportation. Therefore, this alternative does not offer any substantial or measurable benefit over the proposed project in terms of impacts to biological resources along transportation corridors.

Hydrology and Water Quality Reducing the number of unit train deliveries to the current baseline of 40 railcars per day would reduce the probability of an oil spill at the rail unloading facilities and on the rail spur, but would not change the probability and severity of other types of oil spills. Therefore, potential impacts to water quality at the refinery site are only slightly reduced over the proposed project and would still be considered significant and unavoidable.

In the unlikely event of an oil spill along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks, there would likely be no oil spill containment or cleanup equipment available, and it would likely take some time for emergency response teams to mobilize adequate spill response equipment. Depending upon the location of the spill this could allow enough time for the spill to impact water resources. Therefore, oil spills along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks could be significant and unavoidable, depending upon the location of the spill. This alternative would reduce the project-related potential for an oil spill along the BNSF mainline tracks by reducing the number of train trips. However, this would only shift the risk of an oil spill to other rail facilities along the BNSF Railway and UPRR lines, as well as other modes of transportation such as truck and pipeline.

Potential cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality result from the operations of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery and rail unloading facilities along with other large regional industrial facilities. In addition, cumulative rail impacts associated with the proposed project and other marketing terminals would have the potential to impact water quality. This alternative does not change the magnitude of this risk, but only serves to shift the risk to unit trains associated with other facilities and other modes of crude oil transportation. Therefore, this alternative does not change the cumulative risk to water quality and potential cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Conclusion and Relationship to Project Objectives The Applicant’s proposed project is to upgrade several refinery process units and the construction and operation of a rail unloading facility for crude oil. With the No Project Alternative, no refinery improvements would occur and no new rail unloading facility would be built or operated, and no



new activity would occur at proposed site beyond the current permitted activities. The refinery currently is permitted to unload up to 40 cars a day of crude oil on 20 existing unloading spots. Crude oil would continue to be delivered to the refinery by pipeline, rail and truck.

The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.

Alternative B: Reduced Rail Deliveries With this alternative the number of train deliveries to the Alon Bakersfield Refinery would be limited to a maximum of seven per week (the proposed project would allow a maximum of 14 trains per week), with an annual total of 370 trains.

All other aspects of this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. The reader is referred to Chapter 3, Project Description, for a detailed description of the construction and operations of the rail spur.

Air Quality As a result of the Project NOx emissions within the SJVAB are expected to increase by 202 tons per year. This is because of a significant increase in the number of unit trains transporting crude oil to the refinery, and because these trips are assumed to traverse nearly the entire north-south extent of the air basin. This is a worst-case assumption since unit trains may instead travel on an east-west route, which would result in 65 percent fewer emissions within the SJVAB. As a result, NOx emission increases associated with the proposed project are expected to have a significant adverse impact on air quality. This alternative would reduce the amount of NOx emissions associated with the proposed project’s rail transportation, but would likely shift these emissions to other rail unloading facilities or other modes of transportation. The proposed project would not affect the demand for crude oil, but would only influence how crude oil is delivered to regional refineries. Therefore, NOx emissions associated with crude oil deliveries would not likely be much different than under the current baseline. As a result, this alternative does not offer any substantial or measurable benefit over the proposed project for cumulative emissions of a nonattainment pollutant.

Biological Resources Potential impacts to biological resources are all the result of crude oil transportation; in the case of the proposed project during rail transportation both on a project and cumulative basis. A reduction in the number of rail deliveries would serve to reduce the risk of a unit train accident and oil spill that could impact biological resources that are directly associated with the proposed project. However, the proposed project would not affect the demand for crude oil, but would only influence how crude oil is delivered to regional refineries, thus shifting potential biological impacts to unit trains associated with other rail unloading facilities, or other modes of transportation. Therefore, this alternative does not offer any substantial or measurable benefit over the proposed project in terms of impacts to biological resources along transportation corridors.

Hydrology and Water Quality This alternative could potentially reduce the severity of an impact associated with an oil spill at the refinery. Depending on the location of a spill (i.e., whether the spill drains into sumps and onsite treatment facilities and whether the leak is above ground or below ground), and the timing and adequacy of the spill response, there may be sufficient time for surface spills to infiltrate onsite soils and further impact underlying groundwater quality. Therefore, depending on these variables, water



quality impacts could be significant and unavoidable. Reducing the number of unit train deliveries would reduce the probability of an oil spill at the rail unloading facilities and on the rail spur, but would not change the probability and severity of other types of oil spills. Therefore, potential impacts to water quality at the refinery site are only slightly reduced over the proposed project and would still be considered significant and unavoidable.



Conclusion and Relationship to Project Objectives While this alternative would have the potential to reduce the level of significant impacts that have been identified for the proposed project, the impacts would still be considered significant and unavoidable.

Additionally, the reduced project would only minimally meet the project objectives, and while still providing enough crude oil to service the refinery, would significantly hinder the functionality of the marketing terminal aspect of the proposed project. In the absence of crude oil from the marketing terminal for distribution to regional refineries, these refineries will be required to obtain crude oil feedstock elsewhere. As a result, the reduced rail project only serves to shift potential impacts to other rail facilities and modes of crude oil transportation. Since the demand for crude oil is market driven, the reduced project would not change how much oil is transported throughout the region, but would only shift where crude oil is obtained and how it is transported. The proposed project offers a central distribution point for crude oil that is imported from other regions and concentrates potential environmental impacts at the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery site that is zoned for heavy industry.

This alternative would only minimally meet the project objectives, and would limit the project’s ability to meet the objective of provide crude oil to third parties.



Alternative C: Linear Rail Unloading Configuration The proposed project would use a loop track configuration for the delivery and unloading of the crude oil unit trains. An alternative track layout would be to use a linear ladder stub track configuration.

Modification of the existing rail spur would include constructing six parallel tracks, each long enough to hold a third of a train. The existing rail spur on the eastern portion of the property currently provides rail access to the existing unloading rack and would provide a entry point for the new tracks and unloading rack. Trains arriving from the west would be required to back into the refinery. Two of the tracks would surround an unloading rack while a third track would serve as the run around track to the receiving and staging location. All three tracks, two unloading and the run around come together and then would come together to form a common track that extends to the west of the loading area to allow for the entire train to be broken into sections to be parked off of the mainline track and staged to allow switching for unloading. Six holding or staging stub end ladder tracks would extend in a north south orientation in Area 4 to allow a train to be received from the BNSF Railway. The tracks are summarized below:

• Existing Refinery Spur Track 103 – The existing refinery spur track provides access from the BNSF south mainline track to the refinery from the east. This existing track may be upgraded as part of this project.

• Tracks 8 and 9 (Rail Car Unloading Tracks) – These unloading tracks would run on either side of the unloading rack to allow for rail car unloading. These tracks join with each other at both ends of the unloading rack and merges with Track 2 after the unloading rack. The unloading rack is designed to unload 26 rail cars at a time on each track for a total of 52 cars.

• Tracks 1-6 3 (Car Holding Tracks) – These six stub ended ladder tracks run along the western portion of the refinery and would be used to receive unit trains as well as staging empty cars after unloading id complete. Due to constraints of available land the trains received would require to be broken into up to three sections per train.

Bad Order Track – This track consists of one short section (accommodating up to ten cars) running to the side of run around spur track. This existing track would be used for rail cars requiring inspection and/or repair before continued use, as needed. Air Quality

As a result of the project NOx emissions within the SJVAB are expected to increase by 202 tons per year. This is because of a significant increase in the number of unit trains transporting crude oil to the refinery, and because these trips are assumed to traverse nearly the entire north-south extent of the air basin. This is a worst-case assumption since unit trains may instead travel on an east-west route, which would result in 65 percent fewer emissions within the SJVAB. As a result, NOx emission increases associated with the proposed project are expected to have a significant adverse impact on air quality. This alternative does not offer any substantial or measurable benefit over the proposed project for cumulative emissions of a nonattainment pollutant. This alternative would have a footprint that is similar in magnitude when compared to the proposed project loop rail spur, and therefore, a slight reduction in construction emissions. However, potential impacts associated with construction of the rail spur are considered less than significant.



Biological Resources Potential impacts to biological resources are all the result of crude oil transportation; in the case of the proposed project during rail transportation both on a project and cumulative basis. This alternative would have identical impacts to the proposed project since the number of rail deliveries would remain the same.

Hydrology and Water Quality This alternative would have no effect on the severity of an impact associated with an oil spill at the refinery. Depending on the location of a spill (i.e., whether the spill drains into sumps and onsite treatment facilities and whether the leak is above ground or below ground), and the timing and adequacy of the spill response, there may be sufficient time for surface spills to infiltrate onsite soils and further impact underlying groundwater quality. Changing the rail spur configuration would not change the probability and severity of an oil spill on the rail spur or any other types of oil spills. Therefore, potential impacts to water quality at the refinery site would not change under this alternative and would still be considered significant and unavoidable.

In the unlikely event of an oil spill along the BNSF mainline tracks, there would likely be no oil spill containment or cleanup equipment available, and it would likely take some time for emergency response teams to mobilize adequate spill response equipment. Depending upon the location of the spill this could allow enough time for the spill to impact water resources. This alternative would not change this impact, which would remain significant and unavoidable.

Potential cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality result from the operations of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery and rail unloading facilities along with other large regional industrial facilities. In addition, cumulative rail impacts associated with the proposed Project and other marketing terminals would have the potential to impact water quality. This alternative does not change this risk. Therefore, this alternative does not change the cumulative risk to water quality and potential cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Conclusion and Relationship to Project Objectives The use of a rail spur linear configuration track layout instead of the proposed loop configuration does not offer any environmental benefit, and may result in slightly higher air emissions during unloading activities.

All Project-related significant and unavoidable impacts would remain the same for this alternative. Therefore, this alternative does not offer any environmental benefit over the proposed project.

1.6.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative to the project. Alternative A: the No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the project on the basis of the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the no project alternative is found to be environmentally superior, “the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” Although Alternative A is the environmentally superior alternative, it is not capable of meeting most of the basic objectives of the project.



Though the other alternatives have a relatively similar magnitude of impacts, Alternative B offers a very slight reduction of impacts to Air Quality and Hydrology/Water Quality; and is therefore considered the environmentally superior alternative.

As described above, Alternative B would achieve most of the project’s objectives, although at a lower level of production. Alternative C would slightly reduce significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and Hydrology/Water Quality compared to the proposed project, although probably not to less than significant levels. Additionally, Alterative B would either shift potential impacts to other areas or modes of crude oil transportation, which reduces any significant environmental benefit over the proposed project.

It is also noted that the project’s refinery enhancements will serve to reduce impacts associated with the replacement of some aging equipment, and the centralization of the rail spur and marketing terminal at the existing refinery result in an efficient method for distributing crude oil in the region with the least environmental risk.

1.7 Areas of Controversy Areas of controversy were identified through written agency and public comments received during the scoping period. Public comments received during scoping are provided in Appendix A. In summary, the following issues were identified during scoping and are addressed in the appropriate sections of Chapter 4:

• Air Quality − CEQA baseline − Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) − Compliance with District Rules and Regulations

• Biological Resources − Impacts to special status species San Joaquin Kit Fox and Burrowing Owl − Disturbance of nesting birds

• Hazards and Hazardous Materials − Rail crossing safety − Construction adjacent to rail corridor − Rail construction standards − Construction near active and abandoned oil and gas wells

• Hydrology and Water Quality − Current and projected water use at the refinery − Wastewater disposal options and requirements

• Transportation and Traffic − Evaluation of transportation routes − Rail crossing traffic

1.8 Issues to Be Resolved Section 15123(b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain issues to be resolved, which includes the choices among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts.



The major issues to be resolved regarding the project include decisions by the lead agency as to whether or not:

• The Draft EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project; • The recommended mitigation measures should be adopted or modified; or, • Additional mitigation measures need to be applied.

1.9 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation The following is a summary of the environmental impacts of the project, mitigation measures, and unavoidable significant impacts identified and analyzed in Chapter 4.0 of this EIR. Refer to the appropriate EIR section for additional mitigation.



Table 1-6. Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Impacts after Mitigation

Impact Level of Significance

before Mitigation

Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance

after Mitigation

Air Quality

Impact 4.1-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Potentially significant

MM 4.1-1 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for the project, the project proponent shall develop a Fugitive Dust Control Plan in compliance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions during construction. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall include:

a. Name(s), address(es), and phone number(s) of person(s) responsible for the preparation, submission, and implementation of the plan;

b. Description and location of operation(s); and

c. Listing of all fugitive dust emissions sources included in the operation.

d. The following dust control measures shall be implemented:

1. All on-site unpaved roads shall be effectively stabilized using soil stabilizers that can be determined to be as efficient as or more efficient for fugitive dust control than California Air Resources Board approved soil stabilizers, and that shall not increase any other environmental impacts including loss of vegetation.

2. All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive dust. Watering will occur as needed with complete coverage of disturbed areas. The excavated soil piles will be watered hourly for the duration of construction or covered with temporary coverings.

3. Construction activities that occur on unpaved surfaces will be discontinued during windy conditions when winds exceed 25 miles per hour and those activities cause visible dust plumes. Construction activities may continue if dust suppression measures are used to minimize visible dust plumes. The measures shall follow the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) or more stringent measures to ensure that: 1) the visible dust plumes are not transported off the project site or within 400 feet of any regularly occupied structure not owned by the project proponent; and, 2) the visible dust plumes generated from linear construction are not transported 200 feet beyond the centerline

Less than significant





before Mitigation


after Mitigation

of the linear facilities and do not cause a traffic obscuration hazard on public roads.

4. Track-out shall not extend 25 feet or more from an active operation and track-out shall be removed at the conclusion of each workday.

5. All hauling materials should be moist while being loaded into dump trucks. All haul trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered (e.g., with tarps or other enclosures that would reduce fugitive dust emissions).

6. Soil loads should be kept below 18 inches or the freeboard of the truck.

7. Drop heights should be minimized when loaders dump soil into trucks.

8. Gate seals should be tight on dump trucks.

9. Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

10. All grading activities shall be suspended when wind speeds are greater than 30 miles per hour.

11. Other fugitive dust control measures as necessary to comply with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations.

12. Disturbed areas should be minimized.

13. Disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible after disturbance.

MM 4.1-2 The project proponent shall continuously comply with the following during construction and operation of the project:

To control emissions from the on-site off-road construction equipment: a. All off-road construction diesel engines not registered under California Air Resources

Board’s Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program, which have a rating of 50 horsepower or more, shall meet, at a minimum, the Tier 3 California Emission Standards for Off-road Compression-Ignition Engines as specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 2423(b)(1) unless that such engine is not available for a particular item of equipment. In the event a Tier 3 engine is not available for any off-road engine larger than 100 horsepower, that engine shall be equipped with retrofit controls that would provide





before Mitigation


after Mitigation

nitrogen oxides and particulate matter emissions that are equivalent to Tier 3 engine. b. All equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Engine idling of all equipment shall be

minimized. c. All equipment engines shall be maintained in good operating condition and in proposed

tune per manufacturers’ specifications.

To control NOx emissions from on-road heavy-duty diesel haul vehicles that are contracted on a continuing basis for use to haul equipment and materials for the project: a. 2007 engines or pre-2007 engines with CARB certified Level 3 diesel emission controls

will be used to the extent possible. b. All on-road construction vehicles, except those meeting the 2007/CARB certified Level 3

diesel emissions controls, shall meet all applicable California on-road emission standards and shall be licensed in the State of California. This does not apply to worker personal vehicles.

c. The construction contractor shall ensure that all on-road construction vehicles are properly tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.

To control fugitive dust emissions from the use of unpaved roads on the site: a. Unpaved roads at the site shall be stabilized using water or soil stabilizers so that vehicle

travel on these roads does not cause visible dust plumes. b. Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to no more than 15 miles per hour.

Traffic speed signs shall be displayed prominently at all site entrances and at egress point(s) from the central maintenance complex.

To control emissions from the on-site dedicated equipment (i.e. equipment that would remain on site each day): a. All equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Engine idling of all equipment shall be

minimized. b. All equipment engines shall be maintained in good operating condition and in proposed

tune per manufacturers’ specifications. Impact 4.1-2: Violate any air quality standard as adopted or established by EPA or air


Implement Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 and MM 4.1-2. Less than significant





before Mitigation


after Mitigation

district or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Impact 4.1-3: Result in a project level considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).


Implement Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 and MM 4.1-2. Significant and Unavoidable

Impact 4.1-4: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.


MM 4.1-3 The project applicant will ensure that: a) construction workers are educated regarding the symptoms and potential health effects associated with exposure to Coccidioides immitis fungus spores; and b) construction workers are provided with personal protective equipment such as respiratory equipment (masks), if requested. This will reduce potential exposure to airborne dust and facilitate recognition of symptoms and earlier treatment of Valley Fever.


Impact 4.1-5: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.


No additional mitigation measures are required. Less than significant

Impact 4.1-6: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts


Implement Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 and MM 4.1-2. Significant and Unavoidable





before Mitigation


after Mitigation


Impact 4.2-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


MM 4.2-1 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project Proponent shall hire a qualified biologist acceptable to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to conduct a preconstruction site survey within any open space areas that may be affected by construction activities that may support special‐status species. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted 30 to 60 days before ground‐disturbing activities begin except for the kit fox. The following shall be included in preconstruction surveys.

1. San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey: A qualified biologist with experience searching for potential San Joaquin kit fox dens shall conduct preconstruction surveys no more than 48 hours prior to any initial earth disturbing activity. Surveys will be conducted by a qualified biologist with experience searching for this species. This biologist will be the project‐ designated biologist. Potential dens will be inspected to determine occupancy. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied it will be closed to prevent animal entry. Any discovered unoccupied burrows or dens will be excavated so that no unobserved animal is injured during the soil movement activities. If the den is occupied, the salvage provision from the MBHCP will be implemented and the wildlife agencies will have five days to salvage any species. Grading will not commence until this five‐day salvage period has expired.

2. Burrowing Owl Survey: A qualified biologist with experience searching for potential burrowing owl burrows shall conduct pre‐construction surveys no more than 48 hours prior to any initial earth disturbing activity. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season (September 1 through January 31), those burrows should be avoided by a suitable buffer distance, as determined by a qualified biologist. This distance would vary depending on season, existing disturbances, etc. During nesting season, burrow avoidance should continue until young have fledged. As an alternative, passive and/or active relocation efforts may be undertaken if approved by CDFW and USFWS.

3. Native Bird and Raptor Survey: In compliance with Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, if grading is to occur during the native

Significant and Unavoidable





before Mitigation


after Mitigation

bird and raptor nesting breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a survey will be conducted prior to grading activities to determine the presence of any native bird and raptor nests. If species that are susceptible to disturbance are identified, CDFW and USFWS will be contacted. Grading activities will comply with all appropriate procedures relative to construction operations in proximity to any active nests if these activities are to occur prior to fledging of young. Resulting mitigation measures may include restricting construction activities near native bird and raptor nesting sites during the breeding season.

MM 4.2-2 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project proponent shall implement and continuously adhere to the following measures to minimize potential impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox.

1. Occupied kit fox dens shall not be disturbed during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31). Although no dens are known to be active at the proposed project site, the applicant will comply with USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (1999) for den avoidance, exclusion zone, and closure. Until cleared by the designated biologist and the USFWS, a potential den will have a minimum of 50‐foot radius work exclusion zone, known dens will have a 100‐foot radius exclusion, and natal dens will require immediate USFWS contact. Exclusion zones will be established with metal t‐bar fence posts supporting brightly colored yellow rope with “restricted area” or other avoidance notification signage.

2. No construction will occur outside of the defined proposed project area (which includes the lay down areas). The existing site fencing will be maintained and any gaps or openings will be closed as soon as feasible to minimize kit fox access to the site.

3. Project‐related vehicles shall observe a 20 mile per hour speed limit in all areas of the proposed project. Evening and night traffic will be restricted to the extent possible. Dusk, sunrise, and night traffic shall observe a 10 mph speed limit when kit fox are most active if traffic must travel through the site at these times.

4. Rail traffic associated with the proposed project will be limited to 10 mph speed limit through





before Mitigation


after Mitigation

the project site.

5. All food‐related trash items shall be disposed of in closed containers and removed from the construction site no less than once per week to prevent access by wildlife.

6. No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.

7. No domestic pets, such as dogs or cats, should be permitted on the project site to prevent harassment or mortality of kit foxes or destruction of dens.

8. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar material or structures having a diameter of four inches or greater and a length of four feet or longer, if stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for animal hiding inside before the pipe is buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way.

9. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep‐walled holes or trenches more than 2‐feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen‐fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the USFWS and CDFW shall be contacted.

10. A representative of the project proponent will be appointed as the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped kit fox. The representative will be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number will be provided to USFWS.

11. An employee education program will be conducted by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and/or agency personnel involved in the project. The education program will include: A description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project area; an explanation of the status of the species and its





before Mitigation


after Mitigation

protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during project construction and implementation.A fact sheet conveying this information will be prepared for distribution to employees and contractors and anyone else who may enter the project site.

12. Any temporary or permanent lighting will be shielded or directed to minimize light pollution beyond the project limits.

13. The project applicant will mitigate the potential to affect San Joaquin kit fox and comply with Section 10 of the FESA by participating in and paying impact fees to the MBHCP. The MBHCP Joint Powers Authority will determine the impact fee based on impacted acreage associated with the proposed project footprint (disturbed area). If the applicant does not participate in the MBHCP, then the project applicant will complete consultation with or obtain a Section 10 permit from the USFWS.

14. The proposed project will comply with the County Ordinance of San Joaquin Kit Fox (MBHCP 17.62.070, Salvage), as applicable. No later than five working days prior to the initiation of any ground disturbance activities by an urban development permittee on parcels containing known dens, the urban development permittee shall notify the regional offices of the CDFW and the USFWS of the intent to initiate ground disturbance activities and shall agree to permit appropriate access for salvage purposes.

15. Rodenticide or herbicide use will conform to the USFWS‐approved methodologies.

16. Any contractor, employee or agency personnel who is responsible for inadvertently killing or injuring a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to the representative described in Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(j). This representative shall contact the CDFW immediately in the case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox.

17. The USFWS and CDFW shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during project‐related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal.





before Mitigation


after Mitigation

18. New sightings of kit fox shall be report to the California Natural Diversity Database. A copy of the reporting form and topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed should also be provided to the USFWS.

Impact 4.2-2: Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Any Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, Regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Implement MM 4.2-1 and 4.2-2. Significant and Unavoidable

Impact 4.2-3: Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Federally Protected Wetlands as Defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Including, but not Limited to, Marsh, Vernal Pool, Coastal, etc.) Through Direct Removal, Filling, Hydrological interruption, or Other Means



Impact 4.2-4: Interfere Substantially with the Movement of any Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or with Established Native Resident


Implement MM 4.2-1 and 4.2-2. Less than significant





before Mitigation


after Mitigation

or Migratory Wildlife Corridors, or Impede the Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites

Impact 4.2-5: Contribute to Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts



Cultural Resources

Impact 4.3-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource as Defined in CEQA Guideline 15064.5



Impact 4.3-2: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15064.5


MM 4.3-1 The project proponent shall provide for a qualified archeologist to monitor earthmoving activities outside of the existing developed portions of the Refinery (i.e., along the southern portion of the Refinery along the proposed railroad tracks). The archaeologist shall be authorized to temporarily halt construction, if necessary, in the immediate area of buried cultural resources that are encountered. The monitor shall maintain a daily monitoring log which describes monitoring activities and results. This report shall be submitted within 90 days of completion of the archaeological monitoring to Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, the project proponent, and the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield

MM 4.3-2 Unanticipated Discovery Protocol

1. If the qualified archeologist discovers evidence of unique archeological resources, as defined in Public Resources Code §21083.2(g),(during excavation, all work within 60 feet of the discovery site shall stop until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find.






before Mitigation


after Mitigation

2. Notification requirements for unique archaeological resources include the immediate notification by the proposed proponent to a qualified archaeologist and to the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department

3. For unique archaeological resources, consultation with the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department; the qualified archaeologist; Native American representatives (if appropriate); the project proponent; and other appropriate agencies; to develop appropriate measures for the discovered resource in consultation with appropriate agencies and work will not resume until permission is received from Kern County. The appropriate measures to handle the unique archaeological resources shall be guided by the requirements of PRC §21083.2 which can include preserving the resources in place or excavation.

4. Per Public Resources Code §21083.2(g) non-unique archaeological resources shall be recorded at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield.

MM 4.3-3 Curation Requirements

Archaeological collections, final reports, field notes, and other standard documentation collected during project implementation shall be permanently curated at a facility in the County that meets Guidelines for the Curation of Archeological Collections (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1993).

MM 4.3-4 Standards for Discovery of Human Remains

If human remains are discovered, work in the immediate vicinity shall stop until the Kern County coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If they are those of a Native American, the following would apply:

1. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission.





before Mitigation


after Mitigation

2. If released by the coroner, these remains shall be left in situ and covered by fabric or other temporary barriers.

3. The human remains shall be protected until Kern County and the Native American Heritage Commission come to a decision on the final disposition of the remains.

According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052).

MM 4.3-5 All cultural resource investigations shall be documented in high quality technical reports that meet professional standards (e.g., California Office of Historic Preservation’s Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Contents and Format, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines). Reports shall be made available to professional archaeologists and (without confidential site location information) to the interested public.

Impact 4.3-3: Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature



Impact 4.3-4: Disturb any Human Remains, Including those Interred outside of Formal Cemeteries


Implement MM 4.3-4. Less than significant

Impact 4.3-5: Contribute to Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts


Implement MM 4.3-1- MM 4.3-5 Less than significant

Geology and Soils

Impact 4.4-1: Expose Less than No additional mitigation measures are required. Less than significant





before Mitigation


after Mitigation

People or Structures to Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving the Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault

significant

Impact 4.4-2: Expose People or Structures to Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Strong Seismic Ground Shaking


MM 4.4-1 The project shall provide evidence of the following prior to the issuance of grading or building permits:

a. A Registered Civil Engineer and Certified Engineering Geologist shall complete an updated geotechnical investigation specific to the rail spur and process unit modification sites. All geotechnical recommendations provided in the report shall be followed during grading and construction at the project site. The updated geotechnical evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, an estimation of both vertical and horizontal anticipated peak ground accelerations, as well as an updated liquefaction analysis.

b. The Applicant shall cease rail car unloading following any perceptible (i.e., felt by humans) seismic event and inspect all project-related facilities, equipment, and pipelines for damage prior to restarting operations.


Impact 4.4.3: Expose People or Structures to Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Seismic-related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction



Impact 4.4-4: Result in Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil


MM 4.4-2 Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the project proponent shall submit Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control Plans which shall be designed to minimize erosion and shall include the following:

a. Methods such as geotextile fabrics, erosion control blankets, retention basins, drainage diversion






before Mitigation


after Mitigation

structures, siltation basins, and spot grading will be used to reduce erosion and siltation into adjacent water bodies or storm drains during grading and construction activities.

b. All entrances/exits to the project site will be stabilized (e.g., using rumble plates, gravel beds or other best available technology) to reduce transport of sediment offsite. Any sediment or other materials tracked offsite will be removed the same day as they are tracked using dry cleaning methods.

c. Grading on slopes steeper than 5:1 will be designed to minimize surface water runoff.

Impact 4.4-5: Be Located on Expansive Soil, as Defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), Creating Substantial Risks to Life or Property



Impact 4.4-6: Have Soils Incapable of Adequately Supporting the Use of Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems Where Sewers Are Not Available for the Disposal of Wastewater



Impact 4.6-7: Contribute to Cumulative Geologic and Soils Impacts


Implement MM 4.4-1 and MM 4.4-2. Less than significant

Greenhouse Gases

Impact 4.5-1: Generate Greenhouse Gas







before Mitigation


after Mitigation

Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly, That May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment.

Impact 4.5-2: Conflict with any Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases.



Impact 4.5-3: Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts



Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Impact 4.6-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.


MM 4.6-1 Prior to: (1) the issuance of the first grading or building permit associated with the Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project (Project); (2) commencement of construction of new rail facilities associated with the project; or, (3) commencement of operational activities associated with the Project (including operation of any new or modified equipment and/or facilities related to the proposed project); whichever occurs first; the project proponent shall provide evidence to the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department of compliance with the following mitigation measures or an anticipated date of completion as approved by the County:

1. Prior to the resumption of any refining process equipment related to the Project, the project proponent shall update the refinery safety procedures and provide certification to the Kern






before Mitigation


after Mitigation

County Planning and Community Development Department that the documents have been updated and approved by relevant oversight agency prior to the startup of the process units; and the project proponent shall also provide documentation to the County that the pre-startup reviews, as specified by the State and federal safety regulations, have been conducted and approved by relevant agencies prior to startup of the process units.

2. Prior to the startup of any specific process units or pieces of equipment related to the Project, the Project Proponent shall consult with the Kern County and City of Bakersfield Fire Departments to determine the need for and establish a schedule for implementation of any specialized training to appropriate Staff in the areas needed to mitigate related hazardous material emergencies that might arise at the refinery for the first responder crews at fire stations which provide service to the refinery site.

3. Concurrent with an application for a building permit for any specific process unit or pieces of equipment, including but not limited to rail facilities, related to the Project, the project proponent shall provide a Fire Protection Engineering Consultant to the Kern County Fire Department for the plan check review process. The Fire Department will provide a list of qualified consultants to the project proponent for selection. The Consultant will provide the Fire Department with a review of the design plans prior to issuance of building permit. The Consultant will also be responsible to provide onsite fire and life safety inspections for the same equipment and facilities during the construction process along with the County or City Building Inspector, as applicable.

4. Concurrent with an application for a building permit for any specific process units or pieces of equipment, including but not limited to rail facilities, related to the Project, the Project Proponent shall provide a Fire Protection Specialist/Fire Protection Engineering Consultant to the Kern County Fire Department for use during the plan review phase to develop a third party Fire and Life Safety Plan that will be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of the building permit. The Project Proponent will be allowed to select the Specialist from a list of qualified individuals provided by the Fire Department. Furthermore, the Project Proponent and the Fire Protection Specialist shall develop a comprehensive Fire and Life Safety plan for





before Mitigation


after Mitigation

equipment and facilities associated with the Project that describes the methods to reduce the potential of an uncontrolled fire thus reducing the threat to life and property. These plans must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to commencement of operations.

MM 4.6-2 Prior to the commencement of project operations, the Project Proponent shall provide evidence of compliance with the following measures related to the Kern County Environmental Health Division of the Public Health Department:

1. The project proponent shall provide sensors and/or detectors at the refinery site, if determined necessary and as approved by the Environmental Health Division. The purpose of the sensors will be to provide early notification of an accidental release of large quantities of toxic and flammable gasses/vapors from hazardous materials stored or generated on site.

2. The project proponent shall comply with all regulations pertaining to the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Program elements consolidated under the CUPA are: Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan, Chemical Inventory, Hazardous Waste Generator, Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs, California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP), Underground Storage Tanks, and Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC). The Hazardous Materials Business Plan must be completed prior to operations of the facility into the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS).

3. The project proponent shall provide (or maintain if already in place) a locked storage location (Knox box or equivalent) outside the main entrance or other mutually agreed to location that can be accessed by first responders. If permitted by U.S. Department of Home Land Security regulations, it shall also provide first responders with the ability to access the site immediately and shall contain the following information:

• Hazardous materials business plan

• MSDS sheets for all chemicals stored at the site

• Emergency contact numbers





before Mitigation


after Mitigation

4. The project proponent shall develop a letter/pamphlet/brochure to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Environmental Health Division that provides information to the residences/businesses within the impact area of the off-site consequence analysis (OCA) as deemed appropriate by that Agency. The information must describe the OCA findings and actions to follow in the event of a release from any covered Cal ARP process.

5. The project proponent shall provide documentation of an Emergency Response Plan for the accidental release of all applicable hazardous materials. A continuous training program for employees shall be established to ensure a proper response to a release will occur and public health will be protected. Issues of site security, off-site monitoring, and public notification in the event of a release must be included. The Emergency Response Plan shall be developed in conjunction with the Environmental Health Division and the Kern County Fire Department.

MM 4.6-3 The Project Proponent shall continuously comply with the following during operation of the project:

1. The Project Proponent shall be responsible to contribute annually to the Kern County Fire Department for the reverse 9-1-1 system, based upon the number of addresses that would be directly affected by a major emergency at the facility requiring surrounding residences to shelter-in-place or evacuate, as determined by the County.

2. Any structures constructed adjacent to an active or abandoned crude oil production well shall maintain a distance of at least 10 feet on two sides, no less than 50 feet on a third side and the forth side shall remain open to allow for well access. This condition shall not require the demolition or moving of any existing structures; unless required by the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources.

Impact 4.6-2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of


MM 4.6-4 Upon startup of the Project-related operations at the rail terminal, the Project Operator shall continuously maintain a log of all train crude oil deliveries to the Alon Bakersfield Refinery facility in a manner specified by the Kern County Fire Department and shall provide the log and shipping manifests to the Kern County Fire Department upon request. The log must include, but is not limited to: type of crude being transported in each tank car, location from where the crude derived, and type of tank car.






before Mitigation


after Mitigation

hazardous materials into the environment.

MM 4.6-5 Prior to the issuance of the first grading or building permit associated with equipment and facilities related to Project, the Project Proponent shall fund the purchase and delivery to the Fire Department of a fully equipped Industrial Foam pumper/tender, which will be housed and maintained by the Kern County Fire Department; and an additional 2,500 gallon cache of Class B foam to be provided to the Department to be stored at an off-site location. The Industrial Foam pumper/tender, with its onboard foam capabilities, and the 2,500 gallon cache of Class B foam, will allow the Department to have the specialized capabilities and equipment necessary to control and contain a fire or product leak emergency that occurs at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery.

The Industrial Foam pumper/tender and 2,500 gallon cache of Class B foam shall adhere to the following minimum standards.

a. The Industrial Foam pumper/tender shall be manufactured to the Kern County Fire Department’s standards and the Fire Department shall order Industrial Foam pumper/tender within 90 days of the issuance of the first grading or building permit for the project.

b. The Industrial Foam pumper/tender must be purchased, constructed, and delivered (construction and delivery time is estimated to be nine months) to the Kern County Fire Department 30 days prior to the start-up of the project. Additional time may be required in order to place the Industrial Foam pumper/tender in service and to allow for training personnel assigned to operate the pumper.

c. The Industrial Foam pumper/tender shall be fully equipped to Kern County Fire Department specifications.

d. The final authority on the specifications for the Industrial Foam Pumper/Tender shall rest with the Kern County Fire Department. The project proponent’s contribution toward the purchase of the Industrial Foam pumper shall not exceed $1,000,000.00 and contribution toward the foam/tender cache shall not exceed $75,000.

e. The Title for the Industrial Foam Pumper/Tender shall be transferred to the County upon delivery.





before Mitigation


after Mitigation

f. The cache of foam shall meet the Kern County Fire Department’s standards.

g. If the Kern County Fire Department responds to an emergency at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery and uses the cache of foam to control or contain the emergency, the Project Proponent will be required to replace the amount used within 30 days of the incident.

The requirement for on-site foam storage shall be determined based on the potential tank storage or railcar numbers during the fire protection plan review, with a minimum requirement of 2,500 gallons. The Kern County Fire Department may increase the minimum size of the Class B foam cache following review of the fire protection plan. If so increased, the project applicant shall be required to maintain a cache of Class B foam in such an increased amount.

MM 4.6-6 The project proponent shall continuously comply with the following during operation of the facility:

a. The project proponent shall maintain adequate records of all crude oil received at the rail terminal via rail and train deliveries. These records shall be in the form of formal manifests that accompany each shipment and which properly label the crude materials, based on levels of volatility and as required by the applicable federal and State regulatory requirements. These records shall be continuously maintained on the refinery site for no less than three years and shall be made readily available for inspection by appropriate County, State and federal agencies.

b. The project proponent/operator shall work with rail carriers delivering crude oil to the proposed rail terminal to ensure compliance with any Emergency Order (EO) issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) related to requirements for rail carriers to notify State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs), and others as specified by the EO, regarding the expected routing of the Project’s unit trains of Bakken crude oil. The notice shall include, but not be limited to the following information:

1. reasonable estimate of the number of trains carrying 1,000,000 gallons or more of Bakken crude oil, per week and by county;

2. with the crude oil identified and described in accordance with 49 CFR part 172, subpart





before Mitigation


after Mitigation

C;

3. with the emergency response information required by 49 CFR part 172, subpart G; and

4. the routes over which the crude oil will be transported.

MM 4.6-7 Prior to the startup of equipment and facilities related to the Project, the Project Proponent shall provide evidence of completion of the following:

a. The Project Proponent shall provide the Kern County Fire Department with personal or hand-held monitoring devices that provide first responders with the capability to monitor toxic gases; including but not limited to: organic gases (LEL), hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and oxygen levels, etc during an emergency at the facility. The monitoring devices shall be to the Kern County Fire Department specifications.

b. The Project Proponent shall arrange for initial onsite training to Kern County Fire Department Staff, as identified by the Fire Department, to familiarize Fire Department Staff with the Bakersfield refinery so they can better respond to and mitigate hazardous material emergencies that might arise at the project site for the crews that are stationed at Fire Station 66 (Landco), Fire Station 61 (Norris), and Fire Station 65 (Greenacres). This will also be an annual requirement to train personnel from these three (3) Kern County Fire Department stations.

Impact 4.6-3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.







before Mitigation


after Mitigation

Impact 4.6-4: Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts


Implement MM 4.6-1- MM 4.6-3 Less than significant


Impact 4.7-1: Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements


MM 4.7-1 The project proponent shall continuously adhere to and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) and a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan, including but not limited to the following practices:

a. Personnel at the site shall be trained in equipment use and containment and cleanup of an oil spill. Dry cleanup methods, such as absorbents, shall be used on paved and impermeable surfaces. Spills in dirt areas shall be immediately contained with an earthen dike and the contaminated soil shall be dug up and discarded in accordance with local and state regulations.

b. During construction and operations, oil spills shall be contained and cleaned according to measures outlined in the California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practice Handbook.

c. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the existing 2011 Alon Refinery Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan shall be amended to reflect operation of the proposed rail car unloading facility, storage tanks, and upgraded infrastructure. The plan shall outline response actions in the event of a spill, including a spill response trailer, equipment, and personnel training. The plan shall outline steps that would be taken, including identification and elimination of the spill, containment of the spill, notification of the designated emergency response coordinators, and initiation of clean-up measures, using either onsite

Significant and Unavoidable





before Mitigation


after Mitigation

equipment and/or outside emergency response contractors. Spill notification shall include both verbal notification and written notification to the U.S. EPA, State of California, Kern County, and local law enforcement, fire, and ambulance. The plan shall be completed prior to operation of the unloading facility, storage tanks, and other upgraded infrastructure. Spill cleanup shall be completed under the oversight of the lead regulatory agency, with respect to oil spills, as identified in the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan.

Impact 4.7-2: Substantially Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Recharge Such That There Would be a Net Deficit in Aquifer Volume or a Lowering of the Local Groundwater Table Level



Impact 4.7-3: Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of the Site or Area, Including through the Alteration of the Course of a Stream or River, or Substantially Increase the Rate or Amount of Surface Runoff in a Manner Which Would Result in Substantial Erosion or Siltation On-site or Off-site







before Mitigation


after Mitigation

Impact 4.7-4: Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of the Site or Area, Including through the Alteration of the Course of a Stream or River, or Substantially Increase the Rate or Amount of Surface Runoff in a Manner Which Would Result in Substantial Flooding On-site or Off-site



Impact 4.7-5: Create or Contribute Runoff Water Which Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff



Impact 4.7-6: Otherwise substantially degrade water quality



Impact 4.7-7: Place Structures within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows


MM 4.7-2 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project proponent shall demonstrate the following: With the exception of the rail loops, any project components constructed within the 100-year floodplain shall be designed such that the foundations are above base flood elevations of 387 to 389 feet above mean sea level, as established on Flood Insurance Rate Map 06029C2277E, dated September 26, 2008, or protected from flooding by containment berms or other protective measures constructed to the standards of the Kern County Floodplain Management Code.






before Mitigation


after Mitigation

Impact 4.7-8: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam



Impact 4.7-9: Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts


Implement mitigation measures MM 4.7-1 and 4.7-2. Significant and Unavoidable

Land Use and Planning

Impact 4.8-1: Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation of an Agency with Jurisdiction over the Project Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect



Impact 4.8-2: Conflict with Any Applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan



Impact 4.8-3: Contribute to Cumulative Land Use Impacts







before Mitigation


after Mitigation

Minerals

Impact 4.9-1: Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource that Would be of Value to the Region and the Residents of the State



Impact 4.9-2: Result in the Loss of Availability of a Locally Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site Delineated on a Local General Plan, Specific Plan, or Other Land Use Plan



Impact 4.9-3: Contribute to Cumulative Mineral Resources Impacts



Noise

Impact 4.10-1: Exposure of Persons to, or Generate, Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Established in the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance or Applicable Standards of Other Agencies


MM 4.10-1 The project proponent shall continuously ensure that all construction activity at the project site is limited to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and prohibit activities on Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays. If activities outside this timeframe occur, noise monitoring shall be established to demonstrate that applicable noise codes are not exceeded. This shall be a note placed on all construction plans.


Impact 4.10-2: Exposure of Persons to, or Generate,







before Mitigation


after Mitigation

Excessive Ground Borne Vibration or Ground Borne Noise Levels

Impact 4.10-3: Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing without the Project



Impact 4.10-4: Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing without the Project



Impact 4.10-5: Contribute to Cumulative Noise Impacts



Public Services

Impact 4.11-1: Increased Need for or Alter Fire Protection Services


MM 4.10-1 Prior to the issuance of the first grading or building permit for the Project, or use of any new rail facilities, whichever occurs first, the Project Proponent shall obtain approval of a Rail Rack Fire Protection System Plan per the specifications of the Kern County Fire Department. At minimum, the Plan shall include the following:

a. Demonstrate that the system will meet or exceed the NFPA requirements for a rail unloading rack; including use of foam systems for all new tankage and the unloading facility.

b. Demonstrate that the system will utilize the refinery’s existing fire water supply systems; which includes two separate water supply systems that can be tied together to provide a backup water supply. The water supply systems have a fire water storage capacity of






before Mitigation


after Mitigation

3,000,000 gallons and are capable of delivering up to 3,500 gallons per minute of water.

c. Demonstrate that the following will be constructed on the site:

1. Fire detection equipment,

2. Fire monitors per the following specifications: Each of the monitors will have self-educating nozzles with individual foam totes capabilities; shall be mounted at grade at a minimum of 50 feet away from unloading cars; and shall include foam generators at the unloading rack that are capable of reaching all of the cars being offloaded.

3. Safety Showers

4. Eyewash Stations

5. Hydrants

6. Controls

7. Piping

Impact 4.11-2: Increase Need for or Alter Police/Sheriff Protection Services



Impact 4.11-3: Increase Need for or Alter School Services



Impact 4.11-4: Increase Need for or Alter, Park Services



Impact 4.11-5: Increase Need for Other Public







before Mitigation


after Mitigation

Facilities

Impact 4.11-6: Contribute to Cumulative Public Service Impacts



Transportation and Traffic

Impact 4.12-1: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.



Impact 4.12-2: Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways - Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan







before Mitigation


after Mitigation

LOS “C”.

Impact 4.12-3: Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways - Kern County General Plan LOS “D”.



Impact 4.2-4: Contribute to Cumulative Transportation and Traffic Impacts



Utilities and Service Systems

Impact 4.13-1: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board



Impact 4.13-2: Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of







before Mitigation


after Mitigation

which could cause significant environmental effects

Impact 4.13-3: Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects



Impact 4.13-4: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed



Impact 4.13-5: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments



Impact 4.13-6: Be served by a landfill with sufficient







before Mitigation


after Mitigation

permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs

Impact 4.13-7: Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste

Potentially Significant

MM 4.13-1 During construction activities for the facilities of the project, the project proponent shall reduce construction waste transported to landfills by recycling solid waste construction materials to the extent feasible, such as taking materials to recycling and reuse locations listed in the brochure on recycling construction and demolition materials available on the Kern County Waste Management Department website.

MM 4.13-2 During construction activities for the facilities of the project, the Building Inspector shall verify that the project proponent has provided a fenced storage area for recyclable materials that is clearly identified for recycling. This area shall be maintained on the site during construction and operations. A site plan showing the recycling storage area shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department and Kern County Waste Management Department prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for the site.


Impact 4.13-8: Cumulative Impacts to Utilities



Chapter 2 Introduction


Chapter 2 Introduction

2.1 Intent of the California Environmental Quality Act The Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, as Lead Agency, has determined that based upon preliminary analysis in an Initial Study, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the appropriate environmental analysis document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed “Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project” (“project”). The project is located at 6451 Rosedale Highway, on Areas 1, 2, and 4 of the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery, northwest of the City of Bakersfield. The exiting Refinery site is within Section 27 and 28 of Township 29 South, Range 27 East, in the Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M); specifically located on 22 parcels totaling 448.47 acres. 421.58 acres are within the unincorporated area of Kern County and 26.89 acres are located within the City of Bakersfield.

The purpose of the proposed project is to allow greater flexibility for the existing refinery to process a variety of crude oils on-site. To facilitate this request, the project proposes the following: 1. Expansion of existing and construction of new rail, transfer and storage facilities; to include

construction of a double rail loop from a new on-site spur connection off of the existing BNSF Railway and the addition of up to three boilers;



The Refinery’s existing limit of 70,000 barrels per day (BPD) maximum crude processing capacity would not be increased. The project is described in detail in Chapter 3, Project Description.

This EIR has been prepared pursuant to the relevant State and County statutes and guidelines; including, but not limited to:

• CEQA (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.);

• CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.); and,

• The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document.

The overall purposes of the CEQA process are to:

• Identify the significant effects to the environment of a project, identify alternatives, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be avoided or mitigated;

• Provide for full disclosure of the project’s environmental effects to the public, the agency decision-makers who will approve or deny the project, and responsible and trustee agencies charged with managing resources (e.g., wildlife, air quality) that may be affected by the project; and

• Provide a forum for public participation in the decision-making process with respect to environmental effects.

County of Kern 2.0 Introduction


2.2 Purpose of This Environmental Impact Report An EIR is a public informational document used in the planning and decision-making process. This project-level EIR will analyze the environmental impacts of the project. The appropriate Kern hearing body will consider the information in the EIR, including the public comments and staff response to those comments, during the public hearing process. The final discretionary decision may be to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the project.

The purpose of an EIR is to identify:

• The significant potential impacts of the project on the environment and indicate the manner in which those significant impacts can be avoided or mitigated;

• Any unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated; and

• Reasonable and feasible alternatives to the project that would eliminate any significant adverse environmental impacts or reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

An EIR also discloses growth-inducing impacts; impacts found not to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of the project when taken into consideration with past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects.

CEQA requires an EIR that reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency regarding the impacts, the level of significance of the impacts both before and after mitigation, and mitigation measures proposed to reduce the impacts. A Draft EIR is circulated to responsible agencies, trustee agencies with resources affected by the project, and interested agencies and individuals. The purposes of public and agency review of a Draft EIR include sharing expertise, disclosing agency analyses, checking for accuracy, detecting omissions, discovering public concerns, and soliciting mitigation measures and alternatives capable of avoiding or reducing the significant effects of the project, while still attaining most of the basic objectives of the project.

Reviewers of a Draft EIR are requested to focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate significant environmental effects.

Issues to Be Resolved Section 15123(b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify issues to be resolved, which includes the choices among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. The major issues to be resolved regarding the project include decisions by the lead agency as to whether or not:

• The Draft EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project, • The recommended mitigation measures should be adopted or modified, or • Additional mitigation measures need to be applied.

2.3 Terminology To assist reviewers in understanding this EIR, the following terms are defined:



• Project means the whole of an action that has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

• Environment means the physical conditions that exist in the area and which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. The area involved is where significant direct or indirect impacts would occur as a result of the project. The environment includes both natural and man-made (artificial) conditions.

• Impacts analyzed under CEQA must be related to a physical change. Impacts are: o Direct or primary impacts that would be caused by a proposed project and would occur at

the same time and place; or o Indirect or secondary impacts that would be caused by a proposed project and would be

later in time or farther removed in distance but would still be reasonably foreseeable. Indirect or secondary impacts may include growth-inducing impacts and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use; population density or growth rate; and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.

• Significant impact on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions in the area affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself is not considered a significant impact on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.

• Mitigation consists of measures that avoid or substantially reduce a proposed project’s significant environmental impacts by: o Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; o Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its

implementation; o Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; o Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance

operations during the life of the action; or o Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or

environments.

• Cumulative impacts are two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The following statements also apply when considering cumulative impacts: o The individual impacts may be changes resulting from a single project or separate

projects. o The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results

from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over time.



This EIR uses a variety of terms to describe the level of significance of adverse impacts. These terms are defined as follows:

• Less than significant. An impact that is adverse but that does not exceed the defined thresholds of significance. Less than significant impacts do not require mitigation.

• Significant. An impact that exceeds the defined thresholds of significance and would or could cause a substantial adverse change in the environment. Mitigation measures are recommended to eliminate the impact or reduce it to a less-than-significant level.

• Significant and unavoidable. An impact that exceeds the defined thresholds of significance and cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures.

2.4 Decision-Making Process CEQA requires lead agencies to solicit and consider input from other interested agencies, citizen groups, and individual members of the public. CEQA also requires a project to be monitored after it has been permitted to ensure that mitigation measures are carried out.

CEQA requires the lead agency to provide the public with a full disclosure of the expected environmental consequences of a proposed project and with an opportunity to provide comments. In accordance with CEQA, the following is the process for public participation in the decision-making process:

• Initial Study/Notice of Preparation. Kern County prepared and circulated an Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) to responsible, trustee, and local agencies for review and comment on September 19, 2013. The IS/NOP and responses to the IS/NOP are included in Appendix A of this EIR. In conjunction with this public notice, a scoping meeting was held by Kern County on October 4, 2013, to provide a forum for public comments on the scope of the EIR.

• Draft EIR Preparation. A Draft EIR is prepared, incorporating public and agency responses to the IS/NOP and scoping process. The Draft EIR is circulated for review and comment to appropriate agencies and additional individuals and interest groups who have requested to be notified of EIR projects. Per Section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines, Kern County will provide for a 45-day public review period on the Draft EIR. Kern County will subsequently respond to each comment on the Draft EIR received in writing through a Response to Comments chapter in the Final EIR. The Response to Comments will be provided to each agency that provided written comments on the EIR prior to the scheduled public hearing on the Final EIR and project.

• Preparation and Certification of Final EIR. The appropriate hearing body will consider the Final EIR, take public testimony, and then take action on the project.

Notice of Preparation (NOP) Pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department circulated an IS/NOP to the State Clearinghouse, public agencies, special districts, and members of the public for a public review period beginning September 19, 2013 and ending October 18, 2013. The purpose of the IS/NOP is to formally convey



that the County, as the lead agency, solicited input regarding the scope and proposed content of the EIR. The IS/NOP and all comment letters are provided in Appendix A of this EIR.

Scoping Meeting Pursuant to Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency is required to conduct at least one scoping meeting for all projects of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance. The scoping meeting is for jurisdictional agencies and interested persons or groups to provide comments regarding, but not limited to, the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and environmental effects to be analyzed. Kern County hosted a scoping meeting at 1:30 p.m. on October 4, 2013, at the Kern County Public Services Building, 2700 “M” Street, Conference Room 1A, Bakersfield, California.

IS/NOP and Scoping Meeting Results No comments were received at the October 4, 2013 scoping meeting. Specific environmental concerns raised in written comments received during the IS/NOP public review period are discussed below. The IS/NOP and all comments received are included in Appendix A, along with the Summary of Proceedings from the Scoping Meeting.

IS/NOP Written Comments The County received 9 letters with substantive comments in response to the IS/NOP. The comments are summarized in Table 2-1, Summary of Written Comments on Notice of Preparation/Initial Study.

Table 2-1. Summary of Written Comments on Notice of Preparation/Initial Study

Commenter Summary of Comment Federal Agencies None State Agencies Department of Conservation, DOGGR Proximity of development to active and abandoned wells. Department of Fish and Wildlife Participation in the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan.

Special status species in the area surrounding the proposed development. Public Utilities Commission Construction of the rail spur and safety of rail crossings. Local Agencies San Joaquin Valley APCD Appropriate baseline. Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement. Air

permit requirements. Kern County Roads Department Traffic issues Kern County Superintendent of Schools

Developer fees.

North of the River Recreation and Parks District

No expected impacts.

Kern County Water Agency Current and projected water use. Wastewater disposal operations and requirements.

Kern County Engineering, Surveying and Permit Services

No comments or recommendations.

Interested Parties None



2.5 Availability of the Draft EIR This Draft EIR is being distributed directly to agencies, organizations, and interested groups and persons for comment during a 45-day formal review period in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines. This Draft EIR and the full administrative record for the project, including all studies, is available for review during normal business hours Monday through Friday at the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, located at:

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department 2700 “M” Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370 Phone: (661) 862-8600, Fax: (661) 862-8601

2.6 Format and Content This Draft EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the project and was prepared following input from the public and the responsible and affected agencies, through the EIR scoping process, as discussed previously. The contents of this Draft EIR were established based on the findings in the IS/NOP and public and agency input. Based on the findings of the IS/NOP, a determination was made that an EIR was required to address potentially significant environmental effects on the following resources: • Air Quality


• Cultural Resources

• Geology and Soils

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions

• Hazards and Hazardous Materials

• Hydrology and Water Quality

• Land Use and Planning

• Mineral Resources

• Noise

• Public Services

• Transportation and Traffic

• Utilities and Service Systems

Issue Areas Determined not to be Impacted by the Project The following section provides a discussion of the issue areas where the proposed project and the alternatives would not have any impacts and, therefore, would not contribute to cumulative impacts. For all issue areas, the No Project/No Action Alternative would have the same impacts as the baseline, or in this case, the current operations.

Aesthetics

The Alon Bakersfield Refinery site consists of approximately 448 acres in the unincorporated area of the County of Kern. Small areas in the southern and southeastern portions of the refinery are located in the City of Bakersfield. The refinery is generally bounded by Mohawk Street to the east, Rosedale Highway to the north, and Coffee Road about ¼ mile to the west. The Westside Parkway (new freeway) is located along the southern boundary of the refinery and the Kern River is located south of the Westside Parkway. The proposed project would take place within the confines of the existing refinery surrounded by process equipment of similar size and shape. The area surrounding



the existing refinery is comprised of mixed uses, with business, light manufacturing, oil field production, undeveloped land, open space, the Kern River, and several canals nearby

The improvements and/or modifications proposed at the refinery fall into two categories, either expanded rail facilities, or process unit upgrades or modifications. To complete the expanded rail facilities, a new spur will connect to the existing BNSF rail line that bisects the refinery. The existing rail unloading facilities will be realigned, and new unloading racks will be constructed to facilitate offloading of crude oil from rail cars. Construction of any new rail facilities or loading racks will be conducted within the confines of the existing refinery, and will be carried out at, or very near, ground level. Additional railcars will be transported to the site and visible to the surrounding area. However, the refinery has been served by rail transportation for decades, so the additional railcars would not provide a new visual feature. The entire site is flat and minimal grading and excavation is required.

The proposed project components would be located at various locations throughout the refinery. The closest residential receptors are located approximately 2,000 feet southeast of the refinery, near Truxtun Avenue and Mohawk Street. The existing views of the refinery from this location generally consist of stacks, columns and storage tanks, and are partially obstructed by vegetation along the Kern River and the Westside Parkway. The views at these residential areas are not expected to change significantly as the rail tracks, rail cars and unloading facilities are close to the ground or obstructed by other buildings and structures. Four new storage tanks will be built near the southern portions of the refinery and may be visible outside the refinery. While the new equipment associated with the proposed project may be visible from offsite viewpoints, the new equipment would have the same visual character and scale as existing process equipment, and therefore would not be readily discernible from existing facilities within the refinery. The views of the refinery from adjacent properties would continue to be of existing industrial structures and the proposed project would not substantially change the existing views.

Additionally, there are no officially designated scenic highways located in Kern County, so the proposed project will not substantially damage trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore, the proposed project will not have substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas or scenic resources.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project are planned to occur over a nine to 12 month period. Construction activities are not expected to occur during the nighttime, so no increase in light and glare is expected during the construction phase.

There will be additional permanent light sources required as part of the proposed project associated with the proposed new unloading rack. The existing refinery units are already lighted for safety and security purposes during nighttime operations. Additional lighting may be required to provide adequate lighting during nighttime activities, but these light sources will be directed towards the refinery and the locations of the new equipment, e.g., rail unloading rack (i.e., away from residential areas). New lighting that will be installed on the proposed equipment will be consistent in intensity and type with the existing lighting on equipment and other nearby refinery structures. Because of the central location of the proposed new sources, the light sources are expected to blend in with existing light sources and not be noticeable to the surrounding community.

Based on these considerations, the proposed project is not expected to create substantial new sources of light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.



Based upon these considerations, no significant impacts on aesthetics (i.e., impacts to the visual character of the site and surrounding areas) are expected as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, aesthetic impacts are considered to be less than significant, and will not be analyzed in the EIR.

Agricultural Resources

All proposed construction and operation would occur within the confines of the existing refinery. The proposed project would be consistent with the heavy industrial zoning for the refinery (M3). No agricultural resources are present at or in the vicinity of the refinery and no new land will be acquired as part of the proposed project. Further, the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use, or involve other changes in the existing environment, that could convert farmland to non-agricultural use.

Land in the vicinity of the refinery is not currently zoned for agricultural use, so there are no Williamson Act contracts in effect. The proposed project does not conflict with an existing agricultural zone or Williamson Act contract since these are not located in the vicinity of the refinery and does not include converting agricultural land for non-agricultural uses.

All proposed construction and operation would occur within the confines of the existing refinery. The proposed project would be consistent with the heavy industrial zoning for the refinery (M3). No forest resources are present at or in the vicinity of the refinery and no new land will be acquired as part of the proposed project. Further, the proposed project would not convert forest land to non-forest use, or involve other changes in the existing environment, that could convert forest land to non-forest.

Based upon these considerations, no significant impacts on agricultural or forest resources are expected as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, agricultural and forest resources impacts are considered to be less than significant and will not be analyzed in the EIR.

Population and Housing

Construction of the proposed project will take place at an existing refinery located in an urbanized area northwest of the City of Bakersfield, California. The construction workforce for all components of the proposed project is estimated to be a maximum of 35 people. The local labor pool in the Bakersfield area for this type of work is anticipated to provide sufficient labor for construction of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to induce direct or indirect substantial growth in the area, and these impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Once construction is completed, no additional workforce for operation of the proposed project is expected to be required. Following completion of the proposed project, the refinery operations are expected to require approximately 215 workers, which is less than the historical workforce of up to approximately 410 workers. All workers have been and are expected to continue to be drawn from the local workforce. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected induce direct or indirect measurable population growth in the area, and impacts are considered to be less than significant.

The proposed project will occur within the confines of the existing refinery. No residential units are located within the confines of the refinery; therefore, the proposed project will not displace any



housing or any residents. No significant housing impacts are expected from implementation of the proposed project.

Based on the above considerations, no significant adverse impacts on population size, population distribution, or housing are expected to result from the proposed project construction and operation. Therefore, population and housing impacts are considered to be less than significant and will not be analyzed in the EIR.

Recreation

As previously concluded in Section 4.0.1.3, Population and Housing, of this document, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to increase the local population either directly or indirectly during construction or operation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks, or other recreational facilities, and it will not adversely affect existing recreational facilities.

Implementation of the proposed project does not include new recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities and, thus, will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment or recreational services.

Based on the above considerations no significant adverse impacts on recreation are expected from the proposed project. Therefore, recreation impacts are considered to be less than significant and will not be analyzed in the EIR.

Process wastewater from the existing refinery is treated in existing wastewater treatment plants and disposed of via injection wells. The proposed project would allow the refinery to bring in more crude via rail but would not increase the crude throughput of the refinery. The proposed process unit upgrades and modifications would not require an increase in water use or wastewater discharged. The proposed project includes modifications to the Hydrocracker Unit that would install new piping and instrumentation to allow recycling of wash water in the Hydrocracker Unit. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to result in a decrease in water use and wastewater discharged from the refinery and would not result in the construction new water wastewater treatment facilities, or require the expansion of existing facilities.

Required EIR Content and Organization The content and organization of this Draft EIR are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the Kern County CEQA Implementation Document, as well as to present issues, analysis, mitigation, and other information in a logical and understandable way. This Draft EIR is organized into the following sections:

• Chapter 1, “Executive Summary,” provides a project description and a summary of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

• Chapter 2, “Introduction,” provides CEQA compliance information, an overview of the decision-making process, organization of the EIR, and a responsible and trustee agency list.

• Chapter 3, “Project Description,” provides a description of the location, characteristics, objectives, and the relationship of the project to other plans and policies.



• Chapter 4, “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures,” contains a detailed environmental analysis of the existing conditions, project impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable adverse impacts.

• Chapter 5, “Consequences of Project Implementation (Mandatory CEQA Sections),” presents an analysis of the project’s cumulative and growth-inducing impacts and other CEQA requirements, including significant and unavoidable impacts and irreversible commitment of resources.

• Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that could reduce the significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided.

• Chapter 7, “Responses to Comments,” is reserved for responses to comments on this Draft EIR.

• Chapter 8, “Organizations and Persons Consulted,” lists the organizations and persons contacted during preparation of this Draft EIR.

• Chapter 9, “Preparers,” identifies persons involved in the preparation of the Draft EIR.

• Chapter 10, “Bibliography,” identifies reference sources for the Draft EIR.

• “Appendices” provide information and technical studies that support the environmental analysis contained within the Draft EIR.

The analysis of each environmental category in Chapter 4 is organized as follows:

• “Introduction” provides a brief overview on the purpose of the section being analyzed with regard to the project.

• “Environmental Setting” describes the physical conditions that exist at this time and that may influence or affect the topic being analyzed.

• “Regulatory Setting” provides State and federal laws, the Kern County General Plan (KCGP) and Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) goals, policies, and implementation measures.

• “Impacts and Mitigation Measures” discusses the impacts of the project in each category, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, presents the determination of the level of significance, and provides a discussion of feasible mitigation measures to reduce any impacts.

2.7 Responsible and Trustee Agencies Projects or actions undertaken by the lead agency, in this case the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, may require subsequent oversight, approvals, or permits from other public agencies in order to be implemented. Other such agencies are referred to as “responsible agencies” and “trustee agencies.” Pursuant to Sections 15381 and 15386 of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, responsible agencies and trustee agencies are defined as follows:

• A “responsible agency” is a public agency that proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a lead agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term “responsible agency” includes all public agencies other than the lead agency that have discretionary approval power over the project (Section 15381).



• A “trustee agency” is a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California (Section 15386).

The various public, private, and political agencies and jurisdictions with a particular interest in the project include, but are not limited to, the following:

Local Agencies • San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District

• Kern County Public Health Services Department

• Kern County Engineering, Surveying and Permit Services Department

• Kern County Roads Department

• Kern County Fire Department

• Kern County Board of Supervisors

• City of Bakersfield

State Agencies • Department of Fish and Game

• California Air Resources Board

• California Department of Transportation

• Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Region

• California Public Utilities Commission

Federal Agencies • Federal Aviation Administration

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• Federal Railroad Administration

2.8 Incorporation by Reference In accordance with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines to reduce the size of the report, the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this Draft EIR and are available for public review at the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. A brief synopsis of the scope and content of these documents is provided below.

Kern County General Plan (KCGP) The project site lies predominantly within the boundaries of the Kern County General Plan (KCGP), The KCGP is a policy document with planned land use maps and related information that are designed to give long-range guidance to those County officials making decisions affecting the growth and resources of the unincorporated Kern County jurisdiction, excluding the metropolitan Bakersfield planning area. This document, adopted on June 14, 2004, and last amended on September 22, 2009, helps to ensure that day-to-day decisions conform to the long-range program designed to protect and further the public interest as related to Kern County’s growth and development and mitigate environmental impacts. The KCGP also serves as a guide to the private sector of the economy in relating its development initiatives to the public plans, objectives, and policies of the County.



Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP)

The City and County have prepared and adopted the MBGP to provide cohesive land use planning for areas that are within both the County’s jurisdiction and the City’s future service area. The MBGP is a separate but interrelated land use planning program within Kern County. The area covered by the MBGP coincides with the Bakersfield Metropolitan Priority Area of the Kern County General Plan and incorporates the land uses proposed by the County.

Kern County Zoning Ordinance According to Chapter 19.02.020, Purposes, Title 19 was adopted to promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare through the orderly regulation of land uses throughout the unincorporated area of Kern County. Further, the purposes of this title are to:

• Provide the economic and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land resources;

• Encourage and guide development consistent with the KCGP;

• Divide Kern County into zoning districts of a number, size, and location deemed necessary to carry out the purposes of the KCGP and this title;

• Regulate the size and use of lots, yards, and other open spaces;

• Regulate the use, location, height, bulk, and size of buildings and structures;

• Regulate the intensity of land use;

• Regulate the density of population in residential areas;

• Establish requirements for off-street parking;

• Regulate signs and billboards; and

• Provide for the enforcement of the regulations of Chapter 19.02.

Destination 2030: Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (2004) The latest Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) was adopted in 2004. Destination 2030 is a 26-year RTP that establishes a set of regional transportation goals, objectives, policies, and actions intended to guide development of the planned multimodal transportation systems in Kern County. It was developed through a continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative planning process, and provides for effective coordination between local, regional, State, and federal agencies. This RTP provides transportation and air quality goals, policies and actions for now and into the future, and includes programs and projects for congestion management, transit, airports, bicycles and pedestrians, roadways, and freight. In addition, it provides a discussion of all mechanisms used to finance transportation and air quality program implementation (Kern Council of Governments 2004).

County of Kern Housing Element (2008–2013) The development and preservation of adequate and affordable housing is important to the well-being of the residents and the economic prosperity of the County. To plan for the development of adequate housing for all income segments, a Housing Element was prepared as a part of the KCGP. This document specifically addresses housing needs and resources in the County’s unincorporated areas. The Housing Element must maintain consistency with the other elements of the KCGP.



Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) (2008) The ALUCP was originally adopted in 1996 and has since been amended to comply with Aeronautics Law, Public Utilities Code (Chapter 4, Article 3.5) regarding public airports and surrounding land use planning. As required by that law, proposals for public or private land use developments that occur within defined airport influence areas are subject to compatibility review. The principle airport land use compatibility concerns addressed by the plan are (1) exposure to aircraft noise, (2) land use safety with respect to both people and property on the ground and the occupants of aircraft, (3) protection of airport air space, and (4) general concerns related to aircraft overflights.

The ALUCP identifies policies and compatibility criteria for influence zones or planning area boundaries. The ALUCP maps and labels these zones as A, B1, B2, C, D, and E, ranging from the most restrictive (A – airport property-runway protection zone) to the least restrictive (D –disclosure to property owners only) while the E is intended to address special land use development. As required by law, the following affected cities have adopted the ALUCP for their respective airports: Bakersfield, California City, Delano, Shafter, Taft, Tehachapi, and Wasco.

Big West Refinery Clean Fuels Project (2008) The refinery site has been the subject of previous environmental review. A Recirculated DEIR was published in 2008 for the Big West Refinery Clean Fuels Project (SCH#2005121041) prior to Alon USA taking ownership of the refinery. The 2008 DEIR contains a significant amount of detailed information pertaining to the project site and existing refinery operations. Therefore, this EIR is incorporated by reference pursuant to 14 CCR Section 15150.

2.9 Sources This Draft EIR is dependent upon information from many sources. Some sources are studies or reports that have been prepared specifically for this document. Other sources provide background information related to one or more issue areas that are discussed in this document. The sources and references used in the preparation of this Draft EIR are listed in Chapter 10, “Bibliography,” and are available for review during normal business hours at the:

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department

2700 “M” Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, California 93301-2370

This EIR is also available on the Kern County Planning and Community Development

Department website http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/eirs.asp.

Chapter 3 Project Description

Kern County 3.0 Project Description


Chapter 3 Project Description

3.1 Project Overview Background The proposed “Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project” (project) is a request to expand existing crude receiving and processing options via construction of new railroad facilities and related infrastructure at the existing Alon Petroleum Refinery (detailed below).

The existing refinery is sited at 6451 Rosedale Highway in Metropolitan Bakersfield, within central Kern County (Figure 3-1). The project site is located within the governing boundaries of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) and is predominately within the unincorporated portions of Kern County (Figure 3-2). The refinery is within Section 27 and 28 of Township 29 South, Range 27 East, in the Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M); and is generally bounded by Mohawk Street to the east, Rosedale Highway to the north, Coffee Road approximately ¼ mile to the west, and the Westside Parkway and Kern River to the south (Figure 3-3).

The existing refinery has been used as a petroleum refinery since 1932. Current refinery process units include crude distillation, delayed coking, hydrocracking, and catalytic reforming. Current products include gas oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and petroleum coke. The refinery also includes a number of ancillary and support facilities including steam boilers, process heaters, cooling towers, storage tanks and interconnecting pipelines; and a terminal with truck and rail loading facilities. The refinery has current environmental permits, including permits to operate from the SJVAPCD.

The existing refinery has a maximum rated crude processing capacity of 70,000 barrels per day (BPD). However, due to a 2008 bankruptcy of the prior owner, crude oil refining was temporarily suspended. In 2011, the Alon Bakersfield Refinery resumed refining in numerous process units to convert gas oil produced by its affiliated refinery in Paramount, California into finished fuels. The project proponent intends to resume operation of several existing process units under existing permits, including a return to crude oil refining.

Proposed Project Summary

The project proposes the Modification of Precise Development Plan No. 62, Map No. 102 to increase the refinery’s flexibility for receiving and processing a variety of crude oils and expand the existing crude terminal operations (the "project") by constructing a double rail loop. To facilitate this request, the project proposes: 1. Expansion of existing and construction of new rail, transfer and storage facilities; to include

construction of a double rail loop from a new on-site spur connection off of the existing BNSF Railway; and the addition of up to three boilers;






Figure 3-1. Project Location



Figure 3-2. Vicinity Map



Figure 3-3. Project Site



The overall objectives of the project are to (1) provide greater flexibility for the existing refinery to utilize a variety of crude oils that can be processed in order to better manage operational costs and to increase efficiency of onsite production; and (2) expand the existing crude terminal operations of the facility.

In order to accomplish the project objectives, new facilities must be installed to enable crude delivery via unit train and transfer of crude into the refinery for processing and into the existing pipeline network for transfer to other refineries. As part of the project, minor unit efficiency upgrades and modifications are planned to enhance operating flexibility required to process crude oils with different physical properties. The Precise Development Plan is shown in Figures 3-4 through 3-8.

The proposed project requires a modification to the Precise Development Plan to add rail facilities as a listed use in certain areas not currently identified as allowing rail, thus enabling expanded crude delivery to the refinery via unit train, which includes construction of the expanded rail facilities, unloading rack, and related refinery modifications. Other proposed modifications are expected to remain consistent with the PD Plan as they would result in the continued operation of the refinery within the existing refinery boundaries, no new refinery process units are proposed, and no increase in crude throughput is proposed.

Location of Existing Refinery Facility

The existing Alon refinery complex is sited on two non-contiguous sections of land, totaling approximately 541 acres, which are referred to as Refinery Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, and the sales terminal. The two complexes are connected by pipelines and fiber optic cables. A majority of the facility is located within the unincorporated area of Kern County; however, 26.89 acres are located within the City of Bakersfield (See Table 3-1, Project Statistics).

Location of Proposed Refinery Modifications

The proposed project area is located on 22 privately owned parcels, totaling approximately 448 acres and located within refinery Areas 1, 2, 4 and the sales terminal (see Figure 3-4). The remaining portion of the complex (not a part of the project) is located 1.5 miles north-northeast of the project area, in Area 3. The proposed changes to the project are detailed in Section 3.4, Project Characteristics.

3.2 Project Objectives The objectives of the project are to provide greater flexibility for the refinery to utilize a variety of crude oils that can be processed in order to better manage operational costs and to increase efficiency of onsite production. In addition, the project would expand the existing crude terminal operations of the facility. In order to accomplish the project objectives, facilities must be installed to enable crude delivery via unit train and transfer of crude into the refinery for processing and into the existing pipeline network for transfer to other refineries. As part of the project, minor unit efficiency upgrades and modifications are planned to enhance operating flexibility required to process crude oils with different physical properties. Specific objectives include:











3.3 Environmental Setting The project site encompasses approximately 448 acres (Refinery Areas 1, 2, 4, and sales terminal), with 26.89 of those acres being within the City of Bakersfield, consisting of 22 privately owned parcels of land. The site is located northwest of the City of Bakersfield at 6451 Rosedale Highway generally in the unincorporated area of Kern County. The Refinery is generally bounded by Mohawk Street to the east, Rosedale Highway to the north, Coffee Road ¼ mile to the west, and the Westside Parkway and Kern River to the south (Figure 3-3). Access to the site is primarily from Rosedale Highway (Figure 3-9).

The proposed rail facilities, upgrades, and modifications at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery would be developed entirely within the existing refinery property boundaries. Most of the refinery is under the jurisdiction of Kern County; however, property near the southern and southeastern boundaries is within the jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield.

3.3.1 Land Use As noted in Table 3-2, project parcels within the jurisdiction of the County of Kern are classified by the Kern County Zoning Ordinance as M-l PD (Light Industrial- Precise Development), M2 (Medium Industrial), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development), and M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial - Precise Development) and are designated SI (Service Industrial) and HI (Heavy Industrial) by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP). Project parcels within the jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield are classified by the Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance as M-2 (Medium Manufacturing), M-3 (Heavy Industrial), and FP-S (Flood Plain - Secondary). Figure 3-9 shows the MBGP land use designations within and surrounding the refinery.

Figure 3-10 shows the County and City zone classifications within and surrounding the refinery. As can be seen in Figures 3-9 and 3-10, most of the land uses surrounding the refinery are industrial or commercial.



Figure 3-4. Precise Development Key legend



Table 3-1. Project Statistics

APN Acres Jurisdiction MBGP

Designation Zone District Area 1:

332-260-12 3.99

County of Kern

SI (Service Industrial) M-2 PD (Medium Industrial PD Combining)

332-280-21 33.06


M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial PD Combining) 332-280-22 9.38

332-260-34 14.13 M-2 PD (Medium Industrial PD

Combining), M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial PD Combining)

332-260-35 54.15 M-2 (Medium Industrial, M-2 PD (Medium Industrial PD Combining), M-3 PD (Heavy

Industrial PD Combining) Area 1 Totals: 114.71 acres (all County jurisdiction)

Area 2: 368-030-09 9.54

County of Kern


M-1 PD (Light Industrial PD Combining) 368-030-10 9.41 368-030-26 15.54 368-050-11 7.76 368-050-15 4.66 M-2 PD (Medium Industrial PD Combining) 368-040-07 1.14

M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial PD Combining) 368-040-09 8.46 368-040-27 87.58 368-040-42 60.03

368-070-06 25.76

SI (Service Industrial), HI (Heavy Industrial)

M-1 PD (Light Industrial PD Combining), M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial PD Combining)

332-280-17 11.18

City of Bakersfield

SI (Service Industrial) M-2 (General Manufacturing)

368-040-26 0.10 HI (Heavy Industrial)

FP-S (Flood Plain-Secondary) 502-010-43 0.59

M-3 (Heavy Industrial) 502-010-46 13.49 502-010-48 1.53

Area 2 Totals: 256.77 acres 229.88 acres within County jurisdiction 26.89 acres within City jurisdiction

Area 4: 368-040-06 46.09 County of

Kern HI (Heavy Industrial) M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial PD Combining) 368-040-32 30.90

Area 4 Totals: 76.99 acres (all County jurisdiction) Totals for Areas 1, 2, and 4: 448.47 acres

421.58 acres within County jurisdiction 26.89 acres within City jurisdiction

MBGP refers to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan



Figure 3-9. General Plan Designations



Figure 3-10. Existing Zone Classification



Table 3-2. Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses

Existing Land Use Existing Map Code Designations Existing Zoning Classification

Proj

ect S

ite Refinery,

Marketing Terminal, Maintenance Facilities, Laboratory Facility, Vacant Land.


County of Kern: M-l PD (Light Industrial - Precise Development), M-2 (Medium Industrial), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development), and M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial - Precise Development). City of Bakersfield: M-2 (General Manufacturing), M-3 (Heavy Industrial).

Nor

th

Oilfield, Commercial Services, Retail Businesses.

SI (Service Industrial) County of Kern: A-1 (Limited Agricultural), C-2 PD (General Commercial - Precise Development), M-l (Light Industrial), M-l PD (Light Industrial - Precise Development), M-2 (Medium Industrial), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development). City of Bakersfield: A (Agricultural), M-2 (General Manufacturing).

Sout

h


HI (Heavy Industrial), SI (Service Industrial), OS (Open Space)

City of Bakersfield: M-2 (General Manufacturing), M-3 (Heavy Industrial), FP-S (Flood Plain - Secondary), A-FP-S (Agricultural - Flood Plain - Secondary).

Eas

t

Manufacturing, Commercial Businesses, Industrial Services, Vacant Land.


County of Kern: M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial - Precise Development. City of Bakersfield: M-2 (General Manufacturing), M-3 (Heavy Industrial).

Wes

t

Vacant Land, Power Plant (closed), Commercial Businesses, Storage Facility, Gas Station.

HI (Heavy Industrial), SI (Service Industrial), GC (General Commercial

City of Bakersfield: C-2/P.C.D. (Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development), M-2 (General Manufacturing).

The land use in the surrounding area has historically been primarily industrial with the existing refinery, the former Sunland Refinery, and the closed PG&E gas powered electrical plant and oilfield support facilities. The adjacent land uses immediately surrounding the project site are primarily industrial. Other non-industrial land uses in the area include the Vista West Continuation High School located approximately 0.15 mile north of the nearest refinery fence line and 0.47 miles from the nearest process hazard (the product sales terminal), and residential areas to the west and the south, approximately one mile from the proposed project area. The school is located at the northern end of the area zoned as Limited Agriculture. The residential area to the south of the proposed project is located south of the Kern River. The Kern River corridor exists as an open space recreation area known as the Kern River Parkway, which includes parks and trails. The Kern River Plan Element Map indicates a hiking and riding trail along the northern side of the Kern River, south of the refinery property.

The project area limits do not support any native habitat. However, the project area is near the Kern River. The recently opened Westside Parkway is now located between the Kern River and the



refinery, isolating the refinery from the Kern River. The Kern River has been identified as an important biological corridor for wildlife including listed species. The Kern River also supports the declining Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest habitat (Endangered Species Recovery Program 2005).

The land within the project area currently supports a plant community characteristic of lands subjected to disturbance, as the area has been disked for maintenance of the refinery facilities. Russian Thistle is the dominant plant species, with several other weedy species also present. Non-native planted Paulownia Trees (Paulownia tomentosa) are the only exception to the otherwise uniform plant community. The Crude Flexibility Project site may still have the potential to support various endangered species and protected species such as the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes microtis), Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides), Tulare grasshopper mouse (Onchomys torridus tularensis), silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra) or burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). The project site lacks suitable habitat for all other listed sensitive or protected species that could occur in the vicinity. The refinery site and proposed project site do not directly affect any Waters or Wetlands of the U.S.

The proposed project includes construction within the existing refinery. The proposed activities and products produced at the facility would be the same as existing activities and products produced. No new land would be required for the proposed project, and no zoning and/or land use changes are required as part of the proposed project.

Land use at the refinery is consistent with the Kern County Zoning Ordinance land use designations. The proposed project is consistent with the existing heavy manufacturing zoning designation.

3.3.2 Baseline/Existing Environmental Setting CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 requires that an EIR include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published. Section 15125 further states that this environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. This section describes the general approach to baseline in this Draft EIR, and summarizes the baseline used for all issue areas. Details regarding the relevant baseline for each potential environmental impact are presented in Section 4.1 through 4.13 of this Draft EIR.

In explaining the principles found in CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, the California Supreme Court recently confirmed that “the date for establishing baseline cannot be a rigid one. Environmental conditions may vary from year to year, and in some cases it is necessary to consider conditions over a range of periods.” Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 327-328. With respect to facilities that have experienced irregular operations, the court stated: “A temporary lull or spike in operations that happens to occur at the time environmental review for a new project begins should not depress or elevate the baseline.” The lead agency has discretion to decide how the existing conditions without the project can most realistically be measured. Moreover, the lead agency does not need to re-review the impacts of prior projects that already underwent CEQA review. Here, the refinery was established over 80 years ago, and environmental review has been conducted for numerous upgrades and modifications since the adoption of CEQA. The refinery has temporarily suspended most refining operations, but the new owner has consistently stated its intention to continue refining at the site. To bring the project impacts into clearest focus and avoid confusing the impacts of



project changes with the operation of the existing refinery, the baseline for purposes of environmental review is considered to be the physical environmental conditions as of 2013, adjusted where necessary to include refinery operations and related activities in 2007.

Oil production and refining have been part of Kern County for more than 100 years, as described in the Cultural Resources Report, Appendix D.

The San Joaquin Valley was first formed as an inland sea between the eastern Sierra Nevada mountain range and the Coast Ranges. During the Miocene (5 million to 23 million years ago) the basin floor was filled with diatoms and plankton that formed organic-rich shale, which eventually created the vast reservoirs of oil that underlie the valley’s rock formations (sjvgeology.org).

The technique of refining oil was invented in the mid-nineteenth century. Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century massive oil fields were discovered in the San Joaquin Valley using simple hand-auger drills, followed by rotary drilling rigs. The first commercial oil field in Kern County, the McKittrick Field, was established in 1898. The Kern River Field near Bakersfield was discovered the next year. By 1903, the Kern River Field already had been developed with 800 wells and had produced nearly 17 million barrels of oil. Kern County also was the site of some of the largest oil gushers in the country, including the Midway gusher, Well No. 2-6 (1909), and the Lakeview Gusher (1910) (sjvgeology.org). These and other discoveries resulted in the startup of local refineries designed specifically for refining gasoline for cars. Refineries located in Bakersfield during this period included the Standard Oil Refinery (1913); Sunland Refining Corporation (1929); and El Tejon Oil & Refining Company (1934).

Refinery History

The Mohawk Refinery, begun in 1932, was the largest refinery in Bakersfield.

When the Mohawk Refinery began its operations in 1932 it was capable of refining 1,500 barrels of oil per day. The introduction of a new cracker unit three years later increased capacity to 9,000 barrels per day.

From 1942 to 1945 the refinery was temporarily combined with an adjacent refinery by the wartime government to produce high-octane gasoline for the military. The refinery was returned to commercial production after the war and continued operations under the Mohawk brand until 1975 when it was acquired by the Reserve Oil and Gas Company, which was operating the North Tejon oil field in Kern County at the time.

In 1980 the Getty Oil Company acquired Reserve Oil and expanded the refinery production to 45,000 barrels per day.

Getty Oil was acquired by Texaco in 1984 and the Mohawk Refinery became the Texaco Bakersfield Plant, which was retrofitted to accommodate the processing of heavy crude from local wells in the San Joaquin Valley.

By 1986, Texaco had purchased the neighboring Tosco Refinery and in 1987 acquired the Independent Valley Energy Company (IVEC) and integrated all three facilities as a single plant, which eventually brought its refining capacity to 70,000 barrels per day.

A merger of the refining and marketing assets of Shell and Texaco in 1998 created Equilon Enterprises; however, Shell Oil purchased Texaco’s interest in Equilon in 2000, becoming the sole owner of the refinery.



Shell Oil’s announcement in November 2003 that it planned to close the refinery prompted inquiries from the California Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission and a United States Senator, all of whom expressed concern about the loss of refining capacity and the refinery’s contribution to the State’s gasoline and diesel supplies. This period marked a low point in refinery throughput as Shell considered the senator’s request that it reconsider the closure, and then searched for a buyer for the refinery.

Shell Oil ultimately sold the plant to Flying J Inc. in 2005, which operated the refinery through a subsidiary named Big West of California. Flying J/Big West began steadily increasing refinery throughput, but ultimately unrelated financial issues prompted Flying J and Big West to declare bankruptcy in December 2008.

Through the bankruptcy, the refinery was sold to Alon USA in 2010.

Refining was temporarily suspended during the period of the bankruptcy. After assessing its options, Alon USA resumed operation of many of the refining units in June 2011, processing gasoil that was transported from its sister refinery in Paramount, California via truck and rail. However, when the Paramount Refinery suspended production of gasoil, the Alon Bakersfield Refinery again suspended refining, although other operations and activities continue.

One measure of the level of activity of a refinery is the barrels of crude oil or other hydrocarbon feeds processed. Table 3-3 summarizes the quantity of crude oil and other hydrocarbon feeds processed by the Bakersfield Refinery in recent years.

Continuing Activities

Although crude refining has been temporarily suspended, other activities have continued. The refinery has continued to manage an inventory of finished diesel and other materials, to receive fuels and fuel blending products, and to blend and market (sell) finished fuels. The refinery also continues to function as a crude oil and finished petroleum products terminal. These activities require the continued use of on-site pipelines and pipeline connections through pump stations to the regional pipeline network operated by various third parties, storage tanks, and truck and rail loading and unloading racks. In addition, the refinery continues to operate steam boilers, the wastewater treatment system, waste water injection wells and the vapor recovery system.

Even though the refinery is not currently refining crude oil, the lead agency has determined that pre-project refinery operations should be included in the baseline. This is a reasonable approach in light of the long and sustained history of refinery operations, the temporary nature of the current suspension of operations as the new owner assessed options and developed its own operating strategy, and the new owner’s consistent statements of its intention to continue refining crude oil at the refinery. Accordingly, the Draft EIR generally uses a baseline consisting of the physical environmental conditions as of September 19, 2013, the date the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued for the project, adjusted to the extent necessary to reflect an operating refinery. Where available, data from 2007, the last full year of operations, is used to represent the operating refinery.



TABLE 3-3. REFINERY THROUGHPUT 2003-2012

Year

Crude Oil Feed

(bbl/yr)

Other Hydro-carbon Feed

(bbl/yr)

Total Hydro-carbon Feed

(bbl/yr)

Average Barrels per Calendar

Day1

Average Barrels

per Stream

Day2 Comments

2001 19,750,577 2,939,259 22,689,836 62,164 67,731

2002 21,422,496 3,187,870 24,610,366 67,426 67,426

2003 21,750,822 2,648,895 24,399,717 66,849 66,849 In November 2003, Shell announced its intention to shut down the refinery.

2004 21,190,269 2,652,363 23,842,632 65,144 65,322

2005 17,059,793 3,466,940 20,526,733 56,238 56,238

March 2005, Flying J purchased the refinery through its subsidiary, Big West of California.

2006 16,033,917 2,888,242 18,922,159 51,842 55,621

2007 18,599,231 3,442,904 22,042,135 60,389 63,376

2008 17,985,240 3,206,273 21,191,513 57,900 59,046 Flying J and Big West declared bankruptcy on December 21, 2008.

2009

Big West suspended refining on December 28, 2008, and the suspension continued during the bankruptcy proceedings.

2010 Alon purchased the Bakersfield Refinery through the bankruptcy in June 2010.

2011 0 3,984,000 3,984,000 10,915 20,642 Alon resumed refining in June 2011.

2012 0 1,738,698 1,738,698 4,751 12,509 Intermittent Operation in 2012 from June to Early November 2012.

1 Barrels per calendar day is calculated by dividing total annual throughput by 365 days. 2 Barrels per stream day is calculated by dividing total annual throughput by the number of days in the year that the Crude Distillation Unit was operated in 2001-2008 and the number of days in the year that the Mild Hydrocracker Unit was operated in 2011 and 2012.

This approach is conservative in three ways. First, the operations in 2007 were less than the maximum crude processing capacity of the refinery. The refinery is capable of processing 70,000 barrels per day, and its historical operations reached this rate; however operations in 2007 were an average of 60,389 barrels per calendar day. Another factor that makes this approach conservative is the treatment of equipment that was idle in 2007. As described in Section 3.4, the proposed project includes returning to service a number of tanks that were idle in 2007, i.e., Tanks: 70-T11003, 70-T11007, 70-T11008 and 70-T11009. Similarly, heaters 21-H21, 11-H11 (which will become 27-H2), and one of the heaters in 26-H13/15 have been out of service for a number of years and will be retrofit with ultra-low NOx burners and returned to service. This equipment was not operating



during 2007, and it will be returned to service as a result of the proposed project; therefore, all impacts of operating this equipment will be attributed to the project, not the baseline. Third, where rules have become more stringent or available equipment have changed in the intervening years, current formulas are used to calculate emissions and discharges from the refinery using 2007 activity levels. For example, the refinery’s contribution to the baseline emissions inventory is calculated using 2007 activity levels and the emission factors for the 2013 fleet of vehicles and 2013 locomotives. This ensures that the analysis does not falsely attribute to the project the emissions reductions that result from regulatory changes requiring improvements in motor vehicle engines and fuels.

Finally, it is reasonable to include the operating refinery in the baseline because many aspects of the refinery and its operations have been reviewed in prior CEQA documents. Table 3-4 summarizes the prior CEQA documents relating to the refinery.

Table 3-5 summarizes the baseline used to assess each environmental medium potentially affected by the proposed project. Note that the information available for each environmental medium is different. Even so, the baseline represents a good faith effort to present the environmental conditions approximately as they existed as of the NOP date, using reasonably available information. California Regional Water Quality Control Board: Cleanup and Abatement Order As noted in Cleanup and Abatement Order No. R5-2007-0728-2 (Big West of California, et al, Bakersfield Refinery, Kern County), portions of the project site are subject to Cleanup and Abatement Orders issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (see Appendix E). As summarized in the Cleanup and Abatement Orders, refinery operations over the years have resulted in discharges of crude oil and various refinery products and additives, including but not limited to diesel, gasoline, reformate, and MBTE from the tanks and pipelines. These discharges deposited petroleum hydrocarbons in soils, from which the petroleum hydrocarbons then migrated to and polluted underlying groundwater as set forth in the findings of the Cleanup and Abatement Orders. Monitoring of more than 250 groundwater monitoring and supply wells occurs regularly.

The existing refinery is in compliance with the Cleanup and Abatement Orders and efforts are on-going. As is evidenced by the recent Remedial Plan approved by the RWQCB, a new soil vapor extraction (SVE) project is underway in addition to the abatement system that Shell Oil is currently operating in compliance with RWQCB regulations.

3.4 Proposed Project Characteristics The objectives of the project are to provide greater flexibility for the existing refinery to utilize a variety of crude oils that can be processed in order to better manage operational costs and to increase efficiency of onsite production. In addition, the project would expand the existing crude terminal operations of the facility. In order to accomplish the project objectives, facilities must be installed to enable crude delivery via unit train and transfer of crude into the refinery for processing and into the existing pipeline network for transfer to other refineries. As part of the project, minor unit efficiency upgrades and modifications are planned to enhance operating flexibility required to process crude oils with different physical properties.



Table 3-4. Prior CEQA Review of Bakersfield Refinery

Big West of California Clean Fuels Project, SCH No. 2005121041 Date: 2008/20121 Lead Agency: Kern County Refinery Equipment & Activities Reviewed

• Rezone County portions of refinery site to add Precise Development overlay; Precise Development Plan developed to reflect existing refinery approved uses.

• Up to nine existing and future injection wells for the purpose of disposal of nonhazardous oily and similar wastes produced on site.

Texaco Bakersfield Refinery Reformulated Fuels Project, SCH No. 93082088 Date: 1995 Lead Agency: San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Refinery Equipment & Activities Reviewed

• Importation of alkylate by truck, rail or pipeline. • Storage of alkylate, light alkylate & heavy reformate in Tanks 80M01, 10M08,

10M04, 10M03, 10M02 and 2501 • Modify hydrogen sulfide stripper in Naphtha Hydrotreater to handle additional

streams. • Convert debutanizer to a naphtha splitter. • Modify Hydrogen Generating Unit to increase production to 28 MMscf/day,

including adding pre-reforming and feed preheat to existing steam methane reformer.

• Add heat exchange to Crude/Vacuum Unit to control boiling range of naphtha. • Modify Hydrocracking Unit tower and piping to control boiling range of heavy

hydrocrackate • Modify a distillation tower in a Gas Plant to saturate benzene in the reformate

stream of the Benzene Saturation Unit, using existing 35 MMBtu/hour heater as the tower reboiler.

• Modify the Delayed Coking Unit (DCU) to lower the boiling range of naphtha, including installation of additional heat exchange in the light coker gas oil section.

• Rebuild 200 MMBtu/hour boiler to provide process steam and heat. • Install interconnecting piping and pumping facilities, including modification of an

existing in-line blender Modification of Area 2 for Production of Low-Sulfur Fuel, Negative Declaration

Date: 1993 Lead Agency: San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Refinery Equipment & Activities Reviewed

• Hydrocracker. Modify existing Hydrocracker Unit to allow handling of additional diesel, including: o Heater – Use existing, idle, 50 MMBtu/hour heater (21-H18) as a diesel splitter

reboil heater. o Cooling Tower – Modify No. 4 Cooling Tower to install riser vents on cooling

water return lines and install combustible gas detectors in the risers. o Reactors – Replace some hydrocracking catalyst with hydrotreating catalyst. o Columns – Convert existing Depropanizer Column to a Diesel Side Stripper

Column; replace several trays and nozzles in existing Rerun Column; convert existing Naphtha Splitter Tower to a Diesel Splitter; replace internals of existing Wash Water Stripper with two beds of packing.

o Drums – Convert two separators to dual service drums; install new suction drums for the Hydro Dearomatization charge pump; change service of the existing Naphtha Splitter Tower accumulator to a Diesel Splitter Accumulator.

o Air Cooler – Install new combination product diesel/DC make-up hydrogen air




cooler. o Exchangers – Replace existing Depropanizer Reboiler with a new Side Stripper

Reboiler; install new Product Diesel/Debutanizer Feed exchanger; install two new water-cooled Recycle Gas Coolers; install new Hydro Dearomatization low pressure separator/effluent exchanger; install two new reboilers (not fired); return four existing out-of-service exchangers as Diesel Splitter Feed/Bottoms Exchangers; change service of existing water-cooled Naphtha Splitter Overhead Condensers to Diesel Splitter Overhead Condensers; install new water-cooled low aromatic diesel trim cooler to cool the diesel product.

o Pumps –add and/or replace several new charge pumps, feed booster pumps, rerun column bottoms pump, water circulation and injection pumps, diesel bottoms pump, diesel sidecut pump, and debutanizer sour water pump; replace existing naphtha splitter pumps with two diesel splitter bottoms pumps; reuse several existing pumps as diesel splitter overhead pumps; remove five pumps which are no longer needed.

• Hydrogen Generating Unit (HGU). Modify existing HGU to increase production by approximately 20 percent to provide additional hydrogen needed by the Hydrocracker Unit and to replace lost hydrogen from potential lower throughput of the Catalytic Reforming Units, including: o Heater – Increase firing rate of existing 233 MMBtu/hour Selas furnace; replace

existing burners in Selas furnace with low-NOx burners. o Drums – Add low temperature shift catalyst and thermocouples to an existing

shift converter. o Exchangers – install new methanator pre-heat exchanger; use high temperature

shift effluent from the shift converter to preheat the methanator feed; install new water-cooled hydrogen cooler; install new shift converter steam generator; heat from the shift converter will be used to make steam; install new boiler feed preheater.

• Low Pressure Amine Absorber. Modify existing tower for use as a low pressure amine contactor to sweeten sour gas before going to the refinery fuel gas system, including: o Drums – Equip two existing drums with new nozzles and demister pads. o Pumps – Equip existing API pump with a new impeller for use as an MEA transfer

pump. o Exchanger – Use existing water-cooled exchanger as a lean MEA cooler.

• Facilities Outside Area 2. Modify facilities at other locations within the Refinery to allow for better handling and blending low sulfur, low aromatics diesel fuel, including: o Tanks – change service of an existing floating roof tank from oil emulsions to low

aromatics diesel fuel service; change service of an existing fixed roof tank from coker naphtha to straight run diesel feed service and install a floating suction line; relocate existing cetane improver storage from Area 1 to Area 2; change service of two existing fixed roof tanks from finished gasoline to diesel service; change service of two existing fixed roof tanks from HCU feed to diesel blend.

o Pumps – Install new pumps or relocate existing pumps to transfer the new diesel products.

o Air Cooler – Install new raw gas oil air cooler. o Blending Facilities – Install new diesel blender skids in Areas 1 and 2; install new

static mixer in Area 2. o Filter –Relocate existing filter from Area 1 to Area 2.

• Sulfur Plant: SRU #3 and a new Tail Gas Treating Unit were brought on line in 1992




to meet the need for clean fuels requirements and allow shutdown of an existing Tail Gas Treating Unit and associated incinerator.

Heavy Crude Expansion Project, Negative Declaration Date: 1990 Lead Agency: San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

• Crude Vacuum Unit: Expand capacity from 49,000 barrels per day to 55,000 barrels per day.

• Delayed Coking Unit: Upgrade unit, including addition of a new coke drum. • Coke Storage: Construct additional storage capacity. • Amine Unit: Modify existing unit. • Tank Farm: Modify existing tanks and tank farm to allow increased storage of

heavy crudes, including heating existing tanks and adding new pumps.

Table 3-5. Alon Bakersfield Crude Flexibility Project Summary of Baseline Conditions TOPIC BASELINE

Aesthetics Views Baseline is the equipment, structures, features and activities in the surrounding area

and on the refinery site as they exist in 2013, with the addition of refinery mobile equipment (e.g., vehicles, trucks, train cars) from 2007.

Agricultural and Forest Resources Existing Land Baseline is the agricultural and forest lands on the refinery site and in the surrounding

area to the extent they exist in 2013. Air Quality Topography, meteorology, and climate

Baseline reflects the topography, meteorology and climate as they exist in 2013.

Attainment status

Baseline is the attainment status as of 2013.

Ambient air quality trends

Ambient air quality data and trends are presented from 2008 to 2012.

Refinery emissions inventory

Baseline includes emissions from the operating refinery, calculated using operations and activities from 2007, the last full year of refinery operations, and current emissions factors, rules and regulations (e.g., NOx controls). For example, emissions factors for the 2013 truck and rail fleets were applied to the refinery truck and rail traffic from 2007.

Biological Resources Existing Land Baseline is the refinery and surrounding area as it exists in 2013, based on review of

data bases, research and prior and new surveys. A new biological survey was completed for the Project area to update information from prior surveys (primarily for kit fox).

Cultural Resources Existing Land On the refinery site, a new cultural resources survey was completed in 2012 and 2013

to update previous surveys. For the surrounding region, research and data base review includes historical information available up to 2013.




Geology/Soils Existing Land Baseline is the refinery and surrounding area as it exists in 2013. Geology is relatively

stable and data collected over recent decades adequately represents the conditions in 2013. Seismic events are episodic rather than continuous, and data over many decades is necessary to adequately present the baseline seismic risks.

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Existing Operations

Baseline includes statewide temperature change data from 1895 to 2011, and greenhouse gas emission trends from 2000 to 2010. The contribution of GHG emissions from the Refinery was calculated using 2007 operations and activities and 2013 emission factors and rules and regulations.

Hazards/Hazardous Materials Accidental release of hazardous materials from Refinery

Baseline consists of the risk of accidental release from operation of the existing refinery equipment. The baseline hazard impact analysis examined the potential hazards associated with operating the existing Refinery equipment and/or units that are proposed to be modified or relocated as a result of the proposed project.

Hazardous Materials Transport

Risk of accidental release from rail transport based on US and California data and trends from 2003-2012. Estimated truck trips, rail cars, and pipeline volumes based on refinery operations in 2007.

Hydrology and Water Quality Regional Surface Water

Baseline is the refinery and surrounding area, including natural and man-made surface water features, as they currently exist in 2013.

Ground Water Quality

Baseline is ground water quality as it currently exists, based on data and trends reported in most recent 20 years of monitoring reports submitted to RWQCB.

Ground Water Supply

Ground water levels fluctuate over time in response to multiple factors, and lag time may be substantial. Baseline is based on aquifer properties, storage capacity, storage and extractions as reflected in analyses, data and management strategies from the 1960s to current. The baseline reflects the high level of increasing demand from numerous municipal, agricultural and industrial users throughout the area.

Refinery Water Demand

Baseline is the refinery’s water consumption in 2007, determined from well production data and potable water purchased.

Refinery Wastewater Generation

Baseline is the wastewater generated by the refinery’s operations, based on wastewater injection rates for 2007.

Surface Drainage

Baseline consists of the refinery’s site conditions and drainage system and those in the surrounding area as they exist in 2013.

Land Use and Planning Existing Land Baseline includes the surrounding land uses currently in existence, the current zoning

in surrounding areas and on the refinery site, and the Precise Development Plan where currently in effect on the County portions of the Refinery site. The general plan currently in effect is the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan adopted by the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern in 2002, and revised in 2005 (sewer policy) and 2007 (Safety Element and sewer policy).

Noise Existing Land Baseline consists of 2013 ambient noise conditions with an operating refinery. A

noise survey was conducted in 2013 to determine existing noise levels without refinery operations. A noise model was developed. The refinery operating noise was derived from noise surveys at other refineries and assumed the average noise level throughout the processing plants is 85 dBA. This was added into the noise model to determine the noise levels with refinery operations.




Mineral Resources Existing Land Baseline is the mineral resources currently present on the Refinery site and in the

surrounding area. Population and Housing Existing Land Baseline is the population and available housing in the region as of 2013. The

Refinery employment levels are assumed to be 2007 levels. Public Services Existing Land Baseline is the public services, public services delivery systems and performance as

they exist in 2013. The baseline Refinery need for public services is based on 2007 operations and activities.

Recreation Existing Land Baseline consists of the recreational resources and regional demand as of 2013. The

refinery employment levels are assumed to be 2007 levels. Transportation/Traffic Roadway Configuration

Baseline reflects physical layout and operations as of 2013. Several roadway improvement projects have been recently completed or are under construction.

Traffic on nearby roadways

Traffic counts from Rosedale Highway Improvements Project environmental document, which was certified in 2011. Traffic counts for this document were taken in 2007 and 2008, and so include traffic related to refinery operations.

Motor Vehicle Trips

Motor vehicle trips generated by the refinery in 2007, the last full year of refinery operations.

Truck trips Truck trips generated by the refinery in 2007, the last full year of refinery operations. Railcars Railcar trips generated by the refinery in 2007, the last full year of refinery

operations. Pipelines Pipeline throughput generated by the refinery in 2007, the last full year of refinery

operations. Utilities and Service Systems Existing Land Baseline consists of utilities and services and their delivery infrastructure as of 2013,

and refinery consumption of utilities and services as of 2007.

As noted above, the project proposes the Modification of Precise Development Plan No. 62, Map No. 102 to increase the existing refinery’s flexibility for receiving and processing a variety of crude oils and expand the existing crude terminal operations (the "project") by constructing a double rail loop. Most of the proposed process unit changes are minor in scope and are intended to increase the efficiency of the operation.

To facilitate this request, the project proposes: 1. Expanded Rail Facilities: Expansion of existing and construction of new rail, transfer and

storage facilities; to include construction of a double rail loop from a new on-site spur connection off of the existing BNSF Railway; and the addition of up to three boilers;






3.4.1 Expanded Rail Facilities

Proposed On-Site Rail Improvements

The project would construct a new double rail train loop to address crude that is already being transported to the existing refinery via unit trains. A new spur would connect to the existing BNSF Railway rail line that runs east-west, bisecting the refinery. This spur would enter the refinery at the northwest corner of Area 4, and tie into the new rail loops in Area 2 and Area 4 and total 27,900 linear feet of rail track (Figure 3-7).

The loop tracks would utilize existing rail spurs 103 and 104 as well as the existing east switch back to the BNSF mainlines. One of the rail loops would be equipped with steam stations to allow heavy crude to be offloaded. Steam for heating the rail cars, as well as the tankage, would be provided by three package boilers equipped with low nitrogen oxide (NOx) burners.

As a part of an independent modernization and consolidation project, the project proponent will also remove several of the buildings currently located on the proposed rail loop.

The existing LPG truck racks will be relocated and the LPG rail rack would be dismantled due to the new crude unloading alignment.

In addition, a grade separation (either an overpass or underpass) connecting Refinery Road and the Area 2 processing units would be constructed. The grade separation would ensure that there is unimpeded access to the Area 2 processing units for emergency responders.

New unloading facilities would be provided to allow offloading of crude oil from rail cars. The operating plan is to receive and unload two unit trains within a 24 hour period under the normal operational scenario on an annual average basis. The unit train would be configured with multiple Distributed Power Units (DPUs) and up to 104 tank cars. Based on maximum car capacity, the designed facility would be able to offload an average of 150,000 BPD into tankage.

As further described in the Tank Farm section below, new custody-transfer tanks would be installed to allow accurate metering of crude oil entering the facility. The project proponent does not expect to construct more than two custody transfer tanks and estimates their size to be between 10,000 and 25,000 barrels. One of the custody transfer tanks would be equipped with steam coils to permit the metering of heavy crude oils. After metering, the crude would be pumped to the floating roof crude tanks for either crude unit charge or storage for shipping of up to 150,000 BPD via 3rd party pipeline. In addition to the custody transfer tanks, the project proponent intends to install up to two 250,000 barrel crude oil storage tanks. Both of these new tanks would be equipped with steam coils to permit the storage of heavy crude oil.

Off-site Train/Rail Movements

The operation of unit and manifest trains to and from the project site expanded rail facilities would be performed by BNSF, on BNSF property, and on trains operated by BNSF employees. The movements of those trains within Kern County, to and from the project site, while described in this section of the EIR, may be preempted from local and state environmental regulations by federal law under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995.

While the potential impacts of those trains movements along the BNSF mainline within Kern County are described in appropriate chapters of this EIR, the County as CEQA Lead Agency, and other state and local responsible agencies could be preempted from imposing mitigation measures,



conditions or regulations to reduce or mitigate potential impacts of BNSF train movements on the mainline.

By contrast, all activities performed within the project site expanded rail facilities are not preempted by federal law since they would not occur on BNSF property and would not be operated by BNSF employees. The impacts of the activities that occur on the project site expanded rail facilities are described and evaluated in respective chapters of this EIR, and the County as CEQA Lead Agency, and other state and local responsible agencies have the authority to impose mitigation measures, conditions or regulations to reduce or mitigate potential impacts within the project site expanded rail facilities.

Transport of Bakken Crude Oil

The expanded train facilities, like the existing train facilities, have the potential to transport Bakken Crude Oil.


It has been difficult to find clear and verifiable information on the components and properties of Bakken crude. The assumption has been made by producers and shippers that Bakken crude has similar properties to that of other light “sweet” crudes. The Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and Safety Data Sheets (SDS) available for Bakken crude are similar, if not the same, as other light “sweet” crudes. Currently, Bakken crude has been classified as a Flammable Liquid (DOT Class 3), UN/NA 1267, Packing Group III, with the Packing Group indicating the degree of danger presented by the material when transported and is what determines the type of packaging required (Packing Group I has the highest hazard, Group III the lowest); however, no tests have been performed to properly classify Bakken crude. The Department of Transportation (DOT) presently has a project underway to research this issue and to determine if Bakken crude has been improperly classified. (Kern County Fire Department)

No one factor has been determined as to if or why Bakken crude is more volatile than other crude oils. Analyses of Bakken crude have produced inconsistent results with subjective reports of crude from the Bakken field containing high levels of Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S). In most cases the oil tested had been mixed with crude from other fields. Tests in the oil field have found low levels of H2S. There has also been some speculation that residual hydrochloric acid from fracking is present in Bakken crude and it is corroding the inside of railcars; however, this has not been proven. Other concerns have been placed on the tanks cars themselves. Typically, crude being transported by rail



are shipping in DOT-111 tank cars and in 2011 specifications for these cars changed to require more protection against damage from accidents. Many believe that tank cars being used that predate 2011 are not adequate for shipping crude and may be the reason behind recent accidents; however, this theory has not been proven, nor is there verifiable or objective information on whether or not inspections have been done on the inner lining of these cars to determine if there is any evidence of corrosion from water or other contaminants found in crude. (Kern County Fire Department)



On February 25, 2014, DOT released an “Emergency Order requiring all shippers to test product from the Bakken region to ensure the proper classification of crude oil before it is transported by rail, while also prohibiting the transportation of crude oil in the lowest-strength packing group” (DOT, 2014). This Emergency Order, which was instated immediately, requires “those who offer crude oil for transportation by rail” to “ensure that the product is properly tested and classified in accordance with federal safety regulations.”(DOT, 2014) The order goes further to now require all previously classified Class III crude oil shipments to now be “designated as Packing Group I or II, thereby requiring the use of a more robust tank car”(DOT, 2014).

Currently, as part of the ongoing investigative efforts, PHMSA and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have initiated “Operation Classification,” which is an “initiative involving unannounced inspections and testing of crude oil samples to verify that offerors of the materials have been properly classified and describe the hazardous materials” (Preliminary Guidance, 2014). The Operation Classification initiative started with focusing only on the “classification and packing group assignments that have been selected and certified by offerors” with tests measuring the “inherent chemical properties of the crude oil collected;” however, both agencies “have found it



necessary to expand the scope of their testing to measure other factors that would affect the proper characterization and classification of the materials” (Preliminary Guidance, 2014). Operation Classification is planned to be an ongoing project, with PHMSA continuing to collect data from Bakken crude as well as various other crude oil locations. Final results are expected by PHMSA in the near future and will be available to interested parties that will show gas content, corrosivity, toxicity, flammability, and certain other characteristics for Bakken crude oil in hopes to not only further inform transporters of crude about proper classification and characterization, but to help PHMSA, FRA, and others to identify any appropriate mitigation measures that need to be taken to ensure the continued safe transportation of these materials” (Preliminary Guidance, 2014).

3.4.2 Truck Loading Rack Modifications The existing three lane LPG truck loading would be relocated east of the current location and a new lane would be added. The existing LPG rail car loading rack would be dismantled and any LPG rail loading would be conducted at the Enterprise LPG loading facility (Enterprise) located north of the Area 3. An existing pipeline connection between the refinery and Enterprise would be used to transport LPG. The relocation of the LPG truck rack and dismantling of the LPG rail rack is necessitated by the expanded rail facilities and construction of the new grade separation.

Sales terminal loading rack modifications would include conversion of some of the existing gasoline loading arms (the mid-grade gasoline loading arms) to jet/diesel service. Existing diesel arms would be dual purposed to permit the loading of both jet and diesel. Diesel and jet fuel have similar properties and therefore there is no increase in emissions or risk by dual purposing the loading arms. In addition, new jet/diesel loading arms would be constructed in lanes 5 and 6 of the sales rack.

3.4.3 Unit Upgrades and Modifications All upgrades and modifications would be accomplished within the disturbed areas of the refinery. The refinery's overall crude oil refining capacity would not be increased above its current maximum rated crude processing capacity, the PD plan limit of 70,000 barrels per day of crude, calculated as an annual average. There may be capacity increases in individual process units to provide flexibility to manage additional light hydrocarbons that may be present in certain crude oils.

Most of the proposed process unit changes are minor in nature, e.g., new pumps, replacement of old compressors with state of the art equipment, additional control values and new heat exchangers. These minor changes are to increase the facility's operational and energy efficiency to permit the processing of a larger variety of crude oils.

Additional, more complex upgrades include the following: 1. Hydrocracker (HCU Unit 21) & CD Hydro (Unit 27): New or existing reactors, heaters,

vessels and associated equipment would be installed or upgraded. Specifically, a new reactor with associated equipment in the Hydrocracker Unit (HCU) Unit 21 would be installed. In addition, new hydrogen recycle compressor(s) and a hydrogen make-up compressor(s) would be installed. An existing heater would be modified and retrofitted with low NOx burners. Lastly, as a water conservation measure, new piping and instrumentation would be installed to allow recycling of wash water in the HCU.

Additionally, CD Hydro (Unit 27) unit modifications would also be made to ensure proper processing of additional light hydrocarbons in various crude oils. Modifications include the



addition of a parallel reactor(s), vessels, new pumps and exchangers, the upgrading of existing pumps and exchangers, and the modification and retrofitting of an existing permitted heater with low NOx burners.

2. Addition of a new "flash" tower to Unit 10: In order increase energy efficiency and to process a wider range of crudes, additional heat removal exchanger(s) would be added to the overhead system and pumps would be upgraded. To release light ends (propane and butane) from the incoming crude oil prior to it entering the atmospheric distillation tower a “flash” tower will be added, thereby improving the atmospheric tower “product cuts.”

3. Crude and Vacuum Unit (Unit 10/11). In order to process a wider range of crudes, the Crude Unit Atmospheric Crude Tower (10-V1) would be upgraded. This may include the addition of a crude "flash" tower and associated ancillary equipment to improve the unit's cuts. Other changes include new pumps, nozzles, a jet draw, and new and re-serviced exchangers. To improve temperature control on the unit heater’s existing Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) unit for Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) control and improve energy efficiency of heater 10-H1, a new heat recovery coil would be installed at the inlet of the SCR. In addition, a new jet treater would be located in either the Crude Unit or tank farm.

4. Mild Hydrocracking Unit (Unit 14). New pumps would be added and existing pumps and heater tubing would be upgraded. In addition, a new salt drier and water coalescer would be added to the kerosene product stream to improve the quality of the jet fuel product. Two existing Fractionator Overhead Compressors (14-C3A/B) would be replaced with state of the art compressors and associated equipment. This would reduce fugitive hydrocarbon emissions by upgrading the compressor seal. To improve the efficiency and reliability of the amine system, an existing Recycle Gas Scrubber would be upgraded and new (replacement) amine feed pumps would be installed. The upgrades would improve amine circulation rate thereby reducing amine loading, improve reliability, and the reduce potential for corrosion.

5. Naphtha Hydrotreater #1 and #3 (Unit 8 and Unit 26/22). Pumps, heat exchangers and fin fans would be upgraded in both Hydrotreaters. In addition, to increase Unit 8's energy efficiency, the existing charge heater (8-H1) convection section would be replaced. In Unit 26, an existing permitted heater would be modified and retrofitted with low NOx burners and upgraded heater tubes.

6. Sour Water (Units 15 and 23). In order to conserve water and reduce the facility's waste water discharges, a new steam reboiler for 15-V12 (Sour Water Stripper) would be installed. The project would also re-pipe the feeds and products for 23-V4 and 23-V5 to bypass the existing Phosam equipment (ammonia (NH3)) recovery section) which is no longer necessary. This modification eliminates production and storage of anhydrous ammonia.

7. The Wash Water Recycle project was designed to decrease the amount of Sour Water from the Hydrocracker. In the wash water recycle project, the amount of sour water export is reduced from approximately 35 GPM to 16 GPM; or about a savings of 10 million gallons of water a year.

8. Fuel Gas LPG Recovery Unit. In order to reduce the concentration of LPG in the refinery fuel gas, a new LPG recovery unit would be constructed and installed on the fuel gas system. The unit would consist of several fuel gas compressors; knock out drums and a non-ammonia refrigeration unit. The recovered LPG would be sent to the existing gas plant and the fuel gas



would be burned in the refinery's process heaters and boilers. 9. Tank Farm Updgrades. New custody transfer tanks would be installed. Alon estimates their

sizes to be between 10,000 and 25,000 barrels. A new jet treater would be located in either the tank farm or the crude unit. In addition to the custody transfer tanks, Alon intends to install up to two 250,000 barrel crude oil storage tanks. These new tanks are in addition to two new crude oil storage tanks the current PD plan permits Alon to construct. Table 3-6 provides a list of the new tanks with their proposed service.

Table 3-6. Project Tank Farm Upgrades

Tank Designation Estimated Capacity Proposed Service New Custody-Transfer Tank No 1


New Custody-Transfer Tank No 2 (Heated)






Additional inter-tank piping and pumps would be added to facilitate movement of the crude from rail cars into the custody transfer tanks and storage tanks. The custody-transfer tanks would be equipped with vapor controls, either floating roofs or vapor recovery. The new crude storage tanks would have external floating roofs.

Tank farm and process unit inter-connecting piping would be reconfigured to allow the crude tanks additional flexibility for either crude unit charge, storage for shipping into third-party pipeline systems, or receiving crude from local crude sources. To facilitate inter-plant movement, new and modified piping, pumps and equipment would be reconfigured or added.

Lastly, some of the existing tankage would be repurposed by changing the current product storage. Some of the existing tank service changes will result in emission decreases. For example, the cutter oil/gas oil (Bunker "C") tank number 70-T80004 may be changed to fuel oil or asphalt service; the cutter oil/fuel oil tank number 70-T10014 may be changed to asphalt, bunker, or cutter oil service; some of the gasoline storage tanks may be used to store jet fuel; and tank 71-T 96M01 may be equipped with steam coils to permit the storage of heavy crude. Since the refinery wishes to retain the flexibility of returning the tanks to their original service, no emission reductions will be calculated from these anticipated service changes.

Several tank service changes are planned as follows:

• Four permitted but out of service tanks (tanks 70-T11003, 70-T10007, 70-T11008 and 70-T11009) would be put back in service as diesel, asphalt/vacuum tower bottoms, or slop oil/crude oil tanks;

• The current gas oil tank 70-T55006 would be converted to diesel service;

• The current sour water tanks 71-T24M02 and 71-T24M04 would be converted to diesel service;



• The current diesel tank 71-T96M03 would be converted to crude service; and

• The current anhydrous ammonia tank 85-T13C01 would be converted to propane service.

10. Fire Protection and Safety System Upgrades

• A new fire protection and safety system will be installed for the unloading rack. The fire protection and safety system will include fire detection equipment, fire monitors, safety showers, eyewash stations, hydrants, controls and piping. The monitors at the unloading rack will be capable of reaching all of the cars being offloaded and will have with foam generators.

• Each of the monitors will have self-educting nozzles with individual foam totes. The monitors shall be mounted at grade a minimum of 50’ away from unloading cars. The system will utilize the refinery’s existing fire water supply system. The system has a storage capacity of 3,000,000 gallons and capable of delivering up to 3,500 gallons per minute of water. The system includes 4 fire water pumps with pumping capacities between 1,500 gpm and 3,500 gpm.

3.5 Entitlements Required • Modification of Precise Development Plan No. 62, Map No. 102.

• Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of Section 15091, 15093 Findings and Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program (MMMP).

• San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate.

• Kern County construction, grading, and building permits.

• FAA Part 77 Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit.

• CalFire Building Permits for fire protection systems in buildings and rail unloading facilities.

• Agreements/Permits/Authorizations pursuant to the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts, if necessary.

• Waste Discharge Requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

3.6 Construction Project construction would last approximately ten months. Construction of the rail and refinery improvement components would occur in parallel. The rail spur construction portion of the project can be divided into the following sequence: (1) equipment staging, (2) land clearance/drainage installation, (3) preparation of sub-grade, (4) place sub-ballast, (5) place bottom ballast, (6) install track and top ballast, (7) tamp/finish top ballast, and (8) demobilize. The refinery improvement construction portion of the project can be divided into the following sequence: (1) equipment staging, (2) demolition, (3) site preparation, (4) grading, (5) construction, (6) paving, (7) architectural coating, and (8) demobilize.

At peak construction, a maximum of 35 construction workers would be required for the project at one time. It is anticipated that the employees would utilize Rosedale Highway as the main point of



ingress/egress to the project site and that, once on site, they would access various sections via the existing network of paved and dirt roads.

The project would be constructed by several specialized construction contractors. All construction activities would take place between 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM., Monday through Friday, and between 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM on Saturdays and Sundays, as required. Limited construction activities may occur beyond these work hours. The project would be constructed in accordance with all applicable Kern County Noise Standards and hours of construction may be adjusted to comply with applicable requirements and proximity to sensitive receptors.

Staging areas may be required for material handling, temporary storage, and project staging activities. A list of the type and quantity of equipment and vehicle trips that would potentially be used in construction of the project based on a nine to ten-month construction schedule is presented in Table 3-7, Anticipated Off-Road Construction Equipment and Table 3-8, Anticipated Construction Trips. The information contained in Tables 3-7 and 3-8 has been identified by the project proponent and was used in the assessment of potential construction impacts to air quality, ambient noise levels, and traffic and circulation.

3.7 Operation The refinery's 70,000 BPD maximum crude processing capacity would not be increased. Most of the proposed process unit changes are minor in scope and are intended to increase the efficiency of the operation. The modifications that are proposed in the process units described below include new equipment, equipment upgrades and piping modifications.

The refinery will continue to use refinery fuel gas in fired heaters and boilers as well as natural gas supplied by the Kern Mojave Pipeline System. Potable water is supplied by the California Water Service Company (CWSC), a private utility.

The proposed rail spur and offloading facility will have the capacity to approximately receive two unit trains per peak day with approximately 104 tank cars each. Each DOT-111 tank car has a capacity of 34,500 gallons (821 barrels). The facility could handle up to 730 unit trains per year. The facility would be able to offload an average of 150,000 BPD into tankage with an annual crude oil/product throughput of 54,750,000 barrels. Crude oil in excess of the refinery annual capacity of 25,550,000 barrels per year would be exported to other refineries via pipeline at a rate of up to 150,000 BPD.

Trains carrying crude oil that approach the refinery from the north-south route (powered by four diesel-electric locomotives) would enter the refinery from the west, and circulate within the refinery on the proposed double rail loop. Trains that approach the refinery from the east-west route (powered by six diesel-electric locomotives) would enter the refinery from the east, and circulate within the refinery on the proposed double rail loop Trains could exit the refinery in either direction. One line locomotive per train would be used to reposition the tank cars during offloading.



Table 3-7. Anticipated Off-Road Construction Equipment (Hours of Operation) Four-Week Period (Period 11 is Three Weeks)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Hours

Rail Construction Air Compressors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254 508 254 1,016 Graders 366 488 488 488 488 488 244 0 0 0 0 3,050 Off-Highway Trucks (Haul) 208 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 139 0 0 2,287 Off-Highway Trucks (Water) 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 30 420 Rollers 0 0 196 196 196 196 196 196 98 0 0 1,271 Rubber Tired Dozers 224 299 299 299 149 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,270 Rubber Tired Loaders 332 442 0 0 0 0 221 442 442 442 221 2,543 Other Construction Equipment:

Ballast Regulator 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 Ballast Tamper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 Speed Swing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 254 127 508

Refinery Improvement Construction Air Compressors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 120 Concrete/Industrial Saws 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 Cranes 0 0 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 140 0 2,100 Excavators 480 480 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 960 Forklifts 0 0 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 480 0 7,200 Generator Sets 0 0 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 160 0 2,400 Graders 0 240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 Off-Highway Trucks (Water) 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 0 390 Pavers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 320 0 320 Paving Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 320 0 320 Rollers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 320 0 320 Rubber Tired Dozers 440 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 800 Scrapers 0 480 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 480 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 160 640 840 840 840 840 840 840 840 420 0 7,100 Welders 0 0 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 160 0 2,400 Total by Four-Week Period 2,430 3,786 4,060 4,060 3,910 3,761 3,738 3,715 3,860 3,604 769 37,691

Table 3-8. Anticipated Construction Trips (On-Road One-Way Trips) Four-Week Period (Period 11 is Three Weeks)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Trips

Avg. Trips/Day

Rail Construction Site labor 490 600 560 560 520 480 440 400 460 520 310 5,340 24.8 On-Road Heavy-Duty Trucks

250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 290 1.3

Refinery Improvement Construction Site labor 520 760 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 820 80 8,900 41.4 On-Road Heavy-Duty Trucks

560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 660 3.1

Total by Four-Week Period

1,820

1,360 1,520 1,520 1,480 1,440 1,400 1,360 1,420 1,340 530 15,190 70.7

Average Trips/Day 91.0 68.0 76.0 76.0 74.0 72.0 70.0 68.0 71.0 67.0 35.3 70.7



3.8 Fire Protection and Safety System A new fire protection and safety system will be installed for the unloading rack. The fire protection and safety system will include fire detection equipment, fire monitors, safety showers, eyewash stations, hydrants, controls and piping. The monitors at the unloading rack will be capable of reaching all of the cars being offloaded and will have with foam generators. The system will meet or exceed the NFPA requirements for a rail unloading rack. These requirements include foam systems for all new tankage and the unloading facility. Each of the monitors will have self-educting nozzles with individual foam totes capabilities. The monitors shall be mounted at grade a minimum of 50 feet away from unloading cars.

The new rail rack fire protection system will utilize the refinery’s existing fire water supply systems. The project area has two separate water supply systems, which can be tied together to provide a backup water supply. The water supply systems have a fire water storage capacity of almost 3,000,000 gallons and capable of delivering up to 3,500 gallons per minute of water. Supply is provided by three water source wells which are capable of delivering over 1,000 gallons per minute of water. The system includes four fire water pumps with pumping capacities between 1,500 gpm and 3,500 gpm. The firewater pumps start automatically on pressure drop with alarms initiated when the pumps start. Each of the two areas is provided with multi-loop firewater distribution systems supplying fire hydrants, monitor nozzles, hose stations, and deluge systems. The firewater distribution system mains are 10 inch and 12 inch in size, with, 6 inch, and 8 inch piping in many of the areas of the plant. There are fire main isolation valves provided throughout the system. Jockey pumps are used to maintain pressure in the firewater system.

In addition to the new unloading rack fire protection and safety systems the Alon Bakersfield Refinery has the following firefighting equipment on site:

3.8.1 Emergency Vehicles/Equipment There is a complement of mobile firefighting equipment at the refinery. The mobile equipment includes fire hose, hand portable and wheeled fire extinguishers, and two fire trucks. The main equipment is detailed below:

Description Capacity Location National Foam Pumper (2003) 1,500 US gal, 1000 US gal AFFF

foam Area 1

National Foam Pumper (approx. 1980)

1,500 YS gal, 1000 US gal AFFF form

Area 2

Foam Trailer 2,500 US gal, AFFF foam in totes SERC

In addition to the above pumpers and foam trailer, there is a quick attack truck carrying 75 US gallons of foam and monitor, and a rescue trailer carrying extra SCBA’s.

3.8.2 Existing Fixed Fire Suppression Systems In addition to the mobile fire protection assets discussed above and the new fire protection equipment that will be install as part of the proposed project, the refinery currently has over 300 strategically placed 20 pound all-purpose (A/B/C) fire extinguishers and approximately 100



firewater monitors around the process units with approximately 120 fire hydrants provided in both the process and tank farm areas in areas 1, 2 and 4.

3.8.3 Sprinkler & Deluge Systems There are sprinkler/deluge systems in the facility. Fixed water spray systems are provided on some hot oil pumps. The main protection for the process units is provided by firewater monitors located throughout the refinery. Cone roof tanks are generally provided with semi-fixed foam chamber systems or semi-fixed subsurface foam systems which meet applicable NFPA standards. The refinery fire trucks supply the foam from fixed foam installations within the tank farm areas. Open top floating roof tanks are provided with foam dams for manual over the top application of foam from large volume portable monitors and the fire trucks.

Sphere and Bullet vessels are protected by manually activated weir type water deluges fed from the refinery firewater system.

Truck and railcar loading and unloading facilities are generally protected by fixed monitors and foam carts.

Automatic sprinklers are provided in the Laboratory, and warehouses.

3.9 Cumulative Projects CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a project’s cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts are the project’s impacts combined with the impacts of other related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. As set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative impacts must reflect the severity of the impacts, as well as the likelihood of their occurrence; however, the discussion need not be as detailed as the discussion of environmental impacts attributable to the project alone. As stated in CEQA, Public Resources Code, Section 21083(b) (2), “a project may have a significant effect on the environment if the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.”

According to the CEQA Guidelines:

Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects, which, when considered together, are considerable and which compound or increase other environmental impacts. (a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate

projects. (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment, which results

from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15355).

In addition, as stated in the CEQA Guidelines, it should be noted that:

The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15064[I][5]).

Cumulative impact discussions for each environmental topic area are provided at the end of each technical analysis contained within Chapter 4, under “Impacts and Mitigation Measures.” As



previously stated, and as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, related projects consist of “closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects that would likely result in similar impacts and are located in the same geographic area” (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15355).

3.9.1 Other Energy Projects There are four other refineries and/or oil related projects in the region that could contribute to potential cumulative impacts, as shown in Figure 3-11. Given the close proximity of these refineries to the proposed project, there is a potential for cumulative impacts.

Plains All American Pipeline LP

Franchise agreement approved on January 8, 2013 to run fourteen (14) miles of pipeline located between 9224 Tupman Road in Tupman, California and 19430 Beech Avenue in Shafter, California. The pipeline route would include the installation of three new petroleum pipelines: (1) a four-inch natural gas condensate line; (2) a six-inch propane line; and (3) a six-inch butane line. The proposed route begins at the Inergy North Coles Levee Fractionator Facility (NE/4 of Section 32, T30S, R25E, MDB&M) near Tupman, California. The pipeline would trend north-north easterly along the Kern Water Bank, and then continue northward across agricultural lands until the pipeline reaches the termination point at the Plains Lone Star Facility (SW/4, Section 35, T28S, R25E, MDB&M) located near Shafter, California. The project will allow the direct transfer of products and, therefore, reduce the need for transport of such products by vehicles. The project will also include the construction of additional appurtenances necessary for operation of the new pipeline. Components necessary to the operation of the pipeline include cathodic protection and electrolysis test stations, and above ground line-markers.

Kern Oil & Refining Company, Bakersfield Refinery

The Kern Oil and Refining Bakersfield Refinery is located at 7724 E. Panama Lane. The refinery has a capacity of 26,000 BPD and produces gasoline and diesel fuel per California Air Resources Board (CARB) specifications. The refinery has been in operation since 1934 under the following operators:

• El Tejon Oil & Refining Co: 1934-1943.

• Kreiger Oil Co: 1943-1945.

• Douglas Oil Co: 1945-1962.

• Continental Oil: 1962-1966.

• Edgington Oil/Signal Oil & Gas: 1966-1971.

• Kern County Refinery Inc. (Charter Oil Co.): 1971-1976.

• Kern County Refinery Inc. (Privately Held): 1976-1982.

• Kern Oil & Refining Co: 1982-Present.

San Joaquin Refining Company Inc., Bakersfield Refinery

The San Joaquin Refining (SJR) Company Bakersfield Refinery is located at 3129 Standard St. The Refinery has a capacity of 15,000 BPD and produces CARB diesel. The Refinery has been continuously operated by San Joaquin Refining Company since 1969 and specializes in supplying



products for numerous applications including printing inks, lubricants, rubber and plastics, adhesives, paints and coatings, electrical insulating, fuels, road paving, asphalt recycling, and roofing. The Refinery consists of the following process units:

• 24,300 BPD Atmospheric Distillation

• 14,300 BPD Vacuum Distillation

• 4,000 BPD NMP Solvent Extraction

• 3,500 BPD Multi-stage Catalytic Hydrotreating

• 2,000 BPD Heavy Oil Hydrofinishing

• 2,500 BPD Asphalt Oxidation

• Asphalt / Polymer Mixing

• Thermal Vis-breaking

To support the ongoing refining activity, SJR operates and maintains a tank farm of over 90 tanks with a total capacity of 800,000 barrels.

Tricor Refining, LLC - Golden Bear Oil Specialties Refinery

Tricor Refining, LLC is located at 1134 Manor St. in Bakersfield, California at the site of the Golden Bear Oil Specialties Refinery. The Refinery was purchased in 2001 by Ergon, Inc. and San Joaquin Refining Co., Inc. The facility has been redesigned into a processing, transloading and storage facility for Haz Mat, non-hazardous material, petroleum products and asphalt. Tricor offers processing capabilities for industrial asphalt customers with its two asphalt blowing stills, emulsion plant and polymer plant. In addition, Tricor offers for sale, its well know Golden Bear Preservation Products, SC and MC cutback asphalts and asphalt emulsions. With over 500,000 barrels of asphalt storage and 38 heated railcar unloading spots, Tricor is able to provide economical transloading, tank leasing and to a variety of asphalt customers for their long-term or short-term needs.

Tricor also offers an additional 500,000 barrels of storage tanks for transloading by truck and rail of other petroleum products, such as diesel fuel (truck unloading only), process oils, lubricants, and other non-flammable petroleum cuts. Tricor’s heat is provided by an onsite electricity co-generation power plant which is independently owned outside of Tricor.

The TRICOR Refinery facility offers a selection of processing equipment the processing of Asphalt products. Among the available equipment:

• Polymer Blending Plant for Dry Polymer Addition

• ABA Plant (Air Blown Asphalt) for Roofing Asphalt

• UF Column (Utility Fractionators) for Crude and Base Oil Distillation

• High Speed Blenders for SC and MC Asphalt Blending and Loading

• Asphalt Emulsion Plant

• Hydro Treater

• Solvent Extractor



Kern County Amendment To Title 19 – Kern County Zoning Ordinance, Focused On Chapter 19.98 (Oil And Gas Production) For Oil And Gas Local Permitting

Senate Bill No. 4 (SB 4) was signed by Governor Brown in 2013. The Bill mandates that the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources in the Department of Conservation (DOGGR) complete regulations on hydraulic fracturing and circulate an EIR for public comment. County Staff and the Board of Supervisors have been told that the process to obtain a permit in Sacramento has been very slow over the past few years due to the increase in the number of CEQA challenges occurring against DOGGR. Because Kern County does not require a Conditional Use Permit for drilling or operation of a well, DOGGR has been required to process their own CEQA documents, which has slowed permitting down. In many cases, it has taken local oil companies 6-9 months to get one permit from DOGGR.

The oil and gas industry (WSPA, CIPA and IOPA) came to the Board of Supervisors and asked for help. Planning Staff recommended that the County go through a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, which would trigger CEQA and allow for the County to be the lead agency in its preparation. Once a comprehensive EIR was completed, other agencies such as DOGGR, Air District, Water Board, CDFW, etc. could use the County's EIR for their permitting. The intent is to reduce the time needed for these agencies to prepare their own CEQA documents and speed up the permitting process for the industry.

Another outcome of this Zoning Amendment is that the Board will have the authority to decide which mitigation and regulations would be necessary to protect the citizens of Kern. This would include the protection of Kern's other resources and industries, such as agriculture. Based on the public testimony that was taken in front of the Board of Supervisors, Staff believes that such protections should be considered. As the County goes through the EIR process in 2014, more information will be made available and ultimately the Board of Supervisors will have a comprehensive package of information available to them to make decisions about the final language that will be inserted into the Zoning Ordinance.



Figure 3-11. Cumulative Energy Projects



3.9.2 Other Cumulative Projects Table 3-9, Relevant Cumulative Projects other than Energy in Kern County, lists nearby residential, recreational, commercial, natural resource and energy projects. The Lead Agency reviewed all known projects within a six-mile radius of the project site. There are no new known large residential projects located within a six-mile radius of the project site.

Table 3-9. Relevant Cumulative Projects other than Energy in Kern County

Case ID Jurisdiction Project/Applicant Request/Land Use Size CUP-13681 County of Kern Pishvel, Mohammad Residence In Co 1 Units CUP-13682 County of Kern Pavletich, Neal Additional Dwelling Or 2ndary

R.U. 1 Units

CUP-13868 County of Kern Gandelio Avila CUP For Additional SFR 1 Units ZCC-13970 County of Kern Earle Gibbons By Greg

Owens Add 3 Additional Sfrs 3 Units

ZCC-14073 County of Kern Frank Howell Variance To Density To Allow Additional Unit

1 Units

CUP-10072 County of Kern Coe, Donna Preschool CUP-10572 County of Kern Lopez, Pablo/Frank

Slinkard Add'l Dwellings

CUP-11901 County of Kern Blackhawk Land Co. Ii/ Delamarter & Deifel

Sump Lot On A Drilling Island

CUP-11983 County of Kern Hearthstone Adult Services

Community Correctional Facility @ Existing Rehabilitation Facility

1.28 Acres

CUP-12833 County of Kern Central Metals/Raymond Cordova

Vehicle Wrecking/Salvage Yard

CUP-13077 County of Kern Weimers, Jerold Retention Of Additional Dwelling Units

CUP-13194 County of Kern Upple, Shindna/Pasquini Engineering

Ag Truck Parking 38 Acres

CUP-13231 County of Kern Rich, James Mobilehome Not Meeting Age & Architec.

CUP-13405 County of Kern O'malley, Lawrence Solar Energy Facility 3.75 Acres CUP-13442 County of Kern Hernandez, Juan Radio Tower, Church

Broadcast Station

CUP-13596 County of Kern Mayberry, Danny Retention Of Two Cargo Containers

CUP-13608 County of Kern Varela, Maria/Hansen Engineering

Cup For Sporting Events 20 Acres

CUP-13639 County of Kern Del Toro, Joe Ag Trucking Facility 5 Acres CUP-13683 County of Kern Thoene, Jake/Dewalt 3 Cargo Containers 1.18 Acres CUP-13748 County of Kern Wong, Wyatt & Stacy Breeding Kennel For Up To 15

Dogs - Labrador Retrievers

CUP-13759 County of Kern A T & T/Tricia Knight 75-Foot Tall Monopole 1.4 Acres




Case ID Jurisdiction Project/Applicant Request/Land Use Size CUP-13792 County of Kern Ayler, Mark/Bruce

Anderson Sand Blast & Paint Facility For Ag & Oilfield Equipment

20.5 Acres

CUP-13809 County of Kern General Petroleum/Paul Dhanens Architect

Storage Of Oils/Fuels

CUP-13971 County of Kern Earle Gibbons By Greg Owens

Ref 13970

CUP-13980 County of Kern Edra, Ernesto And Wilma Modify #1 To Cup #19, Map 124-06 Condition (10) To Allow Up To 16 Residents

0.5 Acres

CUP-13999 County of Kern Frank Tripicchio Church CUP-14004 County of Kern Alice Powell Womens Shelter CUP-14013 County of Kern Xochitl Reyes Tire Storage As A Main Use CUP-14017 County of Kern Gulzar Dhindsa Ag Trucking CUP-14031 County of Kern Tommy Patterson Medical Hardship Mh CUP-14042 County of Kern Mckormick Landscape Inc Landscape Contractors Yard CUP-14044 County of Kern Spencer, Glen/Dave

Dmohowsk Auto Repair 5 Acres

CUP-14058 County of Kern Paul Anthony New Cell Tower CUP-14079 County of Kern Jon Casida CUP For Transitional Housing.

Not Allowed In CO, Needs A Zone Change To C-2 Or CH.

CUP-846 County of Kern Chevron Usa Surface Mine & Reclamation CUP-9374 County of Kern American Asphalt &

Concrete Crushing/J Wilson

Concrete, Asphalt, & Non-Organic Material Crushing & Recycling

CUP-9484 County of Kern American Asphalt & Concrete Crushing/J Wilson

Concrete, Asphalt, & Nonorganic Material Crushing & Recycling

GPA-10121 County of Kern Soper, Michael/Porter-Robertson

Gpa To Sr 263 Acres

GPA-10663 County of Kern BAKERSFIELD LAND INVESTMENT/Mcintosh & ASSOC

Gpa To Lr 238 Acres

GPA-10903 County of Kern Smoot, Steve/T Fallgatter Gpa To 4.3 GPA-10927 County of Kern Blackhawk Land Co. Ii \

Lonnie Oman RIA To LR 70.29 Acres

GPA-11625 County of Kern Carriage Homes/Carl Moreland

GPA To LR & GC 76.33 Acres

GPA-11974 County of Kern Hearthstone Adult Servcies

Hmr To Gc 1.28 Acres

GPA-12220 County of Kern Al Graves By Wiley D. Hughes Surveying

Gpa From Rr To Sr 30.14 Acres

GPA-12328 County of Kern T. Square Llc By Marino & Associates

Gpa From Lmr To Li & Hmr 28 Acres




Case ID Jurisdiction Project/Applicant Request/Land Use Size GPA-12455 County of Kern S & J Alfalfa Inc By Sikand

Engineering Circulation Amendment To Take Wings Way Off Section Line In Nw Corner Of The Project Site.

GPA-12526 County of Kern Hughes, Tracy Marie Et Al Sr To Oc 1 Acres GPA-12598 County of Kern Babby Kurian Gpa From Lmr To Si 7 Acres GPA-13156 County of Kern Neighborhood

Development Llc/Andreis Lewis

Sr And Er To Gc 6.5 Acres

GPA-13293 County of Kern City Of Bakersfield Realignment Hagenan (Circ Amendment) To Allow The Hageman Flyover

GPA-13294 County of Kern City Of Bakersfield Circulation Amendment - Standard Street And Hagemena Flyover

GPA-13520 County of Kern Kc Roads Dept Gpa 18, Map 102 / Gpa 4, Map 102-14 / Gpa 8, Map 102-15

GPA-13606 County of Kern Varela, Maria/Hansen Engineering

Gpa To Rr 20 Acres

GPA-13613 County of Kern Maynard, Dewey Gpa To Gc 0.5 Acres GPA-13746 County of Kern Edward And Lena Fisher

Et Al Er To Si Or Gc 4 Acres

GPA-13776 County of Kern Klaus Hackel By Alta Design Group

Sr To Oc For House Area Only. Backarea Rezoned To E 1/4

1.5 Acres

GPA-13853 County of Kern Ssft Holdings/Porter & Assoc.

To Gc 4.36 Acres

GPA-13859 County of Kern Fuentes, Robin To Gc 2.6 Acres GPA-13874 County of Kern Fred Goshtasbi HMR To GC GPA-13922 County of Kern Roll Real Estate

Development LLC C/O Jon Ritchie

GC To LI

GPA-13949 County of Kern Kern County Planning And Community Development Dep

GPA From 8.5 And 8.5/2.5 To 7.1/2.5

29.6 Acres

GPA-13950 County of Kern Kern County Planning And Community Development Dep

GPA From 8.5 And 8.5/2.5 To 7.1/2.5

0.07 Acres

GPA-9674 County of Kern Denela, Llc/Dewalt Corp Gpa To 6.1 SPA-10154 County of Kern Northwest Land

Development, Llc/ Stantec Gpa To Sr 16.64 Acres

SPA-10365 County of Kern Mmr Bakersfield/Matt Wade

Gpa To Sr 78 Acres

SPA-10401 County of Kern Hinesly, Floyd/Porter-Robertson

Gpa To Li

SPA-13478 County of Kern Dewey Maynard Hmr To Gc




Case ID Jurisdiction Project/Applicant Request/Land Use Size ZCC-10122 County of Kern Soper, Michael/Porter-

Robertson Zc To E (1/4) 263 Acres

ZCC-10155 County of Kern Northwest Land Development, Llc/ Stantec

Zc To E (1/4) 16.64 Acres

ZCC-10234 County of Kern Sun Coast Materials/Larry Clift

Zc To M-2

ZCC-10402 County of Kern Hinesly, Floyd/Porter-Robertson

Zc To M-1 Pd

ZCC-10550 County of Kern Lopez, Pablo/Frank Slinkard

Zc To R-1

ZCC-10664 County of Kern Bakersfield Land Investment/Mcintosh & Assoc

Zc To R-1 238 Acres

ZCC-10696 County of Kern Tekaat, Leonard & Brenda Zc To C-2 Pd & M-1 Pd ZCC-10732 County of Kern Valdez, Maria/San

Joaquin Eng'g Zc To C-2

ZCC-10915 County of Kern Whitezell, David/Nelms Surveying

Zc To E(1/2) 3.33 Acres

ZCC-11001 County of Kern Martin Bros Dev/Cornerstone

Zc To R-1 9.46 Acres

ZCC-11096 County of Kern Golden Estates/Bdd Prop/Delmarter And Deifel

Add Pe To E(1/2) Rs In Suspense

31.64 Acres

ZCC-11416 County of Kern Solis, Luis Manuel Zc To M-1 Pd 2.7 Acres ZCC-11441 County of Kern San Joaquin Engineering Zc To M-2 Pd 4.83 Acres ZCC-11492 County of Kern Blackhawk Land Co. Ii \

Lonnie Oman A To R-1 70.29 Acres

ZCC-11597 County of Kern Pioneer Place/Delmarter Zc To A 11.51 Acres ZCC-11626 County of Kern Carriage Homes/Carl

Moreland ZCC To R-1 FPS, E(1/4) FPS, E(1/2) FPS, & C-2 PD

76.33 Acres

ZCC-11660 County of Kern Suncoast Materials/Larry Clift

A-1 To M-2 Pd 3.3 Acres

ZCC-11925 County of Kern Downs, Gordon/Pinnacle Engineering

Zc To M-2 Pd 1.17 Acres

ZCC-11975 County of Kern Hearthstone Adult Services

R-3 To C-2 1.28 Acres

ZCC-12031 County of Kern Andreatta, Carla/Richard Carr

Zcc To C-1 Pd 7 Acres

ZCC-12094 County of Kern Ellis, Stan/Etchechury Zc To M-2 Pd 10 Acres ZCC-12221 County of Kern Al Graves By Wiley D.

Hughes Surveying Zcc From A To E (1/2) Rs 30.14 Acres

ZCC-12331 County of Kern T. Square Llc By Marino & Associates

Zcc From R-1 To M-1 Pd & R-2 28 Acres

ZCC-12527 County of Kern Hughes, Tracy Marie Et Al Sr To Oc 1 Acres ZCC-12599 County of Kern Baby Kurian Zcc From R-1 To M-1 7 Acres




Case ID Jurisdiction Project/Applicant Request/Land Use Size ZCC-13226 County of Kern Pinnacle

Engineering/Leslie Vovilla To R-1 2.17 Acres

ZCC-13330 County of Kern Neighhborhood Development Llc

E 1 Rs, A And E1rs To C-2 Cl Added C1/2 Rs To E1/2 Cl On 3/8/2010

12.5 Acres

ZCC-13359 County of Kern Ramirez,Rodolfo/Higher Ground

To M-1 Pd 2.5 Acres

ZCC-13371 County of Kern Kern County Firefighters/Luis Hinojosa

Zc To M-1 Pd 0 Acres

ZCC-13408 County of Kern Kern County Planning & Community Dev Dept

Staff Initiated Zc To M-1 Pd 62 Acres

ZCC-13537 County of Kern Dewey Maynard C-1 Neighborhood Commercial For Flooring Sales Out Of Accessoary Bldg At Residence

0.5 Acres

ZCC-13607 County of Kern Varela, Maria/Hansen Engineering

Zc To E(20) Rs 20 Acres

ZCC-13614 County of Kern Maynard, Dewey C-1 Pd 0.5 Acres ZCC-13754 County of Kern Clowers, Thomas To R-2 0 Acres ZCC-13771 County of Kern Fisher, Edward To Li 4 Acres ZCC-13786 County of Kern Sierra Moonlight Ventures M-1 0.21 Acres ZCC-13786 County of Kern Sierra Moonlight Ventures M-1 0.21 Acres ZCC-13791 County of Kern Ayler, Mark/Bruce

Anderson To Nr (20) 20.5 Acres

ZCC-13842 County of Kern J & F Properties To M-3 ZCC-13854 County of Kern Ssft Holdings/Porter &

Assoc. To C-2 Pd 4.36 Acres

ZCC-13875 County of Kern Fred Goshtosbi R-2 PD To C-2 PD ZCC-13923 County of Kern Roll Real Eastate

Development LLC C/O Jon Ritchie

RF H To M-1 PD H

ZCC-13951 County of Kern Kern County Planning And Community Development Dep

ZCC To M-1 KRC PD

ZCC-13998 County of Kern Roman Morales C-2 To M-1 PD ZCC-14038 County of Kern George Cooper A-1 To C-2 PD On 14 Acres 14 Acres ZCC-14072 County of Kern Gurvinder Singh ZCC From C-2 PD To M-1 PD ZCC-14093 County of Kern Pascual Garcia ZCC To C-2 PD ZCC-14097 County of Kern Earl Aganon M-1 And M-2 ZCC-9675 County of Kern Denela, Llc/Dewalt Corp Zc To C-2 Pd ZCC-9912 County of Kern Ellis, Stan/R Lusich Zc To M-2 Pd SPR 12-0142 City of Bakersfield Riverwalk Corporate

Center General office building 28.75 1,000 SF

SPR 12-0247 City of Bakersfield Office 0.864 1,000 SF




Case ID Jurisdiction Project/Applicant Request/Land Use Size SPR 12-0272 City of Bakersfield Patrick & Henderson Inc. Office space addition to

industrial facility (M-2) 1.8 1,000 SF

SPR 12-0317 City of Bakersfield Raquel Zavala Convert residence to general office bldg. (C-C)

1.8 1,000 SF

SPR 12-0387 City of Bakersfield Office 1.5 1,000 SF SPR 12-0420 City of Bakersfield David Y. Milazzo AIA General office building (C-O) 54.336 1,000 SF SPR 12-0421 City of Bakersfield David Y. Milazzo AIA General office building (C-O) 53.776 1,000 SF SPR 13-0078 City of Bakersfield Office building (M-2) 10.08 1,000 SF SPR 13-0022 City of Bakersfield Doug Wilson Outpatient surgery center (C-

O) 12.991 1,000 SF

SPR 11-0021 City of Bakersfield San Joaquin Community Hospital

Medical office building (C-2) 56.3 1,000 SF

SPR 11-0199 City of Bakersfield Paul Dhanens Architect Inc.

Medical office building (C-O) 9.188 1,000 SF

SPR 11-0313 City of Bakersfield Skarphol Associates Addition to medical office building (C-2)

3.365 1,000 SF

SPR 11-0363 City of Bakersfield Paul Dhanens Architect Medical office building (C-2) 25.8 1,000 SF SPR 11-0454 City of Bakersfield John Leach Medical office building (C-2) 3.6 SPR 12-0263 City of Bakersfield McIntosh & Associates Medical office building (C-2) 59.698 1,000 SF SPR 12-0289 City of Bakersfield Tony Vo Addition/conversion to medical

office (M-1) 1.66 1,000 SF


Medical office building (C-2) 10.6 1,000 SF

SPR 12-0314 City of Bakersfield OM Management & Business Assn.

Medical office building (C-2 & R-3-P)

9.9 1,000 SF

SPR 12-0344 City of Bakersfield Boulder Associates Addition to medical office building (C-2)

16.487 1,000 SF

PDR 11-0385 City of Bakersfield Daryl C. and Victoria M. Nicholson Trust

Self-storage facility (C-2/P.C.D.)

168 1,000 SF

PDR 12-0145 City of Bakersfield Marino & Associates/Todd Sweaney


366.125 1,000 SF

PDR 12-0356 City of Bakersfield Marino & Associates/Kerfoot Family Trust


252.497 1,000 SF

SPR 06-1480R City of Bakersfield Additional warehouse 15 1,000 SF SPR 11-0031 City of Bakersfield Joseph C. Engel Industrial office/warehouse (M-

2) 32 1,000 SF


Office/warehouse building (M-2)

32.56 1,000 SF

SPR 11-0235 City of Bakersfield Joseph C. Engel Office/warehouse building addition (M-1)

44 1,000 SF

SPR 11-0260 City of Bakersfield James Custer Industrial office/warehouse (M-2)

5.4 1,000 SF




Case ID Jurisdiction Project/Applicant Request/Land Use Size SPR 11-0262 City of Bakersfield Gary Weaver Ancillary storage space (M-1) 0.857 1,000 SF SPR 11-0472 City of Bakersfield JR Design Group, LLC Warehouse (M-1) 1.625 1,000 SF SPR 12-0060 City of Bakersfield Jeffrey Krause Office/warehouse building (M-

2) 9.9 1,000 SF

SPR 12-0081 City of Bakersfield Ruben Mironowski Office/warehouse building (M-1)

3.695 1,000 SF

SPR 12-0186 City of Bakersfield Superior Construction Warehouse addition (M-1) 6.288 1,000 SF SPR 12-0215 City of Bakersfield Pasquini Engineering Warehouse for tire service

business (M-1) 9 1,000 SF

SPR 12-0226 City of Bakersfield John Ulman Vehicle storage buildings (M-1) 8 1,000 SF SPR 12-0232 City of Bakersfield Hixson, Inc. Warehouse addition (M-2) 9.9 1,000 SF SPR 12-0280 City of Bakersfield Global Elastomeric

Products, Inc. Warehouse addition (M-2) 6.6 1,000 SF

SPR 12-0386 City of Bakersfield Superior Construction Office/warehouse building (M-2)

4 1,000 SF

SPR 12-0415 City of Bakersfield Ruben Mironowski Warehouse addition (M-1) 5.4 1,000 SF SPR 12-0432 City of Bakersfield JB Consulting Services

LLC Office/warehouse buildings (M-1)

74.804 1,000 SF

SPR 13-0050 City of Bakersfield Skarphol Associates Office/warehouse buildings (M-2)

24 1,000 SF

SPR 13-0060 City of Bakersfield Warehouse building (M-1) 9.75 1,000 SF SPR 13-0066 City of Bakersfield Kern County Housing

Authority Storage facility (C-C) 10 1,000 SF

SPR 11-0310 City of Bakersfield McIntosh & Associates Church (E/CH) 675 Seats PDR 12-0398 City of Bakersfield Les Schwab Tire Center Retail tire center (C-2/P.C.D) 11.8 1,000 SF SPR 11-0022 City of Bakersfield Valley Steel Construction Auto body repair facility

addition (M-1) 6.5 1,000 SF

SPR 11-0332 City of Bakersfield Ernie Martinez Construction/equipment yard w/ office (M-2)

0.4 1,000 SF

SPR 11-0472 City of Bakersfield JR Design Group, LLC Contractor's office (M-1) 2.4 1,000 SF SPR 12-0272 City of Bakersfield Patrick & Henderson Inc. Shop area addition to industrial

facility (M-2) 15.55 1,000 SF

SPR 12-0387 City of Bakersfield Industrial facility 6 1,000 SF SPR 13-0047 City of Bakersfield John Ulman Automobile lube shop (C-2) 3.249 1,000 SF SPR 11-0207 City of Bakersfield Metro PCS California LLC Wireless telecommunications

antenna (C-2)

SPR 12-0159 City of Bakersfield SBA Towers III, LLC Wireless telecommunications antenna (PCD)

SPR 13-0038 City of Bakersfield Telecommunications building (C-2)

SPR 13-0094 City of Bakersfield Vince Pomeroy 59-foot tall monopalm antenna (C-1)




Case ID Jurisdiction Project/Applicant Request/Land Use Size SPR 12-0226 City of Bakersfield John Ulman Outdoor vehicle storage area

(M-1) 8 1,000 SF

PDR 13-0117 City of Bakersfield Drive-through restaurant (C-2/P.C.D.)

4 1,000 SF

SPR 11-0179 City of Bakersfield Mel Cruz Modify existing drive-through restaurant (C-1)

3.816 1,000 SF

SPR 12-0218 City of Bakersfield Mel Cruz Drive-through restaurant (C-2) 3.84 1,000 SF SPR 13-0061 City of Bakersfield John Ovanessian Fitness club (C-2) 18.37 1,000 SF SPR 11-0262 City of Bakersfield Gary Weaver Restaurant (M-1) 1.8 1,000 SF SPR 11-0096 City of Bakersfield Khair Saheb Convert accessory church

buildings (R-2) 3 Units

SPR 12-0092 City of Bakersfield KSA Group Architects Apartment complex (R-2) 208 Units SPR 12-0259 City of Bakersfield Western Properties Apartment complex (R-2) 132 Units SPR 12-0418 City of Bakersfield Convert garage to apartment

unit (R-2) 1 Units

SPR 13-0009 City of Bakersfield Fuller Apartment Homes Apartment complex (WM-R2) 198 Units SPR 13-0048 City of Bakersfield Arin Resnicke AIA Additional apartment units (R-

3) 18 Units

SPR 13-0066 City of Bakersfield Kern County Housing Authority

Apartment complex w/ clubhouse (C-C)

50 Units

SPR 11-0303 City of Bakersfield San Joaquin Community Hospital

Patient family guest suites at hospital (C-2)

4 Units

SPR 12-0200 City of Bakersfield Kingston Bay Senior Living, LLC

Assisted independent living facility (C-2)

160 Units

PDR 12-0145 City of Bakersfield Marino & Associates/Todd Sweaney

Manager's residence (C-2/P.C.D.)

1 Units

PDR 12-0356 City of Bakersfield Marino & Associates/Kerfoot Family Trust

Manager's residence (C-2/P.C.D.)

1 Units

SPR 11-0060 City of Bakersfield Joseph and Margaret Montgomery

Second dwelling unit (R-3) 1 Units

SPR 11-0209 City of Bakersfield Mario Saucedo Second dwelling unit (R-1) 1 Units SPR 11-0212 City of Bakersfield Shannon Roberson Second dwelling unit (R-1) 1 Units SPR 11-0265 City of Bakersfield Jose Ornelas Convert garage/storage to

dwelling unit (R-3) 1 Units

SPR 13-0053 City of Bakersfield Jose Eduardo Salmeron Dwelling units (R-2) 3 Units SPR 13-0094 City of Bakersfield Duplex (R-3) 2 Units PDR 11-0411 City of Bakersfield Cahan Panama,

LLC/Silver Creek Plaza Retail commercial (C-2/P.C.D.) 136 1,000 SF

PDR 11-0417 City of Bakersfield JEC Panama, LLC Retail commercial (C-2/P.C.D.) 91.3 1,000 SF PDR 13-0110 City of Bakersfield Retail commercial (C-2/P.C.D.) 152 1,000 SF SPR 07-2211 City of Bakersfield Crossroads Plaza

Commercial Center Retail commercial 235.992 1,000 SF




Case ID Jurisdiction Project/Applicant Request/Land Use Size SPR 11-0065 City of Bakersfield Paul Dhanens Architect

Inc. Retail building (C-2) 4.528 1,000 SF

SPR 11-0192 City of Bakersfield Towery Commercial Retail commercial center (C-2) 26.36 1,000 SF SPR 11-0233 City of Bakersfield Paul Anchordoquy Addition to existing

convenience market (C-2) 0.687 1,000 SF

SPR 11-0339 City of Bakersfield James Custer Showroom/warehouse (M-2) 7.506 1,000 SF SPR 11-0353 City of Bakersfield Gagan Bains Multi-tenant retail building (C-2) 1.5 1,000 SF SPR 11-0370 City of Bakersfield Camino Real L.P. Addition to multi-tenant retail

building (C-2) 1.53 1,000 SF

SPR 12-0058 City of Bakersfield Embree Asset Group Retail building (C-2) 20.707 1,000 SF SPR 12-0064 City of Bakersfield William Everett Witt Convert residence to

barbershop 0.864 1,000 SF

SPR 12-0139 City of Bakersfield John R. Wilson Retail showroom/warehouse building (C-2)

2.8 1,000 SF

SPR 12-0254 City of Bakersfield John Ulman Used auto dealership (M-1) 6 1,000 SF SPR 12-0256 City of Bakersfield Carosella - Lundy Retail commercial center (M-2) 42.405 1,000 SF SPR 12-0358 City of Bakersfield Jose Ramon Castillo Multi-tenant retail building (C-2) 3.3 1,000 SF SPR 13-0017 City of Bakersfield Paul Dhanens Architect

Inc. Multi-tenant retail building (C-2) 6.8 1,000 SF

SPR 13-0102 City of Bakersfield Retail commercial (C-2) 322 1,000 SF CUP 11-0050 City of Bakersfield KSA Group Architects Medical clinic (A) 9.95 1,000 SF CUP 11-0471 City of Bakersfield AMERCO Real Estate

Company Truck/trailer rentals at self-storage facility (C-2)

CUP 11-0087 City of Bakersfield Martina Juarez CRV recycling center (C-2) 1 Units CUP 11-0252 City of Bakersfield Bellen Gonzales CRV recycling center (M-2) 1 Units CUP 13-0076 City of Bakersfield CRV recycling center (C-2) 1 Units CUP 11-0210 City of Bakersfield Valley Bible Fellowship

Church New classroom bldgs at existing school (M-2)

59 1,000 SF

CUP 12-0087 City of Bakersfield Valley Achievement Center

Increase number of students/faculty (C-O/C-1)

25 Students

CUP 11-0061 City of Bakersfield Don Simpson Two 5,000 sq. ft. church buildings (A-20A)

10 1,000 SF

CUP 12-0203 City of Bakersfield Jamal Powell/Pleasant View Church

Church expansion (R-2) 4.995 1,000 SF

CUP 10-0192 City of Bakersfield Point Loma Nazarene University/Bakersfield

Time extension - 500-student university (C-O)

500 Students

CUP 13-0109 City of Bakersfield Garces Memorial High School

Music Building (R-1)

CUP 10-0553 City of Bakersfield Eagleson Body Works Inc. Two autobody repair shop/office buildings (C-2)

27.61 1,000 SF

CUP 11-0166 City of Bakersfield Construction Specialty Service, Inc.

Fixed dry-mix concrete batch plant (M-1)

0.4 1,000 SF




Case ID Jurisdiction Project/Applicant Request/Land Use Size CUP 12-0433 City of Bakersfield Frank Vega Truck tire repair/sales center

(C-2) 3.84

CUP 13-0027 City of Bakersfield Les Schwab Tire Center Retail tire center (C-1) 10.066 1,000 SF CUP 10-0130 City of Bakersfield McIntosh &

Associates/Foothill Energy, LLC

Time extension - oil well drill site (R-1)

CUP 11-0126 City of Bakersfield AT&T 85-foot tall monopine (R-1) CUP 11-0128 City of Bakersfield AT&T 90-foot tall monopine (C-2/R-3) CUP 11-0182 City of Bakersfield Metro PCS California LLC 60-foot tall monopine (OS) CUP 11-0320 City of Bakersfield Lazer Broadcasting 50-foot tall radio station lattice

tower (M-2)

CUP 11-0377 City of Bakersfield VeloTera Services, Inc 85-foot tall wireless facility (P.C.D.)

CUP 12-0025 City of Bakersfield WZI Inc./Snow Road Solar Facility

Solar electric power generation fac. (M-1/M-2)

23.3 Acres

CUP 12-0028 City of Bakersfield Caring Funeral Service Inc.

Addition of crematory to funeral home (R-3)

CUP 12-0167 City of Bakersfield Metro PCS California LLC 65-foot tall monopine (R-1) CUP 12-0197 City of Bakersfield AT&T Wireless telecommunications

encl. (R-1-CH)

CUP 12-0225 City of Bakersfield Complete Wireless 120-foot tall monopole in M-1) CUP 12-0243 City of Bakersfield Metro PCS California LLC 95-foot tall monopine (A) CUP 12-0313 City of Bakersfield Metro PCS California LLC Increase height of cell tower

(M-1)

CUP 12-0323 City of Bakersfield McIntosh & Associates/Foothill Energy, LLC

Oil well drill site (R-1)

CUP 12-0436 City of Bakersfield McIntosh & Ass./Compass Global Res.

Oil well drill site (WM-R2)

CUP 12-0287 City of Bakersfield Jason Gandola Landscape contractor yard (C-2)

2 Acres

CUP 11-0331 City of Bakersfield Inland Architects/Starbucks Coffee

Drive through restaurant (C-1) 1.75 1,000 SF

CUP 12-0125 City of Bakersfield Inland Architects/Starbucks Coffee

Modify operating hours for drive-thru rest. (C-1)

1,000 SF

CUP 12-0419 City of Bakersfield Jeffrey Thorne Private social club/gym/bar (C-O)

1.2 1,000 SF

CUP 11-0133 City of Bakersfield Jessica Pounds Beer/wine sales at restaurant (R-1)

CUP 12-0182 City of Bakersfield Jimmy Lopez Beer/wine sales at restaurant (C-O)

CUP 12-0275 City of Bakersfield Sabino and Maria Garcia Alcohol sales at restaurant (C-




Case ID Jurisdiction Project/Applicant Request/Land Use Size 1)

CUP 12-0288 City of Bakersfield CalPac Pizza II, LLC Restaurant (PCD) 1.532 1,000 SF CUP 11-0263 City of Bakersfield Fred Gagliardini Wine, meat and cheese

bar/shop (C-2) 1.145 1,000 SF

CUP 12-0118 City of Bakersfield Ken Lopez Bar (C-2) 1.266 1,000 SF CUP 12-0409 City of Bakersfield Bakersfield Commons

Baseball Stadium Baseball stadium (C-C/P.C.D.) 5000 Seats

CUP 11-0079 City of Bakersfield Garces Memorial High School

Eight tennis courts (R-1)

CUP 12-0444 City of Bakersfield Roominghouse (R-2) MOD 11 -0476 City of Bakersfield Columbus Heaven L .P. Apartment complex 56 Units CUP 12-0385 City of Bakersfield Skarpohl

Associates/Hoffman Hospice

Congregate living health facility (WM-R2)

18 Units

CUP 11-0061 City of Bakersfield Don Simpson One 1,400 sq. ft. caretaker's residence (A-20A)

1 Units

MOD 11 -0444 City of Bakersfield Embree Asset Group Retail building (C-2) 20.707 1,000 SF CUP 11-0450 City of Bakersfield Michael Morin Pawn shop (C-1) 6.373 1,000 SF CUP 12-0305 City of Bakersfield Ibrahim Garay Pharmacy (C-O) 2.772 1,000 SF CUP 12-0227 City of Bakersfield McIntosh & Associates Sales trailer for over 90 days

(Tracts 6223/7161)

Tract 6599 City of Bakersfield Padre Realty Llc Active Tract (Condominium) 83 Units Tract 6612R City of Bakersfield Fidelity Real Estate Group Active Tract (Condominium) 1 Units Tract 6811 City of Bakersfield Lynx Realty &

Management Active Tract (Standard) 78 Units

Tract 6899 City of Bakersfield M. S. Walker & Associates, Inc.

Active Tract (Standard) 32 Units

Tract 6905 City of Bakersfield Roland F Scholz Active Tract (Condominium) 16 Units Tract 6945 City of Bakersfield Ggb Properties Llc Active Tract (Standard) 2 Units Tract 7066 City of Bakersfield 19th & Eye Investment

Grp Inc Active Tract (Condominium) 17 Units

Tract 7135 City of Bakersfield Baker Street Village Llc Active Tract (Condominium) 4 Units Tract 7209 City of Bakersfield Creekview Villas Llc Active Tract (Condominium) 36 Units Tract 6098 City of Bakersfield Froehlich Inc Active Tract (Standard) 118 Lots Tract 6167 City of Bakersfield Don Judkins Active/Recorded Tract

(Standard) 102 Lots

Tract 6183 City of Bakersfield Jose Rodolfo Paz Active Tract (Standard) 12 Lots Tract 6209 City of Bakersfield Kern Housing Authority Active/Recorded Tract

(Standard) 78 Lots

Tract 6250R City of Bakersfield Castle & Cooke California, Inc.

Active Tract (Standard) 129 Lots

Tract 6361 City of Bakersfield Adavco, Inc. Active/Recorded Tract 66 Lots




Case ID Jurisdiction Project/Applicant Request/Land Use Size (Standard)

Tract 6364R City of Bakersfield Adavco, Inc. Active/Recorded Tract (Standard)

107 Lots

Tract 6390 City of Bakersfield Rm Development, Inc. Active Tract (Standard) 13 Lots Tract 6442 City of Bakersfield Adavco, Inc. Active Tract (Standard) 78 Lots Tract 6448 City of Bakersfield Castle & Cooke California,

Inc. Active/Recorded Tract (Standard)

201 Lots

Tract 6453 City of Bakersfield Lennar Homes Of California, Inc.

Active/Recorded Tract (Standard)

121 Lots

Tract 6488 City of Bakersfield Myrna Parks Active Tract (Standard) 113 Lots Tract 6503R City of Bakersfield Bak Bullfrog Llc Active Tract (Standard) 104 Lots Tract 6521 City of Bakersfield Bvgg Llc. Active Tract (Standard) 425 Lots Tract 6522R City of Bakersfield Ryer Island Land Co. Active Tract (Standard) 249 Lots Tract 6531 City of Bakersfield Lennar Homes Active Tract (Standard) 298 Lots Tract 6553 City of Bakersfield Bz Development Active/Recorded Tract

(Standard) 121 Lots

Tract 6557 City of Bakersfield Bakersfield Pacific Active Tract (Standard) 310 Lots Tract 6577 City of Bakersfield Centex Homes Active Tract (Standard) 265 Lots Tract 6578R City of Bakersfield Centex Homes Active/Recorded Tract

(Standard) 116 Lots

Tract 6615 City of Bakersfield Ennis Land Developement, Llc


Tract 6616-2R City of Bakersfield 110 Mccutchen LLC Active Tract (Standard) 347 Lots Tract 6663 City of Bakersfield The John M

Antongiovanni Trust Active Tract (Standard) 309 Lots

Tract 6678 City of Bakersfield Old River Road Llc Active Tract (Standard) 69 Lots Tract 6796 City of Bakersfield Froehlich Inc. Active Tract (Standard) 57 Lots Tract 6815 City of Bakersfield Pb4-Ventures Llc Active Tract (Standard) 170 Lots Tract 6816 City of Bakersfield Pb-4 Ventures Llc Active Tract (Standard) 183 Lots Tract 6824 City of Bakersfield Centex Homes Active Tract (Standard) 159 Lots Tract 6826 City of Bakersfield Pb4-Ventures Llc Active Tract (Standard) 133 Lots Tract 6873 City of Bakersfield Pb 5 Ventures Llc Active Tract (Standard) 352 Lots Tract 6874 City of Bakersfield Pb 5 Ventures Llc Active Tract (Standard) 214 Lots Tract 6875 City of Bakersfield Pb5 Ventures Llc Active Tract (Standard) 198 Lots Tract 6880 City of Bakersfield Lennox Homes Active Tract (Standard) 222 Lots Tract 6917 City of Bakersfield Sitaram Happy Homes,

Llc Active Tract (Standard) 23 Lots

Tract 6919 City of Bakersfield Kern Delta Land Development


Tract 7020 City of Bakersfield Pb4-Ventures Active Tract (Standard) 209 Lots Tract 7039 City of Bakersfield Kevin Pascoe Active Tract (Standard) 119 Lots




Case ID Jurisdiction Project/Applicant Request/Land Use Size Tract 7041 City of Bakersfield Pb1-Ventures, Llc Active Tract (Standard) 142 Lots Tract 7042 City of Bakersfield Pb1-Ventures, Llc Active Tract (Standard) 133 Lots Tract 7044 City of Bakersfield Pb1-Ventures, Llc Active Tract (Standard) 120 Lots Tract 7045 City of Bakersfield Pb1-Ventures, Llc Active Tract (Standard) 95 Lots Tract 7057 City of Bakersfield LBREP/L-SUNCAL

Mcallister RNCH LLC Active Tract (Standard) 88 Lots

Tract 7059 City of Bakersfield Sun Cal Companies Active Tract (Standard) 62 Lots Tract 7060 City of Bakersfield LBREP/L-SUNCAL

Mcallister RNCH LLC Active Tract (Standard) 75 Lots

Tract 7061 City of Bakersfield LBREP/L-SUNCAL Mcallister RNCH LLC


Tract 7093 City of Bakersfield King & Gardiner Farms Llc Active Tract (Standard) 193 Lots Tract 7109 City of Bakersfield Adavco Inc Active Tract (Standard) 6 Lots Tract 7113 City of Bakersfield Winchester Woollard Active Tract (Standard) 17 Lots Tract 7136 City of Bakersfield Trimark Pacific Homes Active Tract (Standard) 137 Lots Tract 7140 City of Bakersfield Old River Land Co Llc Active Tract (Standard) 117 Lots Tract 7142 City of Bakersfield Alfred & Donald Palla Active Tract (Standard) 214 Lots Tract 7161 City of Bakersfield Castle & Cooke Active Tract (Standard) 91 Lots Tract 7165 City of Bakersfield Old River Land Co Active Tract (Standard) 142 Lots Tract 7166 City of Bakersfield Castle & Cooke Calif Inc Active/Recorded Tract

(Standard) 83 Lots

Tract 7186 City of Bakersfield King And Gardiner Farms Llc


Tract 7198 City of Bakersfield M&S Land Company Active Tract (Standard) 142 Lots Tract 7213 City of Bakersfield Old River Land Co Active Tract (Standard) 158 Lots Tract 7222 City of Bakersfield Krp Panama Llc Active Tract (Standard) 230 Lots Tract 6229 City of Bakersfield Suncal Companies Active/Recorded Tract

(Standard) 16 Lots

Tract 6377 City of Bakersfield Brian Rice Construction, Inc.


Tract 6378 City of Bakersfield Williams Development Inc Active Tract (Standard) 116 Lots Tract 6419 City of Bakersfield Adavco Inc Active Tract (Standard) 229 Lots Tract 6536 City of Bakersfield Lennar Homes Of

California Active Tract (Standard) 149 Lots

Tract 6652 City of Bakersfield Lennar Homes Inc Active Tract (Standard) 172 Lots Tract 6657 City of Bakersfield Americasia Investment,

Inc Active Tract (Standard) 10 Lots








Case ID Jurisdiction Project/Applicant Request/Land Use Size Tract 6739 City of Bakersfield Pb1-Ventures, Llc Active Tract (Standard) 6 Lots Tract 6766 City of Bakersfield Adavco, Inc. Active Tract (Standard) 320 Lots Tract 6825 City of Bakersfield Centex Homes Active Tract (Standard) 141 Lots Tract 6827 City of Bakersfield Pb4-Ventures, Llc Active Tract (Standard) 174 Lots Tract 6853R City of Bakersfield Balfanz Homes Active Tract (Standard) 225 Lots Tract 6858 City of Bakersfield Adavco, Inc. Active Tract (Standard) 86 Lots Tract 6861 City of Bakersfield Adavco, Inc. Active Tract (Standard) 78 Lots Tract 6921 City of Bakersfield Tri-Point Inc Active Tract (Standard) 28 Lots Tract 6617 City of Bakersfield Coffee-Brimhall, L.L.C. Active Tract (Standard) 30 Lots Tract 6950 City of Bakersfield Gardiner Family Llc Active Tract (Standard) 63 Lots GPA 09-0263 City of Bakersfield Stockdale Ranch Business Park 665.2 1,000 SF GPA/ZC 06-1877 City of Bakersfield Bakersfield Commons Office Commercial 600 1,000 SF GPA/ZC 12-0469 City of Bakersfield GC Investments Office Commercial 226 1,000 SF GPA/ZC 03-1544 City of Bakersfield West Ming Specific Plan Schools 225.423 1,000 SF GPA/ZC 06-2247 City of Bakersfield Saco Ranch Commercial

Center General Manufacturing

492.228 1,000 SF GPA 09-0263 City of Bakersfield Stockdale Ranch Public Parks 22.3 Acres GPA/ZC 03-1544 City of Bakersfield West Ming Specific Plan Public Parks 56 Acres GPA/ZC 12-0349 City of Bakersfield Black Ops Real Estate II,

LLC Multi-Family Dwellings

617 Units GPA/ZC 12-0372 City of Bakersfield Black Ops Real Estate II,


225 Units GPA/ZC 12-0464 City of Bakersfield Black Ops Real Estate IV,


150 Units GPA/ZC 13-0004 City of Bakersfield South Knudsen-Hageman,


150 Units GPA 09-0263 City of Bakersfield Stockdale Ranch Multi-Family Dwellings 2128 Units GPA/ZC 03-1544 City of Bakersfield West Ming Specific Plan Multi-Family Dwellings 2323 Units GPA/ZC 06-1877 City of Bakersfield Bakersfield Commons Multi-Family Dwellings 345 GPA 09-0263 City of Bakersfield Stockdale Ranch Single Family Dwellings 1455 Units GPA/ZC 03-1544 City of Bakersfield West Ming Specific Plan Single Family Dwellings 5127 Units GPA/ZC 06-1877 City of Bakersfield Bakersfield Commons Single Family Dwellings 80 Units GPA/ZC 12-0373 City of Bakersfield Buckey Family LP Single Family Dwellings 69 Units GPA/ZC 13-0005 City of Bakersfield Bolthouse Properties, LLC Single Family Dwellings 217 Units GPA/ZC 13-0006 City of Bakersfield Black Ops Real Estate III,

LLC Single Family Dwellings

135 Units GPA 09-0263 City of Bakersfield Stockdale Ranch General Commercial 276.5 1,000 SF GPA/ZC 02-0030 City of Bakersfield Gosford Village Shopping

Center Commercial

700 1,000 SF GPA/ZC 02-0193 City of Bakersfield Panama Lane Shopping

Center Commercial

352.583 1,000 SF




Case ID Jurisdiction Project/Applicant Request/Land Use Size GPA/ZC 03-1544 City of Bakersfield West Ming Specific Plan Commercial 478.88 1,000 SF GPA/ZC 06-1052 City of Bakersfield Panama-Ashe

Commercial Center Commercial

146 1,000 SF GPA/ZC 06-1877 City of Bakersfield Bakersfield Commons Retail Commercial 14000 1,000 SF GPA/ZC 06-2247 City of Bakersfield Saco Ranch Commercial

Center Commercial

1400 1,000 SF GPA/ZC 12-0244 City of Bakersfield Amber Investments, LLC Retail/Restaurant/Drive Thru

Pharmacy 88.324 1,000 SF SCH 2002121014 City of Bakersfield Westside Parkway Freeway

SCH 2011122028 City of Bakersfield SR 58 (Rosedale Highway) Widening Project

Highway

SCH 2004101029 City of Shafter Coberly West Specific Plan

Public Services 42.689 1,000 SF

-- City of Shafter Heritage Ranch Specific Plan

Schools 49.005 1,000 SF


Schools 93.763 1,000 SF

SCH 2004101029 City of Shafter Mission Lakes Specific Plan

Schools 49.005 1,000 SF


Schools 81.675 1,000 SF


Public Parks 8.1 Acres






Residential 800 Units






Commercial 104.544 1,000 SF





SCH 2006111133 CSU Bakersfield Campus Master Plan Update

University 10125 Students

Section 4.1 Air Quality

Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project 4.1-1 May 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Section 4.1 Air Quality

4.1.1 Introduction This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses potential impacts of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project (project) on air quality, and describes the environmental and regulatory settings. A complete description of the proposed project can be found in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR.

Information in this section is based on the Air Quality/Global Climate Change Analysis Technical Report prepared by Ashworth Leininger Group (ALG) in December 2013, provided in Appendix B of this EIR and incorporated by reference herein.

Potential impacts on the environment and human health due to emissions affecting air quality during construction and operation of the project are discussed using applicable thresholds where indicated. Mitigation Measures that would reduce impacts, where applicable, are also discussed.

4.1.2 Environmental Setting The proposed project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which is under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or District). The SJVAPCD is described in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD, 2012b) and that document is used to provide background for this section of the EIR.

The SJVAB comprises eight counties: Fresno, Kern (western and central portions), Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare. These counties represent approximately 16 percent of California’s geographic area, making the SJVAB the second largest air quality basin (based on land area) within California. Air pollution in the SJVAB can be attributed to both human-related (anthropogenic) and natural (non-anthropogenic) activities that produce emissions. Significant anthropogenic activities responsible for air pollution in the SJVAB include various industrial-based sources as well as on- and off-road mobile sources. Activities that tend to increase mobile use include increases in population, increases in general traffic activity (including automobiles, trucks, aircraft, and rail), urban sprawl (which will increase commuter driving distances), and local land use management practices as they pertain to modes of commuter transportation. These sources, coupled with geographical and meteorological conditions unique to the area, stimulate the formation of unhealthy air.

The San Joaquin Valley’s (SJV) topography and meteorology provide ideal conditions for trapping air pollution for long periods of time and producing harmful levels of air pollutants, including ozone and particulate matter. Low precipitation levels, cloudless days, high temperatures, and light winds during the summer in the SJV are conducive to high ozone levels resulting from the photochemical reaction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Inversion layers in the atmosphere during the winter can trap emissions of directly emitted PM2.5 (fine particulate matter that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter) and PM2.5 precursors (such as NOx and sulfur dioxide, or SO2) within the SJV for several days, accumulating to unhealthful levels.

The region also contains the state’s major arteries for goods and people movement, I-5 to the west and CA Highway 99 through the SJV, thereby attracting a large volume of vehicular traffic.

County of Kern 4.1 Air Quality


Another compounding factor is the region’s historically high rate of population growth compared to other regions of California. Increased population typically results in an even greater increase in vehicle activity and more consumer product use, leading to increased air pollutant emissions, including NOx. Mobile sources account for about 80 percent of the Valley’s total NOx emissions inventory. Since NOx is a significant precursor for both ozone and PM2.5, reducing NOx from mobile sources is critical for progressing the SJV toward attaining ozone and PM2.5 standards.

The geography of mountainous areas to the east, west and south, in combination with long summers and relatively short winters, contributes to local climate episodes that prevent the dispersion of pollutants. Transport of air pollutants from other areas, as affected by wind flows and inversions, also plays a role in the creation of air pollution.

Topography

The SJVAB comprises the southern half of California's Central Valley and is approximately 250 miles long and averages 35 miles wide. The SJV is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east (8,000 to 14,491 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges to the west (averaging 3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi mountains to the south (6,000 to 7,981 feet in elevation). There is a slight downward elevation gradient from Bakersfield in the southeastern end (elevation 408 feet) to sea level at the northwest end where the valley opens to the San Francisco Bay at the Carquinez Straits. At its northern end is the Sacramento Valley, which comprises the northern half of California's Central Valley. The bowl shaped topography inhibits movement of pollutants out of the valley.

Climate

The SJV is in a Mediterranean climate zone. Mediterranean climate zones are located on the west coast of continents at 30 to 40 degrees latitude and are influenced by a subtropical high-pressure cell most of the year. Mediterranean climates are characterized by sparse rainfall, occurring mainly in winter. Summers are hot and dry. Summertime maximum temperatures often exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the SJV.

The subtropical high-pressure cell is strongest during spring, summer and fall and produces subsiding air, which can result in temperature inversions in the SJV. A temperature inversion can act like a lid, inhibiting vertical mixing of the air mass at the surface and trapping pollutant emissions below the inversion. Most of the SJV’s surrounding mountains are above the normal height of summer inversions (1,500-3,000 feet).

Winter-time high pressure events can often last many weeks with surface temperatures often lowering into the 30 degrees Fahrenheit range. During these events, fog can be present and inversions are extremely strong. These wintertime inversions can inhibit vertical mixing of pollutants to a few hundred feet.

Wind Patterns

Wind speed and direction play an important role in air pollutant dispersion and transport. Wind at the surface and aloft can disperse pollution by mixing and by transporting the pollution to other locations.

Winds in the SJV most frequently blow from the northwesterly direction, especially during the summer. The region’s topographic features restrict air movement and channel the air mass toward



the southeastern end of the valley. Marine air can flow into the basin from the San Joaquin River Delta and over Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass, where it can flow along the axis of the valley, over the Tehachapi pass, into the Southeast Desert Air Basin. The Coastal Range is a barrier to air movement to the west and the high Sierra Nevada range is a significant barrier to the east (the highest peaks in the southern Sierra Nevada reach almost halfway through the Earth's atmosphere). Many days in the winter are marked by stagnation events during which winds are very weak, limiting pollutant transport during the winter. A secondary but significant summer wind pattern is from the southeasterly direction and can be associated with nighttime drainage winds, prefrontal conditions and summer monsoons.

Two significant diurnal wind cycles that occur frequently in the valley are the sea breeze and mountain-valley upslope and drainage flows. The sea breeze can accentuate the northwest wind flow, especially on summer afternoons. Nighttime drainage flows can accentuate the southeast movement of air down the valley. In the mountains during periods of weak synoptic scale winds, winds tend to be upslope during the day and downslope at night. Nighttime and drainage flows are especially pronounced during the winter when flow from the easterly direction is enhanced by nighttime cooling in the Sierra Nevada. Eddies can form in the valley wind flow and can re-circulate a polluted air mass for an extended period. Such an eddy occurs in the Fresno area during both winter and summer.

Temperature, Sunlight and Ozone Production

Solar radiation and temperature are particularly important in the chemistry of ozone formation. The SJVAB averages over 260 sunny days per year. Photochemical air pollution (primarily ozone) is produced by the atmospheric reaction of organic substances (such as VOC) and NOx under the influence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are very dependent on the amount of solar radiation, especially during late spring, summer and early fall. Ozone levels typically peak in the afternoon. After the sun goes down, the chemical reaction between NOx and ozone begins to dominate. This reaction tends to scavenge the ozone in the metropolitan areas through the early morning hours, resulting in the lowest ozone levels, possibly reaching zero at sunrise in areas with high NOx emissions. At sunrise, NOx levels tend to peak, partly due to low levels of ozone at this time and also due to the morning commuter vehicle NOx emissions.

Generally, the higher the temperature, the more ozone is formed, since reaction rates increase with temperature. However, extremely hot temperatures can also “lift” or “break” the inversion layer. Typically, if the inversion layer doesn’t lift to allow the buildup of contaminants to be dispersed, ozone levels will peak in the late afternoon. If the inversion layer breaks and the resultant afternoon winds occur, ozone will peak in the early afternoon and decrease in the late afternoon as the contaminants are dispersed or transported out of the SJVAB.

Ozone levels are low during the winter, when there is much less sunlight to drive the photochemical reaction.

Temperature Inversions

Vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SJV can be limited by persistent temperature inversions. Air temperature in the lowest layer of the atmosphere typically decreases with altitude. A reversal of this atmospheric state, where the air temperature increases with height, is termed an inversion. The height of the base of the inversion is known as the “mixing height,” and is the level to which pollutants can mix vertically.



Inversion layers are significant in determining pollutant concentrations. Concentration levels can be related to the amount of mixing space below the inversion. Summertime temperature inversions are usually encountered 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the valley floor. In winter months, overnight inversions occur 500 to 1,500 feet above the valley floor.

Precipitation, Humidity and Fog

Precipitation and fog may reduce or limit some pollutant concentrations. Ozone needs sunlight for its formation, and clouds and fog can block the required solar radiation. Wet fogs also can cleanse the air during winter as moisture collects on particles and deposits them on the ground. Atmospheric moisture can also increase pollution levels. In fogs with less water content, the moisture promotes formation of secondary ammonium nitrate particulate matter. This ammonium nitrate is part of the PM2.5 and PM10 problem in the SJVAB.

Winds and unstable air conditions experienced during the passage of winter storms result in periods of low pollutant concentrations and excellent visibility. Between winter storms, high pressure and light winds allow cold moist air to pool on the SJV floor. This creates strong low-level temperature inversions and very stable air conditions, which can lead to Tule fog. Wintertime conditions favorable to fog formation are also conditions favorable to high PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations.

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Sites

The SJVAPCD, California Air Resources Board (CARB), U.S. National Park Service, and Santa Rosa Rancheria in Lemoore operate an extensive air monitoring network to measure progress toward attaining and maintaining federal and California ambient air quality standards. Air quality monitoring networks are designed to monitor areas with high population densities, areas with high pollutant concentrations, areas impacted by major pollutant sources, and areas representative of background conditions. Some monitors are operated specifically for use in determining attainment status, while others are operated for other purposes, such as for generating daily air quality forecasts. The SJVAPCD utilizes ozone and particulate matter data from over 60 monitors operated at 29 sites in the Valley (as of May 2012).

State and Federal Air Quality Standards

The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six air pollutants commonly found throughout the United States. These pollutants can be detrimental to human health and the environment. The EPA designates areas with air quality not meeting the NAAQS as “nonattainment.” The federal CAA further classifies nonattainment areas based on the severity of the nonattainment problem, with marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme nonattainment classifications for ozone. Nonattainment classifications for particulate matter range from marginal to serious.

States may also establish their own ambient air quality standards, provided the state standards are at least as stringent as the NAAQS. California has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 39606(b) and its predecessor statutes. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988 classifies ozone nonattainment areas as moderate, serious, severe, and extreme based on severity of violations of the ozone CAAQS.



Table 4.1-1 summarizes the current ambient air quality standards, as of June 2013. Table 4.1-2 provides a summary of the attainment status of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin with respect to federal and California ambient air quality standards.

Existing Ambient Air Quality

The SJVAPCD and CARB currently operate nine ambient air monitoring stations within the SJVAB portion of Kern County (as of June 2013). Table 4.1-3 shows the locations of these stations and the air pollutants monitored: ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

The ambient pollutant monitoring station closest to the proposed project area is located at 5558 California Avenue, Bakersfield, within two miles southeast of the project site. Table 4.1-4 summarizes measured criteria pollutant concentrations over the past five years at this station. Where data are not available for this station (as in the case of CO and SO2), the next closest station's data are substituted.



Table 4.1-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards (as of June 2013).

Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards1 Federal Standards2

Concentration3 Primary3,4 Secondary3,5

Ozone (O3) 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) — Same as Primary

Standard 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3) Respirable Particulate

Matter (PM10)

24 Hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Same as Primary

Standard Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m3 —

Fine Particulate

Matter (PM2.5)

24 Hour — 35 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standard

Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3

Carbon Mon-oxide (CO)

1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) — 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 100 ppb (189 μg/m3) (see Note 6) —

Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 53 ppb (100 μg/m3)

(see Note 6) Same as Primary

Standard

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) (see Note 7) —

3 Hour — — 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3) (see Note 7)

24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) — —

Lead 30 Day Average 1.5 μg/m3 — —

Rolling 3-Mo. Avg. — 0.15 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standard

Visibility Reducing Particles

8 Hour Extinction coefficient of

0.23/km @ less than 70% relative humidity No

Federal Standards Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3

Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)

Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) Notes:

1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and suspended particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles) are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded.

2. Federal standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.

3. Standards are expressed first in units in which they were promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

4. Federal Primary Standards: levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 5. Federal Secondary Standards: levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated

adverse effects of a pollutant. 6. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor

within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective April 12, 2010). Note that the EPA standards are in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the federal standards to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the federal standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm, respectively.

7. On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The EPA also revoked both the existing 24-hour SO2 standard of 0.14 ppm and the annual primary SO2 standard of 0.030 ppm, effective August 23, 2010. The secondary SO2 standard was not revised at that time; however, the secondary standard is undergoing a separate review by EPA. Note that the new standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the new primary federal standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the federal standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

Source: CARB, 2012a.



Table 4.1-2. San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Air Quality Attainment Status1.

Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Standards2 California Standards3

Ozone (O3)

1 Hour —

(Revoked in 2005) Nonattainment

(Severe Classification)

8 Hour Nonattainment (Extreme Classification) Nonattainment

Respirable Particulate Matter

(PM10)

24 Hour Attainment Nonattainment

Annual — Nonattainment

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

24 Hour Nonattainment —

Annual Nonattainment Nonattainment

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

1 Hour Unclassifiable/Attainment Unclassified/Attainment

8 Hour Unclassifiable/Attainment Unclassified/Attainment

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

1 Hour Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment

Annual Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

1 Hour Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment

3 Hour — —

24 Hour — Attainment

Lead 30 Day Average — Attainment

Rolling 3-Month Avg. Unclassifiable/Attainment —

Visibility Reducing Particles 8 Hour — Unclassified

Sulfates 24 Hour — Attainment

Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour — Unclassified

Notes:

1. Air quality attainment status is designated on a regional basis: either “San Joaquin Valley Air Basin,” “San Joaquin Valley Area,” or “San Joaquin Valley”.

2. Source for federal designations: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2013. 3. Source for California designations: CARB, 2013b.



Table 4.1-3. Ambient Air Monitoring Stations Within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Portion of Kern County.

Station Names Address Pollutants Monitored

O3 NO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 Arvin – Di Giorgio (started 11/2009)

19405 Buena Vista Boulevard, Arvin

X

Bakersfield – Airport 401 East Planz Road, Bakersfield

X

Bakersfield – California Avenue

5558 California Avenue, Bakersfield

X X X X

Bakersfield – Municipal Airport (started 7/2012)

2000 South Union Avenue, Bakersfield

X X X X X

Edison Johnson Farm-Shed Road, Edison

X X

Lebec (started 1/2009) Bear Trap Road, Lebec X Maricopa 755 Stanislaus Street,

Maricopa X

Oildale 331 Manor Street, Oildale X X Shafter 578 Walker Street, Shafter X X

Source: CARB, 2013g.



Table 4.1-4. Air Quality Data (2008-2012) – Nearest Representative Monitoring Station.

Pollutant Monitoring Data by Year

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Ozone Highest 1 hour average (ppm) 0.127 0.120 0.109 0.107 0.102 Days over California standard (0.09 ppm) 15 16 8 5 9 Highest 8 hour average (ppm) 0.127 0.094 0.098 0.094 0.096 Days over federal standard (0.075 ppm) 40 34 28 25 56 Days over California standard (0.070 ppm) 60 58 48 51 83 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Highest 24 hour average – federal/California

(μg/m3) 262.3/263.6 94.5/99.0 86.0/238.0 97.4/154.0 99.6/125.8

Estimated Days over federal 24 hour standard (150 μg/m3)

3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Estimated Days over California 24 hour standard (50 μg/m3)

169.5 83.6 47.1 116.4 89.4

State annual average (California standard 20 μg/m3)

55.3 41.2 32.6 44.2 41.4

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Highest 24 hour average (μg/m3) 99.3 195.5 112.0 82.8 86.5 Estimated days over federal standard (35 μg/m3) 66.7 45.5 28.7 Insuf. 24.4 Federal annual average (12 μg/m3) 21.9 19.0 14.2 16.2 13.0 California annual average (12 μg/m3) Insuf. 21.2 17.2 18.1 17.9 Carbon Monoxide Highest 1 hour average (ppm) 3.5 2.2 2.1 NA NA Days over federal standard (35 ppm) 0 0 0 NA NA Days over California standard (20 ppm) 0 0 0 NA NA Highest 8 hour average (ppm) 2.17 1.51 1.46 NA NA Days over federal/California standard (9 ppm) 0/0 0/0 0/0 NA NA Nitrogen Dioxide Highest 1 hour average (ppm) 0.083 0.069 0.079 0.064 0.051 Days over California standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0 Days over federal standard (0.100 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0 Federal annual average (53 ppb) 16 16 14 15 Insuf. California annual average (0.030 ppm) 0.016 0.016 0.014 0.015 Insuf. Sulfur Dioxide Highest 1 hour average (ppm) 0.012 0.013 0.015 0.016 NA Days over California standard (0.25 ppm) 0 0 0 0 NA Days over federal standard (75 ppb) 0 0 0 0 NA Highest 24 hour average (ppm) 0.003 0.005 0.004 0.004 NA Days over California standard (0.04 ppm) 0 0 0 0 NA

Notes: 1. Data are derived from CARB, 2013f. 2. Except for carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide, data are from the Bakersfield – California Avenue monitoring station.

Carbon monoxide data are from the Bakersfield – Golden monitoring station located at 1128 Golden State Highway, which ceased monitoring on January 5, 2010. Sulfur dioxide data are from the Fresno – First Street monitoring station located at 3425 North First Street, which ceased monitoring on October 12, 2011.

3. Data in bold font refers to values over ambient air quality standards. “NA” indicates that data are not available for the period. “Insuf” indicates that available data are not sufficient to determine estimated days over a standard or to calculate annual averages.

4. Abbreviations: “ppm” – parts per million; μg/m3 – micrograms per cubic meter. 5. Multiple monitored values reported for 24 hour PM10 and annual PM2.5 reflect differences in federal and California

ambient air quality monitoring and reporting methods.



Common Air Pollutants

The following discussion is based on the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department’s Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Impact Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports (KCPCDD, 2006)

The following is a general description of the physical and health effects for air pollutants that could be emitted from the project or are known in the area.

Ozone

Ozone occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth's surface is the troposphere. Here, ground level or “bad” ozone is an air pollutant that damages human health, vegetation, and many common materials. It is a key ingredient of urban smog. The troposphere extends to a level about 10 miles up, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric or “good” ozone layer extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays (UV-B).

“Bad” ozone is what is known as a photochemical pollutant. It needs volatile organic compounds (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and sunlight. VOC and NOx are emitted from various sources throughout Kern County. In order to reduce ozone concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these ozone precursors.

Significant ozone formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight.

Ozone is a regional air pollutant. It is generated over a large area and is transported and spread by wind. Ozone, the primary constituent of smog, is the most complex, difficult to control, and pervasive of the criteria pollutants. Unlike other pollutants, ozone is not emitted directly into the air by specific sources. Ozone is created by sunlight acting on other air pollutants (called precursors), specifically NOx and VOC. Sources of precursor gases to the photochemical reaction that form ozone number in the thousands. Common sources include agricultural operations, consumer products, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents, oil and gas operations, and combustion products of various fuels.

Originating from gas stations, motor vehicles, large industrial facilities, and small businesses such as bakeries and dry cleaners, the ozone-forming chemical reactions often take place in another location, catalyzed by sunlight and heat. High ozone concentrations can form over large regions where emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins. Approximately 50 million people lived in counties with air quality levels above the EPA’s health-based national air quality standard in 1994. The highest levels of ozone were recorded in Los Angeles. High levels also persist in other heavily populated areas including the Texas Gulf Coast and much of the Northeast.

Health Effects. While ozone in the upper atmosphere protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground level ozone can adversely affect the human respiratory system. Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are aggravated by exposure to high ozone levels. Ozone also damages natural ecosystems such as forests and foothill communities, and damages agricultural crops and some man-made materials, such as rubber, paint, and plastics. Societal costs from ozone damage include increased medical costs, the loss of human and animal life, accelerated replacement of industrial equipment, and reduced crop yields.



High levels of ozone may negatively impact immune systems, making people more susceptible to respiratory illnesses including bronchitis and pneumonia. Ozone also accelerates aging and exacerbates pre-existing asthma and bronchitis and in cases of high concentrations can lead to the development of asthma in active children. Active people, both children and adults, appear to be more at risk from ozone exposure than those with a low level of activity. Additionally, the elderly and those with respiratory disease are also considered sensitive populations for ozone.

People who work or play outdoors are at a greater risk for harmful health effects from ozone. Children and adolescents are also at greater risk, as they are more likely than adults to spend time engaged in vigorous activities. Research indicates that children under 12 years of age spend nearly twice as much time outdoors daily than adults. Teenagers spend at least twice as much time as adults in active sports and outdoor activities. Also, children inhale more air per pound of body weight than adults, and they breathe more rapidly than adults. Children are less likely than adults to notice their own symptoms and avoid harmful exposures.

Ozone is a powerful oxidant – it can be compared to household bleach, which can kill living cells (such as germs or human skin cells) upon contact. Ozone can damage the respiratory tract, causing inflammation and irritation, and it can induce symptoms such as coughing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and worsening of asthma symptoms. Ozone in sufficient doses increases the permeability of lung cells, rendering them more susceptible to toxins and microorganisms. Exposure to levels of ozone above the current ambient air quality standard leads to lung inflammation, lung tissue damage, and reduced lung intake. Evidence has also linked the onset of asthma to exposure to elevated ozone levels in exercising children.

Hydrocarbons (Volatile Organic Compounds and Reactive Organic Gases)

Hydrocarbons are organic gases formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases including Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs). ROGs include all hydrocarbons except those exempted by the California Air Resources Board. Therefore, ROGs are a set of organic gases based on state rules and regulations. VOCs are similar to ROGs in that they include all organic gases except those exempted by federal law. The list of compounds exempt from the definition of VOC is presented in SJVAPCD Rule 1020, section 3.53. Both VOCs and ROGs are emitted from incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants are the primary sources of hydrocarbons. Another source of hydrocarbons is evaporation of petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint.

Health Effects. The primary health effects of hydrocarbons result from the formation of ozone and its related health effects (see ozone health effects discussion above). High levels of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount of available oxygen through displacement. There are no separate federal or California ambient air quality standards for hydrocarbons. Hazardous hydrocarbons are considered toxic air contaminants (TACs). Examples include benzene (a carcinogenic TAC) and toluene (a non-carcinogenic TAC). Health effects of individual hazardous hydrocarbons are discussed below under toxic air contaminants.

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide (CO) is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. CO is an odorless, colorless, poisonous gas.



CO is a byproduct of motor vehicle exhaust, which accounts for more than two-thirds of all CO emissions nationwide. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. These emissions can result in high concentrations of CO, particularly in local areas with heavy traffic congestion. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes and fuel combustion in sources such as boilers and incinerators. Despite an overall downward trend in concentrations and emissions of CO, some metropolitan areas still experience high levels of CO.

Health Effects. CO enters the bloodstream and binds more readily to hemoglobin than oxygen, reducing the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood, thus reducing oxygen delivery to organs and tissues. The health threat from CO is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. Healthy individuals are also affected, but only at higher levels of exposure. Exposure to carbon monoxide can cause chest pain in heart patients, headaches, and reduced mental alertness. At high concentrations, CO can cause heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases, and can impair mental abilities. Exposure to elevated CO levels is associated with visual impairment, reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, difficulty performing complex tasks, and in prolonged, enclosed exposure, death.

The adverse health effects associated with exposure to ambient and indoor concentrations of CO are related to the concentration of carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) in the blood. Health effects observed may include early onset of cardiovascular disease, behavioral impairment; decreased exercise performance of young healthy men, reduced birth weight, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), and increased daily mortality rate. Most of the studies evaluating adverse health effects of CO on the central nervous system examined high-level poisoning. Such poisoning results in symptoms ranging from common flu and cold symptoms (shortness of breath on mild exertion, mild headaches, and nausea) to unconsciousness and death. One study reported an association between daily death rate and exposure to ambient CO in Los Angeles County. The report postulated a concentration of 20.2 ppm (the highest daily concentration recorded during a 4 year period) contributed 11 out of 159 deaths. Additional studies conducted in Los Angeles and Sao Paulo also suggest a relationship between daily death rates and CO concentrations.

Nitrogen Oxides

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) comprise a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level ozone, and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NOx is emitted from combustion processes in which fuel is burned at high temperatures, principally from motor vehicle exhaust and stationary sources such as electric utilities and industrial boilers. From a health perspective, two of the most significant nitrogen oxides are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a sharp sweet-smelling gas at room temperature, whereas NO2 has a strong harsh odor and is a liquid at room temperature, becoming a reddish-brown gas above 70ºF.

Health Effects. NOx is an ozone precursor that combines with VOC to form ozone. See the ozone section above for a discussion of the health effects of ozone.

Direct inhalation of NO2 can cause a wide range of health effects. NO2 can irritate the lungs, cause lung damage, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. Short-term exposures (e.g., less than 3 hours) to low levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) may lead to changes in airway responsiveness and lung function in individuals with preexisting respiratory illnesses. These exposures may also increase respiratory illnesses in children. Long-term exposures to NO2 may lead to increased susceptibility to respiratory infection and may cause irreversible alterations in lung structure. Health effects associated with NO2 include increases in the incidence of chronic



bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may lead to eye and mucus membrane aggravation, along with pulmonary dysfunction. NO2 can cause fading of textile dyes and additives, deterioration of cotton and nylon, and corrosion of metals due to production of particulate nitrates. Airborne NO2 can also impair visibility and is a major component of acid deposition in California.

Nitrogen dioxide is toxic to various animals as well as to humans. Its toxicity relates to its ability to combine with water to form nitric acid in the eye, lung, mucus membranes and skin. Studies of the health impacts of NO2 include experimental studies on animals, controlled laboratory studies on humans, and observational studies. In animals, long-term exposure to NO2 increases susceptibility to respiratory infections, lowering their resistance to such diseases as pneumonia and influenza. Laboratory studies show that susceptible humans, such as asthmatics, exposed to high concentrations of NO2, can suffer lung irritation and, potentially, lung damage.

Epidemiological studies have also shown associations between NO2 concentrations, daily mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular causes, and hospital admissions for respiratory conditions.

NOx contributes to a wide range of environmental effects directly and when combined with other precursors in acid rain and ozone. Increased nitrogen inputs to terrestrial and wetland systems can lead to changes in plant species composition and diversity. Similarly, direct nitrogen inputs to aquatic ecosystems such as those found in estuarine and coastal waters can lead to eutrophication (a condition that promotes excessive algae growth, which can lead to a severe depletion of dissolved oxygen and increased levels of toxins harmful to aquatic life). Nitrogen, alone or in acid rain, also can acidify soils and surface waters. Acidification of soils causes the loss of essential plant nutrients and increased levels of soluble aluminum that are toxic to plants. Acidification of surface waters creates conditions of low pH and levels of aluminum that are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.

Particulate Matter

Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air. Some particles are large or dark enough to be seen as soot or smoke. Others are so small they can be detected only with an electron microscope. Particulate matter is a mixture of materials that can include smoke, soot, dust, salt, acids, and metals. Particulate matter also forms when gases emitted from motor vehicles and industrial sources undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Respirable particulate matter, or PM10, refers to particles less than or equal to 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter. Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, refers to particles less than or equal to 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter and is a subset of PM10.

In the western United States, there are sources of PM10 in both urban and rural areas. PM10 and PM2.5 are emitted from stationary and mobile sources, including diesel trucks and other motor vehicles, power plants, industrial processing, wood burning stoves and fireplaces, wildfires, dust from roads, construction, landfills, and agriculture, and fugitive windblown dust. Because particles originate from a variety of sources, their chemical and physical compositions vary widely.

Health Effects. PM10 and PM2.5 particles are small enough – about 1/7th the thickness of a human hair in the case of PM10 – to be inhaled into, and lodge in, the deepest parts of the lung, evading the respiratory system’s natural defenses. Health problems begin as the body reacts to these foreign particles. Acute and chronic health effects associated with high particulate levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases, heart and lung disease, and coughing, bronchitis, and respiratory illnesses in children. Mortality studies have shown a statistically significant direct



association between mortality and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Non health-related effects include reduced visibility and soiling of buildings. PM10 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections. PM10 and PM2.5 can aggravate respiratory disease, and cause lung damage, cancer, and premature death.

Although particulate matter can cause health problems for everyone, certain people are especially vulnerable to the adverse health effects of PM10. These “sensitive populations” include children, the elderly, exercising adults, and those suffering from chronic lung disease such as asthma or bronchitis. Of greatest concern are studies that link PM10 exposure to the premature death of people who already have heart and lung disease, especially the elderly. Acidic PM10 can also damage manmade materials and is a major cause of reduced visibility in many parts of the U.S.

Premature deaths linked to particulate matter have reached levels comparable to deaths from traffic accidents and second-hand smoke. One of the most dangerous pollutants, fine particulate matter (e.g., from diesel exhaust and fireplace soot) not only bypasses the body’s defense mechanisms and becomes embedded in the deepest recesses of the lung, but also can disrupt cellular processes. Population based studies in hundreds of cities in the U.S. and around the world has demonstrated a strong link between elevated particulate levels and premature deaths, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and asthma attacks. Long-term studies of children’s health conducted in California have demonstrated that particulate pollution may significantly reduce lung function growth in children.

Attaining the California PM standards would annually prevent about 6,500 premature deaths, or 3 percent of all deaths. These premature deaths shorten lives by an average of 14 years. This is roughly equivalent to the same number of deaths (4,200-7,400) linked to second hand smoke in the year 2000. In comparison, motor vehicle crashes caused 3,300 deaths and homicides were responsible for 2,100 deaths in the year 2000. Attaining the California PM and ozone standards would annually prevent 4,000 hospital admissions for respiratory disease, 3,000 hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease, and 2,000 asthma-related emergency room visits. Exposure to diesel PM causes about 250 increased cancer cases per year in California.

One study provides evidence that exposure to particulate air pollution is associated with lung cancer. This study found that residents who live in an area that is severely impacted by particulate air pollution are at risk of lung cancer at a rate comparable to nonsmokers exposed to second-hand smoke. This study also found an approximately 16 percent excess risk of dying from lung cancer due to fine particulate air pollution.

Another study shows that individuals with existing cardiac disease can be in a potentially life-threatening situation when exposed to high levels of ultrafine air pollution. Fine particles can penetrate the lungs and may cause the heart to beat irregularly or can cause inflammation, which could lead to a heart attack.

Other Pollutants

Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless gas with a pungent, irritating odor, formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. In the late 1970’s in the SJVAB portion of Kern County, SO2 was a pollutant of concern. With the successful application of regulations, the levels have been reduced significantly.



High concentrations of SO2 can result in temporary breathing impairment for asthmatic children and adults who are active outdoors. Short-term exposures of asthmatic individuals to elevated SO2 levels during moderate activity may result in breathing difficulties that can be accompanied by symptoms such as wheezing, chest tightness, or shortness of breath. Other effects associated with longer-term exposures to high concentrations of SO2, in conjunction with high levels of PM, include aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, and alterations in the lungs’ defenses. SO2 also is a major precursor to PM2.5, which is a significant health concern, and a main contributor to poor visibility. (See also the discussion of health effects of particulate matter).

Sulfur dioxide not only has a bad odor, it can irritate the respiratory system. Exposure to high concentrations for short periods of time can constrict the bronchi and increase mucous flow, making breathing difficult. Sulfur dioxide can also: • Immediately irritate the lung and throat at concentrations greater than 6 parts per million (ppm)

in many people.

• Impair the respiratory system's defenses against foreign particles and bacteria, when exposed to concentrations less than 6 ppm for longer time periods.

• Exacerbate the harmful effects of ozone. (Combinations of the two gases at concentrations occasionally found in the ambient air appear to increase airway resistance to breathing.)

Sulfur dioxide tends to have more toxic effects when acidic pollutants, liquid or solid aerosols, and particulates are also present. (In the 1950s and 1960s, thousands of excess deaths occurred in areas where SO2 concentrations exceeded 1 ppm for a few days and other pollutants were also high.) Effects are more pronounced among mouth breathers, e.g., people who are exercising or who have head colds. These effects include: • Health problems, such as episodes of bronchitis requiring hospitalization associated with lower-

level acid concentrations.

• Self-reported respiratory conditions, such as chronic cough and difficult breathing, associated with acid aerosol concentrations. Asthmatic individuals are especially susceptible to these effects. The elderly and those with chronic respiratory conditions may also be affected at lower concentrations than the general population.

• Increased respiratory tract infections, associated with longer term, lower-level exposures to SO2 and acid aerosols.

• Subjective symptoms, such as headaches and nausea, in the absence of pathological abnormalities, due to long-term exposure.

Sulfur dioxide easily injures many plant species and varieties, both native and cultivated. Some of the most sensitive plants include various commercially valuable pines, legumes, red and black oaks, white ash, alfalfa and blackberry. The effects include: • Visible injury to the most sensitive plants at exposures as low as 0.12 ppm for 8 hours.

• Visible injury to many other plant types of intermediate sensitivity at exposures of 0.30 ppm for 8 hours.

• Positive benefits from low levels, in a very few species growing in sulfur deficient soils.

Increases in sulfur dioxide concentrations accelerate the corrosion of metals, probably through the formation of acids. (SO2 is a major precursor to acidic deposition.) Sulfur oxides may also damage stone and masonry, paint, various fibers, paper, leather, and electrical components.



Increased SO2 also contributes to impaired visibility. Particulate sulfate, much of which is derived from sulfur dioxide emissions, is a major component of the complex total suspended particulate mixture

Sulfates. Sulfates are particulate products of combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. When exposed to oxygen, SO and SO2, precipitate out into sulfates (SO3 or SO4).

Sulfates are the fully oxidized ionic form of sulfur. Sulfates occur in combination with metal and/or hydrogen ions. In California, emissions of sulfur compounds occur primarily from the combustion of petroleum-derived fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) that contain sulfur. This sulfur is oxidized to sulfur dioxide (SO2) during the combustion process and subsequently converted to sulfate compounds in the atmosphere. The conversion of SO2 to sulfates takes place comparatively rapidly and completely in urban areas of California due to regional meteorological features.

The CARB standard for sulfates is designed to prevent aggravation of respiratory symptoms. Effects of sulfate exposure at levels above the standard include a decrease in lung function, aggravation of asthmatic symptoms, and an increased risk of cardiopulmonary disease. Sulfates are particularly effective in degrading visibility, and, due to fact that they are usually acidic, can harm ecosystems and damage materials and property.

Lead. Lead is a metal that is a natural constituent of air, water, and the biosphere. Lead is neither created nor destroyed in the environment, so it essentially persists forever. Lead was used until the early 1990s to increase the octane rating in auto fuel. Historically, gasoline-powered automobile engines were a major source of airborne lead due to the use of leaded fuels. Because most leaded fuel use in fuels has been phased out, ambient concentrations of lead have dropped dramatically.

Exposure to lead occurs mainly through inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in food, water, soil, or dust. It accumulates in the blood, bones, and soft tissues and can adversely affect the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other organs. Excessive exposure to lead may cause neurological impairments such as seizures, mental retardation, and behavioral disorders. Even at low doses, lead exposure is associated with damage to the nervous systems of fetuses and young children, resulting in learning deficits and lowered IQ. Studies also show that lead may be a factor in high blood pressure and subsequent heart disease. Lead can also be deposited on the leaves of plants, presenting a hazard to grazing animals and humans through ingestion.

Hydrogen Sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is associated with geothermal activity, oil and gas production, refining, sewage treatment plants, and confined animal feeding operations.

Exposure to low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide may cause irritation to the eyes, nose, or throat. It may also cause difficulty in breathing for some asthmatics. Exposure to higher concentrations (above 100 parts per million, or ppm), can cause olfactory fatigue, respiratory paralysis, and death. Brief exposures to high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide (greater than 500 ppm) can cause a loss of consciousness. In most cases, the person appears to regain consciousness without any other effects. However, in some individuals, there may be permanent or long-term effects such as headaches, poor attention span, poor memory, and poor motor function. No health effects have been found in humans exposed to typical environmental concentrations of hydrogen sulfide (0.00011 – 0.00033 ppm). Deaths due to breathing in large amounts of hydrogen sulfide have been reported in a variety of different work settings, including sewers, animal processing plants, waste dumps, sludge plants, oil and gas well drilling sites, tanks and cesspools.



Visibility Reducing Particles. This standard is a measure of visibility. The CARB does not yet have a measuring method with enough accuracy or precision to designate areas in the State attainment or non-attainment. The entire State is designated unclassified.

Vinyl Chloride. Vinyl chloride monomer is a sweet smelling, colorless gas at ambient temperature. Landfills, publicly owned treatment works and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) production are the major identified sources of vinyl chloride emissions in California. PVC can be fabricated into several products such as PVC pipes, pipefittings, and plastics. In humans, epidemiological studies of occupationally exposed workers have linked vinyl chloride exposure to development of a rare cancer, liver angiosarcoma, and have suggested a relationship between exposure and lung and brain cancers.

Short-term exposure to vinyl chloride has been linked with the following acute health effects: • Acute exposure of humans to high levels of vinyl chloride via inhalation has resulted in effects

on the central nervous system, such as dizziness, drowsiness, headaches, and giddiness.

• Vinyl chloride is reported to be slightly irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract in humans. Acute exposure to extremely high levels of vinyl chloride has caused loss of consciousness, lung and kidney irritation, and inhibition of blood clotting in humans and cardiac arrhythmias in animals.

Tests involving acute exposure of mice have shown vinyl chloride to have high acute toxicity from inhalation exposure. Long-term exposure to vinyl chloride concentrations has been linked with the following chronic health effects: • Liver damage, through both inhalation and oral exposure.

• Development of symptoms termed “vinyl chloride disease,” characterized by Raynaud's phenomenon (blanching of fingers and a feeling of numbness and discomfort after exposure to the cold), changes in the bones at the end of the fingers, joint and muscle pain, and scleroderma-like skin changes (thickening of the skin, decreased elasticity, and slight edema).

• Central nervous system effects (including dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, headache, visual and/or hearing disturbances, memory loss, and sleep disturbances) as well as peripheral nervous system symptoms (peripheral neuropathy, tingling, numbness, weakness, and pain in fingers).

Several reproductive/developmental health effects from vinyl chloride exposure have been identified, including: • Affects to male sexual performance, identified in several case reports. However, these studies

are limited by a lack of quantitative exposure information and possible co-occurring exposure to other chemicals.

• Increased incidence of birth defects associated with vinyl chloride exposure in pregnant women, reported by several epidemiological studies. However, other studies have not reported similar findings.

• An association between men occupationally exposed to vinyl chloride and miscarriages in their wives' pregnancies, suggested by some epidemiological studies. However, other studies have not supported these findings.

• Cancer risk associated with long term vinyl chloride exposure.

• Increased risk of a rare form of liver cancer (angiosarcoma of the liver) in humans associated with inhaled vinyl chloride.



• Increased incidence of angiosarcoma of the liver and cancer of the liver associated with inhaled vinyl chloride, demonstrated by animal studies.

Toxic Air Contaminants

“Hazardous air pollutant” is a term used by the federal Clean Air Act that includes a variety of pollutants generated or emitted by industrial production activities. Referred to as “Toxic Air Contaminants” (TAC) under the California Clean Act, ten have been identified through ambient air quality data as posing the most substantial health risk in California. Direct exposure to these pollutants has been shown to cause cancer, birth defects, damage to brain and nervous system and respiratory disorders.

The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin shows the following emissions for the year 2008 (CARB, 2009b) for the ten TACs: • Acetaldehyde: 1,603 tons per year. Approximately 85 percent of acetaldehyde emissions are

from mobile sources, with area sources such as residential wood combustion accounting for approximately 10 percent of total emissions.

• Benzene: 1,680 tons per year. The primary sources of benzene in the SJVAB include mobile sources (67 percent) and stationary sources (32 percent)

• 1,3-Butadiene: 515 tons per year. Approximately 48 percent of 1,3-butadiene emissions are from mobile sources.

• Carbon tetrachloride: <0.01 tons per year. There are no major sources of carbon tetrachloride in the SJVAB.

• Chromium (hexavalent): 0.10 tons per year. Approximately 75 percent of hexavalent chromium emissions are from stationary sources.

• Para-Dichlorobenzene: 156 tons per year. Most of the emissions of para-dichlorobenzene are from consumer products such as non-aerosol insect repellents and solid/gel air fresheners.

• Formaldehyde: 4,065 tons per year. Approximately 76 percent of formaldehyde emissions in the SJVAB are from mobile sources.

• Methylene chloride: 423 tons per year. 80 percent of methylene chloride emissions are from paint removers/strippers, automotive brake cleaners, and other consumer products.

• Perchloroethylene: 617 tons per year. Approximately 65 percent of perchloroethylene emissions are from stationary sources such as dry cleaning plants and manufacturers of aircraft parts and fabricated metal parts.

• Diesel particulate matter: 6,073 tons per year. Approximately 99 percent of diesel particulate matter emissions are from mobile sources.

Since no safe levels of TACs can be determined, there are no air quality standards for TACs. Instead, TAC impacts are evaluated by calculating the health risks associated with a given exposure. The requirements of the Air Toxic “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act apply to facilities that use, produce, or emit toxic chemicals. Facilities that are subject to the toxic emission inventory requirements of the Act must prepare and submit toxic emission inventory plans and reports, and periodically update those reports.

Health effects of TACs are discussed below.



Acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is both directly emitted into the atmosphere and formed in the atmosphere from photochemical oxidation. Sources include combustion processes such as exhaust from mobile sources and fuel combustion from stationary internal combustion engines, boilers, and process heaters.

Acetaldehyde is classified as a federal hazardous air pollutant and as a California TAC. Acetaldehyde is a carcinogen that also causes chronic non-cancer toxicity in the respiratory system. Symptoms of chronic intoxication of acetaldehyde in humans resemble those of alcoholism.

The primary acute effect of inhalation exposure to acetaldehyde is irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract in humans. At higher exposure levels, erythema, coughing, pulmonary edema, and necrosis may also occur. Acute inhalation of acetaldehyde can result in a depressed respiratory rate and elevated blood pressure in experimental animals. Tests involving acute exposure of rats, rabbits, and hamsters have demonstrated acetaldehyde to have low acute toxicity from inhalation and moderate acute toxicity from oral or dermal exposure.

Benzene. Approximately 87 percent of the benzene emitted in California comes from motor vehicles, including evaporative leakage and unburned fuel exhaust. (CARB, 2009b.) Currently, the benzene content of gasoline is less than one percent.

Benzene is highly carcinogenic and is present throughout California. Benzene also has non-cancer health effects. Brief inhalation exposure to high concentrations can cause central nervous system depression. Acute effects include central nervous system symptoms of nausea, tremors, drowsiness, dizziness, headache, intoxication, and unconsciousness.

Neurological symptoms of inhalation exposure to benzene include drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, and unconsciousness in humans. Ingestion of large amounts of benzene may result in vomiting, dizziness, and convulsions in humans. Exposure to liquid and vapor may irritate the skin, eyes, and upper respiratory tract in humans. Redness and blisters may result from dermal exposure to benzene.

Chronic inhalation of certain levels of benzene causes disorders in the blood in humans. Benzene specifically affects bone marrow (the tissues that produce blood cells). Aplastic anemia, excessive bleeding, and damage to the immune system (by changes in blood levels of antibodies and loss of white blood cells) may develop. Increased incidence of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white blood cells) has been observed in humans occupationally exposed to benzene.

1,3-Butadiene. The majority of 1,3-butadiene emissions comes from incomplete combustion of gasoline and diesel fuels. Mobile sources account for 53 percent of total statewide emissions. Area wide sources such as agricultural waste burning and open burning contribute approximately 21 percent of statewide emissions. (CARB, 2009b.)

1,3-Butadiene has been identified as a carcinogen in California. Butadiene vapors cause neurological effects at very high levels such as blurred vision, fatigue, headache, and vertigo. Dermal exposure of humans to 1,3-butadiene causes a sensation of cold, followed by a burning sensation, which may lead to frostbite (due to rapid vaporization).

One epidemiological study reported that chronic exposure to 1,3-butadiene via inhalation resulted in an increase in cardiovascular diseases, such as rheumatic and arteriosclerotic heart diseases, while other human studies have reported effects on the blood. A large epidemiological study of synthetic rubber industry workers demonstrated a consistent association between 1,3-butadiene exposure and occurrence of leukemia. Several epidemiological studies of workers in styrene-butadiene rubber



factories have shown an increased incidence of respiratory, bladder, stomach, and lymphato-hematopoietic cancers. However, these studies are not sufficient to determine a causal association between 1,3-butadiene exposure and cancer due to possible exposure to other chemicals and other confounding factors.

Carbon Tetrachloride. The primary sources of carbon tetrachloride in California include chemical and allied product manufacturers. In California, carbon tetrachloride has been identified as a carcinogen. Carbon tetrachloride is also a central nervous system depressant and mild eye and respiratory tract irritant. The EPA has classified carbon tetrachloride as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen.

Acute inhalation and oral exposures to high levels of carbon tetrachloride have been observed primarily to damage the liver (swollen, tender liver, changes in enzyme levels, and jaundice) and kidneys (nephritis, nephrosis, proteinurea) of humans. Depression of the central nervous system has also been reported. Symptoms of acute exposure in humans include headache, weakness, lethargy, nausea, and vomiting. Delayed pulmonary edema (fluid in lungs) has been observed in humans exposed to high levels of carbon tetrachloride by inhalation and ingestion, but this is believed to be due to injury to the kidney rather than direct action of carbon tetrachloride on the lungs. Chronic inhalation or oral exposure to carbon tetrachloride produces liver and kidney damage in humans and animals.

Chromium, Hexavalent. Mobile sources account for 52 percent of total statewide hexavalent chromium emissions. Stationary sources (chromium plating, chromic acid anodizing, and glass furnace firebrick lining) account for 46 percent of total statewide hexavalent chromium emissions. (CARB, 2009b.) In California, hexavalent chromium has been identified as a carcinogen. There is epidemiological evidence that exposure to inhaled hexavalent chromium may result in lung cancer. The principal acute effects are renal toxicity, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and intravascular hemolysis.

The respiratory tract is the major target organ for chromium (VI) following inhalation exposure in humans. Other effects noted from acute inhalation exposure to very high concentrations of chromium (VI) include gastrointestinal and neurological effects, while dermal exposure causes skin burns in humans. Chronic inhalation exposure to chromium (VI) in humans results in reported effects on the respiratory tract, with perforations and ulcerations of the septum, bronchitis, decreased pulmonary function, pneumonia, asthma, and nasal itching and soreness. Chronic human exposure to high levels of chromium (VI) by inhalation or oral exposure may produce effects on the liver, kidney, gastrointestinal and immune systems, and possibly the blood.

Para-Dichlorobenzene. The primary sources of para-dichlorobenzene include consumer products such as non-aerosol insect repellents and solid/gel air fresheners. These sources contribute almost 100 percent of statewide para-dichlorobenzene emissions. (CARB, 2009b.)

In California, para-dichlorobenzene has been identified as a carcinogen. Acute exposure to 1,4-dichlorobenzene via inhalation in humans results in irritation to the eyes, skin, and throat. In addition, long-term inhalation exposure may affect the liver, skin, and central nervous system in humans (e.g., cerebellar ataxia, dysarthria, weakness in limbs, and hyporeflexia).

Formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is both directly emitted into the atmosphere and formed in the atmosphere as a result of photochemical oxidation. Directly emitted formaldehyde is a product of incomplete combustion. One of the primary sources of formaldehyde is vehicular exhaust. Formaldehyde is also used in resins, can be found in many consumer products as an antimicrobial



agent, and is used in fumigants and soil disinfectants. About 82 percent of direct formaldehyde emissions are estimated to come from the combustion of fossil fuels from mobile sources. (CARB, 2009b.)

The major toxic effects caused by acute formaldehyde exposure via inhalation are eye, nose, and throat irritation and effects on the nasal cavity. Other effects observed from exposure to high levels of formaldehyde in humans include coughing, wheezing, chest pains, and bronchitis. Chronic exposure to formaldehyde by inhalation in humans has been associated with respiratory symptoms and eye, nose, and throat irritation. Animal studies have reported effects on the nasal respiratory epithelium and lesions in the respiratory system from chronic inhalation exposure to formaldehyde. Occupational studies have noted statistically significant associations between exposure to formaldehyde and increased incidence of lung and nasopharyngeal cancer. This evidence is considered to be “limited,” rather than “sufficient,” due to possible exposure to other agents that may have contributed to the excess cancers. The EPA considers formaldehyde to be a probable human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) and has ranked it in EPA's Group B1. In California, formaldehyde has been identified as a carcinogen.

Methylene Chloride. Methylene chloride is used as a solvent, a blowing and cleaning agent in the manufacture of polyurethane foam and plastic manufacture, and as a solvent in paint stripping operations. Paint removers account for the largest use of methylene chloride in California.

Case studies of methylene chloride poisoning during paint stripping operations have demonstrated that inhalation exposure to extremely high levels can be fatal to humans. Acute inhalation exposure to high levels of methylene chloride in humans has resulted in effects on the central nervous system (CNS) including decreased visual, auditory, and psychomotor functions, but these effects are reversible once exposure ceases. Methylene chloride also irritates the nose and throat at high concentrations. The major effects from chronic inhalation exposure to methylene chloride in humans are effects on the central nervous system, such as headaches, dizziness, nausea, and memory loss. In addition, chronic exposure can lead to bone marrow, hepatic, and renal toxicity. The EPA considers methylene chloride to be a probable human carcinogen and has ranked it in EPA's Group B2. California considers methylene chloride to be carcinogenic.

Perchloroethylene. Perchloroethylene is used as a solvent, primarily in dry cleaning operations. Perchloroethylene is also used in degreasing operations, paints and coatings, adhesives, aerosols, specialty chemical production, printing inks, silicones, rug shampoos, and laboratory solvents. Stationary sources (dry cleaning plants, aircraft part and equipment manufacturers, and fabricated metal product manufacturers) account for 57 percent of the statewide emissions of perchloroethylene. Area-wide sources (automotive brake cleaners and tire sealants and inflators) contribute approximately 43 percent. (CARB, 2009b.)

In California, perchloroethylene has been identified as a carcinogen. Perchloroethylene vapors are irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract. Following chronic exposure, workers have shown signs of liver toxicity, as well as kidney dysfunction, and neurological disorders.

Diesel Particulate Matter. Diesel particulate matter is emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. In California, on-road diesel fueled engines contribute approximately 38 percent of the statewide total, with an additional 60 percent attributed to other mobile sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, railroad locomotives, and transport refrigeration units. Stationary sources contribute about 1 percent of total diesel particulate matter. (CARB, 2009b.)



Diesel exhaust and many individual substances contained in it (including arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde and nickel) have the potential to contribute to mutations in cells that can lead to cancer. Long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particles poses the highest cancer risk of any toxic air contaminant evaluated by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The CARB estimates that about 79 percent of the cancer risk that the average Californian faces from breathing the top 10 outdoor toxic air pollutants is attributable to diesel particulate matter. (CARB, 2009b.)

In its comprehensive assessment of diesel exhaust, OEHHA analyzed more than 30 studies of people who worked around diesel equipment, including truck drivers, railroad workers and equipment operators. The studies showed these workers were more likely to develop lung cancer than workers who were not exposed to diesel emissions. These studies provide strong evidence that long-term occupational exposure to diesel exhaust increases the risk of lung cancer. Using information from OEHHA's assessment, CARB estimates that diesel-particle levels measured in California's air in 2000 could cause 540 “excess” cancers (beyond what would occur if there were no diesel particles in the air) in a population of 1 million people over a 70-year lifetime. (CARB, 2009b.) Other researchers and scientific organizations, including the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, have calculated cancer risks from diesel exhaust that are similar to those developed by OEHHA and CARB.

Exposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks.

Diesel engines are a major source of fine-particle pollution. The elderly and people with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to fine-particle pollution. Numerous studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Because children's lungs and respiratory systems are still developing, they are also more susceptible than healthy adults to fine particles. Exposure to fine particles is associated with increased frequency of childhood illnesses and can also reduce lung function in children. In California, diesel exhaust particles have been identified as a carcinogen.

Valley Fever

Coccidioidomycosis, more commonly known as “Valley Fever,” is primarily a disease of the lungs caused by the spores of the Coccidioides immitis fungus. The spores are found in soils, become airborne when the soil is disturbed (e.g., during grading and construction activities), and are subsequently inhaled into the lungs. After the fungal spores have settled in the lungs, they change into a multicellular structure called a spherule. Fungal growth in the lungs occurs as the spherule grows and bursts, releasing endospores, which then develop into more spherules.

Health Effects. Valley Fever symptoms occur within two to three weeks of exposure. About 60 percent of Valley Fever cases are mild and display flu-like symptoms or no symptoms at all. Of those who are exposed and seek medical treatment, the most common symptoms include fatigue, cough, loss of appetite, rash, headache, and joint aches. In some cases, painful red bumps may develop on the skin. These symptoms are not unique to Valley Fever and may be caused by other



illnesses as well. Identifying and confirming this disease require specific laboratory tests such as: (1) microscopic identification of the fungal spherules in infected tissue, sputum or body fluid sample; (2) growing a culture of Coccidioides immitis from a tissue specimen, sputum, or body fluid; and (3) detection of antibodies (serological tests specifically for Valley Fever) against the fungus in blood serum or other body fluids (Valley Fever Center for Excellence, 2010).

Valley Fever is not contagious, and therefore, cannot be passed on from person to person. Most of those who are infected will recover without treatment within six months and will have a life-long immunity to the fungal spores. In severe cases, especially in those patients with rapid and extensive primary illness, those who are at risk for dissemination of disease, and those who have disseminated disease, antifungal drug therapy is used. The type of medication used and the duration of drug therapy are determined by the severity of disease and response to the therapy. The medications used include ketoconazole, itraconazole or fluconazole in chronic, mild-to-moderate disease, and amphotericin B (given intravenously or inserted into the spinal fluid) for rapidly progressive disease. Although these treatments are often helpful, evidence of disease may persist and years of treatment may be required (Valley Fever Center for Excellence, 2010).

About five percent of cases of Valley Fever result in pneumonia (infection of the lungs), while another five percent of patients develop lung cavities after their initial infection with Valley Fever. These cavities occur most often in older adults, usually without symptoms, and about 50 percent of them disappear within two years. Occasionally, these cavities rupture, causing chest pain and difficulty breathing, and require surgical repair (Valley Fever Center for Excellence, 2010).

Table 4.1-5 presents the range of Valley Fever cases based on research conducted by the Valley Fever Center for Excellence.

Anyone who lives, visits, or travels through the areas where the fungus grows in the soil (these areas are called endemic) may acquire Valley Fever. Military personnel who may be training in these areas are also at risk. People working in certain occupations such as construction, excavation, archaeological digging and other occupations which disturb soil in endemic areas may be at increased risk of exposure. Persons who pursue recreational activities such as biking or driving ATVs or 4-wheel drive vehicles in the desert may also be at increased risk. Earthquakes that have occurred in endemic areas of California have also resulted in increased cases of Valley Fever. (Valley Fever Center for Excellence, 2010). In addition, residents new to the San Joaquin Valley are at a higher risk of infection due primarily to low immunity to this particular fungus.

Table 4.1-5. Range of Valley Fever Cases.

Infection Classification Percent of Total Diagnosed Cases

Unapparent infections 60 percent

Mild to moderate infections 30 percent

Infections resulting in complications 5–10 percent

Fatal infections <1 percent Source: Valley Fever Center for Excellence, 2010

The Coccidioides immitis fungal spores are often found in the soil around rodent burrows, Indian ruins, and burial grounds. The spores become airborne when the soil is disturbed by winds,



construction, farming, and other soil disturbing activities. This type of fungus is endemic to the southwestern United States and more common in Kern County. The ecological factors that appear to be most conducive to the survival and replication of the fungal spores are high summer temperatures, mild winters, sparse rainfall, and alkaline, sandy soils.

The areas of Kern County that have the most incidents of Valley Fever exposure are northeast Bakersfield, Lamont-Arvin, Taft, and Edwards Air Force Base.

Asbestos

Naturally occurring asbestos is a concern for some geologic types. Ultramafic, serpentinized rock is closely associated with asbestos and is chemically composed of the following minerals: • Antigorite: (Mg, Fe)3Si2O5(OH)4,

• Clinochrysotile: Mg3Si2O5(OH)4,

• Lizardite: Mg3Si2O5(OH)4,

• Orthrochrysotile: Mg3Si2O5(OH)4; and

• Parachrsotile: (Mg, Fe)3Si2O5(OH)4.

Chysotile minerals are more likely to form serpentinite asbestos. The project area is not located within an area known to contain ultramafic rocks likely to contain naturally occurring asbestos (California Department of Conservation, 2000).

Health Effects. Asbestos can only adversely affect humans in its fibrous form if the fibers are broken and dispersed into the air and then inhaled. During geological processes, the asbestos mineral can be crushed, causing it to become airborne. It also enters the air or water from the breakdown of natural deposits. Constant exposure to asbestos at high levels on a regular basis may cause cancer in humans. The two most common forms of cancer are lung cancer and mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining that covers the lungs and stomach.

4.1.3 Regulatory Setting In California, air quality is regulated by several agencies, including EPA, CARB, and local air districts. Each of these agencies develops rules and/or regulations to attain the goals or directives imposed upon them through legislation. Although EPA regulations may not be superseded, some state and local regulations may be more stringent than federal regulations. The project site is located within the SJVAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD.

Federal

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The principal air quality regulatory mechanism on the federal level is the Clean Air Act (CAA) and in particular, the 1990 amendments to the CAA and the NAAQS that it established. These standards identify levels of air quality for “criteria” pollutants that are considered the maximum levels of ambient air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. The criteria pollutants include O3, CO, NO2 (which is a form of NOX), SO2 (which is a form of SOX), PM10, PM2.5, and Pb. The USEPA also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over emission sources beyond state waters (outer continental shelf), and those that are under the exclusive authority of the Federal government, such as aircraft, locomotives, and



interstate trucking. USEPA’s primary role at the state level is to oversee the state air quality programs. USEPA sets federal vehicle and stationary source emission standards and oversees approval of all State Implementation Plans (SIP), as well as providing research and guidance in air pollution programs. The SIP is a state-level document that identifies all air pollution control programs within California that are designed to help the State meet the NAAQS.

Attainment defines the status of a given airshed with regard to NAAQS requirements. Airsheds not meeting these standards are classified as “nonattainment.”

New Source Performance Standards for Criteria Pollutants. For the proposed project, criteria pollutants will be regulated under federal NSPS. The NSPS is a set of standards by which the federal government regulates new or modified sources. The NSPS can be found in 40 CFR Part 60 and include the following:

• NSPS Subpart A – General Provisions

• NSPS Subpart Dc – Standards of Performance for Small Industrial-Commercial-Industrial Steam Generating Units

• NSPS Subpart J – Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries

• NSPS Subpart Ja – Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries

• NSPS Subpart Kb – Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels

• NSPS Subpart XX – Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals

• NSPS Subpart GGG – Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries

• NSPS Subpart GGGa – Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries

• NSPS Subpart QQQ – Standards of Performance for VOC Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. In addition to criteria pollutants, the federal Clean Air Act regulates HAPs. These are airborne pollutants that are known to have adverse human health effects; however, unlike criteria pollutants, there are no adopted ambient air quality standards for HAPs. HAPs have been regulated at the federal level since the Clean Air Act of 1977 under the 40 CFR Part 61 regulations. Regulations for HAPs were promulgated as NESHAPs over a 13-year period, and applicable NESHAP rules for this project include the following:

• Subpart A – General Provisions

• Subpart J – NESHAP for Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources) of Benzene

• Subpart FF – NESHAP for Benzene Waste Operations

The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 revamped the NESHAPs program to offer a technology-based NESHAP approach for reducing the emissions of a larger number of toxic air compounds. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, USEPA was directed to establish Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for specific classes or categories of sources with the potential to emit 10 or more tons per year (tpy) of a single HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAPs. Under the MACT program, 189 substances were identified as HAPs and slated for regulation. However, since 1990, two HAPs (methyl ethyl ketone and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) have been dropped from the original HAP list. The NESHAP/MACT program



requires certain facilities to control emissions of HAPs by the installation of MACT, which is implemented by the local air district.

Under the Alon Bakersfield Refining Title V Operating Permit for the area comprising Refinery Areas 1, 2, and 4, actual HAP emissions, calculated on a 12-month rolling basis, are limited at less than 10 tpy for a single HAP and 25 tpy for all HAPs combined (see Permit Conditions Nos. 43 and 44 in Permit S-33-0-2). With the addition of the proposed project facilities, Areas 1, 2, and 4 of the refinery facilities will remain an “area source” because the facility will emit less than 25 tpy of total HAPs and less than 10 tpy of any single HAP.

Air Quality Conformity Determination for Transportation Plans and Programs. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require a finding to be made that any project, program, or plan subject to approval by a Metropolitan Planning Organization conforms to air plans for attainment of air quality standards. The Kern County Council of Governments (Kern COG) is designated the Regional Transportation Planning Agency and the Metropolitan Planning Organization for Kern County. In that capacity, Kern COG models air quality emissions based on population projections in conjunction with current general plan designations, estimated vehicle miles in conjunction with the current Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Federal Transportation Plan for Kern County. These results are compared to emissions budgets for each basin approved by USEPA. The proposed project will be located within the portion of Kern County that is contained within the SJVAB. Kern COG is responsible for making a conformity finding for the air basin.

On October 17, 2013, the Kern COG approved an air quality conformity analysis for proposed amendments to the 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and to the 2011 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The conformity analysis concluded that the FTIP and RTP result in emissions less than the emission budgets established for CO, VOCs, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Further, the conformity analysis concluded that the FTIP and RTP will not impede and will support timely implementation of adopted transportation control measures. The Federal Highway Administration approved the conformity analysis on November 5, 2013. (Kern COG, 2013.)

Title V and Extreme Designation

Title V of the federal CAA, as amended in 1990, creates an operating permits program for certain defined sources. In general, owner/operators of defined industrial or commercial sources that emit more than 100 tons per year (tpy) of NOX and ROG must process a Title V permit. If a source is located in a federal ozone nonattainment area classified as “Serious Nonattainment”, this threshold is lowered to 50 tpy. For “Severe Nonattainment” areas the threshold is lowered to 25 tpy, and for “Extreme Nonattainment” areas the threshold is further lowered to 10 tpy. This results in more businesses having to comply with Title V permitting requirements in areas with worse air quality.

Title V does not impose any new air pollution standards, require installation of any new controls on the affected facilities, or require reductions in emissions. Title V does enhance public and USEPA participation in the permitting process and requires additional record keeping and reporting by businesses, which results in significant administrative requirements.

Federal Regulation of Locomotives

Section 213 of the Federal Clean Air Act directs EPA to adopt emissions standards applicable to new locomotives and new engines used in locomotives. EPA promulgated the regulation in 1998 (at Title 40 CFR part 92) with an update in 2008 (at Title 40 CFR Part 1033). The regulation



establishes emission standards consisting of several tiers (Tier 0 through 4), applicable to remanufactured and new locomotives as specified in the Final EPA National Locomotive Rule, with the tiers being phased in over a number of years. Locomotive engines are required to meet the specific Tier level when they are either originally manufactured or remanufactured. The Tier level is a function of the locomotive original manufacture date.

State

California Air Resources Board (CARB)

The CARB, a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency, oversees air quality planning and control throughout California by administering the SIP. Its primary responsibility lies in ensuring implementation of the 1989 amendments to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), responding to the federal CAA requirements and regulating emissions from motor vehicles sold in California. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.

The amendments to the CCAA establish CAAQS, and a legal mandate to achieve these standards by the earliest practical date. These standards apply to the same criteria pollutants as the federal CAA, and also include sulfate, visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide and vinyl chloride. California standards are generally more stringent than the federal standards.

The CARB is also responsible for regulations pertaining to TACs. The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 2588) was enacted in 1987 as a means to establish a formal air toxics emission inventory risk quantification program. AB 2588, as amended, establishes a process that requires stationary sources to report the type and quantities of certain substances their facilities routinely release into their air basin. Each air pollution control district ranks the data into high, intermediate and low priority categories. When considering the ranking, the potency, toxicity, quantity, volume and proximity of the facility to receptors are given consideration by an air district.

The CARB also has on-road and off-road engine emission reduction programs that indirectly affect the project’s emissions through the phasing in of cleaner on-road and off-road equipment engines. Additionally, the CARB has a Portable Equipment Registration Program that allows owners or operators of portable engines and associated equipment to register their units under a statewide program to operate their equipment, which must meet specified program emission requirements, throughout California without having to obtain individual permits from local air districts.

The State has also enacted a regulation for the reduction of diesel particulate matter (DPM) and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles (California Code of Regulations Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449). This regulation provides target emission rates for PM and NOX emissions from owners of fleets of diesel-fueled off-road vehicles and applies to equipment fleets of three specific size categories and the target emission rates are reduced over time (CARB 2012c).

California Diesel Fuel Regulations

With the California Diesel Fuel Regulations, the CARB set sulfur limitations for diesel fuel sold in California for use in on-road and off-road motor vehicles. The rule initially excluded harbor craft and intrastate locomotives, but it later included them with a 2004 rule amendment. Under this rule, diesel fuel used in motor vehicles, except harbor craft and intrastate locomotives, has been limited



to 500-ppm sulfur since 1993. This sulfur limit was later reduced to 15-ppm, effective September 1, 2006.

Locomotive Regulations and MOUs

California developed and adopted the 1994 California State Implementation Plan ("1994 SIP") to attain the federal ozone air quality standard in six designated federal ozone nonattainment areas within California. Measure M14 of the 1994 SIP anticipates that locomotive fleets operating in the South Coast Nonattainment Area (an area comprising Orange County, most of Los Angeles County, and the western portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) in 2010 and later will emit on average no more than the 5.5 grams per brake horsepower hour ("g/bhp hr") Tier 2 (2005 and later) locomotive oxides of nitrogen ("NOx") emission standard included in the 1998 EPA National Locomotive Rule. On July 2, 1998, CARB, BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) entered into a Memorandum Of Mutual Understandings And Agreements to achieve the emission reductions contemplated by Measure M-14 in the South Coast Nonattainment Area.

On November 18, 2004, the CARB approved new requirements for fuel used in intrastate diesel-electric locomotives. Beginning January 1, 2007, diesel fuel sold for use in intrastate diesel-electric locomotives operating in California must meet the specifications of CARB diesel fuel. Intrastate locomotives are defined as those locomotives that operate and fuel primarily (at or greater than 90% of annual fuel consumption, mileage, and/or hours of operation) within the boundaries of the state of California.

The Statewide Railyard Agreement between ARB, UPRR, and BNSF was adopted in June 2005 and required UPRR and BNSF to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions in and around UPRR and BNSF railyards throughout the state by up to 20 percent between 2005 and 2008. The Statewide Railyard Agreement required the preparation of health risk assessments and mitigation plans, placed limits on the idling of locomotives to 15 consecutive minutes, and use of low sulfur fuels.

CARB also publishes data for BNSF’s and UPRR’s national locomotive fleet. In 2009 (the most recent data available), 67% of the BNSF locomotive fleet was Tier 0 or below, with 9% Tier 1 and 24% Tier 2 (CARB 2009c).

Local

Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan

The proposed project is within an area covered by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP). The City of Bakersfield and County of Kern prepared and adopted the MBGP to provide cohesive land use planning for the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area. The Kern County Board of Supervisors adopted the MBGP on December 3, 2002, and approved minor revisions in 2005 (sewer policy) and 2007 (Safety Element and sewer policy).

The MBGP is a policy document designed to give long range guidance to those making decisions affecting the future character of the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area. It represents the official statement of the community's physical development as well as its economic, social and environmental goals. The MBGP also acts to clarify and articulate the relationship and intentions of local government to the rights and expectations of the general public, property owners and prospective investors. Through the plan, local jurisdictions can inform these groups of its goals,



policies and development standards; thereby communicating what must be done to meet the objectives of the MBGP.

Chapter V- Conservation

E. Air Quality Goals: • Goal 1. Promote air quality that is compatible with health, well-being, and enjoyment of life by

controlling point sources and minimizing vehicular trips to reduce air pollutants.

• Goal 2. Continue working toward attainment of federal, state and local standards as enforced by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.

• Goal 3. Reduce the amount of vehicular emissions in the planning area.

Policies:

• Policy 1. Comply with and promote SJVAPCD control measures regarding ROG. Such measures are focused on: a) steam-driven well vents, b) pseudo-cyclic wells, c) natural gas processing plant fugitives, d) heavy oil test stations, e) light oil production fugitives, f) refinery pumps and compressors, and g) vehicle inspection and maintenance.

• Policy 2. Encourage land uses and land use practices that do not contribute significantly to air quality degradation.

• Policy 3. Require dust abatement measures during significant grading and construction operations.

• Policy 4. Consider air pollution impacts when evaluating discretionary permits for land use proposals. Considerations should include: a) alternative access routes to reduce traffic congestion, b) development phasing to match road capacities, and c) buffers including increased vegetation to increase dispersion and reduce impacts of gaseous or particulate matter on sensitive uses.

• Policy 5. Consider the location of sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals, and housing developments when locating industrial uses to minimize the impact of industrial sources of air pollution.

• Policy 6. Participate in alternative fuel programs.

• Policy 7. Participate in regional air quality studies and comprehensive programs for air pollution reduction.

• Policy 8. Promote and assist in the development and implementation of the San Joaquin Valley-wide Air Quality Study.

• Policy 9. Promote public education regarding air quality issues and alternative transportation.

• Policy 10. Implement the Transportation System Management Program (July 1984) for Metropolitan Bakersfield to improve traffic flow, reduce vehicle trips, and increase street capacity.

• Policy 11. Improve the capacity of the existing road system through improved signalization, more right turn lanes and traffic control systems.

• Policy 12. Encourage the use of mass transit, carpooling and other transportation options to reduce vehicle miles traveled (I-4).



• Policy 13. Consider establishing priority parking areas for carpoolers in projects with relatively large numbers of employees to reduce vehicle miles traveled and improve air quality.

• Policy 14. Establish park and ride facilities to encourage carpooling and the use of mass transit.

• Policy 15. Promote the use of bicycles by providing attractive bicycle paths and requiring provision of storage facilities in commercial and industrial projects.

• Policy 16. Cooperate with Golden Empire Transit and Kern Regional Transit to provide a comprehensive mass transit system for Bakersfield; require large-scale new development to provide related improvements, such as bus stop shelters and turnouts.

• Policy 17. Continue to participate with the vehicle smog-check and maintenance programs.

• Policy 18. Encourage walking for short distance trips through the creation of pedestrian friendly sidewalks and street crossings.

• Policy 19. Promote a pattern of land uses which locates residential uses in close proximity to employment and commercial services to minimize vehicular travel.

• Policy 20. Provide the opportunity for the development of residential units in concert with commercial uses.

• Policy 21. Disperse urban service centers (libraries, post offices, social services, etc.) to minimize vehicle trips and trip miles traveled and concomitant air pollutants.

• Policy 22. Require the provision of secure, convenient bike storage racks at shopping centers, office buildings, and other places of employment in the Bakersfield Metropolitan area.

• Policy 23. Encourage the provision of shower and locker facilities by employers, for employees who bicycle or jog to work.

• Policy 24. Encourage employers to implement programs for staggered work hours, compressed work weeks, or other measures which relieve vehicle congestion during commute periods and reduce total work trips.

• Policy 25. Require design of parking structures and ramps to provide adequate off-street storage for entering vehicles to minimize on-street congestion and avoid internal back-up and idling of vehicles.

• Policy 26 Consider restriction or elimination of on-street parking for the purpose of providing increased road or intersection capacity during peak traffic hours.

• Policy 27. Local governments should work with local transit authorities to increase the attractiveness of passenger staging areas through the provision of waiting shelters, landscaping and drinking fountains.

• Policy 28. Encourage the use of “teleconferencing” and other state-of-the-art technology as a means of reducing daily business related traffic.

• Policy 29. Encourage the use of alternative fuel and low or zero emission vehicles.

• Policy 30. Encourage local officials to advocate safe incentives for biomass plants to divert agricultural waste and reduce agricultural burns.

• Policy 31. Encourage agricultural burn alternatives.



San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

Local air districts have the primary responsibility for controlling emissions from sources other than motor vehicles and other specified statewide sources (such as consumer products), which are the responsibility of CARB or EPA. Air districts adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve state and federal ambient air quality standards and enforce applicable state and federal law. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has jurisdiction over air quality in the SJVAB.

Air Quality Plans

The SJVAPCD has developed plans to attain state and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter. The District’s air quality plans include emissions inventories to identify the sources and quantities of air pollutant emissions, evaluate how well different control methods have worked, and demonstrate how air pollution will be reduced. The plans also use computer modeling to estimate future levels of pollution to ensure that the Valley will meet air quality goals. As of February 2014, the following attainment plans are in effect. • One-Hour Ozone Plan. CARB submitted the SJVAPCD’s 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment

Demonstration Plan to the U.S. EPA on November 15, 2004. The plan was amended by the District in 2008. Effective June 15, 2005 the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour ozone ambient air quality standard, finding that the eight-hour ozone standard was more health protective. Under federal anti-backsliding provisions, the District has continued to implement the 2004 plan’s control measures and emissions reductions strategies. The District developed a new plan for EPA’s revoked 1-hour ozone standard, which was adopted by the District’s Governing Board on September 19, 2013.

• Eight-Hour Ozone Plan. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan on April 30, 2007. This far-reaching plan, with innovative measures and a “dual path” strategy, assures expeditious attainment of the federal 8-hour ozone standard established by EPA in 1997. The plan projects that the Valley will achieve the eight-hour ozone standard for all areas of the SJVAB no later than 2023. The CARB approved the plan on June 14, 2007. EPA approved the 2007 Ozone Plan effective April 30, 2012. It is expected that the plan addressing the more stringent 8-hour ozone standard enacted by EPA in 2008 will be due to EPA in 2015.

• PM10 Maintenance Plan. Based on PM10 measurements from 2003-2006, EPA found that the SJVAB has achieved the federal PM10 NAAQS. On September 21, 2007, the District’s Governing Board adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. This plan demonstrates that the Valley will continue to meet the PM10 standard. EPA approved the document and effective December 12, 2008, the SJVAB was redesignated to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS.

• 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The Valley is designated nonattainment for federal PM2.5 standards. EPA established its first PM2.5 standards in 1997. EPA strengthened the 24-hour standard in 2006 and the annual standard in 2013. Building upon the strategy used in the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District agreed to additional control measures to reduce directly produced PM2.5. The District’s Governing Board adopted the 2008 PM2.5 Plan on April 30, 2008. The plan demonstrates that the SJVAB will achieve the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 µg/m3 by 2014. The CARB approved the Plan on May 22, 2008. EPA approved most provisions of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan effective January 9, 2012.



• 2012 PM2.5 Plan. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2012 PM2.5 Plan on December 20, 2012. The plan demonstrates that the SJVAB will achieve the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 µg/m3 by 2019. The CARB approved the Plan on January 24, 2013. The SJVAPCD will need to revise its PM2.5 strategy in the future to address attainment of the 2013 annual standard.

Permits Required

SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires that an Authority to Construct permit and a Permit to Operate be obtained prior to constructing, altering, replacing, or operating any device that emits or may emit air contaminants. Since the project will require construction and alteration of various stationary source devices at the Refinery, Authority to Construct permits and Permits to Operate will be required.

Rule 2410 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) requires that pre-construction permits be obtained for new major stationary sources and major modifications to existing major stationary sources in areas classified as attainment or unclassifiable for any criteria pollutant. A modification is considered major if the net emissions increase equals or exceeds 40 tons per year VOC, 40 tons per year NOx, 15 tons per year PM10, 10 tons per year PM2.5, 100 tons per year CO, or 40 tons per year SO2. Stationary source emissions increases associated with the project are expected to be well below these thresholds. Therefore, a PSD pre-construction permit will not be required for the proposed project.

Applicable Rules

The proposed project will result in emissions from stationary sources (combustion units, storage tanks, loading and unloading racks, and fugitive emissions), and non-permitted sources (trucks, locomotives, employee and contractor trips, and on-site vehicles). Air pollutants will also be emitted during project construction (off-road construction equipment, on-road vehicles, fugitive particulate matter from material movement, asphalt paving, and use of architectural coatings). Following is a list of the SJVAPCD rules that could potentially apply to construction and operation of the proposed project: (SJVAPCD, 2013a)

• Rule 2010 (Permits Required)

• Rule 2201 (New and Modified New Source Review)

• Rule 2280 (Portable Equipment Registration)

• Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits)

• Rule 4001 (New Source Performance Standards)

• Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)

• Rule 4101 (Visible Emissions)

• Rule 4102 (Nuisance)

• Rule 4201 (Particulate Matter Concentration)

• Rule 4202 (Particulate Matter Emission Rate)

• Rule 4301 (Fuel Burning Equipment)

• Rule 4305 (Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters, Phase 2)




• Rule 4311 (Flares)

• Rule 4320 (Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater than 5.0 MMBtu/hr)


• Rule 4455 (Components at Petroleum Refineries, Gas Liquids Processing Facilities and Chemical Plants)

• Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)

• Rule 4621 (Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage Containers, Delivery Vessels, and Bulk Plants)

• Rule 4623 (Storage of Organic Liquids)

• Rule 4624 (Transfer of Organic Liquid)

• Rule 4801 (Sulfur Compounds)

• Rule 8011 (General Requirements)

• Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities)

• Rule 8031 (Bulk Materials)

• Rule 8041 (Carryout and Trackout)

• Rule 8051 (Open Areas)

• Rule 8061 (Paved and Unpaved Roads)

• Rule 8071 (Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic Areas)

Indirect Source Review

On December 15, 2005, the SJVAPCD Governing Board adopted Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review, or ISR). The District’s ISR rule is intended to reduce NOx and PM10 emissions from new development projects. Rule 9510 requires developers of specified development projects to submit applications and reduce emissions through onsite mitigation, offsite SJVAPCD-administered projects, or a combination of the two. The rule applies to development projects that require discretionary approval for projects that equal or exceed the following thresholds: 50 residential units, 2,000 square feet of commercial space, 25,000 square feet of light industrial space, 100,000 square feet of heavy industrial space, 20,000 square feet of medical office space, 39,000 square feet of general office space, 9,000 square feet of educational space, 10,000 square feet of government space, 20,000 square feet of recreational space, or 9,000 square feet of uncategorized space. The rule also applies to transportation or transit projects with construction exhaust emissions of two or more tons per year of NOx and PM10 combined.

Project operators are required to submit air impact assessment applications concurrent with the last discretionary approval by a lead agency.

Rule 9510 exempts development projects for facilities with primary functions that are subject to District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) or 2010 (Permits Required). The list of specific projects exempted under Rule 9510 includes oil refining (section



4.4.3.9) and petroleum product transportation and marketing facilities (section 4.4.3.12). The proposed project involves expansion of crude oil rail terminal operations and modifications to refining facilities at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery, and is subject to Rules 2010 and 2201. Therefore, the project is exempt from Rule 9510 under section 4.4.3, more specifically under both sections 4.4.3.9 and 4.4.3.12. (SJVAPCD, 2005.)

GAMAQI/Air Quality Thresholds of Significance

In August 1998, the SJVAPCD adopted its Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) to provide lead agencies, consultants, and project applicants with uniform procedures for addressing air quality in environmental documents. The District subsequently revised its GAMAQI document in January 2002 (SJVAPCD, 2002). In 2012, the SJVAPCD began the process to update its GAMAQI document. The update was intended to codify long-standing district practices, provide updated data, revise recommended significance thresholds, and provide additional technical guidance. The May 2012 Draft GAMAQI is generally more environmentally protective than the January 2002 GAMAQI. Even though the SJVAPCD has not yet completed its GAMAQI update process, this document utilizes the significance thresholds recommended in its most recently revised May 2012 Draft GAMAQI. (SJVAPCD, 2012b)

In December 2006, the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department (KCPCDD) issued its own Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports (Kern County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines). The document provided specific guidance for County-prepared EIRs, including air quality issues to be considered, analytical approaches and resources, a significance threshold for PM10 (which was not reflected in the January 2002 GAMAQI, but is included in the May 2012 Draft GAMAQI), and a cumulative impact analysis methodology (KCPCDD, 2006). This analysis also utilizes the analytical approach and issues recommended in the KCPCDD’s Guidelines.

Criteria Pollutant Emissions

Table 4.1-6 presents the SJVAPCD’s criteria pollutant emissions significance thresholds for construction and project operation, based on the District’s May 2012 Draft GAMAQI. As seen in Table 4.1-6, the SJVAPCD recommends that emissions from permitted sources and activities be evaluated separately from non-permitted sources and activities.

Table 4.1-6. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Significance Thresholds (tons per year, or tpy).

Pollutant/ Precursor

Construction Emissions

Operational Emissions Permitted Sources

and Activities Non-Permitted Sources and

Activities Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy)

NOx 10 10 10 ROG 10 10 10 NOx 10 10 10 PM10 15 15 15 PM2.5 15 15 15 CO 100 100 100 SOx 27 27 27

(Source: SJVAPCD, 2012b, section 8.4.6.)



As indicated in the May 2012 Draft GAMAQI, permitted sources and activities are subject to SJVAPCD Regulation II (Permits), notably Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and Rule 2301 (Emission Reduction Credit Banking). Rule 2201 requires emission increases from new permitted stationary sources be mitigated by emission offsets. In most cases, permitted stationary source emissions therefore will be reduced or mitigated to below the SJVAPCD’s recommended significance thresholds. (SJVAPCD, 2012b, sections 7.24 and 7.25.)

Criteria Pollutant Modeling

The SJVAPCD’s May 2012 Draft GAMAQI states that a project should be considered to have a significant impact if its emissions would cause or contribute to a violation of any CAAQS or NAAQS. (SJVAPCD, 2012b, section 8.2.) Accordingly, this analysis utilizes applicable CAAQS or NAAQS to establish thresholds of significance for pollutants subject to a standard for which the SJVAB is designated attainment or unclassified. For pollutants subject to a standard for which the SJVAB is designated non-attainment, this analysis utilizes the U.S. EPA’s Significant Impact Levels, as shown in Table 4.1-7.

Table 4.1-7. Criteria Pollutant Ambient Concentration Significance Thresholds.

Pollutant Averaging

Period

EPA Significant Impact Levelsa

(µg/m3) Applicable Ambient Air

Quality Standardsb (µg/m3) Significance Threshold

(µg/m3)

NO2 1 hour 7.5 339 (California)

188.7 (Federal) 339 (California)c 188.7 (Federal)c

Annual 1 57 (California) 100 (Federal) 57c

PM10 24 hours 5 50 (California)

150 (Federal) increase > 5d

Annual 1 20 (California) increase > 1d

PM2.5 24 hours 1.2 35 (Federal) increase > 1.2d Annual 0.3 12 (California, Federal) increase > 0.3d

CO 1 hour 2,000 23,000 (California)

40,000 (Federal) 23,000c

8 hours 500 10,000 (California, Federal) 10,000c

SO2 1 hour 7.8 655 (California)

196 (Federal) 655 (California)c

196 (Federal)c 3 hours 25 1,300 (Federal) 1,300c 24 hours 5 105 (California) 105c

Notes: a. Source: SJVAPCD, 2013b, Appendix A (PSD Thresholds, Significant Impact Levels for Class II

areas). b. Source: Table 3-1; CARB, 2012a. c. Since the SJVAB is designated unclassifiable or attainment for California and federal NO2, CO, and

SO2 standards, the significance thresholds are based on the most restrictive applicable ambient air quality standards. Because the federal one-hour NO2 and SO2 standards have different forms than California one-hour NO2 and SO2 standards, significance thresholds are based on both California and federal one-hour NO2 and SO2 ambient standards.

d. Since the SJVAB is designated nonattainment for California PM10 standards, and nonattainment for California and federal PM2.5 standards, significance thresholds are based on EPA Significant Impact Levels.



Odors

The SJVAPCD recommends that odors associated with a proposed project should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and suggests a two-part process for evaluating a project’s potential impacts on odor receptors. Initially, the proximity of a potential odor generator with respect to sensitive receptors (residences, schools, day care centers, hospital, etc.) should be compared to District-recommended odor screening distances. For petroleum refineries, the SJVAPCD recommends more detailed analysis of potential odor impacts if sensitive receptors are located within two miles of an odor source. (SJVAPCD, 2012b, section 8.5.)

If receptors are located within the recommended screening distance, the SJVAPCD suggests that determination of significance for odors can be based on the District’s complaint records. For existing odor sources, the SJVAPCD recommends that odor impacts be considered significant where the source has: • More than one confirmed complaint per year averaged over a three year period, or

• Three or more unconfirmed complaints per year averaged over a three-year period. (SJVAPCD, 2012b, section 8.5.)

The Kern County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines recommend dispersion modeling for odorous compounds to determine ambient concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors (residences, schools, etc.) Ambient concentrations at such receptors should be compared to applicable odor thresholds to determine potential odor impacts. However, the Kern County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines do not specify thresholds to be used for odor analysis.

The primary odorous compound from the proposed project is expected to be hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from crude oil and intermediate products, due to the increase in fugitive components potentially containing sulfur compounds. While there may be trace emissions of other sulfur-containing compounds (e.g., mercaptans, carbonyl sulfide, and carbon disulfide), emissions from these other sulfurous compounds are not expected to be significant. Additionally, there are no speciation data available for these other compounds. Therefore, evaluation of potential odor impacts focuses on odors associated with H2S emissions from the proposed project.

The odor impact threshold for the proposed project is based on the H2S CAAQS of 30 parts per billion (ppb, or 42 µg/m3), averaged over a one-hour period. This threshold is also the acute inhalation reference exposure level (REL) established by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Use of the H2S CAAQS of 42 µg/m3 is appropriate since “the ambient standard for H2S is adequate to protect public health and to significantly reduce odor annoyance” (CARB, 2009a). Also, OEHHA has stated that the H2S CAAQS “protects against nuisance odor (‘rotten egg smell’) for the general public” (OEHHA, 2000).

Visibility

The visibility analysis in this document is based on the U.S. EPA’s Visibility Screening (VISCREEN) model. For visibility screening analyses using the VISCREEN model, EPA recommends use of the following significance thresholds for PSD Class I areas (specified national parks and wilderness areas): • Color difference parameter (Delta-E) of 2.0, against both a sky background and a terrain

background, and

• Plume contrast value of 0.05, against both a sky background and a terrain background.



Thresholds for visibility impacts to the Edwards Air Force Base and the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station have not been established.

Health Risk Assessment

The SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance for health risks associated with toxic air contaminants are as follows: • Carcinogens: increased cancer risk of 10 per one million or greater for the maximally exposed

individual

• Non-Carcinogens: hazard index of 1 or greater for the maximally exposed individual. Note that the hazard index is expressed as a ratio of exposure levels to acceptable levels

4.1.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Methodology

This section discusses the methodologies used to conduct the evaluation of air quality impacts for the proposed project, including guidelines for preparing environmental documents under CEQA and technical methods employed in the evaluation.

The air quality significance criteria were developed considering the CEQA significance criteria developed by the local air quality districts in the project area, approved CEQA air quality checklists, and considering other federal criteria.

Baseline

As described in Section 4.0, the baseline for purposes of this analysis is considered to be the physical environmental conditions existing as of the beginning of environmental analysis (2013), adjusted to reflect the refinery as it previously operated in 2007. Therefore, the air quality analysis utilizes 2007 activity for the refinery (refinery production and feed, truck trips, locomotive activity, employees, unit operating rates, etc.), along with 2013 emission rates (where appropriate) to represent the operating refinery in the project baseline. For example, baseline fuel delivery truck emissions are based on 2007 truck trips, calculated using 2013 heavy duty diesel truck emission rates.

Thresholds of Significance

The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and Kern County Environmental Checklist state that a project would have a significant impact on air quality if it would:

• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;

• Violate any air quality standard as adopted in (c)i or (c)ii, or as established by EPA or air district or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;

• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Specifically, would implementation of the project exceed any of the following adopted thresholds:



Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District:

Operational and Area/Construction Emission Sources:

ROG – 25 tons per year.

NOX – 25 tons per year.

PM10 – 15 tons per year.

Stationary sources (determined by District rules): 25 tons per year;

• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or

• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

The Lead Agency determined in the NOP/IS (see Appendix A) that none of the environmental issues areas resulted in no impact or less than significant impact; therefore none of the areas were scoped out of requiring further review in this draft EIR.

Project Impacts

Impact 4.1-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Local air districts have the primary responsibility for controlling emissions from sources other than locomotives, motor vehicles and other specified statewide sources (such as consumer products), which are the responsibility of CARB or EPA. Air districts adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve state and federal ambient air quality standards and enforce applicable state and federal law. The project is located within the administrative boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), which has jurisdiction over air quality in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plans

The SJVAPCD has developed plans to attain state and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter. The District’s air quality plans include emissions inventories to identify the sources and quantities of air pollutant emissions, evaluate how well different control methods have worked, and demonstrate how air pollution will be reduced. The plans also use computer modeling to estimate future levels of pollution to ensure that the Valley will meet air quality goals. As of February 2014, the following attainment plans are in effect.

• One-Hour Ozone Plan. CARB submitted the SJVAPCD’s 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan to the U.S. EPA on November 15, 2004. The plan was amended by the District in 2008. Effective June 15, 2005 the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour ozone ambient air quality standard, finding that the eight-hour ozone standard was more health protective. Under federal anti-backsliding provisions, the District has continued to implement the 2004 plan’s control measures and emissions reductions strategies. The District developed a new plan for EPA’s revoked 1-hour ozone standard, which was adopted by the District’s Governing Board on September 19, 2013.

• Eight-Hour Ozone Plan. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan on April 30, 2007. This far-reaching plan, with innovative measures and a “dual path” strategy, assures expeditious attainment of the federal 8-hour ozone standard established by EPA in 1997. The plan projects



that the Valley will achieve the eight-hour ozone standard for all areas of the SJVAB no later than 2023. The CARB approved the plan on June 14, 2007. EPA approved the 2007 Ozone Plan effective April 30, 2012. It is expected that the plan addressing the more stringent 8-hour ozone standard enacted by EPA in 2008 will be due to EPA in 2015.

• PM10 Maintenance Plan. Based on PM10 measurements from 2003-2006, EPA found that the SJVAB has achieved the federal PM10 NAAQS. On September 21, 2007, the District’s Governing Board adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. This plan demonstrates that the Valley will continue to meet the PM10 standard. EPA approved the document and effective December 12, 2008, the SJVAB was redesignated to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS.

• 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The Valley is designated nonattainment for federal PM2.5 standards. EPA established its first PM2.5 standards in 1997. EPA strengthened the 24-hour standard in 2006 and the annual standard in 2013. Building upon the strategy used in the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District agreed to additional control measures to reduce directly produced PM2.5. The District’s Governing Board adopted the 2008 PM2.5 Plan on April 30, 2008. The plan demonstrates that the SJVAB will achieve the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 µg/m3 by 2014. The CARB approved the Plan on May 22, 2008. EPA approved most provisions of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan effective January 9, 2012.

• 2012 PM2.5 Plan. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2012 PM2.5 Plan on December 20, 2012. The plan demonstrates that the SJVAB will achieve the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 µg/m3 by 2019. The CARB approved the Plan on January 24, 2013. The SJVAPCD will need to revise its PM2.5 strategy in the future to address attainment of the 2013 annual standard.

The adopted plans include emissions inventories, projected changes in population, vehicles, fuels and equipment, and associated emissions. The plans then identify existing rules and additional proposed measures required to reduce emissions to the ambient air quality standards. These rules and proposed measures include requirements to obtain permits to construct and operate, and rules regulating the allowable emissions from various activities or classes of equipment. Thus, for the proposed project, the project does not conflict with or obstruct the plan if it will comply or be consistent with the rules and other measures.

Consistency with Applicable Permits Required

SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires that an Authority to Construct permit and a Permit to Operate be obtained prior to constructing, altering, replacing, or operating any device that emits or may emit air contaminants. Since the project will require construction and alteration of various stationary source devices at the Refinery, Authority to Construct permits and Permits to Operate will be required.

Rule 2410 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) requires that pre-construction permits be obtained for new major stationary sources and major modifications to existing major stationary sources in areas classified as attainment or unclassifiable for any criteria pollutant. A modification is considered major if the net emissions increase equals or exceeds 40 tons per year VOC, 40 tons per year NOx, 15 tons per year PM10, 10 tons per year PM2.5, 100 tons per year CO, or 40 tons per year SO2. Stationary source emissions increases associated with the project are expected to be well below these thresholds. Therefore, a PSD pre-construction permit will not be required for the proposed project.



Consistency with Applicable APCD Applicable Rules

The proposed project will result in emissions from stationary sources (combustion units, storage tanks, loading and unloading racks, and fugitive emissions), and non-permitted sources (trucks, locomotives, employee and contractor trips, and on-site vehicles). Air pollutants will also be emitted during project construction (off-road construction equipment, on-road vehicles, fugitive particulate matter from material movement, asphalt paving, and use of architectural coatings). Following is a list of the SJVAPCD rules that could potentially apply to construction and operation of the proposed project: (SJVAPCD, 2013a)

• Rule 2010 (Permits Required)

• Rule 2201 (New and Modified New Source Review)

• Rule 2280 (Portable Equipment Registration)

• Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits)

• Rule 4001 (New Source Performance Standards)

• Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)

• Rule 4101 (Visible Emissions)

• Rule 4102 (Nuisance)

• Rule 4201 (Particulate Matter Concentration)

• Rule 4202 (Particulate Matter Emission Rate)

• Rule 4301 (Fuel Burning Equipment)



• Rule 4311 (Flares)

• Rule 4320 (Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater than 5.0 MMBtu/hr)


• Rule 4455 (Components at Petroleum Refineries, Gas Liquids Processing Facilities and Chemical Plants)

• Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)

• Rule 4621 (Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage Containers, Delivery Vessels, and Bulk Plants)

• Rule 4623 (Storage of Organic Liquids)

• Rule 4624 (Transfer of Organic Liquid)

• Rule 4801 (Sulfur Compounds)

• Rule 8011 (General Requirements)

• Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities)

• Rule 8031 (Bulk Materials)



• Rule 8041 (Carryout and Trackout)

• Rule 8051 (Open Areas)

• Rule 8061 (Paved and Unpaved Roads)

• Rule 8071 (Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic Areas)

The project will be required to comply with the relevant provisions of these rules.

Consistency with Applicable Indirect Source Review

On December 15, 2005, the SJVAPCD Governing Board adopted Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review, or ISR). The District’s ISR rule is intended to reduce NOx and PM10 emissions from new development projects. Rule 9510 requires developers of specified development projects to submit applications and reduce emissions through onsite mitigation, offsite SJVAPCD-administered projects, or a combination of the two. The rule applies to development projects that require discretionary approval for projects that equal or exceed the following thresholds: 50 residential units, 2,000 square feet of commercial space, 25,000 square feet of light industrial space, 100,000 square feet of heavy industrial space, 20,000 square feet of medical office space, 39,000 square feet of general office space, 9,000 square feet of educational space, 10,000 square feet of government space, 20,000 square feet of recreational space, or 9,000 square feet of uncategorized space. The rule also applies to transportation or transit projects with construction exhaust emissions of two or more tons per year of NOx and PM10 combined.

Project operators are required to submit air impact assessment applications concurrent with the last discretionary approval by a lead agency.

Rule 9510 exempts development projects for facilities with primary functions that are subject to District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) or 2010 (Permits Required). The list of specific projects exempted under Rule 9510 includes oil refining (section 4.4.3.9) and petroleum product transportation and marketing facilities (section 4.4.3.12). The proposed project involves expansion of crude oil rail terminal operations and modifications to refining facilities at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery, and is subject to Rules 2010 and 2201. Therefore, the project is exempt from Rule 9510 under section 4.4.3, more specifically under both sections 4.4.3.9 and 4.4.3.12. (SJVAPCD, 2005.)

Permitted Source Emissions. As previously discussed, emission increases associated with the proposed project’s permitted sources will come from fugitive equipment leaks, loading/unloading operations, storage tanks, and combustion units. These sources will be subject to SJVAPCD prohibitory rules, notably Rule 4455 (Components at Petroleum Refineries, Gas Liquids Processing Facilities, and Chemical Plants) and Rule 4623 (Storage of Organic Liquids). Emissions from new permitted sources will also be required to be mitigated by emission offsets under Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review). Therefore, permitted source emissions will be consistent with the SJVAPCD’s adopted regulatory program to attain state and federal ozone and particulate matter standards.

Non-Permitted Source/Activity Emissions. Non-permitted sources and activities will be subject to the following federal and state regulatory programs, which are incorporated within the attainment plans for state and federal ozone and particulate matter standards:

• The U.S. EPA’s 2008 locomotive emissions standards, codified at 40 Code of Regulations part 1033.



• Heavy-duty engine and on-road vehicle standards enacted by the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. EPA (California standards codified at 13 California Code of Regulations section 1956.8).

• Light and medium on-road vehicle standards enacted by the California Air Resources Board (starting at 13 California Code of Regulations section 1900).

Non-permitted source/activity emissions were calculated using EPA emission factors which reflect the EPA’s 2008 locomotive emissions standards, and CARB’s EMFAC2011 (January 2013) emissions model which reflects adopted California on-road vehicle emission standards. Therefore, non-permitted source/activities will be consistent with adopted regulatory programs incorporated within the SJVAPCD’s ozone and particulate matter attainment plans.

Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for the project, the project

proponent shall develop a Fugitive Dust Control Plan in compliance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions during construction. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall include:

a. Name(s), address(es), and phone number(s) of person(s) responsible for the preparation, submission, and implementation of the plan;

b. Description and location of operation(s); and

c. Listing of all fugitive dust emissions sources included in the operation.

d. The following dust control measures shall be implemented:

1. All on-site unpaved roads shall be effectively stabilized using soil stabilizers that can be determined to be as efficient as or more efficient for fugitive dust control than California Air Resources Board approved soil stabilizers, and that shall not increase any other environmental impacts including loss of vegetation.

2. All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive dust. Watering will occur as needed with complete coverage of disturbed areas. The excavated soil piles will be watered hourly for the duration of construction or covered with temporary coverings.

3. Construction activities that occur on unpaved surfaces will be discontinued during windy conditions when winds exceed 25 miles per hour and those activities cause visible dust plumes. Construction activities may continue if dust suppression measures are used to minimize visible dust plumes. The measures shall follow the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) or more stringent measures to ensure that: 1) the visible dust plumes are not transported off the project site or within 400 feet of any regularly occupied structure not owned by the project proponent; and, 2) the visible dust plumes generated from linear construction are not transported 200 feet beyond the centerline of the linear facilities and do not cause a traffic obscuration hazard on public roads.

4. Track-out shall not extend 25 feet or more from an active operation and track-out shall be removed at the conclusion of each workday.



5. All hauling materials should be moist while being loaded into dump trucks. All haul trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered (e.g., with tarps or other enclosures that would reduce fugitive dust emissions).

6. Soil loads should be kept below 18 inches or the freeboard of the truck.

7. Drop heights should be minimized when loaders dump soil into trucks.

8. Gate seals should be tight on dump trucks.

9. Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

10. All grading activities shall be suspended when wind speeds are greater than 30 miles per hour.

11. Other fugitive dust control measures as necessary to comply with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations.

12. Disturbed areas should be minimized.

13. Disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible after disturbance.

MM 4.1-2 The project proponent shall continuously comply with the following during construction and operation of the project:

To control emissions from the on-site off-road construction equipment: a. All off-road construction diesel engines not registered under California Air

Resources Board’s Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program, which have a rating of 50 horsepower or more, shall meet, at a minimum, the Tier 3 California Emission Standards for Off-road Compression-Ignition Engines as specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 2423(b)(1) unless that such engine is not available for a particular item of equipment. In the event a Tier 3 engine is not available for any off-road engine larger than 100 horsepower, that engine shall be equipped with retrofit controls that would provide nitrogen oxides and particulate matter emissions that are equivalent to Tier 3 engine.

b. All equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Engine idling of all equipment shall be minimized.

c. All equipment engines shall be maintained in good operating condition and in proposed tune per manufacturers’ specifications.

To control NOx emissions from on-road heavy-duty diesel haul vehicles that are contracted on a continuing basis for use to haul equipment and materials for the project:

a. 2007 engines or pre-2007 engines with CARB certified Level 3 diesel emission controls will be used to the extent possible.

b. All on-road construction vehicles, except those meeting the 2007/CARB certified Level 3 diesel emissions controls, shall meet all applicable California on-road emission standards and shall be licensed in the State of California. This does not apply to worker personal vehicles.

c. The construction contractor shall ensure that all on-road construction vehicles are properly tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.



To control fugitive dust emissions from the use of unpaved roads on the site:

a. Unpaved roads at the site shall be stabilized using water or soil stabilizers so that vehicle travel on these roads does not cause visible dust plumes.

b. Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to no more than 15 miles per hour. Traffic speed signs shall be displayed prominently at all site entrances and at egress point(s) from the central maintenance complex.

To control emissions from the on-site dedicated equipment (i.e. equipment that would remain on site each day):

a. All equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Engine idling of all equipment shall be minimized.

b. All equipment engines shall be maintained in good operating condition and in proposed tune per manufacturers’ specifications.

Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts are less than significant.

Impact 4.1-2: Violate any air quality standard as adopted or established by EPA or air district or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

As specified above, emissions associated with the project were determined based on the December 12, 2013 Air Quality/Global Climate Change Analysis prepared by Ashworth Leininger Group. For purposes of analysis within the document, air quality impacts associated with the project have been separated into the following three categories:

1. Construction Impacts (Proposed)

2. Permitted Sources (Existing Operations)

3. Non-Permitted Sources and Activities (Proposed Additional Operations)


To estimate emissions associated with construction of the proposed project, activity was estimated separately for construction of the rail portion of the project (on-site double rail loop, runaround track, and bad order tracks) and construction of the non-rail portion of the project (unloading facilities, storage tanks, process units modifications, pipelines, overcrossing, and associated internal refinery road improvements, if needed). Emissions associated with demolition activities are addressed under non-rail construction emission calculations.

The SJVAPCD recommends use of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to estimate project emissions in environmental documents released for public review after July 1, 2012. Given the complexity of the proposed project (involving construction of both rail and non-rail components) and the fact that at the time calculations were prepared CalEEMod did not incorporate the latest on-road vehicle emission factors (CARB’s EMFAC2011 factors released January 2013), ALG did not use the CalEEMod model to estimate emissions associated with project construction. As indicated below, ALG did use emission calculation techniques, data, and sources used in CalEEMod and/or documented within the CalEEMod User’s Guide. ALG met with the SJVAPCD on January 8, 2013 to discuss methods for calculating project emissions, and SJVAPCD staff concurred with this approach.



• The rail construction schedule is based on a construction schedule and equipment estimate published for construction of a rail spur project at the Port of Everett (Washington). The Port of Everett project called for construction of 2,200 linear feet of rail track, while the proposed Crude Flexibility Project calls for construction of an estimated 27,900 linear feet of rail track. Therefore, the Port of Everett equipment hours were scaled up by a factor of 12.7 to approximate the level of effort required for the Crude Flexibility Project rail terminal. Since Alon USA anticipates constructing the rail terminal within ten months (43 weeks), the numbers of equipment items were adjusted to fit the estimated equipment work hours into the anticipated construction schedule.

• Material requirements (ballast, railroad ties, rail track, spikes, fasteners, and other supplies) and earth excavation estimates were estimated based on Design Guidelines for Industrial Track Projects, BNSF Railway Company, Revised December 2011.

• The non-rail construction schedule is based on the default construction schedule recommended for a less than 20-acre project within the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2011.1.1, as documented in the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2011.1 User’s Guide, ENVIRON International Corporation (for the South Coast Air Quality Management District), February 2011. As with the rail construction schedule, the numbers of equipment items were also adjusted to fit the estimated equipment work hours into the 43-week construction schedule anticipated by Alon USA.

• Emissions were estimated for each construction project component using well-documented agency-recommended and generally-accepted emission calculation techniques:

• Off-road diesel construction equipment: California Air Resources Board OFFROAD2007 emissions model (verified against the recommended values in the CalEEMod Version 2011.1 User’s Guide), California Air Resources Board particulate matter speciation profiles, and The Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol Version 2.0, March 2013.

• On-road motor vehicles: California Air Resources Board EMFAC2011 emissions model, California Air Resources Board 2000-2010 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory documentation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (EPA Document No. AP-42), and CalEEMod User’s Guide 2011.1.

• Material movement (demolition, grading, bulldozing, and material handling): U.S. EPA AP-42, and CalEEMod Version 2011.1 User’s Guide.

• Asphalt paving: CalEEMod Version 2011.1 User’s Guide, assuming that a 24-foot wide, ¾ mile long road will be needed for access to the Clean Fuels Project components to be constructed in refinery Area 4.

• Architectural coatings: CalEEMod Version 2011.1 User’s Guide and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), assuming that 50,000 square feet of industrial surface area will need to be coated during the construction phase for the proposed project.

2. Permitted Source (Existing Operations) Emissions

The SJVAPCD’s May 2012 Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (May 2012 Draft GAMAQI) recommends evaluating operational criteria pollutant emissions associated with permitted sources and activities separately from non-permitted sources and



activities (SJVAPCD, 2012b, section 8.4). The proposed project calls for construction or modification of several types of permitted emission sources:

• Modifications to existing process units and equipment resulting in the addition of equipment components and associated fugitive VOC leaks.

• Addition of railcar crude unloading operations and product loading facilities.

• Construction of new storage tanks and modifications to existing storage tanks.

• Modifications to combustion units 21-H21, 11-H11 (which will become 27-H2), and 26-H13/15. Heaters 21-H21 and 11-H11 have been dormant, and will be retrofit with ultra-low NOx burners meeting the requirements of District Rule 4306. Heater 26-H13/15 is an existing pair of heaters with a common stack; one of the heaters has not been used in several years, and this will be retrofit with ultra-low NOx burners meeting Rule 4306 limits, and returned to service.

• Addition of three new 500 hp boilers to provide process heat.

• Addition of new jet fuel loading lanes at the loading terminal

Methods used to calculate the increased permitted source emissions associated with the proposed project are described below.

Fugitive Equipment Leaks. Fugitive equipment leaks are estimated based on the number of components in specific categories (e.g., valves, flanges, connections, etc.), and emission factors based on the component type and service (i.e., heavy liquid, light liquid, or vapor). Net increases in component counts for the modified process units and new equipment are based on preliminary design estimates, with a contingency factor of 20 percent to provide a conservative estimate of new fugitive components. ROG emissions increases associated with fugitive components for affected units are calculated based on the emission rates from the affected units for the periods 2007 and 2008, the most recent periods for which complete leak monitoring data are available at the refinery. Emission rates were determined using the monitoring results from the Bakersfield Refinery’s Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) Program and the Correlation Equation Method described in the CAPCOA publication California Implementation Guidelines for Estimating Mass Emissions of Fugitive Hydrocarbon Leaks at Petroleum Facilities (February 1999).

Emission factors for each type of component in light liquid, heavy liquid, or vapor service were determined by dividing total annual ROG emissions from each category by the total number of components in that category. The specific emission factor used for each component category was calculated as the highest estimated factor for 2007 or 2008 multiplied by 1.2 to cover variability in measurements from year-to-year.

To calculate hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions, representative streams were chosen to approximate the light liquid, heavy liquid, and vapor compositions within each affected unit (e.g., naphtha or crude oil for light liquid; gas oil or diesel for heavy liquid, and fuel gas for vapor phase). The HAP contents of these representative streams were estimated based on industry data (e.g., Petroleum Environmental Research Form, or PERF), or refinery-specific laboratory data. HAP emissions are calculated as follows:

𝐻𝐴𝑃𝑖(𝑙𝑏/𝑦𝑟) = [𝑉𝑂𝐶(𝑙𝑏/𝑦𝑟)] × 𝑤𝑡%𝑖



It is assumed that there will be no significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to modifications in equipment component counts. For purposes of reporting to EPA and CARB, greenhouse gas emissions from equipment leaks are estimated based on the numbers of various types of process units and distillation columns at the refinery, and not on the specific fugitive component inventories. The numbers of process units and distillation columns at the refinery will not increase as a result of the project; therefore, greenhouse gas emissions from equipment leaks reported to EPA and CARB will not increase.

Loading/Unloading. Emissions from loading and unloading facilities were estimated using the same methodology used for fugitive equipment leaks. In addition, emissions from spillage due to product loading were added to the fugitive emissions estimates. Emissions from product loading were not calculated using the methodology described in AP-42 Chapter 5.2 since all loading of jet/diesel will be done under vapor recovery, and all vapors recovered will be returned to the refinery fuel gas system. This approach is consistent with SJVAPCD guidelines.

No emissions were estimated for LPG loading since the relocated LPG loading operation will result in reduced emissions (i.e., fewer fugitive emission components and therefore fewer emissions at the relocated site). This is because the existing facility uses primarily threaded connection; the relocated LPG loading operation will use primarily welded connections.

Storage Tanks. Emissions from new and modified floating roof storage tanks and fixed roof tanks not controlled by vapor recovery are estimated using the EPA TANKS 4.09d model. Site-specific TANKS parameters and fittings were used for new floating roof tanks, and controls required by District Rule 4623 were considered (e.g., access hatch must have bolted and gasketed cover, gage hatch/sample well must have a self-closing gasketed cover, etc.). Emissions from new and modified fixed roof tanks controlled by vapor recovery are estimated using the SJVAPCD methodology for such tanks, using estimated fugitive component leak rates.

Tanks that were evaluated in the storage tank emissions analysis are identified in Table 4.1-8.

Table 4.1-8. Storage Tanks With Potential Emission Increases Due to Proposed Project.

Tank ID New/Modification Baseline Service Proposed Service

70-T11003 Change in Service Out of Service Diesel or Bio Diesel 70-T11007 Change in Service Out of Service Vacuum Tower Bottoms 70-T11008 Change in Service Out of Service Vacuum Tower Bottoms 70-T11009 Change in Service Out of Service Crude Oil 70-T55006 Change in Service Gas Oil CVU Diesel 71-10M25 New Tank NA Crude Oil 71-10M26 New Tank NA Crude Oil 71-24M02 Change in Service Sour water HCU Diesel 71-24M04 Change in Service Sour Water HCU Diesel 71-96M03 Change in Service Diesel (LAD) Light Crude

71-150M01 New Tank NA Crude Oil 71-150M02 New Tank NA Crude Oil 85-13C01 Change in Service Anhydrous Ammonia Propane



Note that as a result of the proposed project, some existing tanks may have changes in service that result in decreased emissions. The project applicant has requested that emission reductions associated with storage tank changes in service not be credited in the analysis, to preserve the refinery’s flexibility to return such tanks to their original service.

It is assumed that there will be no significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with new and modified storage tanks. Greenhouse gas emissions reported to EPA and CARB are calculated using an empirical equation based on the amounts of crude oil and intermediates received from off-site that are processed at the facility. Since the processing capacity of the refinery remains unchanged as a result of this project, greenhouse gases from new or modified storage tanks will not significantly affect total greenhouse gas emissions from the facility (less than 0.1 percent of the projected greenhouse gas emission increases for the project).

Combustion Units. Modified heaters and new boilers are assumed to operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Boilers will burn pipeline quality natural gas and heaters will burn refinery fuel gas meeting the SJVAPCD Rule 4320 sulfur content limit. The new boilers will meet Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements for NOx for refinery boilers of that size, anticipated to be ultra-low NOx burners meeting 9 ppmv NOx @ 3% oxygen (O2). The modified heaters will meet Rule 4306 NOx limits (30 ppmv NOx @ 3% O2 or less). CO emissions from modified heaters and new boilers will meet expected performance levels (i.e., 50 ppmv CO for new boilers, and 200 ppmv CO for modified heaters). Other criteria pollutant emission factors are from Chapter 1.4 of AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors for natural gas external combustion sources. Toxic pollutant emission factors are derived from 1992 source testing conducted on Heater 21H-174. For toxic pollutants not included in the source testing or where the source test results indicated “no detection”, calculations use the more conservative value between AP-42 Chapter 1.4 (Natural Gas Combustion) and Ventura County APCD AB 2588 Combustion Emission Factors (natural gas external combustion, 10-100 MMBtu/hr). Greenhouse gas emission factors are taken from 40 CFR Part 89 Tables C-1 and C-2 for Fuel Gas and Petroleum, respectively, as directed by EPA and CARB for reporting of emissions from the combustion of refinery fuel gas.

3. Non-Permitted Source (Proposed Additional Operations) Emissions

Information provided by Alon USA was utilized to calculate baseline and proposed Crude Flexibility Project emissions from non-permitted emitting sources (mobile sources and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases).

Truck and Rail Transportation. Data provided by Alon USA was used to determine the amount of each feedstock and product transported to and from the refinery in 2007 (the most recent full year of refinery operation), the means by which each feedstock/product was transported, the associated number of truck trips and railcars, the source or destination for each material, and the distance traveled within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and California. For the proposed Crude Flexibility Project, ALG utilized the anticipated feedstock and product for the refinery, information on how each material would be transported, and average load data per-truck and per-railcar from the 2007 data. In addition, ALG utilized data from Alon USA related to the number of locomotives required per unit train, the anticipated average number of unit trains per day, and the number of rail cars per unit train.

As discussed in Chapter 3, “Project Description” of this EIR, the ICCTA specifically preempts CEQA review of unit train movements to and from the proposed Crude Flexibility Project. Therefore, analysis of non-permitted source/activity criteria pollutant emissions does not include



unit train locomotive emissions associated with travel on the BNSF/Union Pacific rail main lines. Even though assessment of air quality impacts from unit train movements on the proposed dual rail loop is also arguably preempted, unit train locomotive emissions associated with activity on the proposed dual rail loop are included. Even though it is not required, unit train locomotive emissions associated with travel on the BNSF/Union Pacific rail main lines are presented in Appendix B (@ ALG Appendix C).

As indicated previously, the SJVAPCD recommends use of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to estimate project emissions in environmental documents released for public review after July 1, 2012. ALG, however, did not use CaEEMod to estimate non-permitted source/activity emissions, for the reasons presented below. As mentioned previously, ALG met with SJVAPCD staff in January 2013 to discuss project emission calculation methods, and SJVAPCD staff concurred with the approach. • The majority of project emissions are associated with locomotives that are not addressed by

CalEEMod,

• Most of the on-road vehicle trips are from one vehicle type (heavy-heavy duty diesel-fired trucks), and

• At the time non-permitted source/activity calculations were prepared, CalEEMod used EMFAC2007 on-road vehicle emission factors. The model had not yet incorporated the latest on-road vehicle emission factors (CARB’s EMFAC2011 factors released January 2013).

ALG utilized well-documented agency-recommended and generally accepted emission calculation techniques to estimate truck transportation and on-site rail emissions:

• Trucks: California Air Resources Board EMFAC2011 emissions data, California Air Resources Board 2000-2010 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory documentation, U.S. EPA AP-42, and CalEEMod User’s Guide 2011.1.

• Rail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Emission Factors for Locomotives, California Air Resources Board organic compound and particulate matter profiles, and The Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol Version 2.0.

Displaced Diesel and Gasoline Transport Truck Trips. In the future, Alon USA anticipates that it will more than double shipments of diesel and gasoline product from the Bakersfield refinery to the Fresno market by pipeline. Based on information from Alon USA, the company expects to ship a total of 19,000 barrels per day of diesel and gasoline product to Fresno by pipeline, compared to baseline shipments of 8,736 barrels per day of diesel and gasoline shipped by pipeline to Fresno. As a result of this increased product availability, approximately 10,300 fewer barrels per day (3,750,000 fewer barrels per year) of diesel and gasoline product will need to be imported into the Fresno market from San Francisco Bay Area refineries. Accounting for only the portion of Bay Area refinery products shipped by truck to Fresno (documented in Appendix B), this equates to 7,400 annual diesel/gasoline transport truck trips from the Bay Area displaced as a result of Alon’s increased pipeline shipments to Fresno. Emission reductions associated with these displaced truck trips were calculated using EMFAC2011 emission factors, based on the estimated round trip distance between San Francisco Bay Area refineries and Fresno. (Displaced transport truck criteria pollutant emissions account only for travel within the SJVAB, not travel outside the air basin.)



Commute Trips and On-Site Vehicles. Alon USA provided data on employees and contractors working at the refinery in 2007 and expected to work at the refinery in the future, and the numbers of additional expected on-site work trucks and off-road haul/utility vehicles needed for the project. Emission calculations relied on the following resources:

• Employee/contractor commute trips and on-site work trucks: California Air Resources Board EMFAC2011 emissions model, California Air Resources Board 2000-2010 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory documentation, U.S. EPA AP-42, and CalEEMod User’s Guide 2011.1.

• On-site off-road haul/utility vehicles: California Air Resources Board OFFROAD2007 emissions model, U.S. EPA AP-42, and California Air Resources Board particulate matter speciation profiles.


A complete description of the modeling approach is provided in Appendix F of Appendix B of this EIRA summary is provided below.

Emissions Assessment. Project emission sources relative to criteria pollutants evaluated for the Project included: • Locomotives – on-site movement and idling

• Process heaters

• Boilers

Emissions for the project-related sources were estimated using SJVAPCD-approved methodologies. Stationary source emissions are documented in Appedix B of Appendix B of this EIRand locomotive emission calculations are documented in Appendix D of Appendix B of this EIR.

Air Dispersion Model and Inputs. The AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) (U.S. EPA, 2012a), the air dispersion model currently preferred by U.S. EPA and required by the SJVAPCD, was used for this analysis. AERMOD simulates the atmospheric transport and dilution of emissions from project sources. This mathematical model estimates dilution of emissions by diffusion and turbulent mixing with ambient air as the emissions travel downwind from a source. AERMOD can predict ambient pollutant concentrations at specified locations of interest (commonly referred to as receptors). The model is capable of predicting impacts from any combination of point, area, and volume sources in terrain ranging from flat to complex.

Emissions from project stationary combustion sources were assumed to be at maximum capacity 24 hours per day and 365 days per year. The modeled emission rates are shown in Appendix B of Appendix B of this EIR.

Unlike the stationary source emissions, locomotive emission rates are different for the peak hour scenario than for the peak daily (and annual) scenario. Moreover, there are differences in the distribution of emissions along the double rail loop for the peak hour and the peak day scenario. Details of the calculations are provided in Appendix D of Appendix Bof this EIR, and additional information about the modeled locomotive emissions is provided in Appendix E of Appendix B of this EIR.

Stationary combustion source stack parameters are presented in Appendix E or Appendix B of this EIR. Stationary source locations are shown in Figure 4.1-1.



Trains carrying crude oil are assumed to enter the refinery from the west, and circulate within the refinery on the proposed double rail loop. Trains also are assumed to exit the refinery to the west. Per EPA and SJVAPCD guidance, locomotive emissions associated with transit on the proposed double rail loop are modeled as a series of evenly spaced volume sources. The release parameters for these volume sources and for idling locomotives are presented in Appendix E of Appendix B of this EIR. The on-site locomotive-related sources (transit and idling) are distributed on a daily and annual basis as shown in Figure 4.1-2. The distribution of peak hour locomotive emissions on the double rail loop is shown in Figure 4.1-3.

AERMOD-ready meteorological data sets for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 for the Bakersfield Airport air monitoring station were used for the analysis. These data sets were developed by the SJVAPCD using AERMET v11059, the AERMOD meteorological data preprocessor.

For modeling to demonstrate compliance with state and federal ambient one-hour NO2 standards, a refined analysis using the Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) was performed. Details of the OLM approach, which incorporate paired-in-time background ozone concentrations, are provided in Appendix E of Appendix B of this EIR.

Figure 4.1-1. Stationary Source Locations for Criteria Pollutant Modeling.



Figure 4.1-2. On-site Locomotive Source Locations (In Transit and Idling) – Daily and Annual Criteria Pollutant Modeling.



Figure 4.1-3. On-site Locomotive Source Locations (In Transit and Idling) – Worst-Case Hour Criteria Pollutant Modeling.



Receptors used to analyze project impacts include:

• 25-meter spaced receptors along the outer facility boundary

• 25-meter spaced receptors along the BNSF railroad tracks that bisect the facility

• 25-meter spaced receptors covering the private parcels north of the BNSF railroad tracks that are surrounded by refinery property

• 25-meter spaced receptors out to 125 meters from the facility boundary

• 50-meter spaced receptors beyond 125 meters out to 250 meters from the facility boundary

• 100-meter spaced receptors beyond 250 meters out to 1000 meters or more from the facility boundary

A total of 3,994 receptors were included in the criteria pollutant analysis.

Visibility

The EPA’s VISCREEN model (U.S. EPA, 1992) was used to conduct a visibility screening analysis for each Class I area located within 100 kilometers of the proposed project. For purposes of this analysis, the centroid of the proposed rail terminal was used as the emissions source location for the screening analysis. Estimated distances to each identified Class I area are as follows:

• Domeland National Wilderness Area (minimum distance: 82 kilometers; maximum distance: 114 kilometers)

• San Rafael National Wilderness Area (minimum distance: 82 kilometers; maximum distance: 105 kilometers)

VISCREEN was run using model default values for meteorology and background ozone, and estimated PM10 and NOx emissions for heaters, boilers, and locomotives (see Appendix B). The observer is assumed to stand at the edge of the area nearest to the proposed project (at the minimum distances identified above).

A visual background range (the farthest distance at which a black object is perceptible against the horizon sky) of 110 kilometers was used for the Domeland National Wilderness Area as specified by its location on Figure 9 from the VISCREEN user’s manual (U.S. EPA, 1992). For the San Rafael National Wilderness Area, Figure 9 would recommend a visual background range of 25 kilometers. However, to be conservative, a visual background range of 110 kilometers was instead assumed, since plume contrasts (and therefore impacts) increase as the visual background range increases.

The closest facilities within the R-2508 Complex Airspace to the proposed project are: • Edwards Air Force Base (120 kilometers from the rail terminal centroid), and

• China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station (130 kilometers).

Since these facilities are located further away from the project site than the Domeland and San Rafael wilderness areas, separate modeling for impacts to these facilities was not performed.


A complete description of the health risk assessment approach is provided in Appendix F of Appendix B of this EIR. A summary is provided below.



The health risk assessment was performed following the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (OEHHA, 2003). As recommended by these guidelines, CARB’s Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) (CARB, 2012b) was used to perform a refined health risk assessment for the project’s stationary sources. Consistent with SJVAPCD modeling guidelines (SJVAPCD, 2007), AERMOD was used as the air dispersion model for the health risk assessment, rather than the older ISCST3 (U.S. EPA Industrial Source Complex – Short Term, Version 3) model provided with HARP.

Hazard Identification/Emissions Assessment. Project emission sources relative to toxic air contaminants (TACs) evaluated for the proposed project included: • Locomotives – on-site movement and idling

• Process heaters

• Boilers

• Process units proposed to be modified

• Proposed new loading/unloading racks

• New and modified storage tanks and associated fugitive components

• Proposed propane refrigeration skid

TACs emitted by the proposed project and included in the analysis include those typically associated with fuel combustion and petroleum storage/transport. Specific TACs are listed in Appendix F of Appendix B in this EIR.

Emissions for the project-related sources were estimated using SJVAPCD-approved methodologies. Stationary source and locomotive emissions are documented in Appendix B.

Exposure Assessment. Exposure assessment includes air dispersion modeling, identification of exposure routes, and estimation of exposure levels. In a typical exposure assessment, air dispersion modeling is used to estimate ground level concentrations for each substance. Potential pathways of exposure to potential offsite receptors for each substance are identified (e.g., inhalation, dermal) and the appropriate algorithms are then used together to estimate concentrations in air, soil, water, vegetation, and animals. The potential exposure levels to receptors are then estimated for each substance.

Consistent with SJVAPCD modeling guidance, increased cancer risks associated with locomotive diesel exhaust particulate matter (DPM) emissions were determined using a simplified approach. AERMOD was used to calculate ambient DPM concentrations associated with locomotive activity, and the resulting DPM concentrations at each receptor were multiplied by composite risk factors to calculate increased cancer risks for residential and worker exposure. For other sources, AERMOD results were used as input to the HARP model to calculate risks.

Stationary combustion sources (heaters and boilers) were modeled as point sources using representative release parameters. Fixed roof tanks not connected to vapor recovery, which release emissions through a vent at the top of each tank, were also modeled as point sources. Emissions from other tanks and emissions from fugitive components were modeled as circular or rectangular area sources. Figure 4.1-4 shows the modeled point and area source locations for proposed project stationary sources. Stationary source TAC emissions used as input to the HARP model are documented in Appendix B.



Figure 4.1-4. Stationary Source Locations for Health Risk Assessment Modeling.

Key to Figure 4.1-4:

Stack ID Description Stack ID Description BOILERS New Boilers #1, #2, #3 T150M01/F Tank 71-T150M01/Fugitives HEATERS Heaters 21-H21, 27-H2, 26-H13/15 T150M02/F Tank 71-T150M02/Fugitives JETLANES Jet Fuel Loading Rack Fugitives T24M02 Tank 71-T24M02 PROPSKID Propane Refrig. Skid (Unit 25) Fugitives T24M04 Tank 71-T24M04 RURACKS Rail Unloading Rack Fugitives T55006 Tank 70-T55006 T10M25F Tank 71-T10M25 Fugitives T96M03 Tank 71-T96M03 T10M26F Tank 71-T10M26 Fugitives UNIT8_9 Units 8 and 9 Fugitives T11003 Tank 70-T11003 UNIT1012 Units 10, 11, and 12 Fugitives T11007 Tank 70-T11007 UNIT14 Unit 14 Fugitives T11008 Tank 70-T11008 UNIT21 Unit 21 Fugitives T11009 Tank 70-T11009 Fugitives UNIT26 Unit 26 Fugitives

T13C01F Tank 71-13C01 Fugitives UNIT27 Unit 27 Fugitives



Emissions from locomotives traveling on-site along the proposed double rail loop are represented by a series of volume sources per U.S. EPA and SJVAPCD guidance, and are shown in Figure 4.1-5. Locomotive idling was modeled as point sources at each idling location, as shown in Figure 4.1-5. DPM emission release parameters and locomotive DPM emission calculations are documented in Appendix B.

Figure 4.1-5. On-site Locomotive Source Locations (In Transit and Idling) – Health Risk Assessment Modeling.

AERMOD-ready meteorological data sets for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 for the Bakersfield Airport monitoring station were used for the analysis. These data sets were developed by SJVAPCD using AERMET v11059, the AERMOD meteorological data preprocessor.

Health effect indices such as increased cancer risk, chronic hazard index, and acute hazard index were calculated for a variety of receptor locations. Receptors of primary interest are residential locations, sensitive population locations, and offsite worker locations. Sensitive population locations were extracted from files provided by the SJVACPD and include: adult day care, adult residential facilities, child care centers, group homes, infant centers, elderly residential care



facilities, school age child care centers, private schools, public school preschools, elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools.

In order to get a more complete picture of exposure patterns, concentrations and risk were also calculated at regularly spaced grid points throughout the modeling domain. Receptors used to analyze project impacts included:

• Grid receptors spaced 100 meters out to at least 1,500 meters from a central location

• The nearest residential receptors in all directions

• Sensitive receptors within a radius of approximately 4,000 meters from a central location

Figure 4.1-6 shows the location of regularly spaced grid receptors, and Figure 4.1-7 shows the location of residential and sensitive receptors. A total of 1,420 receptors were included in the analysis of cancer risks and chronic hazards. For analysis of acute hazards, 63 additional receptors along the BNSF railroad tracks bisecting the facility were included in the analysis.

Figure 4.1-6. Regularly Spaced Grid Receptors for Health Risk Assessment Modeling.



Figure 4.1-7. Residential and Sensitive Receptors for Health Risk Assessment Modeling.

Carbon Monoxide “Hot Spots”

The Kern County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines require preparation of a CO “Hot Spots” analysis for projects meeting the following criteria: • The proposed project impacts an intersection or roadway identified at Level of Service (LOS) E

or worse;

• The proposed project will add signalization and/or channelization to an intersection; and

• Sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, hospitals, etc. are located in the vicinity of the impacted intersection or proposed signalization.

A CO “Hot Spots” analysis has not been prepared for the proposed project for the following reasons:



• The proposed project is expected to result in fewer truck and employee/contractor commute trips as compared to the project baseline; and

• In 2015, the expected first year of project operation, all intersections analyzed in the Traffic Impact Study are expected to operate at LOS C or better with the proposed project.


Ambient air quality modeling results for NO2, SO2, and CO are summarized in Table 4.1-9 along with the applicable ambient air quality standard (AAQS). Modeling results for PM10 and PM2.5 are shown in Table 4.1-10, along with the SJVAPCD's applicable Significant Impact Levels.

Table 4.1-9. Modeled NO2, SO2, and CO Impacts.

Pollutant Averaging Period Concentrations (μg/m3)

Modeled Impact Backgrounda Total AAQS

NO2 1 Hour – State 164.0b,c 149 313 339

1 Hour – Federal -- -- 183.9c,d 188.7 Annual 4.4e 30.1 34.5 57

SO2

1 Hour – State 8.0b 42 50 655 1 Hour – Federal 4.8f 42 47 196

24 Hour 2.13b 13.1 15.2 105 Annual 0.29 2.6 2.9 80g

CO 1 Hour 96.7b 2,530 2,627 23,000 8 Hour 38.3b 1,740 1,778 10,000

Notes: a. Except for the federal 1-hour NO2 standard, background values are 2009-2011 measured maxima.

For the federal 1-hour NO2, the background “design value” is the 2007-2009 average of 98th percentile concentrations forthe Bakersfield – California Avenue monitoring site.

b. Highest calculated concentration. c. Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) applied. d. Highest 5-year average 8th highest daily maximum concentration at each receptor (includes

background NO2). e. NO2 annual concentration assumes 80% conversion of the emitted NOx (5.5*0.8). f. Highest 5-year average 4th highest daily maximum concentration at each receptor. g. The annual SO2 standard was revoked in August 2010 and is shown for information only.

Table 4.1-10. Modeled Particulate Matter Impacts.

Pollutant Averaging Period Modeled Impacta (μg/m3) Significance Thresholdb (μg/m3)

PM10 24 Hour 1.181 2.5 Annual 0.214 1

PM2.5 24 Hour 1.178 1.2 Annual 0.209 0.3

Notes: a. Based on highest calculated concentration. b. SJVAPCD Significant Impact Level.

As shown in Table 4.1-9, the maximum total concentrations (modeled impacts plus background) are less than the most stringent ambient air quality standards for NO2, SO2, and CO. Therefore, the



modeled increases are not expected to result in exceedances of AAQS. Notably, compliance with the state one-hour SO2 standard also ensures compliance with the federal three-hour SO2 standard. Impacts associated with ambient NO2, SO2, and CO concentrations therefore are expected to be less than significant.

In the case of particulate matter impacts, the comparisons made in Table 4.1-10 demonstrate that modeled PM10 and PM2.5 impacts will be less than the applicable Significant Impact Levels. Impacts associated with ambient PM10 and PM2.5 impacts therefore are expected also to be less than significant.

The receptors with maximum concentrations as calculated by the model for all pollutants and averaging periods are shown in Figure 4.1-8. These receptors are located as follows:

Figure 4.1-8. Location of Maximum Modeled Criteria Pollutant Impacts.



• For 1-hour NO2 and 8-hour CO, the maximum impacted receptors are near the western point where locomotives ingress and egress the proposed double rail loop.

• For 1-hour CO and SO2; 24-hour SO2, PM10, and PM2.5; and annual SO2, PM10, and PM2.5; the maximum impacted receptors are located along the BNSF tracks bisecting the refinery.

• For annual NO2, the maximum impacted receptor is along the southwest boundary.

As can be seen, with the exception of the maximum annual NO2 concentration, maximum pollutant concentrations are located along the BNSF tracks, where people normally would not be. For that matter, people normally are not at the locations of the maximum annual NO2 concentration along the southwestern refinery fence line.

Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

Visibility

Based on the conservative visibility screening analysis documented in Appendix B (@ ALG Appendix G), impacts to the Domeland and San Rafael wilderness areas were determined to be as follows: • Domeland National Wilderness Area:

o Maximum color difference parameter (Delta-E) within the Class I area of 0.022 (compared to a significance threshold of 2.0); and

o Negligible plume contrast value (compared to a significance threshold of 0.05). • San Rafael National Wilderness Area:

o Maximum Delta-E within the Class I area of 0.022 (compared to a significance threshold of 2.0); and

o Negligible plume contrast value (compared to a significance threshold of 0.05).

Visibility impacts to these Class I areas are therefore determined to be less than significant.

As indicated previously, the closest facilities within the R-2508 Complex Airspace to the proposed project (Edwards Air Force Base and China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station) are located further away from the project than the Domeland and San Rafael wilderness areas. Given the small magnitude of modeled impacts to the Class I areas, visibility impacts to the air bases also are expected to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 and MM 4.1-2.




Impact 4.1-3: Result in a project level considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).

As specified above, emissions associated with the project were determined based on the December 12, 2013 Air Quality/Global Climate Change Analysis prepared by Ashworth Leininger Group. For purposes of analysis within the document, air quality impacts associated with the project have been separated into the following three categories:


2. Permitted Sources (Existing Operations)

3. Non-Permitted Sources and Activities (Proposed Additional Operations)

1. Construction Emissions (Proposed)

To estimate emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project, activity was estimated for construction of the rail portion of the project (on-site double rail loop, runaround track, and bad order tracks) and construction of the non-rail portion of the project (unloading facilities, storage tanks, process units modifications, pipelines, overcrossing, and associated internal refinery road improvements, if needed).

Estimated emissions associated with construction of the proposed rail terminal and non-rail components of the proposed project are presented in Table 4.1-11. As shown in Table 4.1-11, estimated construction activity emissions are expected to exceed the SJVAPCD’s recommended criteria pollutant significance threshold for NOx emissions. Impacts associated with construction activity criteria pollutant emissions are therefore expected to be significant. Table 4.1-11. Construction Activity Criteria Pollutant Emissions.

Project Component Emissions (Tons)

ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 Off-road Diesel Construction Equipment 1.42 10.21 0.58 0.53 6.35 0.01 On-road Motor Vehicles 0.05 0.22 0.07 0.02 0.51 0.00 Fugitive PM from Material Movement – – 0.85 0.44 – – Asphalt Paving Off-gassing 0.00 – – – – – Architectural Coating Off-gassing 0.29 – – – – – Total Construction Emissions 1.77 10.43 1.49 0.99 6.86 0.01 Significance Thresholds (Tons/Year) 10 10 15 15 100 27 Significant? No Yes No No No No

As shown in Table 4.1-11 above, Construction impacts associated with the proposed project result in 10.43 tons of NOx, emissions, which exceed the 10 ton per year significance threshold adopted by the Board of Supervisors and the SJVAPCD Board. As such, project construction activities would result in a temporary significant and unavoidable impact.



2. Permitted Source Emissions (Existing Operations)

As described previously, operation of the proposed project will result in increased emissions from fugitive equipment leaks, loading/unloading operations, storage tanks, and combustion units. The SJVAPCD recommends that air quality impact analyses reflect emission reductions associated with required compliance with District prohibitory rules (such as Rule 4455, Components at Petroleum Refineries, Gas Liquids Processing Facilities, and Chemical Plants, and Rule 4623, Storage of Organic Liquids). The SJVAPCD also recommends that air quality impact analyses incorporate mandatory application of emission offsets to mitigate permitted source emission increases under Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) (SJVAPCD, 2012b, sections 7.24 and 7.25). Table 4.1-12 presents the estimated permitted stationary source emissions associated with the proposed project after application of SJVAPCD-mandated controls and emission offsets.

SJVAPCD Rule 2201 requires that ROG and NOx emission increases subject to offset under the rule be offset at a minimum distance ratio of 1.5 to 1, since the refinery maintains Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs) associated with previous emission reduction projects at the refinery. Emission increases from the remaining criteria pollutants can be offset at a 1 to 1 ratio. Mandated emission offsets required for new permitted stationary source units are shown in Table 4.1-12. To meet these offset obligations, the refinery will be required to surrender ERCs in sufficient quantities to offset criteria pollutant emission increases and, in the case of ROG and NOx, provide additional emission offsets to satisfy the 1.5:1 distance ratio. The total quantity of ERCs that the refinery will be required to surrender to the SJVAPCD is shown in Table 4.1-12. The refinery holds sufficient ERCs from emission reduction projects located at the refinery to satisfy its emission offset obligations.

Table 4.1-12. Permitted Source Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Existing Operations)

After Controls and Offsets)

Permitted Source Categories Annual Emissions Increases (Tons/Year)

ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 Baseline Emissions: Existing Heaters Affected by Project 0.02 0.30 0.12 0.12 -- 0.02 Existing Storage Tanks Affected by Project 0.48 -- -- -- -- -- Total Baseline Emissions: 0.51 0.30 0.12 0.12 -- 0.02 Post-Project Controlled Emissions: Existing Heaters Affected by Project 1.89 10.70 2.61 2.61 51.85 4.17 New Boilers 1.49 3.02 2.06 2.06 10.21 3.86 Existing Storage Tanks Affected by Project 6.07 -- -- -- -- -- New Storage Tanks 10.55 -- -- -- -- -- New Fugitive Components 1.69 -- -- -- -- -- Rail Unloading Rack 1.53 -- -- -- -- -- Jet Fuel Lanes 0.10 -- -- -- -- -- Total Post-Project Emissions: 23.32 13.72 4.67 4.67 62.06 8.04 Total Controlled Emissions Change: 22.81 13.42 4.54 4.54 62.06 8.01 SJVAPCD Required Offsets per Rule 2010 & 2201

-23.05 -4.53 -2.06 -2.06 -10.21

-3.86

Total Emissions Increase After Offsets 0 8.89 2.49 2.49 51.85 4.15 Significance Thresholds (tons per year) 10 10 15 15 100 27 Significant? No No No No No No



As shown in Table 4.1-12, after application of the total ERCs required to be surrendered to satisfy SJVAPCD Rule 2201 offset requirements, permitted source criteria pollutant emissions fall below the criteria pollutant significance thresholds (Table 4.1-6). Permitted source criteria pollutant emissions are therefore expected to be less than significant.

3. Non-Permitted Source and Activity Emissions (Proposed Additional Operations)

Non-permitted source/activity emission increases were calculated for truck transportation, on-site rail, employee and contractor commute trips, on-site vehicles, and on-site off-road haul/utility vehicles. As can be seen in Table 4.1-13, emissions associated with truck transportation and commute trips are estimated to decrease. This is because the number of expected truck trips and commute trips are expected to decline. In other cases, emissions are expected to increase due to increased on-site locomotive activity and on-site vehicles/equipment.

As shown in Table 4.1-13, approximately 14.6 tons per year NOx (and associated reductions in other pollutants) will be reduced as a result of displaced diesel and gasoline transport truck trips from the San Francisco Bay Area to Fresno. Alon USA anticipates that it will more than double shipments of diesel and gasoline products from the refinery to Fresno by pipeline. As a result, approximately 3,750,000 fewer barrels per year of diesel and gasoline products will need to be imported into the Fresno market from refineries located farther away, in the San Francisco Bay Area. Accounting for only the portion of Bay Area refinery products shipped by truck to Fresno, an estimated 7,400 diesel/gasoline transport truck trips per year from the Bay Area will be displaced as a result of Alon’s increased shipments of diesel and gasoline by pipeline to Fresno.

Table 4.1-13. Non-Permitted Source Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Proposed Operations).

Project Component Annual Emissions Increases (Tons/Year)

ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 Baseline Emissions: Truck Transportation 4.08 72.09 5.33 2.92 18.80 0.13 On-site Rail 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.00 Employee/Contractor Commute Trips 0.43 0.48 0.49 0.13 4.37 0.01

Total Baseline Emissions: 4.52 72.79 5.83 3.06 23.21 0.14 Post-Project Emissions: Truck Transportation 2.76 54.02 4.02 1.68 13.23 0.14 - Less Displaced Truck Trips (Bay Area to Fresno)

-0.74 -14.56 -1.08 -0.45 -3.56 -0.04

On-site Rail (Rail Loop) 0.19 5.22 0.14 0.13 1.08 0.00 Employee/Contractor Commute Trips 0.18 0.20 0.26 0.07 1.83 0.00 New On-site On-road Vehicles 0.03 0.15 0.03 0.01 0.24 0.00 New On-site Off-road Equipment 0.15 0.10 0.03 0.01 7.95 0.00

Total Post-Project Emissions: 2.57 45.14 3.39 1.44 20.76 0.11 Total Annual Emissions Impact from Non-Permitted Source Activity

-1.94 -27.65 -2.44 -1.62 -2.45 -0.03

Significance Thresholds (tons per year) 10 10 15 15 100 27 Significant? No No No No No No

As demonstrated in Table 4.1-13, non-permitted source/activity criteria pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project are expected to decline. Therefore, impacts associated with



non-permitted source/activity emissions (proposed additional operations) will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 and MM 4.1-2.

Level of Significance after Mitigation Project level construction impacts are considered Significant and Unavoidable for NOx emissions. Project level operation impacts are considered less than significant.

Impact 4.1-4: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.


The results of the health risk assessment conducted for the proposed project are summarized in Table 4.1-14. The increased cancer risk for the maximally exposed residential receptor (assuming exposure 24 hours/day, 350 days/year for 70 years) was determined to be 8.8 per million, on the non-refinery parcel located north of the BNSF tracks and east of Wedding Lane (labeled “RES CR” on Figure 4.1-9.) This parcel is zoned M-2 PD, but has a permitted residential structure. The increased cancer risk for the maximally exposed off-site worker receptor (assuming exposure 8 hours/day, 245 days/year for 40 years) was determined to be 1.7 per million, located near the southeastern boundary of the refinery (shown in Figure 4.1-9 as “WKR CR”). This receptor is in a location where long-term (multi-decade) 40 hour/week exposure is extremely unlikely; even with this conservative treatment, the estimated increased cancer risk is relatively low. The increased cancer risk for the maximally exposed sensitive receptor was determined to be 2.0 per million, located south of the Carrier Canal and shown in Figure 4.1-9 as “SENS CR”. All estimated cancer risks fall below the SJVAPCD recommended increased cancer risk significance threshold of 10 per million, and therefore are considered to be less than significant. Table 4.1-14. Summary of Health Risk Assessment Resultsa.

Maximally Exposed Individual

Increased Cancer Risk (per million)

Increased Non-Cancer Risk Chronic

(Hazard Index) Acute

(Hazard Index) Residential Receptor 8.8 0.013 0.0035 Off-site Workplace Receptor 1.7 0.029 0.014 Sensitive Receptor 2.0b 0.011c 0.0021b

Notes: a. Excludes on-site receptors. b. Charter West Home Care. c. Candice Home Care #1.

Figure 4.1-10 shows the areal distribution of calculated increased cancer risk, assuming worst-case hypothetical residential exposure. It should be noted that no actual residential receptors are located within the areas in Figure 4.1-10 shown as having increased cancer risks of 10 or more per million, assuming worst case hypothetical residential exposure.

The maximum chronic hazard index was calculated to be 0.029 at a receptor just beyond the facility’s southeastern boundary (shown in Figure 4.1-9 as “CHI”). The maximum acute hazard



index value associated with the proposed project was calculated to be 0.014 at a receptor along the BNSF railroad tracks (shown in Figure 4.1-9 as “AHI”). These maximum acute and chronic index values are well below the SJVAPCD recommended significance threshold of 1.0, and therefore are considered to be less than significant.

Figure 4.1-9. Location of Maximum Calculated Health Risks.



Figure 4.1-10. Calculated Increased Cancer Risk Contours – Assuming Worst-Case Hypothetical Residential Exposure (per million exposed).

Valley Fever

As indicated previously, Coccidioides immitis fungus spores found in soil can become airborne when the soil is disturbed during construction activities, and then can be inhaled into the lungs. On-site construction workers potentially could be exposed to Valley Fever from fugitive dust generated during construction of the proposed project, notably during excavation, grading, and other earth-moving activities.

Construction activities within the project area are subject to SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibition). Regulation VIII is intended to reduce ambient concentrations of PM10 by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate anthropogenic fugitive dust emissions. By reducing fugitive dust emissions, Regulation VIII will also reduce potential exposure to Valley Fever.



Since current long-term residents typically already have been exposed to and have developed immunity to Valley Fever, construction activities are not expected to add significantly to exposure of off-site residents to the fungus. Mitigation measure MM 4.1-3 would provide construction workers with information about Valley Fever and provide personal protective respiratory equipment to construction workers who request it. This will ensure that any potential impacts are reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-3 The project applicant will ensure that: a) construction workers are educated regarding

the symptoms and potential health effects associated with exposure to Coccidioides immitis fungus spores; and b) construction workers are provided with personal protective equipment such as respiratory equipment (masks), if requested. This will reduce potential exposure to airborne dust and facilitate recognition of symptoms and earlier treatment of Valley Fever.


Impact 4.1-5: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Thresholds

The SJVAPCD’s May 2012 Draft GAMAQI recommends an approach for evaluating project-specific odor impacts based on SJVAPCD complaint records, while the Kern County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines recommend application of dispersion modeling. This document combines both approaches, applying the May 2012 Draft GAMAQI approach as a screening level analysis, and the Kern County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines for refined analysis.

For existing odor sources, the SJVAPCD recommends that odor impacts be considered significant where the source has:

• More than one confirmed complaint per year averaged over a three year period, or

• Three or more unconfirmed complaints per year averaged over a three-year period.

For refined dispersion modeling, the Kern County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines recommend that ambient concentrations of odorous compounds be compared to applicable odor thresholds to determine potential odor impacts. The odor impact threshold refined dispersion modeling for the proposed project is based on the H2S CAAQS of 30 parts per billion (ppb, or 42 µg/m3), averaged over a one-hour period.

Analysis

Since the proposed project is located within two miles of residences and other sensitive receptors (the initial screening distance recommended by the May 2012 Draft GAMAQI), odor impacts initially can be evaluated based on the facility’s odor complaint history. Table 4.1-15 lists odor complaints received by the SJVAPCD in the vicinity of Alon Bakersfield Refinery Areas 1 and 2 for the period from 2005 to 2007. Based on this information, there were 11 confirmed odor complaints (four confirmed odor events) over the three-year period, for an annual average of 3.7 confirmed odor complaints (1.3 confirmed odor events) over the three-year period. This exceeds the SJVAPCD’s recommended odor significance threshold. In addition to the odor complaints listed in



Table 4.1-15, there was an additional confirmed odor event associated with Refinery Areas 1 and 2 on May 24, 2011.

Table 4.1-15. Odor Complaints in Vicinity of Bakersfield Refinery Areas 1 and 2 (2005-2007).

Date Complaint

Number Nature of Complaint Con-

firmed? Notice of Violation

12/1/2005 S-0512-002 Strong odor in area – lives by a factory Yes 21799

4/14/2006 S-0604-023 Strong sulfur smell from Big West Flare – very strong

Yes 22849

4/14/2006 S-0604-024 H2S refinery smell from Big West Yes 22849 4/14/2006 S-0604-025 Strong stench in the air from Big West – sulfur/

rotten egg smell coming into their building Yes 22849

10/13/2006 S-0610-030 Flare has gone out at Area 1, Big West Refinery – wants to know if air monitoring can be done (referred from KCEH – multiple complainants)

Yes 5000205

10/13/2006 S-0610-031 Smell permeating entire area – petroleum and sulfur mixed, almost nauseating

Yes 5000205

10/13/2006 S-0610-032 Stink came through Rosedale area about 5 minutes ago – H2S combined with oil

Yes 5000205

3/28/2007 S-0703-057 Really strong odor coming from the refinery - gasoline or sulfur smell

Yes 5000793

3/28/2007 S-0703-058 Really powerful petroleum odor Yes 5000793 3/28/2007 S-0703-059 Really strong odor of SARA gas coming from

refinery area Yes 5000793

3/28/2007 S-0703-060 Strong smell of gas or hydrogen sulfide gas Yes 5000793 (Source: SJVAPCD, 2013.)

To conduct a more refined odor analysis, ambient concentrations associated with emissions of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from the proposed project were modeled as part of the health risk assessment conducted for the proposed project, documented in Appendix F of Appendix B of this EIR. Based on this modeling, it was determined that the maximum off-site one-hour H2S concentration associated with the proposed project is 0.024 µg/m3 (located along the BNSF railroad tracks that bisect the refinery). The maximum one-hour H2S concentration at a residential receptor is 0.007 µg/m3 (located at a mobile home north of the BNSF railroad tracks). This falls below the state ambient H2S standard of 30 parts per billion (or 42 µg/m3). Based on the refined analysis, odor impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures None required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant.



Cumulative Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Cumulative Setting

CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 describes “cumulative impacts” as referring to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental effects. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project, or changes resulting from a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment resulting from the incremental impact of the proposed project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. (California Natural Resources Agency, 2013.)

Impact 4.1-6: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts

Per the SJVAPCD’s May 2012 Draft GAMAQI,

“By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development. Future attainment of State and Federal ambient air quality standards is a function of successful implementation of the District’s attainment plans. Consequently, the District’s application of thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants is relevant to the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality.

“A lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located [CCR §15064(h)(1)]. Thus, if project specific emissions would be less than the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants the project would not be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the District is in non-attainment under applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards.” (SJVAPCD, 2012b, section 7.14.)

The SJVAPCD May 2012 Draft GAMAQI also states,

“As discussed in section 8.4 (Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutant Emissions) the District’s thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are based on District rule 2201 (New Source Review) offset requirements. Furthermore, New Source Review (NSR) is a major component of the District’s attainment strategy. The District’s attainment plans demonstrate that project specific emissions below New Source Review (NSR) offset requirements will not prevent the District from achieving attainment. Consequently, if project specific criteria pollutant emissions are below their respective thresholds of significance, the project would be consistent with the overall District attainment plan and would be determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact on air quality.” (SJVAPCD, 2012b, section 8.7.2.)

With the exception of NOx emissions during construction, the project will not exceed the significance threshold for any criteria pollutants. Therefore, based on the GAMAQI, the project



will not have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality, except for NOx emissions during construction.

The Kern County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines further require the cumulative air quality impact assessment to include assessment of the following issues: • Localized Impacts. Assess the cumulative emissions impact associated with the proposed

project, in conjunction with approved and proposed projects located within a one- and six-mile radius of the proposed project.

• Consistency with Existing Air Quality Plans. Quantify emissions from similar projects and evaluate consistency with the applicable attainment plan.

• Air Basin Emissions Analysis. Compare emissions from the proposed project to emissions within the SJVAB and the Kern County portion of the SJVAB.

Localized Impacts.

The following data was obtained for approved and proposed projects located within a one and six mile radius of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery located on Rosedale Highway (including Areas 1, 2, and 4): • Kern County Planning and Community Development Department: lists of pending projects as

of February 2013.

• City of Bakersfield Planning Division: data for site plan reviews, precise development plan reviews, conditional use permits, zoning modifications, tract maps, and other projects – from the Division web site and directly from Division staff, as of March 20, 2013.

• City of Bakersfield Public Works Department: data for Thomas Roads Improvement Program (TRIP) projects (Westside Parkway and State Route 58 (Rosedale Highway) Widening Projects) – from the TRIP web site.

• City of Shafter: data for the Coberly West, Heritage Ranch, and Mission Lakes Specific Plans from the City’s web site.

• California State University, Bakersfield: data for the Campus Master Plan and current students from the University’s web site.

Criteria pollutant emissions associated with the above projects were calculated for the year 2020, assuming average Kern County vehicle fleet characteristics (vehicle distribution, travel, and trip length) based on the California Air Resources Board’s EMFAC2011 emissions model, as last modified in January 2013. Specific projects, associated motor vehicle trip generation, and vehicle emission calculations are documented in Appendix B (@ ALG Appendix H). Note that the calculations are conservative, in the sense that they assume that all identified approved or proposed projects will be fully constructed by 2020.

Cumulative criteria pollutant emissions with respect to approved and proposed projects within one and six miles of the proposed project are shown in Tables 4.1-16 and 4.1-17. Given the magnitude of potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with approved and proposed projects within one and six miles of the proposed project, the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department considers the project’s construction emissions and cumulative criteria pollutant emissions impacts to be significant and unavoidable.



Table 4.1-16. Cumulative Emissions Analysis – Approved/Proposed Projects Within One-Mile Radius of Proposed Project.

Potential Project Estimated Emissions (Tons/Year)

ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 Proposed Project:

Permitted Sources 0 8.89 2.49 2.49 51.85 4.15 Non-Permitted Sources/Activities -1.94 -27.65 -2.44 -1.62 -2.45 -0.03 Total Emissions: -1.94 -18.76 0.05 0.87 49.40 4.12

Independent Refinery Projects 0.00 -- -- -- -- -- Approved/Proposed Projects Within One-Mile Radius:

County of Kern Pending Projects 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.15 0.00 City of Bakersfield Active Approved Site Plan Review/Precise Development Review Projects

0.93 3.83 1.50 0.45 7.40 0.03

City of Bakersfield Active Approved Conditional Use Permit/Zoning Modification Projects

2.43 10.06 3.93 1.18 19.41 0.08

City of Bakersfield Active Tract Maps 1.42 5.87 2.29 0.69 11.32 0.04 Other Pending Projects (Cities of Bakersfield and Shafter, Cal State University Bakersfield)

410.42 1,700.92 663.93 198.93 3,282.24 12.82

Total Emissions: 415.21 1,720.76 671.67 201.25 3,320.52 12.96 Total Cumulative Emissions (1 Mile): 413.26 1,702.00 671.72 202.13 3,369.93 17.08

(Source: Appendix B. Values may not sum to total due to rounding.)

Table 4.1-17. Cumulative Emissions Analysis – Approved/Proposed Projects Within Six-Mile Radius of Proposed Project.

Potential Project Estimated Emissions (Tons/Year)

ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 Proposed Project:

Permitted Sources 0 8.89 2.49 2.49 51.85 4.15 Non-Permitted Sources/Activities -1.94 -27.65 -2.44 -1.62 -2.45 -0.03 Total Emissions: -1.94 -18.76 0.05 0.87 49.40 4.12

Independent Refinery Projects 0.00 -- -- -- -- -- Approved/Proposed Projects Within Six-Mile Radius:

County of Kern Pending Projects 0.04 0.18 0.07 0.02 0.35 0.00 City of Bakersfield Active Approved Site Plan Review/Precise Development Review Projects

45.62 189.05 73.79 22.11 364.81 1.42

City of Bakersfield Active Approved Conditional Use Permit/Zoning Modification Projects

5.66 23.45 9.16 2.74 45.26 0.18

City of Bakersfield Active Tract Maps 67.76 280.80 109.61 32.84 541.86 2.12 Other Pending Projects (Cities of Bakersfield and Shafter, Cal State University Bakersfield)

689.96 2,859.42 1,116.13 334.43 5,517.79 21.54

Total Emissions: 809.03 3,352.92 1,308.76 392.15 6,470.07 25.26 Total Cumulative Emissions (Six Miles): 807.09 3,334.16 1,308.80 393.02 6,519.47 29.38




Cumulative impacts associated with odors are anticipated to be potentially significant. As discussed previously, odor impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to be less than significant, based on a refined odor modeling analysis of project emissions. However, refinery Areas 1 and 2 have previously received an annual average of 3.7 confirmed odor complaints (1.3 odor events) over the period from 2005 to 2007, exceeding the SJVAPCD’s recommended odor threshold of 1 confirmed odor complaint per year over a three-year period.

Air Basin Emissions Analysis.

Operational emissions for the proposed project were compared to emissions of the entire SJVAB and the Kern County portion of the SJVAB, to assess the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. The SJVAB and Kern County emissions analyses utilize data from the California Air Resources Board’s California Emissions Projection Analysis Model (CEPAM). CEPAM reflects emission projections to the year 2020 by summary category based on a 2008 base year. Forecasts reflect both anticipated growth and controls, as updated by CARB.

The emissions analysis is presented in Tables 4.1-18, 4.1-19, and 4.1-20. As can be seen in Table 4.1-20, the proposed project will contribute less than one-quarter percent of additional criteria pollutants to the Kern County portion of the SJVAB, and less than one-tenth percent of additional criteria pollutants to the entire SJVAB.

Table 4.1-18. San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 2020 Emission Inventory Projections.

Component

Emissions (Tons/Year)

ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2

Total Emissions 211,679.56 119,058.99 125,880.47 47,967.94 487,552.77 11,360.26

Emissions by Category: Stationary Sources 31,760.48 27,316.24 10,172.19 7,085.75 15,989.56 8,859.65 Areawide Sources 62,322.29 6,228.36 97,001.67 25,419.33 97,981.70 407.34 Mobile Sources 31,739.67 81,642.47 5,871.03 4,570.90 246,740.73 900.46 Natural Sources 85,857.13 3,871.92 12,835.59 10,891.97 126,840.79 1,192.82

Percent by Category: Stationary Sources 15% 23% 8% 15% 3% 78% Areawide Sources 29% 5% 77% 53% 20% 4% Mobile Sources 15% 69% 5% 10% 51% 8% Natural Sources 41% 3% 10% 23% 26% 10%




Table 4.1-19. Kern County Portion of San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 2020 Emission Inventory Projections.

Component



Total Emissions 33,710.67 30,611.09 19,233.31 6,936.83 69,413.51 1,923.19

Emissions by Category: Stationary Sources 13,955.78 8,808.55 2,833.13 2,242.20 6,576.94 1,696.89 Areawide Sources 7,532.51 688.03 14,562.41 3,231.71 9,649.87 27.01 Mobile Sources 5,291.41 20,912.68 1,199.39 921.26 46,947.03 137.24 Natural Sources 6,930.99 201.85 638.39 541.66 6,239.68 62.05

Percent by Category: Stationary Sources 41% 29% 15% 32% 9% 88% Areawide Sources 22% 2% 76% 47% 14% 1% Mobile Sources 16% 68% 6% 13% 68% 7% Natural Sources 21% 1% 3% 8% 9% 3%


Table 4.1-20. Comparison of Emission Projections – Proposed Project, Kern County, and San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

Component



Proposed Project: Permitted Sources 0 8.89 2.49 2.49 51.85 4.15

Non-Permitted Sources/Activities -1.94 -27.65 -2.44 -1.62 -2.45 -0.03

Total Emissions -1.94 -18.76 0.05 0.87 49.40 4.12

Kern County Portion of SJVAB 33,710.67 30,611.09 19,233.31 6,936.83 69,413.51 1,923.19 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 211,679.56 119,058.99 125,880.47 47,967.94 487,552.77 11,360.26

Proposed Project Percent of Kern County Portion of SJVAB

-0.01% -0.06% 0.00% 0.01% 0.07% 0.21%

Proposed Project Percent of SJVAB 0.00% -0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.04%

Kern County Percent of SJVAB 16% 26% 15% 14% 14% 17%

Consistency with Existing Air Quality Plans.

Three petroleum refineries are located within the SJVAB, all within the Bakersfield area: • Alon Bakersfield Refinery

• San Joaquin Refining Company

• Kern Oil and Refining Company

Emissions from these facilities, based on information from the California Air Resources Board emissions inventory, are presented in Table 4.1-21.



Table 4.1-21. Refineries within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

Facility (Inventory Year)

Estimated Emissions (Tons/Year)


Alon Bakersfield Refinery (2007) 222.7 121.6 88.0 83.5 227.9 89.0

San Joaquin Refining Company (2010) 82.1 18.1 4.9 4.8 8.1 0.5

Kern Oil & Refining Company (2010) 103.2 20.3 8.9 8.8 61.9 5.4

Total Estimated Refinery Emissions: 408.0 160.0 101.8 97.1 297.9 94.9 (Source: Appendix B. Values may not sum to total due to rounding.)

Since these refineries are stationary sources subject to the direct permit authority of the SJVAPCD, their emissions are incorporated within the baseline and projected emission inventories incorporated within the SJVAPCD’s ozone and particulate matter attainment plans. Refinery emissions are distributed between numerous categories (fuel combustion, petroleum refining, petroleum marketing, and industrial processes) in the SJVAB’s emissions inventory. Because of this, the amount of future refinery emissions incorporated within the SJVAPCD’s air quality plans cannot be determined with certainty. Consistency with existing plans to attain state and federal ozone and particulate matter standards must therefore be assessed based on the extent to which the proposed project will comply with SJVAPCD, CARB, and EPA emission controls. This is discussed under Impact 4.1-1, above.

Mitigation Measures Implement MM 4.1-1 and 4.1-2.

Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts are considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable for temporary construction activities. Impacts are considered less than significant for operational emissions.

Section 4.2 Biological Resources

County of Kern 4.2 Biological Resources


Section 4.2 Biological Resources

4.2.1 Introduction This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the existing biological resources within the Alon Bakersfield Refinery, including vegetation, wildlife habitat, non-regulated wildlife, and special-status plants and animals. The section also includes analyses of the potential impacts related to implementing the Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project (project) and alternatives, and provides mitigation measures that are recommended to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels, to the extent feasible. As described in the Section 3.0, Project Description, the project proponent is requesting: 1) expansion of rail, transfer and storage facilities including an addition of up to three boilers; 2) process unit upgrades and/ or modifications; 3) repurposing of existing tankage; and 4) relocation and modernization of existing Liquefied Propane Gas (LPG) truck rack and upgrades to sales rack. The rail expansion would consist of the construction of a double rail loop from a new spur connection off of the existing BNSF Railway and would be fully contained onsite. Most of the proposed process unit changes are minor in scope. The refinery’s 70,000 barrels per day (BPD) maximum crude processing capacity would not be increased. A complete description of the proposed project can be found in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR.

Environmental Audit, Inc. (EAI), consultants to the project proponent, prepared separate biological assessments for each of the three major project components of the project described above (Appendix C). The analysis in this section is derived from those three assessments. While there is overlap among species with the potential to occur in each of the components, the existing conditions and research methods and results for each component will be presented separately. Potential impacts to biological resources and proposed mitigation measures will be combined for all three project components as appropriate.

4.2.2 Environmental Setting

Existing Conditions

The project site lies in the lower Sonoran life zone of the San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley is characterized by relatively low rainfall, averaging less than 10 inches per year, mostly between January and March. Average temperatures are relatively high, and total evaporation exceeds total precipitation. Summers are mostly cloudless, hot, and dry, with daytime temperatures frequently above 100ºF. Winters are generally cool and foggy, but occasionally freezing temperatures occur. The project site is surrounded by a mix of industrial and commercial uses, canals and highways.

Existing Habitat and Species of Concern

The proposed project area is just north of the Kern River and the project will occur within the confines of the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery which has been graded and portions developed for refining purposes for over 75 years. The Kern River has been identified as an important biological corridor for wildlife, including listed species such as the San Joaquin kit fox, blunt nosed leopard lizard, and Tipton kangaroo rat. Some portions of the Kern River also support the Great



Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest, a native habitat of special concern, which potentially exists within one mile of the proposed project area. Over time, native vegetation has been eliminated within the refinery, including Areas 1, 2, and 4 where the proposed project will be located. This gradual elimination of native vegetation is due to continued use of the area through time, largely for industrial uses. Recent street and highway improvements have also impacted the area including the extension of Mohawk Street and the Westside Parkway, located adjacent to the southern portion of the project site and just north of the Kern River.

The fine, sandy soils present are mainly vegetated with non‐native Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) and tumbleweed, which thrives on disturbed sites. The project site generally lacks vegetation and habitat for the listed species that could potentially occur in the project vicinity. Historically, the area may have been used as travel/migration corridor as it is adjacent to the potential habitat in the Kern River area. However, the recent construction of the Westside Parkway has placed a physical barrier between the Kern River and the project site, although overpasses on the Westside Parkway have been constructed that would allow migration. State or federally protected species that have the potential to occur within the proposed project area of the project site are listed in Table 4.2-1. The list is based on known ranges, historic and reported observations, and species identified through available databases.

Table 4.2-1. State or Federally Protected Species With Potential To Occur Animals Vegetation

San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) San Joaquin woolly-threads (monolopia congdonii)

Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoidesnitratoides) Hoovers wooly-star (Eriastrum hooveri)

Tulare grasshopper mouse (Onchomys torridus tularen) Recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum)

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila)

Silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra)

During the general biological resources survey, biologists traveled through the developed portion of the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery via vehicle. The undeveloped portions of the Alon refinery in Areas 2 and 4 were traversed on foot and biologists noted all vegetation communities present on the project site. The proposed new rail facilities will primarily be located in these two areas. Approximately 15.4 acres of the site will be disturbed to develop the new railroad tracks. Portions of the new tracks will be located outside of the developed portion of the refinery. An additional 16.3 acres of the site will be disturbed largely within the developed portions of the project site, for the improvement of existing refinery structures, e.g., new tanks and columns (see Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2).



Description of Species of Concern

San Joaquin Kit Fox - The San Joaquin kit fox is a small canid endemic to the San Joaquin Valley and adjacent foothills. Kit foxes use underground burrows in level or gently sloping terrain as denning sites. They also use manmade structures such as culverts or pipes. Kit foxes occur primarily in grassland and semi‐arid scrub habitats, but they also occupy the disturbed habitat found in fields. The San Joaquin kit fox is federally listed as endangered and state listed as threatened.

The San Joaquin kit fox presence on the project site has been historically confirmed through track sightings throughout the refinery. However, recent surveys of the proposed project area and vicinity did not result in the detection of any San Joaquin kit fox or dens.

Tipton Kangaroo Rat - Tipton kangaroo rats are one of three subspecies of San Joaquin kangaroo rats. They occur in alkali sink habitat dominated by seepweed (Suaeda fruticosa) in fine sand‐silt on the southern San Joaquin Valley floor. Tipton kangaroo rats usually burrow in elevated mounds or at the base of shrubs. They also occur in surrounding saltbush habitat on higher, sloping sites characterized by sparsely distributed Atriplex polycarpa, Atriplex canescens, Atriplex lentiformes, and seepweed. Historically, Tipton kangaroo rats occupied most of the Tulare Basin floor, north to Lemoore and Hanford, east to Visalia, Tipton, Delano and Bakersfield, and west to the edge of the alkali sink plant communities which end in the elevational transition into the Temblor foothills. The Tipton kangaroo rat is listed as endangered by both the Federal government and the State of California.

Kangaroo rat tracks were found historically at the project site. A focused small mammal trapping survey was conducted in 2005 and no Tipton kangaroo rats or other small mammals were captured after 100 trap nights. This species is not expected to occur within the project limits based on the level of disturbance.

Tulare Grasshopper Mouse - The Tulare grasshopper mouse is one of ten currently recognized subspecies of the Southern mouse, Onchomys torridus. A coexisting species with which the Tulare grasshopper mouse could be confused are members of the genus Peromyscus, but Peromyscus have longer tails and smaller forefeet. The California State University Endangered Species Recovery Program includes the Bakersfield area within the distributional range of the Tulare grasshopper mouse. Population records are widely separated, but there is a record of the species within about 6.5 miles of the project site. However, extensive trapping in the historical habitat of the Tulare Basin did not result in the capture of any Tulare grasshopper mice. Tulare grasshopper mice typically inhabit arid shrubland communities in hot, arid grassland and shrubland associations. It is unlikely that the mouse would be present within the project site given the level of disturbance and the lack of plant species diversity (habitat).

Burrowing Owl - Burrowing owls are relatively small owls that often nest in abandoned burrows, e.g., abandoned California ground squirrel burrows. They prey on insects and small mammals and are active during the day and night. Individual owls and nests with eggs and/or unfledged young are fully protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by the California Fish and Game Code. While the project area contains suitable habitat for burrowing owls, no owls or burrows were observed.

Blunt‐Nosed Leopard Lizard - This large, robust lizard is endemic to the southern San Joaquin Valley and adjacent valleys to the southwest. It occupies sparsely vegetated plains and drainages, low foothills, grasslands, and desert‐scrub communities. These lizards usually use burrows



excavated by small mammals, but they also tunnel in dirt banks and under rocks. They often occur in the dirt berms along washes, arroyos, and unimproved roads. Blunt‐nose leopard lizards are listed as endangered by both the Federal government and the State of California.

Blunt‐nosed leopard lizards feed on grasshoppers and large moths, which would require a more diverse plant community than what currently exists on the highly disturbed project site.

Silvery Legless Lizard - The slivery legless lizard is a state species of special concern primarily associated with sandy soils and leaf litter, but can also be found under flat boards and rocks. Legless lizards feed on insect larvae, small insects and spiders. Irrigation and accumulated leaf litter along tree windrows may provide suitable soil moisture and habitat for this species. However, this species is not expected to occur on the project site because of the level of disturbance and lack of suitable habitat.

Surveys conducted for Special‐Status Plant and Animal Species

For the purposes of this assessment, special‐status species include those plant and animals listed, proposed for listing or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries Service under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened or endangered by the CDFW under California Endangered Species Act (CESA), animals designated as “Fully Protected” or “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFW, birds protected by the USFWS under the MTBA and/or by the CDFW under Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3513, and plants occurring on List 1A, List 1B, List 2, List 3, and List 4 of the CNPS Inventory.

The potential occurrence of special‐status plant and animal species on the project site was initially evaluated by developing a list of special‐status species that are known to or have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site based on a search of current database records (e.g., CNDDB and CNPS Electronic Inventory records) and review of the USFWS list of federal endangered and threatened species. The potential for occurrence of those species included on the list were then evaluated based on the habitat requirements of each species relative to the conditions observed during the field surveys. Each species was evaluated for its potential to occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site according to the following criteria:

Not Expected. The project is outside of the known range for the species or there is no suitable habitat present on the project site (i.e., habitats on the project site are clearly unsuitable for the species requirements [e.g., foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation hydrology, plant community, disturbance regime, etc.]). The species has an extremely low probability of being found on the project site.

Low Potential. Limited suitable habitat is present on the project site (i.e., few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or the majority of habitat on the project site is unsuitable or of very low quality). Additionally, there are no or few recent known records of occurrence in the vicinity of the project site. Species may forage onsite. The species has a low probability of being found on the project site.

Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present on the project site (i.e., some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or the majority of the habitat on the project site is suitable or of marginal quality) or the species is known to occur in Kern county, is highly mobile and occasionally occurs in highly disturbed habitat. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the project site.



Present. Species was observed on the project site (i.e., species was either observed during recent surveys or has a recorded observation in the CNDDB on the project site).

Table 4.2-2 present the list of special‐status plants and animals that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site, their habitat requirements, and a ranking of potential for occurrence on the project site.

Special‐Status Plants

Twenty‐one special status plant species are known to or have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site. However, none of the habitat conditions necessary to support these plants are present on the project site at this time.

Special‐Status Animals

Special‐status animal species are known to or have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site. Most of these animal species are not expected to occur on the project site for varying reasons. Reasons include the absence of essential habitat requirements for the species, the distance to known occurrences and/or the species’ distributional range, the limited availability of foraging habitat, and/or the proximity of human‐related disturbances.

Two special status animals have the potential to occur within the project site, the San Joaquin kit fox and the burrowing owl. In order to determine the presence of these species, a site survey was conducted.

Results of Site Survey

The proposed project within the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery is located just north of the Kern River, which has been identified as an important biological corridor for federally‐listed and non‐listed wildlife species including the San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat, bald eagle, San Joaquin wooly‐threads, and the Blunt nose leopard lizard.

Although other federally‐listed species, such as the Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relitus), and federal species of concern, including the Recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum), California chalk moss (Pterygoneurum californicum), Mason’s neststraw (Stylocline masonii), San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammonspermophilus nelsonii), and Western mastiff bat (Eumpos perotis) occur in Kern County, California, the proposed project components are outside the known range and types of habitat of these species. Many of these species require open vegetation and grassland environments with alkali soils, marshland in the case of the Buena Vista Lake shrew or other habitat, such as rocky cliff areas for the Western Mastiff Bat. Hoover’s wooly‐star (Eriastrum hooveri), a delisted species is known in the local area. However, no habitat for it or the other listed species exists within or adjacent to the proposed project due to high levels of development and intensive use.

The proposed project area is generally void of natural habitat. With few exceptions such as the San Joaquin kit fox, and burrowing owl, most species remain in their natural habitat along the river corridor. Native vegetation within the refinery has been eliminated. The fine, sandy soils present in the project area are dominated by non‐native plant species including Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), California manroot (Marah fabaceus), annual bursage (Ambrosia Acanthicarpa), and pigweed (Amaranthus albus). Wildlife species observed included the desert cottontail and common lizard, which occupy populated and disturbed land.



Table 4.2‐2. Special‐Status Species Evaluated for the Proposed Project

Scientific Name Common Name Potential to Occur Status

Federal/State/CNPs

Plants Astragalus hornii var. hornii

Horn’s milk-vetch Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 1b

Atriplex cordulata Heartscale Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 1b

Atriplex subtillis Subtle orache Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 1b

Atriplex tularensis Bakersfield smallscale Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/SE/CNPS 1b

Atriplex vallicola Lost Hills crownscale Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 1b

Calochortus striatus Alkali mariposa lily Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 1b

Caulanthus californicus California jewelflower Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

FE/SE/CNPS 1b

Cirsium crassicaule Slough thistle Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 1b

Delphinium recurvatum Recurved larkspur Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 1b

Eremalche kernenis Kern mallow Low. Project is within the current known geographical range of the species; however, no potential habitat is present on-site.

FE/none/CNPS 1b

Eschscholzia lemmonii ssp. kernensis

Tejon poppy Low. Project is within the current known geographical range of the species; however, no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 1b

Imperata brevifolia California satintail Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 2

Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri

Coulter’s goldfields Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 1b

Mimulus pictus Calico monkeyflower Low. Project is within the current known geographical range of the species; however, no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 1b

Monardella linoides ssp. oblonga

Flax-like monardella Low. Project is within the current known geographical range of the species; however, no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 1b

Monolopia congdonii San Joaquin woolly-threads

Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

FE/none/CNPS 1b





Federal/State/CNPs

Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei

Bakersfield cactus Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

FE/SE/CNPS 1b

Plerygoneurum califomicum

California chalk moss Low. Project is within the current known geographical range of the species; however, no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 1b

Stylocline citroleum Oil nestraw Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 1b

Stylocline masonii Mason’s neststraw Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 1b

Tortula califomica California screw moss Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNPS 1b

Invertebrates Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool fairy

shrimp Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

FT/none/none

Desmocerus calirornicus dimorphus

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle

Not Expected. Project site is outside of the current known geographical range for the species; no potential habitat is present on-site.

FT/none/none

Helminthoglypta callistoderma

Kern shoulderband Low. Project is within the current known geographical range of the species; however, no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/none/CNDDB

Amphibians Rana aurora draytonii California red-legged

frog Low. Project is within the current known geographical range of the species; however, no potential habitat is present on-site.

FT/CSC/none

Spea hommondii Western spadefoot toad

Low. Project is within the current known geographical range of the species; however, no potential habitat is present on-site.

none/CSC/none

Reptiles Anniella pulchra pulchra Silvery legless lizard Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however,

species absent from site during 2005/2012 surveys. Significant impacts not anticipated. none/CSC/none

Emys marmorata pallida Southwestern pond turtle


none/CSC/none

Gambelia sila Blunt-nosed leopard lizard


FE/SE,SFP/none

Masticophis flagellum ruddocki

San Joaquin coachwhip

Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/none





Federal/State/CNPs

Phrynosoma coronatum frontale

California horned lizard


none/CSC/none

Tamnophis gigas Giant garter snake Low. Project is within the current known geographical range of the species; however, no potential habitat is present on-site.

FT/ST/none

Birds Accipiter cooperi Cooper’s hawk Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however,

significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/none

Accipiter stratus Sharp-shinned hawk Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/none

Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/none

Aguila chrysaetos Golden eagle Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

BEPA/CSC/none

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/none

Athene cunicularia hypugaea

Western burrowing owl

Moderate. No burrowing owls were observed within or near the proposed Project site during 2005/2012 surveys, and the area was void of suitable burrows. However, this species has been observed historically within and near the Project area, is highly mobile, and occasionally occurs in highly disturbed habitat.

none/CSC/none

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/none

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/ST/none

Charadrius alexandrines nivosus

Western snowy plover Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

FT/CSC/none





Federal/State/CNPs

Charadrius montanus Mountain plover Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/none

Circus cyaneus Northern harrier Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/none

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis

Western yellow-billed cuckoo

Low. No suitable habitat is present on-site; species absent from site during 2005/2012 surveys. Project site is outside of geographical range for the species.

none/SE/none

Dendrocygna bicolor Fulvous whistling duck Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/none

Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/SFP,CSC/none

Empidonax trallii Willow flycatcher Low. No suitable habitat is present on-site; species absent from site during 2005/2012 surveys. Project site is outside of geographical range for the species.

FE*/SE/none

Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/none

Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/none

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

BEPA/SE, SFP/none

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/none

Numenius americanus Long-billed curlew Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/none

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/none





Federal/State/CNPs

Toxostoma lecontei LeConte’s thrasher Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/none

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Yellow-headed blackbird


none/none/CNDDB

Mammals Ammospermophilus nelson

Nelson’s antelope squirrel


none/ST/none

Dipodomys ingens Giant kangaroo rat Low. Project is within the current known geographical range of the species; however, no potential habitat is present on-site.

FE/SE/none

Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus

Short-nosed kangaroo rat


none/CSC/none

Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides

Tipton kangaroo rat Low. Project is within the current known geographical range of the species; however, no potential habitat is present on-site.

FE/SE/none

Eumops perotis californicus

Western mastiff bat Moderate. Species may occasionally forage onsite and/or may occur in the vicinity; however, significant impacts not anticipated; implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts.

none/CSC/WBWG

Onychomys torridus tularensis

Tulare grasshopper mouse


none/CSC/none

Perognathus inomatus inomatus

San Joaquin pocket mouse


none/CSC/none

Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox Moderate. Although no dens were identified in the proposed construction areas and no sign of kit foxes were observed in or near the Refinery during 2005/2012 surveys, species has been observed historically within and near the Project area, is highly mobile, and occasionally occurs in highly disturbed habitat.

OCCURRENCE EVALUATION EXPLANATION FEDERAL

Federally listed as Endangered (*includes only E. t. extimus) Federally listed as Threatened

Bald Eagle Protection Act





Federal/State/CNPs

STATE State listed as Endangered State listed as Threatened

California Department of Fish and Game designated “Fully Protected” California Department of Fish and Game designated “Species of Special Concern”

OTHER (Pertinent organization lists) Appears on CNDDB list; no official status Western Bat Working Group Priority 1 species



San Joaquin Kit Fox - No fox dens were identified in the proposed construction areas and no sign of kit foxes were observed in or near the refinery. Kit fox has been observed historically within and near the project site. However, the construction of the Westside Parkway adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site now provides a barrier to migration into the project from the Kern River.

Burrowing Owl - No burrowing owls were observed within or near the proposed project site. The proposed project area was void of burrows for use by burrowing owls or other animals, as well.

4.2.3 Regulatory Setting

Federal

Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 The Federal ESA and subsequent amendments provide guidance for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA defines species as “threatened” or “endangered” and provides regulatory protection for listed species. The Federal ESA provides a program for conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species, and conservation of designated critical habitat that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has determined is required for the survival and recovery of these listed species.

Section 7 requires Federal agencies, in consultation with, and with the assistance of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, to insure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species. The USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share responsibilities for administering the ESA. Regulations governing interagency cooperation under Section 7 are found at 50 CFR Part 402. The opinion issued at the conclusion of consultation may include a statement authorizing a take that may occur incidental to an otherwise legal activity.

Section 9 lists those actions that are prohibited under the ESA. Take of a species listed in accord-ance with the ESA is prohibited. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take (i.e., to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, kill, etc.) of listed species of fish, wildlife, and plants without special exemption. “Harm” is further defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or shelter. “Harass” is further defined as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to an extent as significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but not limited to, breeding, feeding, and shelter.

Section 10 provides a means whereby a non-Federal action with a potential to result in the take of a listed species could be allowed under an incidental take permit. Application procedures are found at 50 CFR Parts 13 and 17 for species under the jurisdiction of USFWS and 50 CFR Parts 217, 220, and 222 for species under the jurisdiction of NMFS.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) is the domestic law that affirms, or implements, the United States’ commitment to four international conventions (with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia) for



the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. The MBTA makes it unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds. The law also applies to the removal of nests occupied by migratory birds during the breeding season. The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, pursue, molest, or disturb these species, their nests, or their eggs anywhere in the United States.

Federal Clean Water Act

The Federal CWA provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.

Section 401 requires that a project proponent for a Federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in a discharge to waters of the United States must obtain a State certification that the discharge complies with other provisions of CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) administer the certification program in California.

Section 402 establishes a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredge or fill material) into waters of the United States.

Section 404 establishes a permit program, administered by the United Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Implementing regulations by USACE are found at 33 CFR Parts 320-330. Guidelines for implementation are referred to as the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and were developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in conjunction with USACE (40 CFR Parts 230). The Guidelines allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system only if there is no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts.

State

California Endangered Species Act (CESA)

The California ESA (CESA) establishes the policy of the State to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. The CESA mandates that State agencies should not approve projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid jeopardy. There are no formal State agency consultation procedures under the CESA. For projects that affect both a State and Federal listed species, compliance with the Federal ESA will satisfy the CESA if the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) determines that the Federal incidental take authorization is “consistent” with the CESA under California State Fish and Game Code Section 2080.1. For projects that will result in a take of a State-only listed species, the project proponent must apply for a take permit under Section 2081(b). CDFW may authorize take if (1) the take is incidental to another lawful activity; (2) impacts of the authorized take are minimized and mitigated; (3) the permit is consistent with any regulations adopted pursuant to any recovery plan for the species; and (4) the project proponent ensures adequate funding to implement the measures required by the CDFW.



California Species Preservation Act 1970: California Fish and Game Code §§900 – 903 This law includes provisions for the protection and enhancement of the birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles of California and is administered by the CDFW. The CDFW is responsible for managing and enforcing regulations governing Species of Special Concern.

• Species of Special Concern – Taxa that are recognized as declining in California for one or more reasons and are likely to become rare, threatened, or endangered in the future if habitat conditions continue to deteriorate.

Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5. Under these sections of the California State Fish and Game Code, the project proponent is not allowed to conduct activities that would result in the taking, possessing, or destroying of any birds-of-prey, taking or possessing of any migratory non-game bird as designated in the MBTA or the taking, possessing, or needlessly destroying of the nest or eggs of any raptors or non-game birds protected by the MBTA, or the taking of any non-game bird pursuant to California State Fish and Game Code Section 3800.

Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 California’s Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) requires all State agencies to utilize their authority to carry out programs to conserve endangered and rare native plants. Under certain circumstances, the NPPA prohibits the taking of listed plants from the wild and requires notification of the CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use. This allows CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed. The project proponent is required to conduct botanical inventories and consult with CDFW during project planning to comply with the provisions of this Act and sections of CEQA that apply to rare or endangered plants.

Local

Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP)

The goal of the MBHCP is to acquire, preserve, and enhance native habitats that support endangered and sensitive species, while allowing urban development to proceed as set forth in the MBGP. The study area covered by the MBHCP is under both City and County jurisdiction. The MBHCP is intended to meet the requirements of both state and federal endangered species acts. In addition, the MBHCP complies with state and federal environmental regulations set forth in NEPA and CEQA.

All three major components of the project are within the area permitted under the MBHCP. Under the MBHCP, take of certain Federal- and State-listed species is allowed provided that the activity is classified as “urban development” as defined by the permit. The project proponent pays the appropriate habitat mitigation fees upon receiving either a grading permit, building permit, or other permit as determined by the appropriate city or County agency. While agricultural development and most oil and gas production activities are not included in the MBHCP, the proposed project is included as an industrial development.

In general, the City of Bakersfield and Kern County collect fees that are applied toward the purchase of suitable high quality habitat management lands. These habitat management lands are set aside in perpetuity through donation to the State and managed by CDFW for the benefit of the



species covered by the MBHCP. Upon payment of required mitigation fees and receipt of project approval, a development applicant would become a subpermittee and would be allowed the “incidental take” of the covered species, such as the San Joaquin kit fox and Bakersfield cactus, in accordance with state and federal endangered species laws.

Kern Water Bank Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (KWBHCP). The project components lie within the service area covered by the KWBHCP. The species that are covered in the MBHCP are also among those covered by the KWBHCP. The KWBHCP was implemented in October 1997 through execution of the KWBHCP Implementation Agreement; it allows for operation of the Kern Water Bank in exchange for habitat conservation for affected species. In addition, the Kern Water Bank Authority (KWBA) completed a Conservation Bank Agreement (1997) with the USFWS and CDFW that allows the KWBA to sell conservation credits to qualified third parties provided that certain conditions are met and species to be affected are included as covered species.

Several federally protected, state-protected, and other species of concern are included in the KWBHCP. Among these are San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides), giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens), San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni), and Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var).

Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) The following are programs to be carried out by the City of Bakersfield and Kern County under the Conservation Element of the MBGP. These programs implement the goals and policies of the Conservation Element affecting biological resources.

Chapter V. Conservation / Biological Resources

Water Quality Goals and Policies Goals:

• Goal 1: Conserve and enhance Bakersfield's biological resources in a manner which facilitates orderly development and reflects the sensitivities and constraints of these resources.

• Goal 2: To conserve and enhance habitat areas for designated "sensitive" animal and plant species.

Policies:

• Policy 1: Direct development away from "sensitive biological resource" areas, unless effective mitigation measures can be implemented.

• Policy 2: Preserve areas of riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat within floodways along rivers and streams, in accordance with the Kern River Plan Element and channel maintenance programs designed to maintain flood flow discharge capacity.

• Policy 3: Discourage, where appropriate, the use of off-road vehicles to protect designated sensitive biological and natural resources.



• Policy 4: Determine the feasibility of enhancing sensitive biological habitat and establishing additional wildlife habitat in the study area with State and/or Federal assistance.

• Policy 5: Determine the locations and extent of suitable habitat areas required for the effective conservation management of designated "sensitive" plant and animal species.

• Policy 6: Investigate the feasibility of including natural areas selected for the habitat conservation plan as a component of the regional park system.

Kern County General Plan. Section 1.10.5, Threatened and Endangered Species, of the Kern County General Plan includes the following policies and implementation measures.

Policies

27. Threatened or endangered plant and wildlife species should be protected in accordance with State and federal laws.

28. County should work closely with State and federal agencies to assure that discretionary projects avoid or minimize impacts to fish, wildlife, and botanical resources.

29. The County will seek cooperative efforts with local, State, and federal agencies to protect listed threatened and endangered plant and wildlife species through the use of conservation plans and other methods promoting management and conservation of habitat lands.

30. The County will promote public awareness of endangered species laws to help educate property owners and the development community of local, State, and 68 federal programs concerning endangered species conservation issues.

31. Under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the County, as lead agency, will solicit comments from the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when an environmental document (Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report) is prepared.

32. Riparian areas will be managed in accordance with United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the California Department of Fish and Game rules and regulations to enhance the drainage, flood control, biological, recreational, and other beneficial uses while acknowledging existing land use patterns.

Implementation Measures

Q. Discretionary projects shall consider effects to biological resources as required by the California Environmental Quality Act.

R. Consult and consider the comments from responsible and trustee wildlife agencies when reviewing a discretionary project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.

S. Pursue the development and implementation of conservation programs with State and federal wildlife agencies for property owners desiring streamlined endangered species mitigation programs.



4.2.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section describes the methodology used in conducting the impact analysis for biological resources, the thresholds of significance used in assessing impacts to biological resources, and the assessment of impacts to biological resources, including relevant mitigation measures.

Methodology

Research and field surveys were conducted for the project area to determine whether the species with potential to occur actually occupy, inhabit, or use these areas. The biological resources technical report for the project is included in Appendix C.

EAI conducted a general biological resources survey on September 25, 2012. The purpose of the general biological resources survey was to assess the existing conditions of the project site, including characterizing and delineating the vegetation communities and associated wildlife habitats and evaluating the potential for these habitats to support special‐status species and sensitive communities.

During the general biological resources survey, biologists traveled through the developed portion of the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery via vehicle. The undeveloped portions of the Alon refinery in Areas 2 and 4 were traversed on foot and biologists noted all vegetation communities present on the project site. The proposed new rail facilities will primarily be located in these two areas. Approximately 15.4 acres of the site will be disturbed to develop the new railroad tracks. Portions of the new tracks will be located outside of the developed portion of the refinery. An additional 16.3 acres of the site will be disturbed largely within the developed portions of the project site, for the improvement of existing refinery structures, e.g., new tanks and columns (see Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2).


The significance of potential project-related impacts to biological resources is based on the following considerations and impact thresholds. An impact that results in long-term loss or degradation of sensitive habitat, or that adversely affects the population of a special-status species will generally be considered significant. Sensitive habitats and special-status species are those that are demonstrably rare, threatened, or endangered; are protected by statute or regulation; or have recognized commercial, recreational, or scientific importance. Project-related impacts to biological resources may be considered less-than-significant if there is little or no importance to a given habitat or if disturbance would not create a significant impact to habitats or species.

The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and Kern County Environmental Checklist state that a project would have a significant impact on biological resources, if it were to:

• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; .



• Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;

• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;


The lead agency determined in the NOP/IS (see Appendix A) that the following environmental issues areas resulted in no impact or less than significant impact and were scoped out of requiring further review in this draft EIR. Please refer to Appendix A of this draft EIR for a copy of the NOP/IS and additional information.

• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;


Project Impacts

The following section describes potential impacts and mitigation measures related to biological resources that could occur as a result of the project.

The CEQA Guidelines define direct impacts as those impacts that result from a project and occur at the same time and place. Indirect impacts are caused by a project, but can occur later in time or farther removed in distance while still reasonably foreseeable and related to the project. The potential impacts discussed in this analysis are those most likely to be associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. Construction impacts would include both direct and indirect impacts to biological resources. While direct impacts associated with construction of the project are expected to occur only through the duration of construction activities, indirect construction impacts, such as the spread of non-native and invasive weeds, could potentially remain an ongoing source of disturbance. Operational impacts would also include both direct and indirect impacts to biological resources. Ongoing operations and maintenance impacts would occur during routine refinery operations and rail unloading activities. Operational impacts would remain an ongoing source of disturbance for many plants and wildlife species that occur within the fenced facility perimeter and in adjacent habitat.

Project impacts are considered permanent if they would involve the conversion of land to a new use. Temporary project impacts are those effects that do not result in the permanent land use conversion. Temporary effects to vegetation communities or other ground disturbance activities restricted solely to the construction phase, such as grading roads and clearing vegetation within staging areas, are considered temporary, provided that native vegetation is not replaced with infrastructure or the area is not maintained free of vegetation, and that restoration is deemed feasible prior to project implementation.



Impact 4.2‐1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Refinery Site The proposed project has the potential to “take,” as defined by the FESA, the federally listed San Joaquin kit fox. The kit fox may be directly affected by potential road kill mortality and injury from construction activities. The proposed project has the potential to affect the kit fox through permanent modification of potential foraging habitat in Areas 2 and 4; however, the construction of the Westside Parkway has placed a barrier between the project site and the Kern River so that foraging within the project site is less likely to occur. Kit fox could also be accidentally hit by the additional crude trains that will visit the proposed project. This potential impact is expected to be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level through the use of best construction practices and monitoring to avoid incidental take of kit fox. The rail line is currently active and 30‐40 trains per day use this rail line. The proposed project is not expected to result in the extinction of this species or directly contribute to or hasten its demise.

Although no burrows or burrowing owls were observed during site visits, this species is known to occupy even highly impacted areas on the west side of Bakersfield. Therefore, burrowing owls could be impacted during construction activities. This species has a tendency to occupy open areas in the presence of human activities. In addition, individual burrowing owls that may forage or pass through the rail lines could be subject to injury and mortality as a result of project rail traffic, or hazards associated with construction activities. Mitigation measures are available to reduce these potential impacts to less than significant.

Based on literature review, site surveys and focused trapping, no other sensitive or protected species are likely to be directly impacted by the proposed project.

The proposed project will not affect any native critical habitat as identified by USFWS. The proposed project area is void of native vegetation. There is also no evidence that any area of the project is important as a wildlife migratory or movement corridor. Although migratory birds move through this portion of the San Joaquin Valley and may occasionally utilize portions of the project site, no portion of the proposed project site that will be subject to impacts has been documented to be an important stopover or resting place for migratory birds.

Unit Train Mainline Track Spills

As discussed in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, BNSF Railway train accident rates within Kern County are low. Based upon historical data, the likelihood of a train accident leading to a release of oil on the BNSF Railway mainline in Kern County is once in 150 years. Although it is unlikely, derailment of a train could result in the release of crude oil from a rail tanker car, which could cause impacts to sensitive habitats, depending upon the location of the spill. In the unlikely event of an oil spill along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks, there may be no oil spill containment or cleanup equipment immediately available, and it may take some time for emergency response teams to mobilize adequate spill response equipment. Depending upon the location of the spill, this could allow enough time for the spill to impact sensitive habitat and plants and animal species. Therefore, while transportation along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks is unlikely to result in an



accident leading to release of oil, the impacts of any such release on biological resources would be potentially severe, and so potential impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. Regulation of the operations of the railroads on the mainline is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Kern County does not have the authority to impose mitigation measures on operation of the rail operations by BNSF Railway; therefore, mitigation for the impacts of any potential oil spill from mainline operations is legally infeasible.

Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project Proponent shall hire a

qualified biologist acceptable to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to conduct a preconstruction site survey within any open space areas that may be affected by construction activities that may support special‐status species. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted 30 to 60 days before ground‐disturbing activities begin except for the kit fox. The following shall be included in preconstruction surveys.

a. San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey: A qualified biologist with experience searching for potential San Joaquin kit fox dens shall conduct preconstruction surveys no more than 48 hours prior to any initial earth disturbing activity. Surveys will be conducted by a qualified biologist with experience searching for this species. This biologist will be the project‐ designated biologist. Potential dens will be inspected to determine occupancy. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied it will be closed to prevent animal entry. Any discovered unoccupied burrows or dens will be excavated so that no unobserved animal is injured during the soil movement activities. If the den is occupied, the salvage provision from the MBHCP will be implemented and the wildlife agencies will have five days to salvage any species. Grading will not commence until this five‐day salvage period has expired.

b. Burrowing Owl Survey: A qualified biologist with experience searching for potential burrowing owl burrows shall conduct pre‐construction surveys no more than 48 hours prior to any initial earth disturbing activity. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season (September 1 through January 31), those burrows should be avoided by a suitable buffer distance, as determined by a qualified biologist. This distance would vary depending on season, existing disturbances, etc. During nesting season, burrow avoidance should continue until young have fledged. As an alternative, passive and/or active relocation efforts may be undertaken if approved by CDFW and USFWS.

c. Native Bird and Raptor Survey: In compliance with Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, if grading is to occur during the native bird and raptor nesting breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a survey will be conducted prior to grading activities to determine the presence of any native bird and raptor nests. If species that are susceptible to disturbance are identified, CDFW and USFWS will be contacted. Grading activities will comply with all appropriate procedures relative to construction operations in proximity to any active nests if these activities are to occur prior to fledging of young. Resulting mitigation measures may include



restricting construction activities near native bird and raptor nesting sites during the breeding season.

MM 4.2-2 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project proponent shall implement and continuously adhere to the following measures to minimize potential impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox.

a. Occupied kit fox dens shall not be disturbed during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31). Although no dens are known to be active at the proposed project site, the applicant will comply with USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (1999) for den avoidance, exclusion zone, and closure. Until cleared by the designated biologist and the USFWS, a potential den will have a minimum of 50‐foot radius work exclusion zone, known dens will have a 100‐foot radius exclusion, and natal dens will require immediate USFWS contact. Exclusion zones will be established with metal t‐bar fence posts supporting brightly colored yellow rope with “restricted area” or other avoidance notification signage.

b. No construction will occur outside of the defined proposed project area (which includes the lay down areas). The existing site fencing will be maintained and any gaps or openings will be closed as soon as feasible to minimize kit fox access to the site.

c. Project‐related vehicles shall observe a 20 mile per hour speed limit in all areas of the proposed project. Evening and night traffic will be restricted to the extent possible. Dusk, sunrise, and night traffic shall observe a 10 mph speed limit when kit fox are most active if traffic must travel through the site at these times.

d. Rail traffic associated with the proposed project will be limited to 10 mph speed limit through the project site.

e. All food‐related trash items shall be disposed of in closed containers and removed from the construction site no less than once per week to prevent access by wildlife.

f. No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.

g. No domestic pets, such as dogs or cats, should be permitted on the project site to prevent harassment or mortality of kit foxes or destruction of dens.

h. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar material or structures having a diameter of four inches or greater and a length of four feet or longer, if stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for animal hiding inside before the pipe is buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way.

i. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep‐walled holes or trenches more than 2‐feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen‐fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes



or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the USFWS and CDFW shall be contacted.

j. A representative of the project proponent will be appointed as the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped kit fox. The representative will be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number will be provided to USFWS.

k. An employee education program will be conducted by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and/or agency personnel involved in the project. The education program will include: A description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project area; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during project construction and implementation.A fact sheet conveying this information will be prepared for distribution to employees and contractors and anyone else who may enter the project site.

l. Any temporary or permanent lighting will be shielded or directed to minimize light pollution beyond the project limits.

m. The project applicant will mitigate the potential to affect San Joaquin kit fox and comply with Section 10 of the FESA by participating in and paying impact fees to the MBHCP. The MBHCP Joint Powers Authority will determine the impact fee based on impacted acreage associated with the proposed project footprint (disturbed area). If the applicant does not participate in the MBHCP, then the project applicant will complete consultation with or obtain a Section 10 permit from the USFWS.

n. The proposed project will comply with the County Ordinance of San Joaquin Kit Fox (MBHCP 17.62.070, Salvage), as applicable. No later than five working days prior to the initiation of any ground disturbance activities by an urban development permittee on parcels containing known dens, the urban development permittee shall notify the regional offices of the CDFW and the USFWS of the intent to initiate ground disturbance activities and shall agree to permit appropriate access for salvage purposes.

o. Rodenticide or herbicide use will conform to the USFWS‐approved methodologies.

p. Any contractor, employee or agency personnel who is responsible for inadvertently killing or injuring a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to the representative described in Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(j). This representative shall contact the CDFW immediately in the case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox.

q. The USFWS and CDFW shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during project‐related



activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal.

r. New sightings of kit fox shall be report to the California Natural Diversity Database. A copy of the reporting form and topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed should also be provided to the USFWS.

Level of Significance after Mitigation Potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species would be mitigated to less than significant following the implementation of the MM 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 at the project site; however, the potential consequences of a spill along the BNSF mainline tracks are a significant and unavoidable impact.

Impact 4.2‐2: Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Any Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, Regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Refinery Site Project parcels within the jurisdiction of the County of Kern are classified by the Kern County Zoning Ordinance as M-l PD (Light Industrial- Precise Development), M2 (Medium Industrial), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development), and M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial - Precise Development) and are designated SI (Service Industrial) and HI (Heavy Industrial) by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP). Project parcels within the jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield are classified by the Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance as M-2 (Medium Manufacturing), M-3 (Heavy Industrial), and FP-S (Flood Plain - Secondary). The land use in the surrounding area has historically been primarily industrial with the existing refinery, the former Sunland Refinery, and the closed PG&E gas powered electrical plant and oilfield support facilities. The adjacent land uses immediately surrounding the project site are primarily industrial

The site is entirely fenced and has been used for decades as a storage and staging area for equipment and supplies which has resulted in extensive ground disturbance. The project area limits do not support any native habitat. The land within the project area currently supports a plant community characteristic of lands subjected to disturbance, as the area has been disked for maintenance of the refinery facilities. Russian Thistle is the dominant plant species, with several other weedy species also present. Non-native planted Paulownia Trees (Paulownia tomentosa) are the only exception to the otherwise uniform plant community. The project site lacks suitable habitat for all other listed sensitive or protected species that could occur in the vicinity.

No suitable trees for raptor nesting exist within the project site. However, adjacent residential developments contain trees providing suitable habitat that could be used by raptors as perches for foraging. Additionally, the site has the potential to be used by the San Joaquin kit fox. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could potentially impact the movement of native wildlife. However, since the proposed project lies within the MBHCP area, compliance to the mitigation and compensation requirements of the MBHCP would reduce project-related impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to the movement or migration of wildlife species.



The absence of native habitat within the project area indicates a low likelihood for the presence of any sensitive plant species. Therefore, no direct impacts to sensitive or protected plant species are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.


As discussed in Impact 4.2-1, while a train accident and spill is unlikely, derailment of a train could result in the release of crude oil from a rail tanker car, which could cause impacts to sensitive habitats, depending upon the location of the spill. In the unlikely event of an oil spill along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks, there may be no oil spill containment or cleanup equipment immediately available, and it may take some time for emergency response teams to mobilize adequate spill response equipment. Depending upon the location of the spill, this could allow enough time for the spill to impact previously identified sensitive habitat and plants and animal species. Therefore, while transportation along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks is unlikely to result in an accident leading to release of oil, the impacts of any such release on biological resources would be potentially severe, and so potential impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. Regulation of the operations of the railroads on the mainline is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Kern County does not have the authority to impose mitigation measures on operation of the rail operations by BNSF Railway; therefore, mitigation for the impacts of any potential oil spill from mainline operations is legally infeasible.



Impact 4.2‐3: Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Federally Protected Wetlands as Defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Including, but not Limited to, Marsh, Vernal Pool, Coastal, etc.) Through Direct Removal, Filling, Hydrological interruption, or Other Means

Refinery Site The existing refinery site is devoid of any wetlands or other hydrological features. The proposed project will not directly affect any Waters or Wetlands of the U.S. With the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for emissions, water quality, erosion control, hazardous material containment and storage, the proposed project is not expected to directly or indirectly adversely affect the adjacent canals or Kern River due to the presence of topographic features and/or physical barriers, such as the Westside Parkway on the south side of the project site. Therefore, no direct impacts are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.


As discussed in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, BNSF Railway train accident rates within Kern County are low. Based upon historical data, the likelihood of a train accident leading to a release of oil on the BNSF Railway mainline in Kern County is once in 150 years. The probability



of a train accident leading to a release of oil into a federally protected wetland would be substantially lower for the likely mainline rail routes that would be used by unit trains destined for the project site. However, while transportation along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks is unlikely to result in an accident leading to release of oil, the impacts of any such release on biological resources would be potentially severe, and so potential impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. Regulation of the operations of the railroads on the mainline is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Kern County does not have the authority to impose mitigation measures on operation of the rail operations by BNSF Railway; therefore, mitigation for the impacts of any potential oil spill from mainline operations is legally infeasible.



Impact 4.2‐4: Interfere Substantially with the Movement of any Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or with Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors, or Impede the Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites

The proposed project area is just north of the Kern River and will occur within the confines of the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery which has been graded and portions developed for refining purposes for over 75 years. The Kern River has been identified as an important biological corridor for wildlife, including listed species such as the San Joaquin kit fox, blunt nosed leopard lizard, and Tipton kangaroo rat. Some portions of the Kern River also support the Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest, a native habitat of special concern, which potentially exists within one mile of the proposed project area. Over time, native vegetation has been eliminated within the refinery, including Areas 1, 2, and 4 where the proposed project will be located. This gradual elimination of native vegetation is due to continued use of the area through time, largely for industrial uses. Recent street and highway improvements have also impacted the area including the extension of Mohawk Street and current construction activities associated with the Westside Parkway, located adjacent to the southern portion of the project site and just north of the Kern River. The project site generally lacks vegetation and habitat for the listed species that could potentially occur in the project vicinity.

Historically, the area may have been used as a travel/migration corridor as it is adjacent to the potential habitat in the Kern River area. However, the recent construction of the Westside Parkway has placed a physical barrier between the Kern River and the project site, although overpasses on the Westside Parkway have been constructed that would allow migration. The proposed project will reduce the forage habitat available to kit fox; however, this effect is not expected to interfere substantially with movement of kit fox in the vicinity. The refinery portion of the project area is already fenced and void of native habitat. Kit fox will still be able to enter the project site, although the action is not encouraged by the facility. Impacts are considered less than significant with incorporation of MM 4.2-1 and 4.2-2.





Cumulative Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

Cumulative Setting

The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to biological resources includes a six-mile radius from the project site. Analysis of cumulative impacts takes into consideration the entirety of impacts that the projects, zone changes, and general plan amendments discussed in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, would have on biological resources. This geographic scope of analysis is appropriate because, although impacts of the project are primarily localized to the impact areas, losses of vegetation types or fragmentation of wildlife corridors would combine with similar impacts of other projects beyond these limited impact areas.

Impact 4.2‐5: Contribute to Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts

No other reasonably foreseeable heavy industrial projects besides the Independent Refining Projects presented in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, of this EIR, are proposed in Bakersfield at this time. However, there are other light industrial, residential, and commercial projects that are reasonably foreseeable in the Bakersfield metropolitan area. None of these projects are located within the vicinity of the project site. While the potential exists for these and other projects to encounter biological resources during their construction, each project would be required to avoid such resources or conduct evaluations and excavation to recover those resources. Hence, the cumulative impacts to biological resources associated with refinery and rail unloading operations would be less than significant.

However, while cumulative crude oil transportation associated with the proposed project, BNSF and UPRR mainline crude oil transportation is unlikely to result in an accident leading to release of oil, the impacts of any such release on biological resources would be potentially severe, and so cumulative impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. Regulation of the operations of the railroads on the mainline is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Kern County does not have the authority to impose mitigation measures on operation of the rail operations by BNSF or UPRR; therefore, mitigation for the impacts of any potential oil spill from mainline operations is legally infeasible.


Level of Significance after Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable.

Section 4.3 Cultural Resources


Section 4.3 Cultural Resources

4.3.1 Introduction This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides contextual background information on historical resources in the project site, including the area’s prehistoric, ethnographic, and historical settings. This section also summarizes the results of cultural surveys of the project site, analyzes the project’s potential impacts on cultural resources, and identifies mitigation measures to address adverse impacts. A complete description of the proposed project can be found in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR.

This section is based on the cultural resource records searches, inventories, and Native American scoping conducted by Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC (DUKE CRM) and as discussed in their Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project Cultural Resources Assessment in June 2013; which is included as Appendix D of this document. The cultural evaluation was conducted in compliance with Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) to identify archaeological or historical resources in the area of potential effect. Due to the confidential nature of the location of cultural resources, this report does not include maps or location descriptions. The cultural resources report can be found on file at the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department.

For the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), “historical resources” generally refer to cultural resources that have been determined to be significant, either by eligibility for listing in state or local registers of historical resources, or by determination of a lead agency (see definitions below). Historical resources can also include areas determined to be important to Native Americans such as “sacred sites.” Sacred sites are most often important to Native American groups because of the role of the location in traditional ceremonies or activities. “Cultural resources” generally refer to prehistoric and historical period archaeological sites and the built environment. Cultural resources can also include areas determined to be important to Native Americans. Paleontological resources are also considered within this section.

Below are definitions of key cultural resources terms used in this section:

• Alluvium: a fine-grained fertile soil consisting of mud, silt, and sand deposited by flowing water on flood plains, in river beds, and in estuaries.

• Archaeological Site: A site is defined by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as the place or places where the remnants of a past culture survive in a physical context that allows for the interpretation of these remains. Archaeological remains usually take the form of artifacts (e.g., fragments of tools, vestiges of utilitarian, or non-utilitarian objects), features (e.g., remnants of walls, cooking hearths, or midden deposits), and ecological evidence (e.g., pollen remaining from plants that were in the area when the activities occurred). Prehistoric archaeological sites generally represent the material remains of Native American groups and their activities dating to the period before European contact. In some cases, prehistoric sites may contain evidence of trade contact with Europeans. Ethnohistoric archaeological sites are defined as Native American settlements occupied after the arrival of European settlers in California. Historic archaeological sites reflect the activities of nonnative populations during the Historic period.

County of Kern 4.3 Cultural Resources


• Artifact: An object that has been made, modified, or used by a human being.

• Cultural Resource: A cultural resource is a location of human activity, occupation, or use identifiable through field inventory, historical documentation, or oral evidence. Cultural resources include archaeological resources and built environment resources (sometimes known as historic architectural resources), and may include sites, structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, works of art, architecture, and natural features that were important in past human events. They may consist of physical remains or areas where significant human events occurred, even though evidence of the events no longer remains. Cultural resources also include places that are considered to be of traditional cultural or religious importance to social or cultural groups.

• Cultural Resources Study Area: All areas within the project site boundary plus a ½ mile buffer.

• Cultural Resources Survey Area: All areas of potential permanent and temporary impacts for a reasonable worst-case development within the project site, plus a 60-foot buffer to account for secondary or unanticipated impacts.

• Ethnographic: Relating to the study of human cultures. “Ethnographic resources” represent the heritage resource of a particular ethnic or cultural group, such as Native Americans or African, European, Latino, or Asian immigrants. They may include traditional resource-collecting areas, ceremonial sites, value-imbued landscape features, cemeteries, shrines, or ethnic neighborhoods and structures.

• Historic period: The period that begins with the arrival of the first nonnative population and thus varies by area. In 1772, Commander Don Pedro Fages was the first white man to enter Kern County, initiating the historic period in the project study area.

• Historical resource: This term is used for the purposes of CEQA and is defined in the CEQA Guidelines (§15064.5) as: (1) a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) §5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC §5024.1(g); and (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record

• Holocene: Of, denoting, or formed in the second and most recent epoch of the Quaternary period, which began 10,000 years ago at the end of the Pleistocene.

• Isolate: An isolated artifact or small group of artifacts that appear to reflect a single event, loci, or activity. It may lack identifiable context but has the potential to add important information about a region, culture, or person. Isolates are not considered under CEQA to be significant and, thus, do not require avoidance mitigation (CEQA Statute §21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines §15064.5). All isolates located during the field effort, however, are recorded and the data are transmitted to the appropriate California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Information Center.



• Lithic: Of or pertaining to stone. Specifically, in archaeology lithic artifacts are chipped or flaked stone tools, and the stone debris resulting from their manufacture.

• Native American sacred site: An area that has been, and often continues to be, of religious significance to Native American peoples, such as an area where religious ceremonies are practiced or an area that is central to their origins as a people. They also include areas where Native Americans gather plants for food, medicinal or economic purposes.

• Paleontological Resources (Fossils): The physical remains of plants and animals preserved in soils and sedimentary rock formations. Paleontological resources contribute to the understanding of past environments, environmental change, and the evolution of life.

• Pleistocene (Ice Age): An epoch in the Quaternary period of geologic history lasting from 1.8 million to 10,000 years ago. The Pleistocene was an epoch of multiple glaciation, during which continental glaciers covered nearly one fifth of the earth’s land.

• Prehistoric period: The era prior to 1772. The later part of the prehistoric period (post-1542) is also referred to as the protohistoric period in some areas, which marks a transitional period during which native populations began to be influenced by European presence resulting in gradual changes to their lifeways.

• Project site: The “project site” is the area that would contain the proposed project modifications as shown in figures and as described in Chapter 3.

• Quaternary Age: The most recent of the three periods of the Cenozoic Era in the geologic time scale of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS). It follows the Tertiary Period, spanning 2.588 ± 0.005 million years ago to the present. The Quaternary includes two geologic epochs: the Pleistocene and the Holocene Epochs.

• Stratigraphy: The natural and cultural layers of soil that make up an archaeological deposit, and the order in which they were deposited relative to other layers.

• Unique Archaeological Resource: This term is used for the purposes of CEQA and is defined in the CEQA Guidelines (§15064.5) as an archaeological artifact, object, or site, about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it either contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions; has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or, is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

• Unique Paleontological Resource: This term is defined as a fossil that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) it provides information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among organisms, living or extinct; (2) it provides data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events therein; (3) it provides data regarding the development of biological communities or interaction between plant and animal communities; (4) it demonstrates unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life; or (5) the fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Period_(geology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenozoic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_(geology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene




Natural Setting

The project is located in the San Joaquin Valley which is part of the larger Central Valley. The Valley trends in a north-south direction. The Kern River is located immediately south of the project. The Valley is bound on the west by the California Coast Range and to the east by the Sierra Nevada Range. The Valley floor is comprised of thick (thousands of feet) alluvial deposits. The elevation of the project is approximately 390 feet above mean sea level (msl). The project’s location near the Kern River would have made it an ideal place for hunting and gathering resources. However, long-term habitation would have been problematic due to the potential for flooding.

Cultural Setting

Prehistory

Early in the prehistory of the Central Valley hunter-gatherer people lived in villages and had a refined material culture. These people played an important part of large, regional trade networks. A prehistoric chronology system was used to characterize the cultural setting (DUKE CRM, 2013). A brief summary is presented here.

• Paleo-Indian (11,550–8550 B.C.)- Paleo-Indian cultures are largely hunting cultures. Archaeological materials from these sites are primarily flaked stone (cores, rough bifaces, and fluted points). Most of these sites are destroyed or buried deep.

• Lower Archaic (8550–5550 B.C.)- The Lower Archaic was prompted by a change in climate. As the Central Valley became warmer and drier, lakes were created. The known sites are few and appear to be clustered around archaic lakes (e.g. Buena Vista, Tulare). Artifacts common include those from the Paleo-Indian period as well as stemmed points, crescents, and other small chipped stone tools. Milling stones are found in the foothills of the Central Valley.

• Middle Archaic (5550–550 B.C.)- During the Middle Archaic temperatures continued to increase as did aridity. Sea levels also rose which led to the creation of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which became an essential wetland environment. There is a greater variety of artifact assemblages indicative of regional responses to varying environmental conditions. Extended burials are common, as are the mortar and pestle. The use of clay, pottery, and basketry are first observed in the Middle Archaic. Trading is evident from the presence of obsidian, shell beads, and other ornaments.

• Upper Archaic (550 B.C.–A.D. 1100)- The Upper Archaic corresponds to a period of wetter, cooler and a more stable environment. As a result, the dry lakes returned. This was a period of local cultural developments and specialization. This is evidenced by technological concentration. For example, increased types of bone tools and implements, shell beads and ornaments, ceremonial blades, ground stone objects, etc.

• Emergent Occupation (A.D. 1100-Historic)- The Emergent Occupation shows the most diverse artifact assemblages and is the most numerous archaeologically. Many of the technologies that were developed in the Archaic periods fade throughout the Central Valley and other areas of California. A significant indicator of the Emergent Occupation is the introduction



of the bow and arrow. A change in social complexity is noted by the divergent methods in burial of the dead.

Ethnography

The project is situated within the traditional boundaries of the Yokuts (DUKE CRM, 2013). The territory of the Yokuts ranged over the entire floor of the San Joaquin Valley and into the Sierra foothills (DUKE CRM, 2013). The Yokuts are generally divided into three groups: Northern Valley Yokuts, Southern Valley Yokuts, and Foothill Yokuts (DUKE CRM, 2013). The distinctions are believed to be primarily geographic, although linguistic differences also existed to varying degrees (DUKE CRM, 2013). The first written accounts of the Yokuts are attributed to mission fathers.

History

In California, the historic era is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present). The first Europeans in California were the Spanish. In 1542 Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo entered what was to become known as San Diego Harbor (DUKE CRM, 2013). There he met a group of Kumeyaay Indians while on shore. Over the next several hundred years there were several maritime excursions along the California coast, but it would be more than 225 years until the Spanish established a permanent settlement. In order to protect its interests, Spain sent four excursions into California, two by land and two by sea. The entire expedition was led by Captain Gaspar de Portolá, military commander of California (DUKE CRM, 2013). Portolá came through the San Fernando Valley in 1769. To fulfill part of the goals of the expedition Father Junípero Serra was sent to California to establish a system of Missions.

Before Bakersfield was founded a small settlement existed, founded by German-born Christian Bohna in 1860. The settlement was wiped out by floods in 1862. A year later Thomas Baker settled along the banks of the Kern River in what would become Bakersfield. Baker moved to the area the same year he married his second wife. Baker served as a Colonel in the Ohio State Militia, and then worked as a lawyer before being elected to the Iowa State Legislature. Like many of his time the lure of gold in California brought him west. He lived in Benicia, Stockton, and Visalia serving in several public offices, before moving to his namesake.

The area quickly came under agriculture use, followed by cattle ranching and eventually oil. The railroads and eventually highways facilitated the continued growth of Bakersfield.

Oil

“The technique of refining oil, which was invented in the mid-nineteenth century, created one of the longest and most durable periods of economic expansion in western civilization, until inexpensive oil resources came to an end or, at least, were widely monopolized by the 1970s. Places like Bakersfield, California, which had rich deposits of crude oil, produced a new form of energy that was competitive with traditional wood, coal, and hydraulic resources. Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century massive oil fields were discovered in the valley using simple hand-auger drills, then rotary drilling rigs that unleashed a series of the largest oil gushers in the entire country, including the Midway gusher, Well No. 2-6 (1909), and the Lakeview Gusher (1910) (sjvgeology.org).



The San Joaquin Valley was first formed as an inland sea between the eastern Sierra mountain range and the Coast Ranges. During the Miocene (5 million to 23 million years ago) the basin floor was filled with diatoms and plankton that formed organic-rich shale, which eventually created the vast reservoirs of oil that underlie the valley’s rock formations (sjvgeology.org).

The first man to see the potential of oil refining was Samuel M. Kier, who was looking for ways to profitably dispose of the contaminant, which was seeping into and polluting his salt wells. He initially experimented with oil as an illuminant, but in its crude (unrefined) form it produced smoke and the odor was too pungent to be of value for indoor lamps. By 1851 he had perfected a technique for distilling Carbon Oil from crude, otherwise known as kerosene (sjvgeology.org). Kier created the first petroleum refinery in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for producing lamp oil, which quickly replaced whale oil as an inexpensive and humane alternative (oil150.com). By the late 1800s the San Joaquin Valley had a number of small still-type refineries that were producing kerosene for illumination, all of which are now gone.

The discovery of the Kern River Field near Bakersfield in 1899 resulted in the startup of several new refineries that were designed specifically for refining gasoline for cars. The Mohawk Refinery, begun in 1932 and sold to Reserve Oil & Gas Company in 1975, is the largest refinery in Bakersfield. Other refineries located in Bakersfield during the historic period of significance include the Standard Oil Refinery (1913); El Tejon Oil & Refining Company (1934); and Sunland Refining Corporation (1929).

When the Mohawk Refinery began its operations in 1932 it was capable of producing 1,500 barrels of oil per day. The introduction of a new cracker unit three years later increased production to 9,000 barrels per day. From 1942 to 1945 the refinery was temporarily combined with an adjacent refinery by the wartime government to produce high-octane gasoline for the military. The refinery was returned to commercial production after the war and continued operations under the Mohawk brand until 1975 when it was acquired by the Reserve Oil and Gas Company, which was operating the North Tejon oil field in Kern County at the time. Then in 1980 the Getty Oil Company acquired Reserve Oil and expanded the refinery production to

45,000 barrels per day. Getty Oil was acquired by Texaco in 1984 and the Mohawk refinery became the Texaco Bakersfield Plant, which was retrofitted to accommodate the processing of heavy crude from local wells in the San Joaquin Valley. By 1986, Texaco had purchased the neighboring Tosco Refinery and integrated both facilities, which brought its share of production to 70,000 barrels per day. A merger of the refining and marketing assets of Shell and Texaco in 1998 created Equilon Enterprises; however, Texaco needed to divest itself of its interest in the refinery in conjunction with Chevron’s purchase of Texaco, so Shell Oil purchased Texaco’s interest in Equilon in the year 2000, becoming the sole owner of the refinery. After announcing its plans to close the refinery, Shell Oil sold the plant to Flying J Inc. in 2005, which operated the refinery as a subsidiary named Big West of California. Flying J achieved production levels of 68,000 barrels per day, but ultimately financial problems forced the sale of the plant to Alon in 2010 (sjvgeology.org).




State

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) CEQA requires the assessment of a proposed project’s effects on cultural resources. Pursuant to CEQA, a “historical resource” is a resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the CRHR. In addition, resources included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with State guidelines are also considered historic resources under CEQA, unless a preponderance of the facts demonstrates otherwise. Properties listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the MRHP are automatically included in the CRHR. According to CEQA, the fact that a resource is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR or is not included in a local register or survey shall not preclude a lead agency, as defined by CEQA, from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in California PRC Section 5024.1. CEQA applies to archaeological resources when (1) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a historical resource, or (2) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a “unique archaeological resource.” A unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site that has a high probability of meeting any of the following criteria:

• The archaeological resource contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

• The archaeological resource has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

• The archaeological resource is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Under the California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.19(a), the CRHR was created in 1992 and implemented in 1998 as “an authoritative guide in California to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the State’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys or designated by local landmarks programs, may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR. A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) determines that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria:

• Criterion 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

• Criterion 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.



• Criterion 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values.

• Criterion 4. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

Furthermore, under PRC Section 4852(c), a cultural resource must retain integrity to be considered eligible for the CRHR. Specifically, it must retain sufficient character or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and convey reasons of significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to retention of such factors as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Cultural sites that have been affected by ground-disturbing activities, such as grazing and off-road vehicle use (both of which occur within the project site), often lack integrity because they have been directly damaged or removed from their original location, among other changes.

Typically, a prehistoric archaeological site in California is recommended eligible for listing in the CRHR based on its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion 4). Important information includes chronological markers such as projectile point styles or obsidian artifacts that can be subjected to dating methods or undisturbed deposits that retain their stratigraphic integrity. Sites such as these have the ability to address research questions.

California Historical Landmarks California Historical Landmarks (CHLs) are buildings, structures, sites, or places that have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value and that have been determined to have statewide historical significance by meeting at least one of the criteria listed below. The resource also must be approved for designation by the County Board of Supervisors (or the city or town council in whose jurisdiction it is located); be recommended by the SHRC; and be officially designated by the Director of California State Parks. The specific standards now in use were first applied in the designation of CHL #770. CHLs #770 and above are automatically listed in the CRHR. To be eligible for designation as a landmark, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:

• It is the first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the State or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California);

• It is associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California; or

• It is a prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder.

California Points of Historical Interest California Points of Historical Interest are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. Points of historical interest designated after December 1997 and recommended by the SHRC are also listed in the CRHR. No historic resource may be designated as both a landmark and a point. If a point is later granted status



as a landmark, the point designation will be retired. In practice, the point designation program is most often used in localities that do not have a locally enacted cultural heritage or preservation ordinance.

To be eligible for designation as a point of historical interest, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:

• It is the first, last, only, or most significant of its type within the local geographic region (city or county);

• It is associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of the local area; or

• It is a prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in the local region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder.

Native American Heritage Commission Section 5097.91 of the California PRC established the NAHC, whose duties include the inventory of places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and the identification of known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. Section 5097.98 of the PRC specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner.

California Public Records Act Sections 6254(r) and 6254.10 of the California Public Records Act were enacted to protect archaeological sites from unauthorized excavation, looting, or vandalism. Section 6254(r) explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public relating to “Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.” Section 6254.10 specifically exempts from disclosure requests for “records that relate to archaeological site information and reports, maintained by, or in the possession of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Historical Resources Commission, the State Lands Commission, the NAHC, another State agency, or a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a Native American tribe and a State or local agency.”

Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050 and 7052 Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, declares that, in the event of the discovery of human remains outside of a dedicated cemetery, all ground disturbance must cease and the county coroner must be notified. Section 7052 establishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise disturbing human remains, except by relatives.

California Penal Code, Section 622.5 The California Penal Code, Section 622.5, provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of historic or archaeological interest located on public or private lands, but specifically excludes the landowner.



Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5 Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5, defines as a misdemeanor the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources located on public lands.

Local

Kern County General Plan (KCGP)

The project would be subject to applicable policies and measures of the KCGP. The Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation Element of the KCGP include the following policies and implementation measures related to cultural resources that would apply to the project:

Chapter 1. Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation Element

1.10.3. – Archaeological, Paleontological, Cultural, and Historical Preservation

Policy

• Policy 25. The County will promote the preservation of cultural and historic resources that provide ties with the past and constitute a heritage value to residents and visitors.

Implementation Measures

• Implementation Measure K. Coordinate with the California State University, Bakersfield’s Archaeology Inventory Center.

• Implementation Measure L. The County shall address archaeological and historical resources for discretionary projects in accordance with CEQA.

• Implementation Measure M. In areas of known paleontological resources, the County should address the preservation of these resources where feasible.

• Implementation Measure N. The County shall develop a list of Native American organizations and individuals who desire to be notified of proposed discretionary projects. This notification will be accomplished through the established procedures for discretionary projects and CEQA documents.

• Implementation Measure O. On a project-specific basis, the County Planning Department shall evaluate the necessity for the involvement of a qualified Native American monitor for grading or other construction activities on discretionary projects that are subject to a CEQA document.


Methodology

This section describes the records, archival, and field research conducted to identify the historic and prehistoric cultural resources known to occur within the proposed project area. In addition to archival and field investigations, DUKE CRM contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) concerning the project and received a list of Native American contacts that may have knowledge of additional resources in the project area. Contact was made with each of the Native Americans listed by the NAHC and their in-put taken into account.



Records Search

A records search was conducted through the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC), located at California State University, Bakersfield. The records search included a ½ mile radius surrounding the project site. The records search identified recorded archaeological sites and historic resources, cultural resource studies/reports, and included a review of the Historic Properties Data File (HPDF) which includes the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest. See Appendix D for the records search letter.

The records search determined that there is one cultural resource recorded within the project boundaries. This resource is a prehistoric archaeological site, CA-KER-3072 (Primary Number 15-003072). This site was recorded in 1991 by Dicken Everson of CSU, Bakersfield as part of the Highway 58 archaeological survey (see discussion below). Site CA-KER-3072 is recorded as a very sparse lithic scatter. There are 12 additional cultural resources located outside of the project site, but within the ½ mile radius. Each of these resources is from the historic period, and consists of the Calloway Canal, a historic glass scatter, a historic debris scatter, a pole barn, a caboose, 6 oil well pump units, and a commercial parcel with 3 historic buildings.

The property has been the subject of two prior studies that covered portions of the current project site. The first is an archaeological survey report for the proposed Highway 58 prepared by Robert Parr and Richard Osborne of CSU, Bakersfield (1992). The corridor-type survey included 89.6 miles and 6,288 acres between Interstate 5 and Highway 99 west of Bakersfield. In total, 40 archaeological sites (33 prehistoric and seven historical) and 15 isolated finds were recorded throughout the Highway 58 project. The Parr and Osborne study included the southern ⅓ and northern tip of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery property and is responsible for recording CAKER-3072 discussed above. The other study is a cultural resources survey for the Level (3) Fiber Optic Project prepared by Wendy Nelson of Far Western Anthropological Research Group in 2000. This survey followed the BNSF right-of-way which bisects the Alon Bakersfield Refinery property. It did not record any cultural resources within the project site. According to the records search approximately ½ of the project site had not previously been surveyed for cultural resources. The records search was completed on November 27, 2012 and is attached to this EIR as part of Appendix D.

Native American Coordination

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted to search the Sacred Lands File and provide a list of Native Americans to contact for the project. Letters were sent to the Tribes via U.S. Postal Service Certified Mail. Follow-up phone calls and e-mails were conducted to obtain a response from Native Americans. See Appendix D for details and any correspondence.

In a letter dated February 15, 2013, the NAHC stated that there are no Native American cultural resources listed in the Sacred Lands File within or near the project. The NAHC recommended that DUKE CRM contact seven Native American groups/individuals. DUKE CRM contacted seven Native American groups/individuals in February 2013 by certified U.S. Mail. The Santa Rosa Tachi Rancheria responded and recommended a survey be conducted by a Native American group and recommended that DUKE CRM contact Kathy Morgan of the Tejon Indian Tribe. In March DUKE CRM sent follow-up emails and called all groups that had not responded. Mr. Robinson of the Kawaiisu Tribe called DUKE CRM and stated that there are three human graves on the property.



He said he observed electronic images of them sometime in the 1980s on remote sensing equipment. Mr. Robinson said he was on the property doing remote sensing with the Great Basin Foundation (Emma Lou Davis). DUKE CRM arranged a site visit with Mr. Robinson and he took DUKE CRM right to the spot that he recalls the graves being located. This area is outside of the proposed project boundary by approximately 200 feet. There is no report regarding remote sensing and the graves on file at the project site, nor at the SSJVIC. Mr. Robinson has not been able to provide a report, nor any reference to a report on any such remote sensing or locations of potential graves. The area that Mr. Robinson recalls as the location of graves has been developed in its current state since the early 1950s. Ms. Morgan sent a letter requesting that a Native American monitor be allowed to monitor construction for the project. See Appendix D for additional details and correspondence.

Field Survey

On February 11 and May 10, 2013 an intensive level pedestrian survey was conducted by archaeologist Curt Duke for archaeological and built environment historic resources. The survey was conducted only for portions of the project site that are included in the proposed project. These areas are depicted on Maps 2 and 3, Appendix D. Map 2 shows the new track construction area (in orange) that was surveyed and Map 3 shows the grading and laydown areas which were surveyed.

For the archaeological survey, attention was given to areas of exposed soils and rodent burrows. Survey transects were 10 meters. Ground visibility was good in the southern portions of the project, approximately 90 percent. However, in the northern portions of the project site near areas of potential site disturbance activities, asphalt, concrete, buildings, and structures obscured ground visibility. The project location is largely disturbed from prior construction and maintenance of the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery. An isolated quartz flake was observed in the southern portions of the project (Iso-1). In addition, a historic refuse scatter was observed in the southern portion of the project (His-1). This site is approximately 100 feet by 200 feet. It consists of historic and modern refuse, including glass bottle fragment, tiles, window plane glass, stone marbles, and undiagnostic metal (i.e., origin or form is unidentifiable). Most of the material that could be dated has manufacturing ranges of 1925-1970s. Despite intense efforts, no evidence of archaeological site KER-3072 was observed during the field survey.

Built Environment

An intensive survey for built environment historic resources was completed by Brent Johnson, architectural historian/historian, on February 11, 2013. The survey focused on recordation and evaluation of buildings and structures that are 45 years old and older. Additional information was documented for the purposes of discussing the surrounding setting. There are a total of 13 buildings that will be impacted by the double rail loop south of the BNSF railroad; nine are modern or less than 45 years old and four buildings are 45 years and older. These four buildings were recorded and evaluated.

The four buildings were evaluated using the National Register criteria for evaluation of historic buildings and found to be ineligible for the California Register or the National Register and were identified with an Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Status Code of 6Z: Found ineligible for the National and California Registers or local designation through survey evaluation. See the site record forms included in Appendix D.



Analysis Methodology

Section 21083.2(g) of CEQA further defines “unique archaeological resource” for purposes of determination as to whether a project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources. As used in this section “unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;

• Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available of its type; or

• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

CEQA does not define a unique paleontological resource but for purposes of this EIR, a paleontological resource or site is considered “unique” where it meets any of the following criteria:

• It provides information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among organisms, living or extinct;

• It provides data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events therein;

• It provides data regarding the development of biological communities or interaction between plant and animal communities;

• It demonstrates unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life; or

• The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations.

According to CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, 15064.5, a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (CCR Title 14, 15064.5(b)). The guidelines further state that a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historic resource would be materially impaired. Actions that would materially impair the significance of a historical resource are any actions that would demolish or adversely alter those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and qualify it for inclusion in the CRHR or in a local register or survey that meet the requirements of PRC Sections 5020.1(k) and 5024.1(g).


The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and Kern County Environmental Checklist state that a project would normally be considered to have a significant impact if it would:

• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;



• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;

• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or

• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Project Impacts

Impact 4.3-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource as Defined in CEQA Guideline 15064.5

An intensive survey was completed for the built environment historic resources (see Appendix D). The survey focused on buildings and structures that are 45 years or older. A total of 13 buildings could potentially be impacted by the construction of the proposed rail line; nine of the buildings are less than 45 years old and four buildings are 45 years or older. The four buildings are all associated with the operation of the Alon Refinery and included a warehouse, a maintenance building, a former training/fire house building, and a laboratory building. The four buildings were evaluated using the National Register criteria for evaluation of historic buildings and found to be ineligible for the California Register or the National Register and were identified with an Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Status Code of 6Z: Found ineligible for the National and California Registers or local designation through survey evaluation.

These four buildings are not considered to be “unique archaeological resources” (as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15064.5) as they are not eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or any local register of historical resources. Further the buildings are not: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; (2) associated with the lives of person important in our past; structures with distinctive characteristics of a type, period, regional or method of construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values; or (4) yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in history. See Appendix D for details on the site survey, including site record forms and photographs. A brief description of the evaluation for each building is provided below.

The Green Warehouse

The “Green Warehouse” is bounded by processing units to the south and west, business offices to the north, and a service road and railroad to the east within the northeast quadrant of Section 2-1. The 4,800 square foot, one-story building has a rectangular plan and consists of corrugated transite panels that are riveted together. The roof is medium-pitch front gable with slightly overhanging eaves on the lateral sides of the building and fascia boards with splayed ends on the gabled sides. The roof has semicircular ridge coping and a series of three centrifugal exhaust ventilation units mounted along the roof ridge. The lateral sides of the building (north and south elevations) have two sliding bay doors on either side. The gabled ends of the building have steel roll-up bay doors that have replaced the original sliders. The fenestration consists of wood frame, center-hung sash windows with multi-pane fixed glazing units above and below. The exterior façade is illuminated with saucer sconces supported by triangle brackets and single pole pendant sconces. The southeast corner of the building has a small steel shed roof extension supported by metal columns that covers an equipment enclosure



There are several historic refineries from the early age of oil development in California that have been recognized as making a significant contribution to the history of the state, including the California Star Oil Works (1875) in Newhall’s Oil District, and the Buena Vista Refinery in McKittrick (1864), which were still‐type refineries that made kerosene for illumination. The discovery of the Kern River Field near Bakersfield in 1899 resulted in the startup of several new refineries that were designed specifically for refining gasoline for cars. The Mohawk Refinery, begun in 1932 and sold to Reserve Oil & Gas Company in 1975, is the largest such refinery in Bakersfield. While minor alterations have been made to the Warehouse building, such as the new rollup bay doors, the building has retained sufficient integrity that it continues to convey its original use. The building is also associated with the local and regional development of commercial oil refining in Bakersfield and San Joaquin Valley; however, this building does not play a significant role in that history (NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1). The building is not associated with any people significant in local or regional history (NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2). Although the building is identifiable as an industrial building of 1940s vintage it cannot be said to embody a distinctive type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values (NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3). Transite structures of this type provided mass produced, inexpensive, quickly assembled, and temporary solutions to the problems of industrial warehousing. The building is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under any of the applicable criteria.

Laboratory Building (Summit Building)

The Laboratory Building is located in the northeast quadrant of Section 2‐1 and is bounded by the PEI Building to the east, a paved parking lot and undeveloped land to the north, paved parking and service road access to the south, and the RCM/Nurse/Vallen building to the west. The 1,178 square foot, one‐story building has a rectangular plan and consists of reinforced masonry and concrete construction. The primary façade on the north elevation is asymmetrically composed. The roof is flat with composite asphalt covering and has a raised parapet and a cornice that consists of a masonry soldier course and metal coping along the roof ledge. The exterior cladding consists of manufactured brick laid in a common bond pattern with flush mortar joints and there is a raised plinth course along the base of the building, as well as corner cantons. In addition, there is a middle stringcourse located above the window lintels, and above that is a stepback wall with louvered attic vents on the north and south elevations. There are five entrances to the building, two on the west, two on the east, and one on the north elevation, with concrete stoops and alternate solid core flush doors and hollow metal doors with vision lights. The window sections feature masonry drip sills with a row of headers facing outward. The fenestration consists of wood frame casement windows that appear to be original. The windows along the south elevation facing the processing units are protected with a solar screen diffuser of expanded metal supported by slender post columns. One of the windows on the east elevation has been replaced with a louvered vent. Outdoor illumination is provided by pendant sconces mounted on the stringcourse band. Downspouts on the northwest and northeast corner of the building drain water from the roof onto an uncontained masonry splash block. Additional features include metal bike racks on the east elevation.

There are several historic refineries from the early age of oil development in California that have been recognized as making a significant contribution to the history of the state, including the California Star Oil Works (1875) in Newhall’s Oil District, and the Buena Vista Refinery in McKittrick (1864), which were still‐type refineries that made kerosene for illumination. The discovery of the Kern River Field near Bakersfield in 1899 resulted in the startup of several new refineries that were designed specifically for refining gasoline for cars. The Mohawk Refinery,



begun in 1932 and sold to Reserve Oil & Gas Company in 1975, is the largest such refinery in Bakersfield. While minor alterations have been made to the building, such as the replacement of a window section, the building has retained sufficient integrity that it continues to convey its original use. Although the building was renovated in 1964, it appears to have retained sufficient integrity that it continues to convey its original use. The building is also associated with the local and regional development of commercial oil refining in Bakersfield and San Joaquin Valley; however, this building does not play a significant role in that history (NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1). The building is not associated with any people significant in local or regional history (NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2). Although the building is identifiable as an industrial building of 1940s vintage it cannot be said to embody a distinctive type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values (NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3). The building is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under any of the applicable criteria.

Maintenance I&T Planning Department (PEI Building)

The PEI Building is located in the northeast quadrant of Section 2‐1 and is bounded by a parking lot to the south, a laboratory building to the west, a parking lot and training building to the north, and a service road and railroad to the east. The 5,600 square foot, one‐story building has a rectangular plan and consists of reinforced masonry and concrete construction. The primary façade on the south elevation is symmetrically composed, and the horizontal massing is interrupted by a large rectangular central portal that projects beyond the level of the parapet and contains a glass door with muntin bar and sidelights. The roof is flat with composite asphalt covering and has a raised parapet with metal coping along the roof ledge and a cornice that consists of a masonry soldier course. The attic is cooled with external roof vent turbines. The exterior cladding consists of manufactured brick laid in a common bond pattern with flush mortar joints and there is a raised plinth course along the base of the building. The north elevation has a cantilevered visor roof with a closed soffit and a fascia board with plowed grooves on the leading edge. The recessed window sections feature masonry drip sills with a row of headers facing outward. The fenestration consists of aluminum casement windows with fixed glazing units and hinged awning windows. The windows along the south elevation facing the processing units are protected with a solar screen diffuser of expanded metal supported by slender post columns. Additional features include a planter box on the south elevation.

There are several historic refineries from the early age of oil development in California that have been recognized as making a significant contribution to the history of the state, including the California Star Oil Works (1875) in Newhall’s Oil District, and the Buena Vista Refinery in McKittrick (1864), which were still‐type refineries that made kerosene for illumination. The discovery of the Kern River Field near Bakersfield in 1899 resulted in the startup of several new refineries that were designed specifically for refining gasoline for cars. The Mohawk Refinery, begun in 1932 and sold to Reserve Oil & Gas Company in 1975, is the largest such refinery in Bakersfield. Although the building was renovated in 1964, it appears to have retained sufficient integrity that it continues to convey its original use. The building is also associated with the local and regional development of commercial oil refining in Bakersfield and San Joaquin Valley; however, this building does not play a significant role in that history (NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1). The building is not associated with any people significant in local or regional history (NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2). Although the building is identifiable as an industrial building of 1940s vintage it cannot be said to embody a distinctive type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent



the work of a master or possess high artistic values (NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3). The building is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under any of the applicable criteria.

Training Building/Old Fire House

The Training Building is located in the northeast quadrant of Section 2‐1 and is bounded by the PEI Building to the south, a paved parking lot and access road to the west, undeveloped land and pipelines to the north, and a service road and railroad to the east. The 936 square foot, one‐story building has a rectangular plan and consists of reinforced masonry and concrete construction. The primary façade on the east elevation is symmetrically composed. The roof is flat with composite asphalt covering and has a raised parapet and a cornice that consists of a masonry soldier course. The exterior cladding consists of manufactured brick laid in a common bond pattern with flush mortar joints and there is a raised plinth course along the base of the building. In addition, there is a middle stringcourse located above the bay doors and window transoms, and above that is a stepback wall. The bay doors on the east elevation are wood panel doors and the bay doors on the west elevation are metal panel doors with vertical standing seams. The pilasters on the east and west elevations have mid‐height corner braces. There is a porch roof with simple wood support columns on the northeast corner of the building that covers a small generator mounted on a concrete slab. An additional metal canopy structure was added recently to the west elevation to demarcate an outdoor smoking area. The recessed window sections feature masonry drip sills with a row of headers facing outward. The fenestration consists of fixed windows with metal frames. Outdoor illumination is provided by a single pole pendant sconce on the west and east elevation.

There are several historic refineries from the early age of oil development in California that have been recognized as making a significant contribution to the history of the state, including the California Star Oil Works (1875) in Newhall’s Oil District, and the Buena Vista Refinery in McKittrick (1864), which were still‐type refineries that made kerosene for illumination. The discovery of the Kern River Field near Bakersfield in 1899 resulted in the startup of several new refineries that were designed specifically for refining gasoline for cars. The Mohawk Refinery, begun in 1932 and sold to Reserve Oil & Gas Company in 1975, is the largest such refinery in Bakersfield. While minor alterations have been made to the building, such as new bay doors, the building has retained sufficient integrity that it continues to convey its original use. Although the building was renovated in 1964, it appears to have retained sufficient integrity that it continues to convey its original use. The building is also associated with the local and regional development of commercial oil refining in Bakersfield and San Joaquin Valley; however, this building does not play a significant role in that history (NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1). The building is not associated with any people significant in local or regional history (NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2). Although the building is identifiable as an industrial building of 1940s vintage it cannot be said to embody a distinctive type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values (NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3). The building is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under any of the applicable criteria.

The results of the research, consultation, field survey, and building evaluations have determined that none of the four historic buildings are historically significant and none are eligible for the National and/or California Registers. Therefore they are not considered historical resources under CEQA (Sections 21084.1 and 15064.5a).





Impact 4.3-2: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15064.5

A record search was conducted through the SSJVIC at California State University, Bakersfield. The records search included a ½ mile radius surrounding the project site. The records search identified recorded archaeological sites and applicable reports. The records search determined that there is one cultural resource recorded within the project boundaries that consists of a very sparse lithic scatter (identified as KER-3072). No evidence of the archeological site was observed during the pedestrian field survey, indicating that the site has been disturbed, removed, or covered by either natural processes (e.g., erosion or deposition) or during regular maintenance operations at the Refinery.

A pedestrian archaeological field survey of the proposed project site was completed in February and May 2013 by an archaeologist. An isolated quartz flake was observed in the southern portions of the project site. In addition, a historic refuse (trash) scatter was observed in the southern portion of the project site consisting of glass bottle fragments, tiles, window pane glass, stone marbles, and metal. Most of the material that could be dated has manufacturing ranges of 1925 – 1970. The historic refuse scatter and the isolated prehistoric flake have limited data potential and have been disturbed. None of these archaeological resources are considered unique archaeological resources as defined in CEQA (§21083.2(g), 21084.1 and 15064.5).

However, there is a possibility that ground disturbance associated with the project could impact buried and unknown portions of previously identified archaeological site KER-3072, as well as the locations of the historic refuse and prehistoric flake sites His-1 and Iso-1, and that new discoveries could be made during construction activities. The presence of these archaeological resources along the banks of the Kern River indicates a moderate to high sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological resources. Further, the result of consultation with Native American groups indicates that the area is of high sensitivity. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed project on archaeological resources are potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.3-1 The project proponent shall provide for a qualified archeologist to monitor earthmoving activities outside of the existing developed portions of the Refinery (i.e., along the southern portion of the Refinery along the proposed railroad tracks). The archaeologist shall be authorized to temporarily halt construction, if necessary, in the immediate area of buried cultural resources that are encountered. The monitor shall maintain a daily monitoring log which describes monitoring activities and results. This report shall be submitted within 90 days of completion of the archaeological monitoring to Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, the project proponent, and the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield

MM 4.3-2 Unanticipated Discovery Protocol 1. If the qualified archeologist discovers evidence of unique archeological

resources, as defined in Public Resources Code §21083.2(g),(during excavation, all work within 60 feet of the discovery site shall stop until a



qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. 2. Notification requirements for unique archaeological resources include the

immediate notification by the proposed proponent to a qualified archaeologist and to the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department

3. For unique archaeological resources, consultation with the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department; the qualified archaeologist; Native American representatives (if appropriate); the project proponent; and other appropriate agencies; to develop appropriate measures for the discovered resource in consultation with appropriate agencies and work will not resume until permission is received from Kern County. The appropriate measures to handle the unique archaeological resources shall be guided by the requirements of PRC §21083.2 which can include preserving the resources in place or excavation.

4. Per Public Resources Code §21083.2(g) non-unique archaeological resources shall be recorded at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield.

MM 4.3-3 Curation Requirements Archaeological collections, final reports, field notes, and other standard documentation collected during project implementation shall be permanently curated at a facility in the County that meets Guidelines for the Curation of Archeological Collections (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1993).

MM 4.3-4 Standards for Discovery of Human Remains If human remains are discovered, work in the immediate vicinity shall stop until the Kern County coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If they are those of a Native American, the following would apply: 1. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission. 2. If released by the coroner, these remains shall be left in situ and covered by

fabric or other temporary barriers. 3. The human remains shall be protected until Kern County and the Native

American Heritage Commission come to a decision on the final disposition of the remains.

According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052).

MM 4.3-5 All cultural resource investigations shall be documented in high quality technical reports that meet professional standards (e.g., California Office of Historic Preservation’s Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Contents and Format, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines). Reports shall be made available to professional archaeologists and (without confidential site location information) to the interested public.



Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant

Impact 4.3-3: Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature

As discussed in Impact 4.3-2 above, a record search was conducted through the SSJVIC at California State University, Bakersfield. The records search included a ½ mile radius surrounding the project site. The records search determined that there is one cultural resource recorded within the project boundaries but no paleontological records exist for the proposed project site. No paleontological resources were identified during field surveys.

A pedestrian archaeological field survey of the proposed project site was completed in February and May 2013 by a qualified archaeologist. No paleontological resources or unique geologic features were identified at the project site. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed project on paleontological resources are considered to be less than significant.



Impact 4.3-4: Disturb any Human Remains, Including those Interred outside of Formal Cemeteries

One of the Native American groups/individuals contacted as part of the cultural resources investigation, Mr. Robinson of the Kawaiisu Tribe, stated that there are three human graves on the property. He said he observed electronic images of them sometime in the 1980s on remote sensing equipment. Mr. Robinson said he was on the property doing remote sensing with the Great Basin Foundation (Emma Lou Davis). DUKE CRM arranged a site visit with Mr. Robinson and he took DUKE CRM right to the spot that he recalls the graves being located. This area is outside of the proposed project boundary by approximately 200 feet. The area that Mr. Robinson recalls as the location of graves has been developed in its current state since the early 1950s, therefore, the information provided by Mr. Robinson may not be accurate due to the passage of time and its effect on memory. See Appendix D for additional details and correspondence. Nonetheless, the location identified by Mr. Robinson is outside of the proposed project site and would not be disturbed as part of the proposed project. Buried human remains that were not identified during field surveys could be inadvertently unearthed during excavation activities, which could result in damage to these human remains. However, MM 4.3-4 contains procedures for recording and treating any human remains that are discovered during construction and implementation of the project. The Mitigation Measure requires that these items be protected, preserved and treated in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and guidelines.

Mitigation Measures Implement MM 4.3-4.




Cumulative Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Cumulative Setting The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to cultural and paleontological resources includes a six-mile radius from the project site. Analysis of cumulative impacts takes into consideration the entirety of impacts that the projects, zone changes, and general plan amendments discussed in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, would have on cultural resources. This geographic scope of analysis is appropriate because the archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources within this radius are expected to be similar to those in the project site because of their proximity; similar environments, landforms, and hydrology would result in similar land-use—and thus, site types. Similar geology within this vicinity would likely yield fossils of similar sensitivity and quantity.

Impact 4.3-5: Contribute to Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts

No other reasonably foreseeable heavy industrial projects besides the Independent Refining Projects presented in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, of this DEIR, are proposed in Bakersfield at this time. However, there are other light industrial, residential, and commercial projects that are reasonably foreseeable in the Bakersfield metropolitan area. None of these projects are located within the vicinity of the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery and the proposed project. While the potential exists for these and other projects to encounter cultural resources during their construction, each project would be required to avoid such resources or conduct evaluations and excavation to recover those resources. Hence, the cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Implement MM 4.3-1- MM 4.3-5


Section 4.4 Geology and Soils


Section 4.4 Geology and Soils

4.4.1 Introduction This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses issues involving geological resources resulting from the Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project (project). The environmental setting provides information on geological resources in the vicinity of the project site. The impacts evaluation focuses on the potential effects of the project and Alternatives, including cumulative geologic impacts, and identifies potential mitigation measures. A complete description of the proposed project can be found in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR. The Geologic Hazards Study, Flying J Refinery – Clean Fuels Project, dated October 2005 prepared by Soils Engineering, Inc. was used to characterize geologic hazards at or near the site and is presented in Appendix E and information from the document is incorporated herein.


Geologic Setting

The project is located on the gentle lower slopes of the Kern River alluvial fan. The project site is at an elevation of about 390 feet above mean sea level (msl). The project is located just north of the Kern River.

The Kern River originates in the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east. Its flow is controlled by Isabella Dam and Reservoir at the head of Kern Canyon, 34 miles east of the project site, at an elevation of about 2,600 feet msl. Before the 1950s, much of the Bakersfield area consisted of swamp-land created by annual floods from the river. Control of the river by Isabella Dam allowed the swamps to be drained for development.

Most of the water previously carried by the river through the project site has been diverted into canals for irrigation. The project site is located on the eastern side of the southern San Joaquin Valley and is very flat. The valley overlies a deep, depositional basin bounded by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, the Transverse Ranges to the south, and the Coast Ranges to the west. At the latitude of Bakersfield, the San Joaquin Valley is approximately 50 miles wide. The most notable structural feature in this Coastal Range is the San Andreas Fault. This master fault extends southward from Humboldt County in Northern California to the Salton Sea near the Mexican border, a distance of about 650 miles (Kern County, 2004).

Sediments from the surrounding uplifted mountains have been filling the basin for at least the past 10 million years. Older deposits of the valley fill have been altered to sedimentary rocks that are exposed in hills at the margins of the valley. These older rocks have been faulted and folded deep beneath the valley floor, providing traps for petroleum that is produced in numerous oil fields in the Bakersfield vicinity.

The upper portion of the sedimentary column beneath the project area is part of the Kern River alluvial fan. The fan deposits consist of layers and lenses of sand, gravel, silt, and clay sediments that were eroded from rocks in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and deposited by distributary channels of the meandering river. These alluvial deposits are slightly weathered and generally unconsolidated.

County of Kern 4.4 Geology and Soils


In addition to petroleum production from deep reservoirs in the project area, mineral resources include minor sand and gravel deposits. No aspect of the project is likely to affect the continued production of petroleum or other mineral resources, because the project site is already developed, and no sand or gravel excavation occurs at the site.

Seismic Conditions

Southern California is a seismically active area. The project site has experienced strong seismic shaking in the past and regional faults are capable of earthquakes producing strong ground shaking over the life of the project. Table 4.4-1 lists historic earthquakes that are known or are thought to have been centered within 50 miles of the project site. These earthquakes occurred as a result of the release of stress built up along primarily preexisting faults due to the movement of large, tectonic crustal plates.

Table 4.4.1 – Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 5.5 of Greater within 50 Miles of the Proposed Project

Date Location Magnitude Approximate Distance from Project Site (mile)

1/9/1857 Northwest of Fort Tejon 7.9 26 7/21/1952 Kern County 7.5 41 8/22/1952 Bakersfield* 5.8 9.5

Source: SCEC, 2013 and 2013(a) Note: * One of the several aftershocks to the Kern County Earthquake measuring over 5.5 magnitude.

Known faults within the Bakersfield area include but are not limited to: the San Andreas; Garlock; Pleito; and White Wolf. Major active fault zones that may have a significant effect on the project site, should they experience activity, are listed in Table 4.4-2, along with the distance and maximum credible earthquake magnitude predicted for each of these faults. The locations of these faults are shown in Figure 4.4-1.

San Andreas Fault: The San Andreas Fault, which runs northwesterly through an area about 35 miles southwest of the project site, is considered to be the boundary between the North American crustal plate and the Pacific crustal plate. The San Andreas Fault runs from the Gulf of California to a point offshore from the California coast south of Eureka, a total of about 746 miles. The San Andreas and a number of other northwest-striking, right lateral strike-slip faults to the west of the main fault account for continuing northward movement of the Pacific plate relative to the North American plate. The rate of movement has historically been about 20 – 35 millimeters per year (SCEC, 2013).

In 1857, a large earthquake originated on the San Andreas Fault. The estimated magnitude 7.9 event was named the Fort Tejon for an area about 45 miles south of Bakersfield where the most damage was reported from strong shaking. As a result of the 1857 earthquake, the San Andreas fault was ruptured for a distance of 200 miles or more (Kern County, 2007). At that time, the Bakersfield area itself was very sparsely developed.



Table 4.4-2. Selected Regional Seismic Faults Capable of Producing Strong Ground Motion in Project Area1

Fault/Segment Name

Fault Type2

Nearest Distance (miles)

Assumed Length (miles)

Assumed Slip Rate

(mm/yr)

Estimated Maximum Magnitude

San Andreas RL 35 746 20-35 8.0

Garlock (Lebec) LL 37.7 155 7.0 7.6

Garlock (Mojave) LL 60 155 7.0 7.6

Pleito Thrust 25.2 28 1.4 7.3

White Wolf LL 18.0 37 3.0 7.5 1Source: SCEC, 2013; SCEC 2014a; SCE 2014b; and SCEC 2014c. 2Style of Faulting: RL = Right Lateral; LL = Left Lateral; Rev = Reverse; N = Normal.

Garlock Fault: The Garlock Fault marks the northern boundary of the Mojave Block as well as the southern ends of the Sierra Nevada and the valleys of the westernmost Basin and Range province. The Garlock Fault, approximately 37.7 miles at the closest point south southeast from the project site, is a left-lateral strike-slip fault running at a right angle to the San Andreas Fault. The Garlock Fault is considered to be capable of producing a magnitude 7.6 earthquake (SCEC, 2014a)

Pleito Fault: The Pleito Fault is approximately 25.2 miles from the project site and is a thrust fault. The thrust fault is at the base of the foothills of the Tehachapi Mountains. On the Pleito Fault, the foothills of the Tehachapi Mountains have been moved upward and southward over the recent alluvial sediments. The Pleito thrust is considered capable of producing a magnitude 7.3 earthquake (SCEC, 2014b).

White Wolf Fault: The White Wolf Fault is a southeast dipping left lateral reverse fault approximately 37 miles long and trends northeasterly across the southernmost portion of the San Joaquin Valley. The White Wolf Fault is located about 18 miles from the proposed project site. In 1952, the White Wolf fault ruptured, producing an earthquake of magnitude 7.5 and subsequently an extensive sequence of aftershocks (SCEC, 2014c). Most of the aftershocks of the Bakersfield earthquake were in the initial epicentral region, about 25 miles southwest of Bakersfield. However, some were located east of the mapped portion of the White Wolf Fault near the trends of the Breckenridge and Kern Canyon Faults, about 20 miles east of town, suggesting a tectonic relationship. Other aftershocks occurred in the vicinity of the Mount Poso, Poso Creek, and Kern Gorge faults, which are nearer to the project site, about 12 miles to the northeast.

Two other faults have been mapped near the project site. These are the Kern Front and the Premier/Newhope Faults, about 6 and 7 miles from the proposed project site, respectively (see Figure 4.4-1). Although these faults have exhibited recent movement, no seismicity has been associated with either. Instead, movement on these faults has been attributed to creep due to differential subsidence caused by withdrawal from deep oil-producing horizons.

The project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo special study zone.



The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Code (CBC). The entire County is in Seismic Zone 4, a designation previously used in the previous Uniform Building Code to denote the areas of highest risk to earthquake ground motion. The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the CBC. Previous studies completed for the Refinery site confirm that the Refinery is in Seismic Zone 4 (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2006).

Potential Geologic Hazards

Potential geologic hazards that could occur on the project site include the following:

• Ground Shaking – Movement caused by an abrupt shift along a fracture in the earth, called a fault.

• Ground Failure

• Liquefaction – The loss of strength of saturated soil due to ground shaking, typically from an earthquake

• Earthquake Induced Flooding

• Lateral Spreading – The horizontal movement of surficial soils due to liquefaction of soil at depth

• Slope Stability – The susceptibility of a slope to erosion and slides

• Differential Compaction – Potentially damaging soil settlement other than liquefaction due to seismic shaking

• Expansive Soil – Soil containing clay minerals that increase in volume when wet and decrease when dry

• Corrosion – The degradation of buried metallic structures such as pipelines due to electrical currents in the ground.

4.4.3 Regulatory Setting Geologic resources and geotechnical hazards are governed primarily by local jurisdictions. The conservation elements and seismic safety elements of city and county general plans contain policies for the protection of geologic features and avoidance of hazards.

Federal

Uniform Building Code Development standards would require the proposed project to comply with the seismic design criteria found in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). In addition, an adequate design for drainage facilities and preconstruction soil and grading studies would be required. Although seismic design standards have been established to reduce many of the structural problems that occur during major earthquakes, the UBC was revised in 1998 as follows:

• Upgrade the level of ground motion used in the seismic design of buildings;

• Add site amplification factors based on local soil conditions; and

• Improve the way ground motion is applied in detailed design.



Clean Water Act (CWA) The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), formally the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and certain non-point source discharges to surface water. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). Projects that disturb one or more acre of land are required to obtain NPDES coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (General Permit),State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. The General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect storm water runoff.

Requirements of the Federal CWA and associated SWPPP requirements are described in further detail in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality.

State

California Building Code (CBC 2010) The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC is based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which is used widely throughout the United States (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by-district basis), and has been modified for conditions within California. In 2010, a revised version of the CBC took effect. In accordance with the CBC, a grading permit is required if more than 50 cubic yards of soil is moved during implementation of a project. Chapter 16 of the CBC contains definitions of seismic sources and the procedure used to calculate seismic forces on structures.

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act of 1994

The criteria most commonly used to estimate fault activity in California are described in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act, which addresses only surface fault-rupture hazards. These legislative guidelines determine fault activity status and are based on the age of the youngest geologic unit offset by the fault. As previously discussed, an active fault is described by the California Geological Survey as a fault that has “had surface displacement within Holocene time.” A potentially active fault is defined as “any fault that showed evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time (within the last 1.6 million years).” This legislation prohibits the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on active and potentially active surface faults. However, only those potentially active faults that have a relatively high potential for ground rupture are identified as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Therefore, not all active or potentially active faults are zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act, as designated by the State of California.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (the Act) of 1990 In accordance with Public Resources Code, Chapter 7.8, Division 2, the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology [now the California Geological Survey (CGS)] is directed to delineate Seismic Hazard Zones through the Seismic Hazards Zonation Program. The



purpose of the Act is to reduce the threat to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards, such as those associated with strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, other ground failures, or other hazards caused by earthquakes. Cities, counties, and State agencies are directed to use seismic hazard zone maps developed by CGS in their land-use planning and permitting processes. In accordance with the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, site-specific geotechnical investigations must be performed prior to permitting most urban development projects within seismic hazard zones.

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) was enacted to promote conservation of the State’s mineral resources and to ensure adequate reclamation of lands once those lands have been mined. Among other provisions, SMARA requires the State Geologist to classify land in California for mineral resource potential. The State Geologist submits the mineral land classification report to the State Mining and Geology Board, which transmits the information to appropriate local governments that maintain jurisdictional authority in mining, reclamation, and related land use activities.

Local governments are required to incorporate the State Mining and Geology Board report and maps into their general plans and consider the information when making land use decisions. In accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, Section 2762, before permitting a use in an MRZ-3 area that would threaten the potential to extract minerals in that area, the lead agency must first require the significance of the minerals to be evaluated. The lead agency’s report must be forwarded to the State Geologist.

Local Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The MBGP Conservation and Public Services and Utilities Elements (County of Kern and City of Bakersfield 2007) include the following relevant goal and policies related to hydrology and water quality:

Chapter VIII. Safety Element

Seismic Goals and Policies

Goals:

• Goal 1: Substantially reduce the level of death, injury, property damage, economic and social dislocation and disruption of vital services that would result from earthquake damage.

• Goal 3: Prepare the planning area for effective response to, and rapid, beneficial recovery from, an earthquake.

• Goal 5: Protect essential lifelines and prevent casualties and major social and economic disruption due to liquefaction in an earthquake.

• Goal 7: Protect land uses from the risk of dam failure inundation including the assurances that: the functional capabilities of essential facilities are available in the event of a flood; hazardous materials* are not released; effective measures for mitigation of dam failure inundation are incorporated into the design of critical facilities; and the rapid and orderly evacuation of populations in the inundation area will occur.



Fault Rupture Policies:

• Policy 10: Prohibit development designed for human occupancy within 50 feet of a known active fault and prohibit any building from being placed astride an active fault.

• Policy 11: Require site-specific studies to locate and characterize specific fault traces within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for all construction designed for human occupancy.

Liquefaction Policies:

• Policy 13: Determine the liquefaction potential at sites in areas of high groundwater prior to development and determine specific mitigation to be incorporated into the foundation design, as necessary to prevent or reduce damage from liquefaction in an earthquake.

Information Policies:

• Policy 15: Compile information on areas of potential hazards and field information developed as part of CEQA investigations and geologic reports and keep geologic reviews and policy development current and accessible for use in report preparation.

• Policy 17: Require known geologic and seismic hazards within the area of a proposed subdivision to be referenced on the final subdivision map.

Dam Failure Inundation Risk:

• Policy 19: Design discretionary facilities in the potential dam inundation area used for the manufacture, storage or use of hazardous materials to prevent on-site hazards from affecting surrounding communities in the event of inundation.

• Policy 20: Require emergency response plans for the Planning area to include specific procedures for the sequential and orderly evacuation of the potential dam inundation area.

Implementation:

• Implementation Measure 3: Require structures that are within the plan area and are subject to Building Department review to adhere to the most current seismic standards adopted as part of the Uniform Building Code.

Kern County Code of Building Regulations – Title 17 All construction in Kern County is required to conform to the Kern County Building Code (Chapter 17.08, Building Code, of the Kern County Code of Regulations). Kern County has adopted the CBC, 2010 Edition, with some modifications and amendments. The entire County is in Seismic Zone 4, a designation previously used in the UBC to denote the areas of highest risk to earthquake ground motion. California has established an Unreinforced Masonry program that details seismic safety requirements for Zone 4. Seismic provisions associated with Seismic Zone 4 have been adopted.

Chapter 17.28 of Kern County Grading Code The purpose of the Kern County Grading Code is to safeguard life, limb, property, and the public welfare by regulating grading on private property. All requirements of the Kern County Grading Code will be applied during implementation of the project. All required grading permit(s) shall be obtained prior to commencement of construction activities. Sections of the Grading Code that are particularly relevant to geology and soils are provided below.



Section 17.28.140 Erosion Control A. Slopes. The faces of cut and fill slopes shall be prepared and maintained to control against

erosion. This control may consist of effective planting. The protection for the slopes shall be installed as soon as practicable and prior to calling for final approval. Where cut slopes are not subject to erosion due to the erosion-resistant character of the materials, such protection may be omitted.

B. Other Devices. Where necessary, check dams, cribbing, riprap or other devices or methods shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety.

C. Temporary Devices. Temporary drainage and erosion control shall be provided as needed at the end of each work day during grading operations, such that existing drainage channels would not be blocked. Dust control shall be applied to all graded areas and materials and shall consist of applying water or another approved dust palliative for the alleviation or prevention of dust nuisance. Deposition of rocks, earth materials or debris onto adjacent property, public roads or drainage channels shall not be allowed.

Section 17.28.170 Grading Inspection A. General. All grading operations for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection

by the building official. Professional inspection of grading operations and testing shall be provided by the civil engineer, soils engineer and the engineering geologist retained to provide such services in accordance with Subsection 17.28.170(E) for engineered grading and as required by the building official for regular grading.

B. Civil Engineer. The civil engineer shall provide professional inspection within such engineer’s area of technical specialty, which shall consist of observation and review as to the establishment of line, grade and surface drainage of the development area. If revised plans are required during the course of the work they shall be prepared by the civil engineer.

C. Soils Engineer. The soils engineer shall provide professional inspection within such engineer’s area of technical specialty, which shall include observation during grading and testing for required compaction. The soils engineer shall provide sufficient observation during the preparation of the natural ground and placement and compaction of the fill to verify that such work is being performed in accordance with the conditions of the approved plan and the appropriate requirements of this chapter. Revised recommendations relating to conditions differing from the approved soils engineering and engineering geology reports shall be submitted to the permittee, the building official and the civil engineer.

D. Engineering Geologist. The engineering geologist shall provide professional inspection within such engineer’s area of technical specialty, which shall include professional inspection of the bedrock excavation to determine if conditions encountered are in conformance with the approved report. Revised recommendations relating to conditions differing from the approved engineering geology report shall be submitted to the soils engineer.

E. Permittee. The permittee shall be responsible for the work to be performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and in conformance with the provisions of this Code, and the permittee shall engage consultants, if required, to provide professional inspections on a timely basis. The permittee shall act as a coordinator between the consultants, the contractor and the building official. In the event of changed conditions, the



permittee shall be responsible for informing the building official of such change and shall provide revised plans for approval.

F. Building Official. The building official may inspect the project at the various stages of the work requiring approval to determine that adequate control is being exercised by the professional consultants.

G. Notification of Noncompliance. If, in the course of fulfilling their responsibility under this chapter, the civil engineer, the soils engineer, or the engineering geologist finds that the work is not being done in conformance with this chapter or the approved grading plans, the discrepancies shall be reported immediately in writing to the permittee and to the building official. Recommendations for corrective measures, if necessary, shall also be submitted.

H. Transfer of Responsibility. If the civil engineer, the soils engineer, or the engineering geologist of record is changed during the course of the work, the work shall be stopped until: 1. The civil engineer, soils engineer, or engineering geologist, has notified the building

official in writing that they will no longer be responsible for the work and that a qualified replacement has been found who will assume responsibility.

2. The replacement civil engineer, soils engineer, or engineering geologist notifies the building official in writing that they have agreed to accept responsibility for the work.

4.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section describes the methodology used in conducting the CEQA impact analysis for geology and soils; the thresholds of significance used in assessing impacts to geology and soils; and the assessment of impacts to geology and soils, including relevant Mitigation Measures.

Methodology Methodology and assumptions from technical study are summarized in Table 4.4-3, Methods and Assumptions for Geologic Hazards and Soils, below. This section describes the potential geology and soils impacts associated with development of the project. This analysis first established baseline conditions for the affected environment relevant to geology and soils, as presented above in Section 4.4.2, Environmental Setting.

Table 4.4-3 Methods and Assumptions for Geologic Hazards and Soils

Methods / Assumptions Geologic Hazards / Soils

Literature Review USDA NRCS web soil survey 2013 Groundwater levels below the refinery (URS 2013)

Survey Type Geotechnical subsurface exploration Soil Sampling

Area / Soils / Geologic Units

Silty sands (SM)

Inorganic silts and very fine sands (ML)

Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands (SP)

Well-graded sands (SW)



Table 4.4-3 Methods and Assumptions for Geologic Hazards and Soils

Methods / Assumptions Geologic Hazards / Soils Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity (CL)

Dates 2006, 2007

Methods

Borings drilled with a hollow-stem auger drill rig Collected to a depth of 50 feet below ground surface Select samples were mechanically tested in the laboratory to evaluate

index and engineering properties NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture


The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and the Kern County Environmental Checklist state that a project would have a significant impact on geology and soils if it would:

• Expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

o Strong seismic ground shaking. o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. o Landslides.

• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

• Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.

• Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

The lead agency determined in the NOP/IS (see Appendix A) that the following environmental issue areas would result in no impacts or less than significant impacts and were therefore scoped out of requiring further review in this EIR. Please refer to Appendix A of this EIR for a copy of the NOP/IS and additional information regarding the following criteria:

• Expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides

• Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse



Project Impacts

Impact 4.4-1: Expose People or Structures to Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving the Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault

Ground rupture may occur along a fault trace in a major earthquake. It is unlikely that ground rupture would occur at the project site because it is not located within 500 feet of a known active fault trace. The closest Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone to the project site is the Kern Front Fault Zone, located near Oildale, approximately 6 miles 7.2 km to the north-northwest. The California Geologic Survey does not delineate any part of the project site as being within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Department of Conservation (CDC), 2013). Therefore, the potential for surface fault rupture at the project site is low.

New structures at the proposed project site must be designed to comply with the CBC requirements. Chapters 16 and 18 of the CBC contain specific requirements for seismic safety and excavation, foundations, and retaining walls, respectively. The City of Bakersfield and Kern County are responsible for ensuring that the proposed project complies with the CBC as part of the issuance of the building permits, and would conduct inspections to ensure such compliance. The CBC is considered to be a standard safeguard against major structural failures and loss of life. The goal of the CBC is to provide structures that will: (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some non-structural damage; and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse, but with some structural and non-structural damage. The CBC bases seismic design on minimum lateral seismic forces ("ground shaking"). The CBC requirements operate on the principle that providing appropriate foundations helps to protect buildings from failure during earthquakes. The basic formulas used for the CBC seismic design require determination of the seismic zone and site coefficient, which represent the foundation conditions at the site.

The proposed project would be required to obtain building permits, as applicable, for construction of all new proposed above-ground structures, including foundations. The project applicant would be required to receive approval of all building plans and building permits to assure compliance with the latest Building Code prior to commencing construction. The issuance of building permits from the local agency will assure compliance with the California Building Code requirements, which include requirements for building within seismic hazard zones. No significant adverse impacts from seismic hazards are expected since the project will be in compliance with the CBC.

Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required.


Impact 4.4-2: Expose People or Structures to Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Strong Seismic Ground Shaking

Kern County is located in a geologically complex and seismically active region that is subject to earthquakes and potentially strong ground shaking. The entire County is in Seismic Zone 4, a designation previously used in the previous Uniform Building Code to denote the areas of highest



risk to earthquake ground motion. Therefore, earthquake activity during the life of the proposed project would be expected.

Previous studies completed for the Refinery site suggest that the highest peak ground accelerations at the project site would occur on the Kern Front fault, which has a maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 6.3 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.354g. The Design-Basis Earthquake ground-motion for this site is 0.324g based on a return period estimated at every 475 years (10 percent probability of occurring every 50 years).

As stated in Impact 4.4-1, new structures at the proposed project site must be designed to comply with the CBC requirements. Chapters 16 and 18 of the CBC contain specific requirements for seismic safety and excavation, foundations, and retaining walls, respectively. The City of Bakersfield and Kern County are responsible for ensuring that the proposed project complies with the CBC as part of the issuance of the building permits, and would conduct inspections to ensure such compliance. The CBC is considered to be a standard safeguard against major structural failures and loss of life. The goal of the CBC is to provide structures that will: (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some non-structural damage; and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse, but with some structural and non-structural damage. The CBC bases seismic design on minimum lateral seismic forces ("ground shaking"). The CBC requirements operate on the principle that providing appropriate foundations helps to protect buildings from failure during earthquakes. The basic formulas used for the CBC seismic design require determination of the seismic zone and site coefficient, which represent the foundation conditions at the site.

The proposed project would be required to obtain building permits, as applicable, for construction of all new proposed above-ground structures, including foundations. The project applicant would be required to receive approval of all building plans and building permits to assure compliance with the latest Building Code prior to commencing construction. The issuance of building permits from the local agency will assure compliance with the California Building Code requirements, which include requirements for building within seismic hazard zones. No significant adverse impacts from seismic hazards are expected since the project will be in compliance with the CBC.

Mitigation Measures Although no significant geological impacts were identified, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with CBC requirements.

MM 4.4-1 The project shall provide evidence of the following prior to the issuance of grading or building permits:

a. A Registered Civil Engineer and Certified Engineering Geologist shall complete an updated geotechnical investigation specific to the rail spur and process unit modification sites. All geotechnical recommendations provided in the report shall be followed during grading and construction at the project site. The updated geotechnical evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, an estimation of both vertical and horizontal anticipated peak ground accelerations, as well as an updated liquefaction analysis.

b. The Applicant shall cease rail car unloading following any perceptible (i.e., felt by humans) seismic event and inspect all project-related facilities, equipment, and pipelines for damage prior to restarting operations.




Impact 4.4-3: Expose People or Structures to Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Seismic-related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction

Liquefaction is a mechanism of seismic ground failure in which earthquake-caused ground motion causes loose, water-saturated, cohesionless soils to transform to a liquid state. Liquefaction would most likely occur in unconsolidated granular sediments that are water saturated less than 30 feet below ground surface. The proposed Project is not located in a designated Liquefaction Hazard Zone based on the Kern County Map (CDC, 2013). Based on recent reports to the RWQCB, the depth to groundwater at the Refinery ranges from about 40 feet to 116 feet below the ground surface (URS, 2013). The depth to groundwater is greater than 40 feet indicating the soil conditions for liquefaction do not exist at the project site. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction impacts is less than significant because the appropriate parameters for liquefaction do not exist at the site. The CBC includes requirements for construction when there is a potential for liquefaction and soil expansion. Kern County and the City of Bakersfield would review and approve the geotechnical designs and ensure that the designs comply with CBC requirements to minimize the potential geological hazard impacts. Issuance of building permits will not occur until the County and City, as applicable, have reviewed and approved the geotechnical engineering investigation for the proposed project. Therefore, based on the groundwater conditions at the project site and the requirements associated with the CBC, no significant impacts related to liquefaction are expected due to implementation of the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.


Impact 4.4-4: Result in Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil

The proposed project is located within the confines of the existing Refinery. Concrete foundations presently support refinery structures and equipment. Most of the roads in the Wilmington Operations, including all high traffic roads, have been paved. Some portions of site have also been landscaped, mainly near the administration building.

In areas where a project site is placed on previously undisturbed land, excavation and grading activities could loosen on-site soils or remove stabilizing vegetation and expose areas of loose soil. These areas, if not properly stabilized during construction, could be subject to increased soil loss and erosion by project facilities and storm water runoff. Wind erosion is not expected to occur to any appreciable extent, because construction contractors would be required to comply with fugitive dust control measures. In general, fugitive dust must be controlled through a number of soil stabilizing measures such as watering the site, using chemical soil stabilizers, revegetating inactive sites, etc. The proposed project involves the removal of existing equipment and the installation of



new equipment at a site that was previously graded. However, additional grading and excavation is expected to be required to provide stable foundations and for the construction of the railroad tracks.

The Refinery has prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in order to comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, and compliance with the SWPPP will continue during and after completion of the proposed project. The SWPPP includes best management practices to control dust and mud transport during rain events to prevent solids and sediment transport into the storm drains and onto streets. The proposed project site is flat which minimizes the potential for stormwater runoff. Further, stormwater that falls within the Refinery is maintained onsite for treatment. Therefore, the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact to soil erosion or loss of top soil.

Additionally, during all phases of construction of the project, best management practices (BMP) for the prevention of erosion will be utilized. Features of the new designed facilities at the project site necessary for the prevention of erosion and flooding are addressed in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-2 Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the project proponent shall

submit Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control Plans which shall be designed to minimize erosion and shall include the following:

a. Methods such as geotextile fabrics, erosion control blankets, retention basins, drainage diversion structures, siltation basins, and spot grading will be used to reduce erosion and siltation into adjacent water bodies or storm drains during grading and construction activities.

b. All entrances/exits to the project site will be stabilized (e.g., using rumble plates, gravel beds or other best available technology) to reduce transport of sediment offsite. Any sediment or other materials tracked offsite will be removed the same day as they are tracked using dry cleaning methods.

c. Grading on slopes steeper than 5:1 will be designed to minimize surface water runoff.


Impact 4.4-5: Be Located on Expansive Soil, as Defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), Creating Substantial Risks to Life or Property

Since the proposed project would occur within an existing Refinery, which is located in an industrial zone, it is expected that people or property would not be exposed to new impacts related to expansive soils. Previous geological studies completed for the project site indicated that expansive soils have not been identified at the site (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2006). Further, the California Building Code has more stringent requirements when there is a potential for soil expansion. The City of Bakersfield and/or Kern County would review and approve the geotechnical designs and ensure that the designs comply with California Building Code requirements as part of the building permit process. Compliance with the CBC would minimize any potential impact associated with expansive soils and would be considered less than significant.





Impact 4.4-6: Have Soils Incapable of Adequately Supporting the Use of Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems Where Sewers Are Not Available for the Disposal of Wastewater

Process wastewater from the existing refinery is treated in existing wastewater treatment plants and injected into permitted injection wells for disposal. The Refinery is permitted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to inject wastewater into existing permitted injection wells. The proposed project would allow the refinery to bring in more crude via rail but would not increase the crude throughput of the refinery. The proposed process unit upgrades and modifications would not require an increase in water use or wastewater discharged. The proposed project includes modifications to the Hydrocracker Unit that would install new piping and instrumentation to allow recycling of wash water in the Hydrocracker Unit, resulting in the reduction of about 10 million gallons of water use per year. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to result in a decrease in water use and wastewater discharged from the refinery. The decrease in the amount of wastewater treatment will assure continued compliance with applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements. Further, the proposed project will not result in the use of any new septic system. To date, the Refinery has experienced no problems related to the septic systems and geology or soils found within the Refinery site, and can accommodate the existing septic system. Consequently, no significant impacts on soils due to alternative wastewater disposal systems are expected due to the proposed Project. See Hydrology and Water Quality for a further discussion on wastewater injection wells.




Cumulative Setting The geographic scope for considering cumulative impacts with regard to geology and soils includes the extent of the project site, because impacts to geology and soils are generally site-specific. Impacts of the project would be cumulatively considerable if they would have the potential to combine with similar impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects. The region of influence for geological impacts would include all of the cumulative projects listed in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, as all of these projects are located within the same geological area.



Impact 4.6-7: Contribute to Cumulative Geologic and Soils Impacts Virtually all of the cumulative projects in the Bakersfield area are within a seismically active area. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect a strong ground motion seismic event during the lifetime of any proposed project in the region and for such motion to damage some of the cumulative projects to some degree. Seismic ground shaking is capable of providing the mechanism for liquefaction, usually in fine-grained, loose to medium dense, saturated sands and silts. The effects of liquefaction may result in structural collapse if total and/or differential settlement of structures occurs on liquefiable soils. However, as discussed above, the proposed Project is not located in a designated Liquefaction Hazard Zone and no significant impact from liquefaction at the proposed Project Site is expected. Liquefiable soils may exist on other sites, but not on the project site.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, and the proposed Project, should not change the risk of seismic ground shaking; all of the related projects are subject to severe seismically induced ground shaking, and some to soil liquefaction, during an earthquake. Recent experience has shown that in a large earthquake, buildings and other structures will sustain damage and there is the potential for injury and death. New projects could replace older structures and/or result in the construction of new buildings, which must be designed to current seismic standards. The modern construction of these buildings and other structures and compliance with the California Building Code would reduce the risk of injury in such an event.

New structures must be designed to comply with the California Building Code seismic provisions since the proposed Project is located in a seismically active area. The local land use approval authority (e.g., cities and counties) is responsible for assuring that new projects comply with the California Building Code as part of the issuance of the building permits and conduct calculations/plan reviews and/or inspections to ensure compliance. The California Building Code is considered to be a standard safeguard against major structural failures and loss of life. The goal of the code is to provide structures that will: (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some non-structural damage; and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse, in order to protect life, but with some structural and non-structural damage. The California Building Code bases seismic design on minimum lateral seismic forces ("ground shaking"). The California Building Code requirements operate on the principle that providing appropriate foundations, among other aspects, helps to protect buildings from failure during earthquakes. The basic formulas used for the California Building Code seismic design require determination of the seismic class and site coefficient, which represent the foundation conditions at the site. Compliance with the applicable building codes would reduce the risk of structural damage due to earthquake and liquefaction following seismic ground shaking. Accordingly, although damage and/or injury may occur, cumulative impacts due to seismically induced ground failure would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Implement MM 4.4-1 and MM 4.4-2.

Level of Significance after Mitigation Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Section 4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions


Section 4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.5.1 Introduction This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project (project) and the consistency of the project with relevant plans and programs that are applicable to the project area. A complete description of the proposed project can be found in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR. The GHG emissions information in this section is based primarily on the Air Quality/Global Climate Change Analysis, Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project prepared by Ashworth Leininger Group in December 2013 (ALG, 2013). The complete Air Quality Impact Technical Report is included within Appendix B of this document. The impact assessment is based upon a review of relevant literature and technical reports that include, but are not limited to, information and guidelines by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

4.5.2 Environmental Setting GHGs and climate change are a cumulative global issue. The CARB and the USEPA regulate GHG emissions within the State of California and the United States, respectively. While the CARB has the primary regulatory responsibility within California for GHG emissions, local agencies can also adopt policies for GHG emission reduction.

The California legislature concluded that global climate change poses significant adverse effects to the environment (Assembly Bill [AB] 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). In addition, the global scientific community has expressed a high confidence that climate change is man-made (i.e., anthropogenic or caused by humans) and that climate change could lead to adverse changes around the globe (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Climate, IPCC 2007a). Consequently, the following sections analyze potential climate change emissions that may occur while implementing the proposed project.

Global climate change is a change in the average weather of the earth, measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although historical records show that dramatic fluctuations in temperature have occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages, some data indicate that the current temperature record differs from previous climate changes in both rate and magnitude (IPCC 2007).

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)

Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as GHGs. GHGs allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat). GHGs absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. Over time, the amount of energy sent from the sun to the Earth’s surface should be about the same as the amount of energy radiated back into space, leaving the temperature of the Earth’s surface roughly constant. Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. Some of them occur in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), while others are

County of Kern 4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions


exclusively human-made (like gases used for aerosols). The most relevant GHGs are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These gases prevent heat from escaping to space.

The principal GHGs resulting from human activity that enter and accumulate in the atmosphere are listed below:

• Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless, colorless GHG and is the most abundant in the Earth’s atmoshpere with a 100-year global warming potential (GWP) of 1. Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanoes. Man-made sources of carbon dioxide include burning fuels, such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. The interaction of man-made sources and natural sources of GHG and how they contribute to the atmospheric levels of GHG is a complex issue. In 2007 concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were approximately 379 parts per million (ppm); some say that concentrations may increase to 1,130 CO2e ppm by 2100 as a direct result of man-made sources (IPCC 2007). Some predict that this will result in an average global temperature rise of at least 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 (IPCC 2007).

• Methane (CH4), a gas, is the main component of natural gas used in homes and has a GWP of approximately 21. Decaying organic matter in forests and oceans is a natural source of methane. Man-made sources include landfills, fermentation of manure, and cattle. Geological deposits known as natural gas fields contain methane, which is extracted for fuel.

• Nitrous oxide (N2O), also known as laughing gas, is a colorless gas with a GWP of approximately 310. Nitrous oxide is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including reactions that occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (e.g., nylon production, nitric acid production) also emit N2O. Nitrous oxide is used in rocket engines, as an aerosol spray propellant, and in race cars. During combustion, NOx (NOx is a generic term for mono-nitrogen oxides, NO and NO2) is produced as a criteria pollutant and is not the same as N2O. Very small quantities of N2O may be formed during fuel combustion by the reaction of nitrogen and oxygen.

• Chlorofluorocarbons (Fluorinated Gases) are synthetic gases formed by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine or fluorine atoms. Chlorofluorocarbons are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically nonreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). Chlorofluorocarbons were first synthesized in 1928 as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. However, they destroy stratospheric ozone and the Montreal Protocol stopped their production in the 1990s. Fluorocarbons have a global warming potential between 140 and 11,700, with HFC-152a at the low end and HFC-23 at the higher end.

• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. Its global warming potential of 23,900 is the highest of any gas. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

Table 4.5-1 shows a range of gases that contribute to GHG warming with their associated global warming potential. The table also shows their estimated lifetime in the atmosphere and the global warming potential.



Although ozone is a GHG, unlike the other GHGs, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and therefore is not global in nature. According to the CARB, it is difficult to determine accurately the contribution of ozone precursors (NOx and VOC) to global climate change (CARB 2008).

Table 4.5-1 Global Warming Potential of Various Gases

Gas Life in the Atmosphere (years)

100-year GWP (average)

Carbon Dioxide 50-200 1 Methane 12 21 Nitrous Oxide 120 310 HFC-23 264 11,700 HFC-125 32.6 2,800 HFC-134a 14.6 1,300 HFC-143a 48.3 3,800 HFC-152a 1.5 140 HFC-227ea 36.5 2,900 HFC-236fa 209 6,300 HFC-43-10mee 17.1 1,300 CF4 (Perfluoromethane) 50,000 6,500 C2F6 (Perfluoroethane) 10,000 9,200 C4F10 (Perfluorobutane) 2,600 7,000 C6F14 (Perfluorohexane) 3,200 7,400 SF6 (Sulfur hexafluoride) 3,200 23,900 Note: GWP = global warming potential Source: EPA 2013

Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Global warming potential is a relative measure, compared to CO2, of a compound’s residence time in the atmosphere and ability to warm the planet. Mass emissions of GHGs are converted into carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions for ease of comparison. CO2e is a quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of greenhouse gas, the amount of CO2 that would have the same GWP, when measured over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). It is also a measure for comparing CO2 with other GHGs (which generally have a higher GWP), based on the amount of those other gases multiplied by the appropriate GWP factor, commonly expressed as metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e). CO2e is calculated by multiplying the metric tons of gas by the appropriate GWP.

The quantification of GHG emissions associated with a project can be complex and relies on a number of assumptions. GHG emissions are global because emissions from one location could affect the entire planet, and they are not limited to local impacts. Therefore, offsite impacts, such as vehicle emissions and other associated transportation emissions, are included.

Emissions are generally classified as either direct or indirect. Direct emissions are associated with the production of GHG emissions at the project site. These include the combustion of natural gas in heaters or stoves, the combustion of fuel in engines and construction vehicles, and fugitive emissions from valves and connections, which include methane as a component.



Indirect emissions include the emissions from vehicles (both gasoline and diesel) delivering materials and equipment to the site and the use of electricity. Electricity also produces GHG emissions because fossil fuels generate some electricity.

National Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Fossil fuel combustion is responsible for the vast majority of the United State’s GHG emissions, and CO2 is the primary GHG. In 2011, total US GHG emissions were 6,702 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE). GHG emissions peaked at 7,263 in 2007. In 2011, approximately 26 percent of GHG emissions were associated with transportation, approximately 32 percent were associated with electricity generation and 12 percent were associated with industrial.

Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions

With a population of 33 million, California is the most populous state in the United States. In 2010, California produced 452 MMTCE of GHG emissions (CARB 2013a). Figure 4.5-1 shows the breakdown of California GHG emissions since 2000. The transportation sector is the single largest contributor of California’s GHG emissions, producing 38 percent of the State’s total GHG emissions in 2010. In contrast, electrical generation produced more than half that, at 21 percent.

Figure 4.5-1 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Notes: Fossil fuel use includes electricity generation Source: CARB website



Impacts of GHG Emissions

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently (2013) around 392 ppm (based on the NOAA global annual mean calculated 6/2013, NOAA 2013) and concentrations may increase to 1,130 ppm by 2100 as a direct result of anthropogenic sources.

In the Findings and Declarations for AB 32, the Legislature found that: “The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to the marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other health-related problems.”

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level. The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 °C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005. Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 mm per year from 1993 to 2003 (IPCC 2007).

AB 32 addresses the results of studies conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001, 2007) that examined a range of scenarios that estimated an increase in globally averaged surface temperature of 0.5 to 11.5°F over the period 1990 to 2100 with ocean rise between 0.6 to 1.9 feet over the same timeframe.

The IPCC Studies (2007) indicate that “In order to stabilize the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, emissions would need to peak and decline thereafter. The lower the stabilization level, the more quickly this peak and decline would need to occur.” The studies also found that stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at less than 450 ppm would limit temperature rise to less than 3.6°F by the year 2100 and would require global anthropogenic CO2 emissions to drop below the year 1990 levels within a few decades (by 2020). If GHG emissions, and atmospheric CO2 levels, were kept to this “Category I” level (producing increases in global average temperature of less than 1.8-5.4 °F above 1980-1999 levels) impacts to gross domestic product (GDP) are projected to “produce market benefits in some places and sectors while, at the same time, imposing costs in other places and sectors” (IPCC 2007). Higher levels of CO2, ranging above 700 ppm with corresponding temperature increases of 7°F, could cause a reduction in global GDP of more than 5%, with regional losses substantially higher. Therefore, stabilizing GHG emissions levels at 1990 levels over the next 2 decades would reduce the impacts of climate change to levels that would produce nominal changes in global average GDP and would be less than significant.

Observed and anticipated effects associated with climate change in California, as reported by the California Climate Change Center (California Climate Change Center, 2012), include the following:

• Average statewide temperatures increased by about 1.7ºF from 1895 to 2011, with the greatest warming in the Sierra Nevada. By 2050, average statewide temperatures are expected to increase by 2.7ºF above 2000 averages – a three-fold increase in the warming rate over the past century. By 2100, statewide average temperatures could increase by 4.1 to 8.6ºF, depending on emission levels.

• Earlier snowmelt, higher temperatures, and longer dry periods over a protracted fire season will directly increase wildfire risk. There is an expected long-term increase in fire occurrence



associated with a higher GHG emissions scenario, ranging from 58 to 128 percent above historical levels by 2085. Under the same higher GHG emissions scenario, the estimated burned areas will increase between 57 and 169 percent, depending on location.

• Increased wildfire occurrence and burned areas, with associated increases in particulate pollution, could offset improvements in particulate and ozone concentrations.

• California’s water management challenges could be exacerbated by increasing demand from a growing population as temperatures rise, earlier snowmelt and runoff, and faster-than-historical sea-level rise threatening aging coastal water infrastructure and levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. One study shows that by the latter half of the 21st century, “critically dry” water years could occur eight percent more frequently in the Sacramento Valley and 32 percent more often in the San Joaquin Valley, as compared to the period from 1951 to 2000. During such critically dry years, it is nearly impossible to satisfy the state’s water needs, including those for agricultural and environmental purposes.

• Increased statewide average temperatures and more frequent extreme heat events, combined with new residential development, will drive up electricity demand for cooling during the summertime. About 15 percent of electrical demand is satisfied by hydropower, which is a premium asset during peak-demand summer months. Hydropower generation is already declining, and is expected to decrease more substantially because of reduced snowpack, earlier runoff, and higher evaporation rates due to climate change.

• Electrical transmission lines lose seven to eight percent of transmitting capacity as temperatures rise. Therefore, more electricity will need to be generated to offset the increased electrical transmission line losses. Furthermore, key electrical transmission corridors are vulnerable to increased frequency and severity of wildfires associated with climate change. One study shows a 40 percent increase in the probability of wildfire exposure for some major transmission lines, including lines bringing hydropower from the Pacific Northwest into California during peak demand periods.

• The sea level along California’s coastline rose about seven inches during the last century, and this rate is expected to accelerate considerably in the future. Assuming that California sea level changes continue to track global trends, sea levels along the state’s coastlines could increase by 10 to 18 inches in 2050 and by 31 to 55 inches by the end of the 21st century (as compared to 2000 levels). This will greatly increase the potential for loss of life and property during periodic storm and flood events. Moreover, critical infrastructure (schools, roads, hospitals, emergency facilities, wastewater treatment plants, airports, ports, and energy facilities) located along the coastline will also be at increased risk of damage.

• Findings from one study show that climate is changing conditions so rapidly that some vegetation cannot keep pace. Some climates that currently exist (e.g., alpine climates) could disappear entirely, while other regional climates (e.g., desert climates) could expand considerably. This would result in some species losing their habitats, while other species significantly expanding theirs.

• Climate change is expected to exacerbate stresses on California’s agricultural sector. Direct effects (changes in temperatures and water availability) will affect crop yield and availability, making the sector highly sensitive to climate change. Indirect effects will also take a toll: possible further declines in pollinators, increases in pests and disease.



4.5.3 Regulatory Setting In 1988, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established an agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions, including methane. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The plan consists of more than 50 voluntary programs. In October 1993, President Bill Clinton announced his Climate Change Action Plan, which had a goal to return GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. This was to be accomplished through 50 initiatives that relied on innovative voluntary partnerships between the private sector and government aimed at producing cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions (CAPCOA 2008).

On March 21, 1994, the United States joined a number of countries around the world in signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Under the Convention (UNFCCC), governments do the following: gather and share information on GHG emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change (UNFCCC 2012).

A particularly notable result of the UNFCCC efforts was a treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated in December 1997. The agreement came into force on February 16, 2005, following ratification by Russia on November 18, 2004. When countries sign the treaty, they demonstrate their commitment to reduce their emissions of GHGs or engage in emissions trading. As of July 2012, a total of 195 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement (UNFCCC 2012). Notable exceptions include Australia and the United States. Although United States Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the Protocol in 1998, in order for the Protocol to be formally ratified, it must be ratified by the United States Congress and this has not occurred to date. Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement despite their relatively large populations.

On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, of 2006 was enacted by the State of California. The legislature stated that “global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” (AB 32). The Act caps California’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The Act defines GHG emissions as all of the following gases: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6. This legislation represents the first enforceable statewide program in the United States to cap all GHG emissions from major industries that includes penalties for non-compliance. While acknowledging that national and international actions will be necessary to fully address the issue of global warming, AB 32 lays out a program to inventory and reduce GHG emissions in California and from power generation facilities located outside the State that serve California residents and businesses (CAPCOA 2008).

AB 32 charges the CARB with responsibility to monitor and regulate sources of GHG emissions in order to reduce those emissions. CARB staff recommended an amount of 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) as the total statewide GHG 1990 emissions level and 2020



emissions limit. The CARB approved the 2020 limit on December 6, 2007. This limit is an aggregated statewide limit, rather than sector- or facility-specific. On October 20, 2011, CARB approved a cap-and-trade program as part of AB 32, with compliance obligations that will become effective in 2013. An initial cap will be implemented for the electrical sector and any large industrial source that emits more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2e emissions per year. Over time, the cap will be reduced and the program will apply to a broader range of facilities.

Global warming and climate change have received substantial public attention for more than 20 years. For example, the United States Global Change Research Program was established by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to enhance the understanding of natural and human-induced changes in the Earth’s global environmental system, to monitor, understand and predict global change, and to provide a sound scientific basis for national and international decision making. Even so, analytical tools have not been developed to determine the effect on worldwide global warming from a particular increase in GHG emissions, or the resulting effects on climate change in a particular locale. The scientific tools needed to evaluate the impacts that a specific project may have on the environment are even farther in the future.

Federal

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the USEPA must determine whether or not emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the USEPA is required to follow the language of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for rulemaking under section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.

On April 17, 2009, the Administrator signed proposed endangerment and cause or contribute findings for GHGs under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The USEPA held a 60-day public comment period, which ended June 23, 2009, and received over 380,000 public comments. These included both written comments as well as testimony at two public hearings in Arlington, Virginia and Seattle, Washington. The USEPA carefully reviewed, considered, and incorporated public comments and issued the final Findings.

The USEPA found that six GHGs taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations. The USEPA also found that the combined emissions of these GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 202(a). These Findings were based on careful consideration of the full weight of scientific evidence and a thorough review of numerous public comments received on the Proposed Findings published April 24, 2009. These Findings became effective on January 14, 2010.

Specific GHG Regulations that the USEPA has adopted to date are as follows:

40 CFR Part 98. Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. This rule requires mandatory reporting of GHG emissions for facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2e emissions per year (USEPA 2012b). As a petroleum refinery, the Alon Bakersfield Refinery



triggers GHG reporting according to the rule; GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are quantified in this EIR.

40 CFR Part 52. Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. USEPA recently mandated application of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements to new or modified stationary sources of CO2e (USEPA 2012c). Under Step 1 of USEPA’s GHG Tailoring Rule, GHG permitting applied only to so-called “anyway” sources – new or modified facilities that triggered permitting for emissions of other pollutants that also increased GHGs by at least 75,000 tons per year CO2e.

Under Step 2 (effective July 2011), the GHG Tailoring Rule applies to new or modified facilities that trigger PSD permitting solely due to GHG emissions. Under Step 2, PSD permitting requirements apply to new sources with GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tons per year CO2e. At existing facilities that emit at least 100,000 tons per year CO2e, modifications that increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tons per year CO2e are subject to PSD permitting requirements. Similarly, facilities that emit at least 100,000 tons per year CO2e are subject to the requirement to obtain Title V operating permits. The project would not be expected to trigger PSD permitting as required by this regulation; however, GHG emissions associated with the project are quantified in this EIR.

State There are a variety of statewide rules and regulations that have been implemented or are in development in California that mandate the quantification or reduction of GHGs. Under CEQA, an analysis and mitigation of emissions of GHGs and climate change in relation to a proposed project is required where it has been determined that a project will result in a significant addition of GHGs. Certain Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) have proposed their own levels of significance. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), which has regulatory authority over the air emissions from this project, adopted a significance threshold for projects where the SJVAPCD acts as CEQA Lead Agency (March 8, 2012); however, Kern County has not adopted a significance threshold for these emissions.

Executive Order S-3-05

Executive Order S-3-05 was established by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2005. Executive Order S-3-05 establishes statewide emission reduction targets through the year 2050:

• by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;

• by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and

• by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

This Executive Order does not include any specific requirements that pertain to the project. However, actions taken by the State to implement these goals may affect the project, depending on the specific implementation measures that are developed.

Senate Bill 1368

Senate Bill (SB) 1368 (SB 1368) was enacted in 2006, and required the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish a CO2 emissions standard for base load generation owned by or under long-term contract with publicly owned utilities. The CPUC established a GHG Emissions



Performance Standard (EPS) of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. SB 1368 also requires the posting of notices of public deliberations by publicly owned companies on the PUC website and establishes a process to determine compliance with the EPS. The project, as a renewable energy generation facility, is determined by rule to comply with the GHG Emission Performance Standard requirements of SB 1368.

Assembly Bill 32

Assembly Bill (AB) 32, also known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was established in 2006 to mandate the quantification and reduction of GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020. The law establishes periodic targets for reductions, and requires certain facilities to report emissions of GHGs annually. The bill also reserves the ability to reduce emissions targets for certain sectors that contribute the most to emissions of GHGs, including the transportation sector.

The AB 32 Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will use to reduce the GHG emissions that cause climate change. The scoping plan has a range of GHG emission reduction actions, which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system, and an AB 32 cost of implementation fee regulation to fund the program. The proposed scoping plan was released on October 15, 2008 and approved at the Board hearing on December 12, 2008.

Per CARB’s Scoping Plan Measures Implementation Timeline October 28, 2010, available online at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/sp_measures_implementation_timeline.pdf, the following has occurred:

• Approved measures provide 38 MMTCO2e in 2020;

• 43 percent of their 2020 goal of reducing 169 MMTCO2e; and

• First year of Mandatory Reporting complete – 97 percent compliance rate.

On October 20, 2011, CARB approved a cap-and-trade program to establish a system of market-based declining annual aggregate emission limits for GHG emission sources, applicable from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2020. The cap-and-trade program imposes enforceable GHG emission caps for covered facilities (refineries, electric power providers, cement production facilities, oil and gas production facilities, and other industrial facilities).

Assembly Bill 1493

On July 22, 2002, Governor Gray Davis signed AB 1493, also known as the Pavley Regulations or the Clean Car Standards. AB 1493 required the State to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. Subsequent regulations were adopted by CARB in September 2004.

The regulations were threatened by automaker lawsuits and were stalled by the USEPA’s initial denial to allow California to implement GHG standards for passenger vehicles. The USEPA later granted California the authority to implement GHG emission reduction standards for new passenger cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles on June 30, 2009. On September 24, 2009, the CARB adopted amendments to the Pavley regulations that reduce GHG emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016.



California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)

Established in 2001, the CCAR is a private nonprofit organization originally formed by the State of California. The CCAR serves as a voluntary GHG registry and leads efforts to develop credible, accurate, and consistent GHG reporting standards and tools for businesses, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations to measure, monitor, and reduce GHG emissions. For instance, the CCAR General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1, dated January 2009, provides the principles, approach, and methodology, and procedures required for voluntary GHG emissions reporting by businesses, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations.

Local

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

In August 2008, the SJVAPCD adopted its Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The CCAP directed the District to develop guidance to assist CEQA lead agencies, project proponents, permit applicants, and interested parties in assessing and reducing the impacts of project GHG emissions on global climate change. In December 2009, the SJVAPCD adopted two guidance documents: • Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New

Projects under CEQA, and

• District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency.

The guidance documents rely on the use of performance based standards, otherwise known as Best Performance Standards (BPS), as a basis for assessing the significance of project GHG emissions on global climate change under CEQA. The District recommends use of BPS for assessing climate change impacts, to streamline the process of determining significance under CEQA. It is not intended as a required emission reduction measure. Under SJVAPCD guidance, projects implementing BPS would be determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact on global climate change. Otherwise, projects would need to demonstrate a 29 percent reduction in GHG emissions from “business-as-usual” in order to be determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact on global climate change. (“Business as usual” is determined based on multiplying 2002-2004 emission factors by the activity expected to occur in 2020.) The guidance does not limit a lead agency’s authority to establish its own process and guidance for determining significance of project related impacts on global climate change. (SJVAPCD, 2012a) Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) The City of Bakersfield and Kern County have prepared and adopted the MBGP to provide cohesive land use planning for areas that are both within the County’s jurisdiction and the City’s future service area. The MBGP is a separate but interrelated land use planning program within Kern County. The area covered by the MBGP coincides with the Bakersfield Metropolitan Priority Area of the Kern County General Plan and incorporates the land uses proposed by the County (Kern County Planning Department 2002).

The MBGP cites policies to provide decision makers with long-range guidance that may affect the future character of the metropolitan Bakersfield planning area. The elements within the MBGP provide goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce impacts of projects on air quality,



including GHG emissions. Applicable goals relative to the project site within these elements are listed below.

Chapter V – Conservation/Air Quality

Goals • Goal 1. Promote air quality that is compatible with health, well-being, and enjoyment of

life by controlling point sources and minimizing vehicular trips to reduce air pollutants.

• Goal 2. Continue working toward attainment of federal, state and local standards as enforced by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

• Goal 3. Reduce the amount of vehicular emissions in the planning area.

Policies • Policy 1. Comply with and promote SJVAPCD control measures regarding Reactive

Organic Gases (ROG). Such measures are focused on (a) steam-driven well vents, (b) pseudo-cyclic wells, (c) natural gas processing plant fugitives, (d) heavy oil test stations, (e) light oil production fugitives, (f) refinery pumps and compressors, and (g) vehicle inspection and maintenance.

• Policy 2. Encourage land uses and land use practices that do not contribute significantly to air quality degradation.

• Policy 10. Implement the Transportation System Management Program (July 1984) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield to improve traffic flow, reduce vehicle trips and increase street capacity.

• Policy 11. Improve the capacity of the existing road system through improved signalization and traffic control systems.

• Policy 12. Encourage the use of mass transit, carpooling and other transportation options to reduce vehicle miles traveled.

• Policy 13. Consider establishing priority parking areas for carpoolers in projects with relatively large numbers of employees to reduce vehicle miles traveled.

• Policy 14. Establish park and ride facilities to encourage carpooling and the use of mass transit.

• Policy 15. Promote the use of bicycles by providing attractive bicycle paths and requiring provision of storage facilities in commercial and industrial projects


Methodology

GHG emissions would be generated by project activities, both directly and indirectly. Climate change effects are a cumulative, global issue. The analysis looks to several levels of impact (project specific, statewide, and federal). Each level serves as an element of the whole GHG emission analysis and is not to be considered separately. If any level exceeds the thresholds defined for this analysis, then the GHG emission impact is considered significant and unavoidable.



The baseline for this analysis varies by the particular regulatory framework and manner in which the emissions and impacts are determined. In the instance of CEQA’s analysis of GHG emission impacts, the business-as-usual (BAU) emissions estimates (and methodology for those estimates) as well as California’s stated policy objectives (as established in responsible agency actions) define the point of relevance for impacts associated with a given discretionary act.

BAU is a term used by California agencies to describe the rate of GHG emissions, assuming no change due to climate regulations. It is a projection into the future of the GHGs that could foreseeably be emitted based on current technologies and existing regulations in the absence of other reductions. BAU includes forecast demographic and economic growth, whereas the historic CEQA baseline non-GHG emission impact analysis does not include any growth factors. Understanding this difference between historic CEQA analyses and the GHG element of CEQA is critical to a reasoned analysis of GHG emission impacts. The baseline for GHGs is BAU.

The stated policy objectives are driven by executive orders, AB 32, and other legislative acts. Some of the policy objectives are defined by zero net energy, low-carbon fuel standards, a renewable portfolio standard, and AB 32 objectives.

The quantification of GHG emissions associated with a project can be complex and relies on a number of assumptions. GHG emissions are global because emissions from one location could affect the entire planet, and they are not limited to local impacts. Therefore, offsite impacts, such as vehicle emissions and other associated transportation emissions, are included.

Emissions are generally classified as either direct or indirect. Direct emissions are associated with the production of GHG emissions at the existing refinery. These include the combustion of natural gas in heaters or stoves, the combustion of fuel in engines and construction vehicles, and fugitive emissions from valves and connections, which include methane as a component.

Indirect emissions include the emissions from vehicles (both gasoline and diesel) delivering materials and equipment to the site and the use of electricity. Electricity also produces GHG emissions because fossil fuels generate some electricity.

This report utilizes the California Air resources Board Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions method to calculate GHG emissions (CARB 2012).

Indirect GHG emissions associated with trash hauling and other services that might visit the refinery are incorporated through the inclusion of the travel of diesel trucks that would visit and service the refinery.


The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and Kern County Environmental Checklist, as amended by the California Natural Resources Agency and adopted by the Office of Administrative Law on February 16, 2010, state that a project would have significant impacts on GHG emissions if it would:

• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or

• Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.



Kern County has not developed a quantitative threshold of significance for GHG emissions, but a project found to contribute to a net decrease in GHG emissions and found to be consistent with the adopted implementation of the CARB Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB 2008) is presumed to have less-than-significant GHG emission impacts.

As indicated in Section 4.5.3, the SJVAPCD adopted guidance documents for assessing and mitigating GHG impacts on global climate change in December 2009. Rather than establishing specific numeric thresholds of significance (as in the case of criteria pollutant emissions), the SJVAPCD guidance utilizes performance based standards to assess cumulative impacts on global climate change. The SJVAPCD’s May 2012 Draft GAMAQI (SJVAPCD, 2012b), recommends the following projects be determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact on global climate change:

• Projects that comply with an adopted statewide, regional, or local plan for reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions;

• Projects implementing SJVAPCD-approved “Best Performance Standards” (BPS) for the specific project type; or,

• Projects that achieve AB 32 targeted 29 percent GHG emission reduction compared to “business-as-usual.”

Project Impacts

Climate change impacts are inherently global and cumulative, and not project specific. The SJVAPCD’s May 2012 Draft GAMAQI observes,

“It is widely recognized that no single project could generate sufficient GHG emissions to noticeably change global climate temperature. However, the combination of GHG emissions from past, present and future projects could contribute substantially to global climate change. Thus, project specific GHG emissions should be evaluated in terms of whether or not they would result in a cumulatively significant impact on global climate change.” (SJVAPCD, 2012b, section 8.8.)

Impact 4.5-1: Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly, That May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment.

As discussed in Section 3.4.1, movements of trains within Kern County and California may be preempted from local and state environmental regulations by federal law under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995. Table 4.5-2 presents the estimated greenhouse gas emissions associated with proposed project construction, operation of permitted sources, and operation of non-permitted sources and activities, excluding emissions from main line rail activities. Table 4.5-3 includes GHG emissions associated with main line rail activities. Documentation for construction activity GHG emission calculations is presented in the ALG technical report located in Appendix B (ALG Report Appendix A, Construction Emissions). Documentation for GHG emission calculations for permitted and non-permitted source/activity operation is presented in the ALG technical report located in Appendix B (ALG Appendix B, Permitted Source Emissions and ALG Appendix C, Non-Permitted Source/Activity Emissions). As noted in Appendix B, GHG emissions from non-permitted sources and activities are calculated based on emissions within the state. For comparison purposes, construction emissions are amortized over an expected project lifetime of 30 years.



Table 4.5-2. Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Excluding Main Line Rail).

Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)

Project Component CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Construction Activity GHG Emissions: Total Emissions from Construction Activity 1,261.7 0.071 0.035 1,274.1 Annual Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 42.1 0.002 0.001 42.5 Permitted Source GHG Emissions: Existing Heaters 40,269.3 2.048 0.410 40,439.3 New Boilers 29,260.2 0.552 0.055 29,288.9 Storage Tanks -- Fugitives -- Rail Unloading Rack -- Jet Fuel Loading -- Annual Permitted Source GHG Emissions: 69,529.5 2.599 0.465 69,728.2 Non-Permitted Source/Activity GHG Emissions: Truck Transportation 4,167.5 0.099 0.137 4,212.1 Rail Transportation (On-site Rail Only) 360.1 0.028 0.009 363.5 Employee/Contractor Commute Trips -286.2 -0.024 -0.019 -292.6 On-site On-road Vehicles 48.1 0.005 0.005 49.7 On-site Off-road Equipment 12.1 0.007 0.012 15.8 Indirect GHG Emissions – Electric Power Use 14,075.8 0.618 0.132 14,129.7 Annual Non-Permitted Source/Activity GHG Emissions: 18,377.3 0.734 0.276 18,478.2 Total Annual GHG Emissions (Excluding Main Line Rail): 87,948.9 3.336 0.742 88,248.9 GHG Emission Reductions: Offset of Proposed Project Permitted Source GHG Increases Through Cap-and-Trade

-69,529.5 -2.599 -0.465 -69,728.2

Displaced Truck Trips (San Francisco Bay Area to Fresno) -4,823.6 -0.115 -0.159 -4,875.3 GHG Reductions due to EPA RFS-2 Biomass-Based Diesel Fuel Volume Requirements (On-Site Rail)

-4.6 -0.000 -0.000 -4.6

Electric Utility Offset of GHG Increases Through Cap-and-Trade -14,075.8 -0.618 -0.132 -14,129.7 Total Annual GHG Emission Reductions: -88,433.5 -3.333 -0.756 -88,737.7 GHG Emissions After Application of Emission Reductions -484.6 0.003 -0.014 -488.9 Percent GHG Emission Reductions 100.6% May 2012 Draft GAMAQI Significance Thresholds/Criteria Best Performance Standards or 29% GHG Mitigation

Compared to “Business as Usual” Significant? No



Table 4.5-2. Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Excluding Main Line Rail).


Project Component CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Notes: Values may not sum to total due to rounding. Sources: Appendices A (Construction Emissions), B (Permitted Source Emissions), and C (Non-Permitted Source/Activity Emissions) of the Appendix B ALG Air Quality Technical Report. GHG emissions are calculated based on emissions occurring within California.

Table 4.5-3. Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Including Main Line Rail).


Project Component CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Total Annual GHG Emissions (Excluding Main Line Rail) from Table 4.5-2, above

87,948.9 3.336 0.742 88,248.9

Add GHG Emissions from Main Line Rail Activities 49,169.0 3.853 1.252 49,638.0 Total Annual GHG Emissions (Including Main Line Rail): 137,117.9 7.188 1.994 137,886.9 GHG Emission Reductions: Offset of Proposed Project Permitted Source GHG Increases Through Cap-and-Trade

-69,529.5 -2.599 -0.465 -69,728.2

Displaced Truck Trips (San Francisco Bay Area to Fresno) -4,823.6 -0.115 -0.159 -4,875.3 GHG Reductions due to EPA RFS-2 Biomass-Based Diesel Fuel Volume Requirements (On-Site and Main Line Rail)

-619.4 -0.049 -0.016 -625.3

Electric Utility Offset of GHG Increases Through Cap-and-Trade -14,075.8 -0.618 -0.132 -14,129.7 Total Annual GHG Emission Reductions: -89,048.3 -3.381 -0.771 -89,358.4 GHG Emissions After Application of Emission Reductions 48,069.6 3.807 1.222 48,528.5 Percent GHG Emission Reductions 64.8% May 2012 Draft GAMAQI Significance Thresholds/Criteria Best Performance Standards or 29% GHG Mitigation

Compared to “Business as Usual” Significant? No Notes: Values may not sum to total due to rounding. GHG emissions are calculated based on emissions occurring within California.

As can be seen in Table 4.5-2, proposed project GHG emissions, excluding main line rail activities, will be reduced by over 100 percent due to GHG emission reductions required under California’s GHG Cap-and-Trade program, implementation of the U.S. EPA’s Reformulated Fuels Standard (RFS-2), and displacement of diesel/gasoline transport trucks from San Francisco Bay Area refineries to the Fresno market. As seen in Table 4.5-3, proposed project GHG emissions, including main line rail activities, will be reduced by 65 percent due to GHG reductions required under the following programs:



• GHG Reductions from the California GHG Cap-and-Trade Program. The Alon Bakersfield Refinery and Pacific Gas and Electric (the refinery’s electric power provider) are both currently subject to CARB’s GHG Cap-and-Trade program (17 California Code of Regulations sec. 95800 et seq.) California transportation fuel suppliers (which provide fuel to diesel trucks and other vehicles in the state) will become subject to the GHG Cap-and-Trade program in 2015.

The GHG Cap-and-Trade program imposes enforceable caps on GHG emissions at covered facilities (refineries, electric power providers, cement production facilities, oil and gas production facilities, fuel suppliers, and other industrial facilities) that steadily decline over time. Capped facilities are required to surrender GHG emission allowances equal to their emissions at the end of each compliance period (2013-2014, 2015-2017, and 2018-2020). Over the three compliance periods, GHG emissions from capped facilities are expected to be reduced by 75 million metric tons per year from baseline conditions, representing an 18 percent reduction from the statewide 1990 baseline. (CARB, 2010b; CARB, 2011.)

A capped facility can satisfy its obligation to provide GHG allowances for each cap-and-trade compliance period by: o Surrendering allowances freely allocated by CARB;

o Surrendering allowances purchased at CARB quarterly allocation auctions;

o Surrendering allowances purchased from other covered facilities;

o Surrendering GHG offset credits generated by emission reduction activities at other facilities;

o Surrendering compliance instruments (allowances or credits) obtained from other GHG trading programs formally “linked” to California’s Cap-and-Trade program; or

o Implementing programs within the facility to reduce GHG emissions (thereby reducing its GHG compliance obligations).

If a capped facility does not have sufficient compliance instruments to meet its GHG emissions obligation at the end of a compliance period, it must provide additional compliance instruments to cover its excess emissions. Excess emissions must be covered by providing allowances (not offset credits) in an amount equal to four times the amount of the excess.

In its initial allocation in January 2013, CARB issued 29.3 million metric tons in free GHG allowances to California refineries (CARB, 2013i.). This represented 93 percent of reported GHG emissions from these same facilities during 2011 (CARB, 2013a.). Over the subsequent seven years, free GHG allowance allocations to California refineries will drop by an additional 57 percent (17 California Code of Regulations, sections 95870 (Table 8-1) and 95891 (Table 9-2)).

In September 2012, CARB distributed 97.7 million metric tons in free 2013-vintage GHG allowances to California electrical distribution utilities, under provisions of the GHG Cap-and-Trade program. Over the following seven years, free GHG allowance allocations to electrical distribution utilities will drop by an additional 13 percent. (17 California Code of Regulations, sections 95870(d) and 95892 (Table 9-3)).

With respect to the proposed project’s permitted source GHG emission increases, the project proponent will be required to reduce GHG emissions elsewhere within the Alon Bakersfield



Refinery or to surrender GHG allowances, offset credits, or other compliance instruments to offset the GHG increases identified in Table 4-2. Similarly, PG&E will be required to implement GHG reductions at its facilities or to surrender GHG allowances, offset credits, or other compliance instruments to offset emission increases associated with increased electrical power use, identified in Table 4.5-2. (Note that Table 4.5-2 does not reflect GHG reductions associated with application of the GHG Cap-and-Trade program to fuel suppliers for increased truck transportation.)

• GHG Reductions from Implementation of the federal Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS-2). Under the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, EPA promulgated the first Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be blended into gasoline by 2012. The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 expanded this mandate to: o Include diesel, in addition to gasoline;

o Increase the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuels from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022;

o Establish new renewable fuel categories, and establish separate volume requirements for each; and

o Require EPA to apply lifecycle greenhouse gas performance threshold standards to ensure that each renewable fuel category emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.

EPA enacted the second RFS (RFS-2) to incorporate changes mandated by EISA in March 2010. EPA also enacted annual renewable fuel volume requirements from 2008 to 2022. The fuel volume requirements for biomass-based diesel were 0.65 billion gallons for 2010, 0.80 billion gallons for 2011, 1.0 billion gallons for 2012, and a minimum of 1.0 billion gallons for 2013 and beyond (to be determined by future EPA rulemaking. (U.S. EPA, 2010.)

In September 2012, EPA finalized the biomass-based diesel volume of 1.28 billion gallons for 2013 (77 Federal Register 59458, 59458, September 27, 2012, “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2013 Biomass-Based Diesel Renewable Fuel Volume” – Final Rule). The U.S. Energy Information Agency forecasted 52.26 billion gallons of diesel use for transportation in 2013 (reported in 78 Federal Register 9282, 9303, February 7, 2013, “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2013 Renewable Fuel Standards” – Proposed Rule). The 2013 biomass-based diesel fuel volume therefore translates to 2.45 percent of national transportation diesel use. Since RFS-2 requires lifecycle GHGs from biomass-based diesel to be 50 percent lower than the displaced diesel fuel, GHGs from transportation diesel fuel use in 2013 are reduced by 1.22 percent due to RFS-2. This reduction is applicable to rail transportation GHG emissions which are assumed not to be covered by the California GHG Cap-and-Trade program.

• Displacement of Diesel/Gasoline Transport Trucks from San Francisco Bay Area Refineries to Fresno. As noted previously, the project proponent anticipates that it will more than double shipments of diesel and gasoline to the Fresno market by pipeline. As a result of these increased shipments, approximately 3,750,000 fewer barrels per year of diesel and gasoline product will need to be imported from San Francisco Bay Area refineries into the Fresno market. Accounting for only the portion of Bay Area refinery product shipped by truck to Fresno, an estimated 7,400 diesel/gasoline transport truck trips per year from Bay Area refineries will be displaced as a result of the project proponent’s increased shipments of diesel



and gasoline by pipeline to Fresno. As can be seen in Table 4.5-2, approximately 4,900 metric tons per year CO2e will be reduced as a result of these displaced truck trips.

The GHG reductions associated with these programs exceed the 29 percent GHG reduction target recommended in the SJVAPCD’s May 2012 Draft GAMAQI (see Tables 4.5-2 and 4.5-3). Therefore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions are determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact on global climate change.



Impact 4.5-2: Conflict with any Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases.

As mentioned previously, the Alon Bakersfield Refinery is subject to CARB’s GHG Cap-and-Trade program, which imposes an enforceable cap on the facility that declines over time. Under the program, the project proponent will be required to reduce GHG emissions elsewhere within the refinery or to surrender GHG allowances, offset credits, or other compliance instruments to offset the permitted source GHG emission increases associated with the proposed project. This will ensure that the proposed project’s permitted source GHG emission increases will be consistent with California’s program for reducing GHG emissions under AB 32.

Also as discussed above, electric utilities supplying power to the Alon Bakersfield Refinery will also be subject to the GHG Cap-and-Trade program. This will ensure that these emissions will be consistent with California’s AB 32 program for reducing GHG emissions.

Non-permitted sources/activities associated with the proposed project potentially could be affected also by the following California Climate Change Scoping Plan measures:

• E-3 (Achieve a 33 Percent Renewables Mix by 2020). This measure is being implemented by the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission under Senate Bill x1-2 (Simitian, 2011), signed by Governor Brown in April 2011. The Public Utilities Commission reports that the state’s three large investor owned utilities collectively served 19.8 percent of their 2012 retail electricity sales with renewable power (CPUC, 2013):

o Pacific Gas and Electric: 19 percent

o San Diego Gas and Electric: 20.3 percent

o Southern California Edison: 20.6 percent

The Alon Bakersfield Refinery is served by Pacific Gas and Electric, which is expected to comply with the mandated 33 percent renewables standard.

• T-2 (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). CARB approved the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) in April 2009, and it became effective in 2010. Since its adoption, the LCFS has faced legal and regulatory challenges. To the extent that the LCFS becomes fully effective and low-carbon fuels come to the California marketplace, locomotive, truck, and other vehicle operators are expected to purchase such fuels.



• T-4 (Vehicle Efficiency Measures). Vehicle efficiency measures include low friction oil, tire pressure regulation, tire tread program, and solar reflective automotive paint/window glazing. The tire pressure regulation has been approved and the tire tread program is under evaluation by CARB. CARB reports that the low friction oil component already has been achieved in practice. Potential reductions through cool car design are to be considered as part of CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars measure. Truck and other motor vehicle operators are expected to comply with such measures as technology required by the program comes to the California marketplace.

• T-6 (Goods Movement Efficiency Measures). No specific measures addressing GHG reductions from locomotives were identified within the Scoping Plan. The Scoping plan identified potentially available technology: switcher locomotives (use of diesel generators or battery-hybrid drive propulsion systems), and magnetically-levitated (“maglev”), electrically propelled cargo systems. These technologies are not applicable to operations at the proposed crude oil rail terminal.

Based on the foregoing, the proposed project is anticipated to be consistent with California’s adopted California Climate Change Scoping Plan, CARB’s GHG Cap-and-Trade Program, and other applicable adopted standards and regulations. Impacts are therefore anticipated to be less than significant.




Cumulative Setting As discussed previously, impacts associated with GHG emissions are cumulative in nature, rather than project-specific. Refer to Section 4.5.1 for a discussion of the cumulative setting for greenhouse gas emissions.

Under AB 32, the CARB, which is the agency in charge of regulating sources of emissions of GHGs in California, has been tasked with adopting regulations for reduction of GHG emissions. The effects of this project are evaluated based not upon the quantity of emissions, but rather on whether the project implements reduction strategies identified in AB 32, the Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05, or other strategies to help toward reducing GHGs to the level proposed by the governor. If so, it could reasonably follow that the project would not result in a significant contribution to the cumulative impact of global climate change.

The geographic scope for cumulative impacts for greenhouse gases includes a six-mile radius from the project site. Analysis of cumulative impacts takes into consideration the entirety of impacts that the projects, zone changes, and general plan amendments discussed in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, would have on greenhouse emissions and climate change.



Impact 4.5-3: Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts

No other reasonably foreseeable heavy industrial projects besides the Independent Refining Projects presented in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, of this DEIR, are proposed in Bakersfield at this time. However, there are other light industrial, residential, and commercial projects that are reasonably foreseeable in the Bakersfield metropolitan area. The potential exists for these and other projects to emit greenhouse gases.

The Kern County 2005 base year GHG emissions inventory was estimated to be 27 million MT/yr CO2e of which the Fossil Fuel Industry sector represents 40% followed by the Electricity Consumption sector at 22%. The 2020 forecasted GHG emissions inventory was estimated to be 27 million MT/yr CO2e of which the Electricity Consumption sector represents 31% followed by the Fossil Fuel Industry sector at 26% (SJVAPCD, 2012).

GHG emissions associated with Kern County refineries were estimated at 116,793 MT/yr CO2e in 2005, and are projected to decrease to 73,526 MT/yr CO2e in 2020. GHG emissions associated with Kern County rail transportation were estimated at 169,150 MT/yr CO2e in 2005, and are projected to increase to 185,637 MT/yr CO2e in 2020.

Project-related unmitigated GHG emissions would be 141,295.8 MT/yr CO2e and 48,528.5 MT/yr CO2e after application of emission reduction credits and mitigation. Mitigated Project emissions would represent 1.8 percent of the Kern County total GHG emissions.

As discussed previously, impacts associated with GHG emissions are cumulative in nature, rather than project-specific. These impacts are addressed above under Impact 4.5-1 and Impact 4.5-2. As discussed under Impact 4.5-1, the project GHG reductions exceed the 29 percent GHG reduction target recommended in the SJVAPCD’s May 2012 Draft GAMAQI. Further, as discussed under Impact 4.5-2, the project is anticipated to be consistent with the adopted California Climate Change Scoping Plan, CARB’s GHG Cap-and-Trade Program, and other applicable adopted standards and regulations. Therefore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions are determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact on global climate change.



Section 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


Section 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.6.1 Introduction This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the potential hazards (other than geologic hazards) associated with the project site, infrastructure, activities, and materials that could impact human health and the environment. A complete description of the proposed project can be found in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR. The Alon Bakersfield Crude Flexibility Project- Hazards and Hazardous Materials Analysis, dated November 8, 2013 prepared by Environmental Audit, Inc. was used to identify potentially hazardous materials present at or near the site and is presented in Appendix F and information from the document is incorporated herein.

Refineries operate under a host of individual federal, state and local laws and regulations. Rules, regulations, and standards concerning the accidental release of toxic materials and related fires or explosions have been expanded in the last 20 years. Greater emphasis has been placed on the assessment of hazards, accident prevention, and improved response to accidental releases. The intent of these requirements is to decrease the probability and consequences of an event. These standards cover different technical areas including process design, operation and maintenance, contingency planning and public report of releases. Section 4.6.3, Regulatory Setting, discusses the current regulatory framework under which all refineries operate.

This section also discusses the existing conditions of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery as described in Section 3.0, Project Description, and the potential hazards posed by the operation of the proposed project. The focus of this section is on the refinery units modified for this project. The hazards addressed in this section include the following:

• Reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions (e.g., fires and explosions)

• Potential emissions of acutely hazardous materials

• Hazards associated with the routine transport and disposal of hazardous materials

This analysis also considers the types of materials generated by the proposed project component and the potential pathways of exposure of people and the environment that could reasonably be expected to result from project operations.


Refinery History

At the time of preparation of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the entity known as “Alon USA” owns and operates the facility now known as the Alon Bakersfield Refinery. Most of the refinery is located in an unincorporated area of the County of Kern; however, 27 acres are within the jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield in the western part of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The proposed project is located in Areas 1, 2, and 4 of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery. Areas 1, 2, and 4 occupy a total of 448 acres as detailed in Table 3.1 of this EIR. The existing refinery is generally bounded by Mohawk Street to the east, Rosedale Highway to the north, Coffee Road 0.25 mile to the west, and the Westside Parkway and Kern River to the south. The BNSF Railway railroad tracks run through part of the refinery in an east-west direction. The Friant-Kern Canal runs

County of Kern 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


through a western portion of the refinery in a north-south direction, and the Cross Valley Canal runs in an east-west direction at the southern end of the refinery.

1930s – 1980s. The facility consists of four interconnected operating areas known as Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4. Area 1 was built in 1932 by the Mohawk Oil Company which operated the Area 1 refinery until 1975. In 1975, Reserve Oil and Gas Company purchased the refinery and operated it until 1980. Getty Oil Company purchased the refinery in 1980 and operated it until 1984 when Texaco purchased it. Texaco operated Area 1 from 1984 through 1998, when it was then sold to Equilon Enterprises LLC/Shell.

The adjacent Area 2, originally known as Bankline, was built by the US Government in 1942 and was also subsequently owned and operated by a number of different oil companies. Signal purchased the Area 2 refinery in 1959. Signal sold it to Tosco Oil Company in 1970. Texaco purchased Tosco in 1986 and ran the Area 2 in conjunction with Area 1 until the sale to Equilon Enterprises LLC in 1998. Shell Oil took over from Equilon in 2003.

Area 3 was built and operated by the Independent Valley Energy Company from 1978 to 1987. Texaco purchased Area 3 in 1997 and sold the Area 3 property to Equilon Enterprises LLC in 1998 along with the Area 1 and 2 properties in 1998. Area 3 is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of Areas 1,2 and 4, and encompasses approximately 92 acres of land.

Area 4 was created out of the western portion of Area 2 by Big West in 2005.

Efforts to fully integrate the four areas of the Refinery were completed by the late 1980s. Aboveground features of the integrated Refinery are largely unchanged since integration of the three separate facilities.

2000s. Shell Oil took sole ownership in 2003 and Big West took ownership in 2005.

Facility Design Features – Existing Safety Systems and Operating Procedures at the Refinery

Refining crude oil involves working with flammable and hazardous materials under heat and pressure. This type of operating environment creates inherent hazards for fire and explosion, and for the possible release of acutely hazardous materials. Because of these inherent hazards, the design, operation, and maintenance of refineries, including the Alon Bakersfield Refinery, are oriented toward preventing accidents that would cause injury to employees or the public, damage to offsite property, or damage to the refinery.

The refinery is sited to minimize the likelihood of conflicts with other land uses by keeping the processing units and tanks in a centralized location with vacant refinery land and other industrial lands as a buffer. Areas 1, 2, and 4 of the refinery occupy 448 acres of the approximately 602 acres of land that Alon USA owns or operates in the area of the refinery (including Area 3 and other property located east of Area 1). The process block for Areas 1 and 2, which is the source of the majority of the hazards associated with petroleum refining, covers 101 acres. The refinery is separated or buffered from residential areas by other vacant Alon USA property and existing industrial general plan and zoning. The area's M-3 and M-2 (respectively) zoning adds to the buffer area. The refinery also has a number of design features as well as operating and maintenance practices in place to prevent or minimize accidents.

The existing refinery operates with the following safety features.



1. Refinery Design. The refinery was designed to minimize the occurrence of flammable mixtures of hydrocarbons and air and to eliminate the presence of an ignition source in association with flammable materials.

2. Employee Training. Comprehensive training is conducted in first aid; fire fighting; the use of personal protective equipment, including respiratory equipment; the handling of volatile materials; and the safe conduct of specific job assignments.

3. Employee Participation in Safety. Alon encourages employees to participate in all facets of process safety management and accident prevention.

4. Process Hazard Analysis. A systematic examination of every covered process unit in the refinery is conducted at least every 5 years to identify hazards and ensure that adequate controls are in place to manage those hazards.

5. Safety Equipment. Safety equipment is located throughout the refinery. Personal protective equipment includes hard hats, safety glasses with side shields, and Nomex® coveralls, all of which are required for all refinery employees and contractors in operating areas.

6. Operating Manuals. Operating procedures have been developed for each process unit at the refinery. These procedures are summarized in operating manuals for each specific unit.

7. Emergency Procedures. Detailed emergency procedures are contained in the Alon Emergency Manual. Areas addressed are emergency procedures, action plan following environmental release, incident command, command responsibilities, emergency evacuation, and other essential items associated with environmental releases.

8. Work Permit System. A detailed work permit system is in place at the refinery to provide a systematic approach to overseeing and approving work performed in the process areas to minimize the risk of accidents.

9. Preventative Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance is performed according to specific schedules. Every operating unit has a Task Manual that identifies the preventative maintenance and safety check tasks to be performed for that unit for the day, shift, or month. Additionally, process units in the refinery, including utilities, are periodically shut down for maintenance activities. During the shutdown, equipment is opened, cleaned, and inspected. This enables Alon USA to perform maintenance and make repairs throughout the entire refinery.

10. Incident Investigation Procedures. The Accident Prevention Manual includes detailed procedures for reporting on-the-job accidents that result in injuries to an employee.

Hazards Associated with Refinery Process Equipment

Hazards associated with refinery process equipment generally fall into two categories: fires and explosion from the release of flammable hydrocarbons and release of hazardous, or toxic or hazardous materials and substances.

Flammable Hydrocarbons: Fires and Explosions

Facility Operations. Most of the fire and explosion hazards associated with a refinery involve process equipment because petroleum refining involves manipulation of flammable hydrocarbons, often under high temperatures and pressures. Typical hydrocarbons of concern are LPGs such as the



propane, butane and isobutane as well as hydrogen and pentane. The equipment in a refinery process area that is most likely to fail and cause a fire or explosion includes the following:

• Piping

• Pumps

• Process towers

• Heat exchangers

• Compressors

• Heaters

• Reactors

• Atmospheric storage vessels

• Pressure vessels

Releases of hydrocarbons can form a vapor cloud that could explode an ignition source if encountered.

Hydrocarbons at temperatures above their flash points typically form a torch-like fire when released to the atmosphere and ignited. These fires can damage equipment, but are unlikely to present a large offsite hazard to the public or nearby property. Employing shut off valves that isolate the equipment failure can quickly contain these types of fires.

Towers are used in a variety of process units at the refinery to separate different hydrocarbon fractions by distillation. These towers could be overpressured as a result of a nearby fire, a loss of liquid outflow, or excess liquid inflow. Overpressure of a tower could result in an explosion or the release of hydrocarbons with a subsequent fire or vapor cloud explosion. These accidents could be large enough to cause offsite property damage.

Overpressure of towers is avoided by the use of safety relief valves sized to maintain the equipment within its design pressures. Pressure relief devices in the refinery, including these safety valves, are combined through a piped network that is designed to contain process gases and liquids vented through the devices. This piping conveys liquids and gases to large drums, where they can be recovered. When the pressure relief is large, as would occur during an emergency shutdown of a process unit, the volume of gas in the drums becomes greater than the ability of the fuel gas system to capture it. The excess gas then rises through a liquid seal into the refinery flare, where it is burned. The liquid seal protects against entry of air into the pressure relief piping. This prevents a flammable mixture of hydrocarbons and air from forming in the lines to the flare.

Towers are also equipped with high-pressure and high-level alarms to alert operators of a potential plant upset. Towers typically have piping for inlets and outlets, and small lines for sight glasses and sampling. Most lines have a block valve to isolate it from the tower in the event of a pipeline failure. To prevent a large liquid or vapor release as a result of a pipeline failure at a tower, the operator would shut off the inflow to the tower, which would initiate a total shutdown sequence of the process unit.

Transportation of Materials to Refinery Site. As noted in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the purpose of the proposed project is to increase the flexibility for the existing refinery to receive and process a variety of crude oils and expand the existing crude terminal operations (the "project") by constructing a double rail loop. To facilitate this request, the project proposes:



1. Expansion of existing and construction of new rail, transfer and storage facilities; to include construction of a double rail loop from a new on-site spur connection off of the existing BNSF Railway; and the addition of up to three boilers;

2. Construction of process unit upgrades and/ or modifications;

3. Repurposing of existing tankage; and,

4. Relocation and modernization of existing Liquefied Propane Gas (LPG) truck rack and upgrades to sales rack.

Source of Incoming Crude Oils. The refinery’s existing design of 70,000 barrels per day (BPD) maximum crude processing capacity would not be increased. However, there would be a variety of new crude oil materials being transported to the site via rail. The sources for these materials will vary and can come from a multitude of locations across the United States; including locations such as North Dakota and others where a variety of extraction technologies are used which may or may not impact the flammability of materials that are transported.

The intra-State transport of these materials is regulated by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; which also regulates tank car safety. The Agency has issued “safety alerts” related to certain materials which are extracted from various regions across the United States. The Agency also conducts new testing to determine the gas content, corrosivity, toxicity, and flammability of various crudes. The agency also requires that all railroads properly label the crude materials, based on three levels of volatility.

As noted in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project may include the transportation of Bakken Crude. The expanded train facilities, like the existing train facilities, have the potential to transport Bakken Crude Oil.


It has been difficult to find clear and verifiable information on the components and properties of Bakken crude. The assumption has been made by producers and shippers that Bakken crude has similar properties to that of other light “sweet” crudes. The Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and Safety Data Sheets (SDS) available for Bakken crude are similar, if not the same, as other light “sweet” crudes. Currently, Bakken crude has been classified as a Flammable Liquid (DOT Class 3), UN/NA 1267, Packing Group III, with the Packing Group indicating the degree of danger presented by the material when transported and is what determines the type of packaging required (Packing



Group I has the highest hazard, Group III the lowest); however, no tests have been performed to properly classify Bakken crude. The Department of Transportation (DOT) presently has a project underway to research this issue and to determine if Bakken crude has been improperly classified. (Kern County Fire Department)

No one factor has been determined as to if or why Bakken crude is more volatile than other crude oils. Analyses of Bakken crude have produced inconsistent results with subjective reports of crude from the Bakken field containing high levels of Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S). In most cases the oil tested had been mixed with crude from other fields. Tests in the oil field have found low levels of H2S. There has also been some speculation that residual hydrochloric acid from fracking is present in Bakken crude and it is corroding the inside of railcars; however, this has not been proven. Other concerns have been placed on the tanks cars themselves. Typically, crude being transported by rail are shipping in DOT-111 tank cars and in 2011 specifications for these cars changed to require more protection against damage from accidents. Many believe that tank cars being used that predate 2011 are not adequate for shipping crude and may be the reason behind recent accidents; however, this theory has not been proven, nor is there verifiable or objective information on whether or not inspections have been done on the inner lining of these cars to determine if there is any evidence of corrosion from water or other contaminants found in crude. (Kern County Fire Department)



On February 25, 2014, DOT released an “Emergency Order requiring all shippers to test product from the Bakken region to ensure the proper classification of crude oil before it is transported by rail, while also prohibiting the transportation of crude oil in the lowest-strength packing group” (DOT, 2014). This Emergency Order, which was instated immediately, requires “those who offer



crude oil for transportation by rail” to “ensure that the product is properly tested and classified in accordance with federal safety regulations.”(DOT, 2014) The order goes further to now require all previously classified Class III crude oil shipments to now be “designated as Packing Group I or II, thereby requiring the use of a more robust tank car”(DOT, 2014).

Currently, as part of the ongoing investigative efforts, PHMSA and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have initiated “Operation Classification,” which is an “initiative involving unannounced inspections and testing of crude oil samples to verify that offerors of the materials have been properly classified and describe the hazardous materials” (Preliminary Guidance, 2014). The Operation Classification initiative started with focusing only on the “classification and packing group assignments that have been selected and certified by offerors” with tests measuring the “inherent chemical properties of the crude oil collected;” however, both agencies “have found it necessary to expand the scope of their testing to measure other factors that would affect the proper characterization and classification of the materials” (Preliminary Guidance, 2014). Operation Classification is planned to be an ongoing project, with PHMSA continuing to collect data from Bakken crude as well as various other crude oil locations. Final results are expected by PHMSA in the near future and will be available to interested parties that will show gas content, corrosivity, toxicity, flammability, and certain other characteristics for Bakken crude oil in hopes to not only further inform transporters of crude about proper classification and characterization, but to help PHMSA, FRA, and others to identify any appropriate mitigation measures that need to be taken to ensure the continued safe transportation of these materials” (Preliminary Guidance, 2014).

Hazardous Material Releases.

In addition to the flammable hydrocarbons, refineries typically employ hazardous chemicals as standard and essential components to the refining process. Refineries generally use or generate a variety of materials uses including coolants, catalysts, air pollution control, etc. Many of these are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 68.130 - List of Regulated Toxic Substances and Threshold Quantities for Accidental Release Prevention) as regulated toxic substances with threshold quantities for the accidental release prevention program. Hazardous substances include such chemicals as anhydrous ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Toxic gas releases from equipment such as piping, pressure relief devices, reactors, vessels, and tanks could migrate off-site and create adverse health impacts to exposed individuals. “Worst-case” conditions tend to arise when very low wind speeds coincide with accidental release, which can allow the chemicals to accumulate rather than disperse.

The factors that are relevant for the fire and explosion hazards of flammable hydrocarbons also apply to the release of toxic substances. If an incident occurs that would cause the release of flammable materials from a process unit (i.e., piping, pump, tower, heat exchanger, reactor, tank, etc.), hazardous materials may be released as well. The safety features that are employed for flammable materials are the same as those used for accidental release of hazardous materials.

Refinery Safety

As stated above, refining crude oil involves working with flammable and hazardous materials under heat and pressure. This type of operating environment creates inherent hazards for fire and explosion, and for the possible release of acutely hazardous materials. Critical operations for prevention of such incidents are the safety programs Alon Bakersfield Refinery is required to have in place. All refineries in the United States are subject to regulatory requirements which stipulate



that any facility containing “threshold” quantities of certain toxic or flammable chemicals are subject to Process Safety Management. These are so-called “covered” processes. A listing of the relevant regulations is provided in Section 4.6.3. Part of these rules includes performing Process Hazard Analyses (PHAs) on covered units. PHAs have been performed for most of the existing units within the Alon Bakersfield Refinery.

The objectives for conducting PHA studies are to identify and verify that chemical hazards associated with the process units are safeguarded to prevent accidental, uncontrolled release of process materials. The PHAs are conducted to provide detailed, systematic identification of all hazards at the refinery and provide an estimate of the potential consequences of those hazards. PHAs also identify areas where process changes can be made to decrease risk and improve safety.

Federal and California regulations require PHAs to be updated and revalidated every five years by a PHA team. Revalidation ensures that the current PHA reflects modifications made to the process subsequent to the previous PHA, accounts for any new or changed information or requirements, and provides an opportunity to correct any deficiencies identified in the previous PHA. In addition, the PHA revalidations benefit Alon USA and the nearby communities by identifying and minimizing the associated process unit risks for accidental chemical releases. PHAs are also conducted on all new process equipment prior to startup. PHAs consider the following types of hazards:

• Gas release. Release and subsequent dispersion of gas or vapor to the atmosphere with no ignition.

• Liquid release. Release of liquid from process equipment or storage tanks with no ignition

• Solid release. Release and potential dispersion of solid material, especially particulate release, such as catalyst, with no ignition

• Multiphase release. Release of more than one phase, particularly gas and liquid release, with no ignition

• Gas fire. Release of gas or vapor accompanied by ignition

• Liquid fire. Release of liquid accompanied by ignition

• Nuisance emission. Release of material that poses nuisance and possibly property damage, but not significant health threat (e.g., objectionable odor, deposition of liquid or solid particles on property)

• Explosion. Sudden, violent release of chemical energy with potential for overpressure damage and shrapnel

• Pollutant excursion. Discharge to air or water concentrations in excess of applicable standard for a particular pollutant (e.g., NOX emissions)

• Operational problem. Deviation from intended operation which could affect refinery production and which may result in subsequent hazards

In conducting the analyses, it is assumed that an accident could occur in any piece of equipment used to handle hazardous materials resulting in a release of those hazardous materials. In other words, rather than attempt to identify a credible sequence of events that could result in a release of hazardous materials, it was assumed that there would be a release despite the existing refinery safety systems and the operating procedures listed above. Those safety features include the following:



• Refinery design that minimizes the occurrence of flammable mixtures of hydrocarbons and air, and minimizes the presence of an ignition source in association with flammable materials

• Continuous monitoring and adjustment of operating temperatures, pressures, and liquid levels

• Continuous monitoring of the functions of individual pieces of equipment including checking for leaks, vibrations, and odors

• Valves designed to automatically close in the safe position during power or air pressure failures

• Pressurized equipment fitted with passive pressure relief devices connected to a passive flare system that burns generated gases

There are a number of different types of PHAs that can be conducted to provide the detailed, systematic identification of hazards and consequences of the identified hazards at refineries and other industrial facilities. The PHA technique used by Alon USA is known as a Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP). The HAZOP is a standard hazard analysis technique used in the safety assessment of new systems or modifications to existing ones. The HAZOP study is a detailed examination of components within a system, by a group of trained specialists, to determine what would happen if a component were to operate outside its normal design mode.

The PHAs conducted for the refinery included a risk assessment based on a qualitative estimate of the severity and likelihood of the consequences of refinery hazards. The first step in this assessment is to assign a severity and likelihood classification to each potential deviation in a process node based on the engineering review of that node. For the purpose of the HAZOP analysis, the process units are broken down into process nodes. Nodes represent operational sub-units of the process units (i.e., reactor vessels, condensers, distillation units, heaters, boilers, etc.). There is the possibility that each node will have a number of evaluation points and thus a number of hazards. For each process node, the flow, temperature, and pressure are evaluated where appropriate. The severity evaluation takes into account a number of different impacts that might occur if an accident or event were to occur such as employee or public safety impacts, facility or equipment damage or production loss. The severity classes ranged from I, where there would be minimal onsite or offsite consequence to public safety or property, to IV (catastrophic) where there may be any one of the following: serious injury or death to employee, equipment damage greater than $50 million, refinery production loss, and/or significant offsite injuries including fatalities. The likelihood evaluation assesses when, within a given time frame, an event would probably or most likely occur regardless of the consequences. The likelihood classifications ranged from “A,” indicating an event that has been known to occur in the oil refining industry or less than once in 10,000 years, to “E,” indicating an occurrence annually to once in the next 10 years or having occurred in the unit (Table 4.6-1).

Table 4.6-1 Process Hazard Analysis Frequency Probability Descriptions Ranking Annual Probability Event Occurrence Occurrence A 0.001 to 0.0001 Less than once in 1000 years Occurred in Industry B 0.01 to 0.001 Once in 100 to once in 1000

years Occurred in Company

C 0.1 to 0.01 Once in 10 to once in 100 years Occurred at Location D 1.0 to 0.1 Annually to one in 10 years Occurred in Unit



Refinery Fire Protection and Safety Systems

The Alon Bakersfield Refinery has the following existing firefighting equipment on site:

Emergency Vehicles/Equipment

There is a complement of mobile firefighting equipment at the refinery. The mobile equipment includes fire hose, hand portable and wheeled fire extinguishers, two fire trucks plus a quick attack firefighting pickup truck and a foam trailer. The main equipment is detailed below:

1. Class I Fire Fighting Foam Pumper Truck; with a water pumping capacity of 1,500 gpm at 150 psig. The truck is equipped with a 1,000 gallon foam concentrate tank and a variable foam proportion system at all outlets at zero to six percent foam injection rates. The truck carries over 1,800 feet of fire hose in various sizes and is also equipped with a four inch telescopic 300 to 2,000 gpm monitor with foam/water capability.

2. Class II Fire Fighting Truck; with a water pumping capacity of 1,000 gpm at 150 psig. The truck is equipped with a 1,000 gallon foam concentrate tank and a variable foam proportion system calibrated at zero, three, four and six percent foam injection rates. The truck carries over 2,400 feet of fire hose in various sizes and is also equipped with a three inch 500 gpm monitor with foam/water capability.

3. Quick-Attack Fire Fighting (Pickup) Truck; equipped with a 750 gpm monitor, 200 feet of hose and 100 gallons of foam.

4. Foam Trailer; equipped with 2,500 gallons of foam.

In addition to the equipment listed above, the Refinery has a rescue trailer which carries emergency supplies including extra SCBA’s.

Existing Fixed Fire Suppression Systems

In addition to the mobile fire protection assets discussed above, the Refinery currently has over 300 strategically placed 20 pound all-purpose (A/B/C) fire extinguishers and approximately 100 firewater monitors around the process units with approximately 120 fire hydrants provided in both the process and tank farm areas in areas 1, 2 and 4. A fire monitor is an aimable, controllable high-capacity water jet used for firefighting.

Sprinkler & Deluge Systems There are sprinkler/deluge systems in the facility. Fixed water spray systems are provided on some hot oil pumps. The main protection for the process units is provided by firewater monitors located throughout the refinery. Cone roof tanks are generally provided with semi-fixed foam chamber systems or semi-fixed subsurface foam systems which meet applicable NFPA standards. The refinery fire trucks supply the foam from fixed foam installations within the tank farm areas. Open top floating roof tanks are provided with foam dams for manual over the top application of foam from large volume portable monitors and the fire trucks.

Sphere and bullet vessels are protected by manually activated weir type water deluges fed from the refinery firewater system.

Truck and railcar loading and unloading facilities are generally protected by fixed monitors and foam carts.



Automatic sprinklers are provided in the laboratory, and warehouses.

Proposed Enhancements to Fire Protection and Safety Systems

A new fire protection and safety system will be installed for the unloading rack. The fire protection and safety system will include fire detection equipment, fire monitors, safety showers, eyewash stations, hydrants, controls and piping. The monitors with foam generators at the unloading rack will be capable of reaching all of the cars being offloaded. The system will meet or exceed the NFPA requirements for a rail unloading rack. These requirements include foam systems for all new tankage and the unloading facility. Each of the monitors will have self-educting nozzles with individual foam totes capabilities. The monitors shall be mounted at grade at a minimum of 50 feet away from unloading cars.

The new rail rack fire protection system will utilize the refinery’s existing fire water supply systems. The project area has two separate water supply systems, which can be tied together to provide a backup water supply The water supply systems have a fire water storage capacity of almost 3,000,000 gallons and capable of delivering up to 3,500 gallons per minute of water. Supply is provided by three water source wells which are capable of delivering over 1,000 gallons per minute of water to refill the fire water storage tanks. The system includes four fire water pumps with pumping capacities between 1,500 gpm and 3,500 gpm. The firewater pumps start automatically on pressure drop with alarms transmitted to the Control Room. Each of the two areas is provided with multi-loop firewater distribution systems supplying fire hydrants, monitor nozzles, hose stations, and deluge systems. The firewater distribution system mains are 10 inch and 12 inch in size, with 6 inch and 8 inch piping in many of the areas of the plant. There are fire main isolation valves provided throughout the system. Jockey pumps are used to maintain pressure in the firewater system.

Risk Management Plan

The Risk Management Plan (RMP) prepared for the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery identifies potential accident scenarios involving the release of regulated substances (e.g., flammable or toxic substances), evaluates the impacts of those accidents with regard to public safety, and provides an audit of administrative and operation programs designed to prevent accidents involving acutely hazardous materials. The basis for the RMP is the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which mandated that USEPA create regulations to require facilities possessing listed chemicals above specified threshold amounts to develop and implement RMPs. The USEPA provides guidelines for preparing an RMP.

An RMP as codified in 40 CFR 68, requires consideration of two release scenarios - a worst-case release scenario and alternative release scenario - for both regulated toxic and flammable substances. The worst-case scenario is defined as one that results in the largest impact, which is determined by the greatest distance from the point of release (the refinery) to a specified endpoint. The worst-case release scenarios incorporate conservative, simplified assumptions about the nature of the releases and the resulting emission rates into the air. The “worst-case” scenarios represent the most severe release scenarios modeled with what is deemed to be also the “worst-case” meteorological conditions. For the worst-case scenario, active safety and response systems that would be used to reduce the impact of the accidental release are not considered in the analysis. However, administrative controls and passive safety systems such as project design features or mitigation measures can be considered when analyzing the worst case scenario. Passive safety



systems refer to equipment, devices, or technologies that function without human, mechanical, or other energy input.

The alternative release scenarios are more realistic than worst-case scenarios for assessing the potential hazards of the process units. While these scenarios have a low probability of occurring, these scenarios are physically possible and reasonably foreseeable. As opposed to the worst-case scenario for the RMP, active and passive safety systems under the alternative release scenario may be considered when modeling potential hazards from the refinery, provided the systems are capable of withstanding the event that triggered the release and still be functional. Active safety systems refer to equipment, devices, or technologies that need human, mechanical, or other energy input to function.

The most recent RMP for Areas 1 and 2 was prepared in 2012 by the Alon Bakersfield refinery and submitted to the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department, Hazardous Materials Management Program and the USEPA. According to regulations, an RMP should be updated every five years or when there is a significant change in operations. The project proponent will be required to submit a new RMP evaluating the processes of the proposed project prior to the startup (i.e., the pre-startup safety review).

The RMP modeled two sets of scenarios, a worst case and alternative release scenario, each for toxics and flammable materials, respectively. The following is a partial excerpt, but not in the format, of Sections 2 through 5 of the existing RMP which concluded that the toxic or acutely hazardous substance of greatest concern in the event of an accident for the existing refinery was anhydrous (gaseous) ammonia from the Area 2 Tank Farm. The maximum linear extent of release was modeled to be 6.1 miles for the worst case scenario. The RMP concluded that the potential flammable release of greatest concern was also from the Area 2 Tank Farm. The maximum linear extent of a flammable release was modeled to be 2.1 miles for the worst case scenario.

• Worst Case Scenario Hazardous Substance (Anhydrous Ammonia release) – linear extent 6.1 miles

• Alternative Release Scenario (Anhydrous Ammonia release) – linear extent 0.59 mile

• Worst Case Scenario Flammable Materials – linear extent 2.1 miles

• Alternative Release Scenario Flammable Materials – linear extent 0.16 mile

Hazards Associated with Routine Transport and Disposal of Hazardous Materials

Hazards Associated with Transportation of Hazardous Materials. The refinery regularly sends and receives feedstock and product shipments via truck, rail, and pipeline. Crude oil is shipped both by truck and pipeline. Gasoline and diesel products are shipped from the refinery via truck and pipeline. Butane, isobutane, pentane, and alkylate are shipped via rail. Anhydrous ammonia, which is a catalyst used in air pollution control at the refinery, is received via truck. Finally, other fresh and spent catalyst materials are shipped to and from the refinery by truck.

Transportation accidents involving railcars loaded with petroleum products can result in fires and explosions. If a railcar carrying light petroleum liquids is breached during an accident and there is an ignition source such as fire or sparks present, the material could ignite. Railcars carrying these liquids that are not breached but are exposed to fire could potentially explode.



A truck accident involving anhydrous ammonia could result in a breach of the tank. Depending on the nature of the breach, the escaping gas could form a dense enough plume to cause impact human health near the site of the accident.

Breaks and breaches in pipelines carrying petroleum products can result in a number of outcomes. In addition to fires and explosions, pipeline spills can also result in soil and groundwater contamination. The difference between pipeline spills and those involving railcars and trucks is that pipelines have the potential to spill their contents until such time as the flow through the pipeline is stopped.

Most of the catalysts currently used at the refinery are solid, and a transportation accident involving solid catalysts would not be expected to jeopardize public safety. The catalysts are relatively inert, and if spilled, could be readily cleaned up immediately after the accident.

Hazards Associated with Hazardous Waste Disposal. The refinery generates a variety of wastes, some of which are classified as hazardous by state and/or federal regulations. Most of the hazardous waste consists of catalyst and sludges or other waste materials from the cleaning of process equipment. Several types of catalysts are used in the refinery to enhance chemical reactions. These catalysts are routinely replaced when their effectiveness becomes reduced to a point where they are inefficient for their intended use. After being used for several years, catalysts become contaminated with hydrocarbons and impurities such as metals. Upon removal from the process equipment, the spent catalyst is tested and categorized in accordance with Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements and California Title 22 hazardous waste regulations. It is then transported according to Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements, as non-hazardous or hazardous waste. The preferred destination of spent catalyst is recycling by the catalyst manufacturer. When recycling and reuse is not feasible, the material is disposed of at a regulated landfill. Spent catalyst is typically shipped offsite in sealed drums via truck.

Alon Bakersfield Refinery Incidents

Environmental Releases. The refinery hazards discussed above can be generally grouped into two categories: hazards that would cause offsite nuisances, such as smoke and odor, or minor property damage, such as oil droplets or soot on homes and automobiles, and hazards that would result in major property damage and injuries to the public. Development of the RMP for the existing refinery required identification of the facility’s accident history involving acutely hazardous materials in the time period from when the last 2012 RMP was completed. The most significant accident involved the release of chlorine gas in August 2001 under the former owner. This release resulted in a chlorine gas exposure injury to one employee. As a result of the incident, the process has since changed with the substitution of a safer substance throughout the refinery.

There was a hydrogen sulfide release (also under the former refinery owner) on October 13, 2006 due to a circuit breaker power failure in Area 1. This resulted in an offsite odor impact at the Lowe’s store at 7825 Rosedale Highway, approximately ¾ of a mile from Area 1. The Lowe’s management made the decision to evacuate all people in the store to the Garden section. No one was injured or required medical treatment as a result of this release. A Notice of Violation was issued to the former refinery owner by the Kern County Environmental Health Department as a result of this release.



Transportation Risk Analysis

For the public safety analysis, the study area includes the existing rail facilities and routes. The existing sources of risks include current operations at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery, truck transportation of hazardous materials, crude oil pipelines and the existing rail facilities. The proposed rail facility will introduce additional transportation hazards associated with rail transportation to the site.

Estimating the transportation risks involves the following steps:

1. Determining the applicable transportation;

2. Determining the applicable accident rates;

3. Applying release probabilities to the accidents;

4. Developing the consequences of releases on the surrounding populations;

5. Applying accident-related trauma impacts for injuries and fatalities; and

6. Developing risk estimates.

Rail risks include the rate of accidents, conditional probabilities of releases, and fatality and injury rates. The BNSF Railway traverses Kern County in a northwest-southeast direction and passes through the main urban areas of the county (see Figure 4.6-1).

Rail Type and Car Type

Rail track is classified into six categories with Class 6 having the most stringent track tolerances and maintenance schedules. Mainline track is generally Class 5 or 6 and has the lowest accident rate per million miles. Yard track can have an accident rate of 100 times mainline rates (DOT, 2000). The primary factor associated with rail accidents was track condition and other vehicles on tracks at crossings (Liu, et. al., 2012).

Rail car types for crude oil are DOT-111 non-pressurized tank cars (DOT 111A60W1). DOT-111 tank cars for crude oil service have a maximum capacity of 30,000 gallons. Following an accident in Illinois in 2009, the NTSB made a number of safety recommendations to both the American Association of Railroads (AAR) and the DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) regarding DOT-111 tank cars. The NTSB recommended to PHMSA that it require modifications be made on all existing and new DOT-111 tank cars. PHMSA did not mandate a fleet retrofit, nor has it published new standard designs for crude and ethanol tank cars. The AAR-North American Tank Car Committee, independent of a federal mandate, implemented nearly all of the recommendations made to PHMSA in its design standards for new crude oil and ethanol tank cars ordered after October 2011. Specifically, all new DOT-111 tank cars for ethanol and crude oil service beginning October 1, 2011 are required to have: • Increase head and shell thickness;

• Normalized steel;

• ½-inch thick head shield; and

• Top fitting protection.



Figure 4.6-1. BNSF Route through Kern County



The NTSB also recommended the AAR review the design requirements for attaching center sills or draft sills for all tank cars. The AAR-North American Tank Car Committee has studied the stub sill issue and will revise those standards as recommended. Nearly 25 percent of the DOT-111 fleet carrying crude today meets the higher design standards, as outlined above.

On September 6, 2013, PHMSA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as the first step in rulemaking in response to the recommendations of the NTSB and others regarding the safety of transportation of crude oil by rail. The Notice solicits information from the public on enhanced standards for newly-constructed and existing DOT-111 tanks cars, and accessibility of first responders to information regarding the identity and location of all hazardous materials on a train. The notice is published at 78 Federal Register 54849. The public comment period closed in January 2014, and PHMSA is assessing the comments. On January 23, 2014, the NTSB wrote to PHMSA with additional recommendations to improve the safety of transportation of crude oil by rail, including use of the safest and most secure practicable route available; preparation of oil spill response plans based on the maximum amount of oil that could be released, rather than the maximum contents of the single largest container; and greater testing and recordkeeping of data used to classify the crude (classification affects the applicable equipment standards as well as other requirements).

On February 20, 2014, Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx and the Association of American Railroads announced further measures to immediately improve the safety of rail transportation of crude oil. Railroads subscribing to the agreement will implement the following measures:

• Apply specified routing protocols for Key Crude Oil Trains (i.e., trains transporting 20 or more loaded railroad tank cars containing petroleum crude oil);

• Adhere to a speed limit of 50 miles per hour for Key Crude Oil Trains (40 miles per hour within high threat urban areas if the train includes one or more cars meeting DOT 111 standards rather than the enhanced standards adopted by the Association);

• Equip Key Crude Oil Trains with either distributed power locomotives or an operative two-way telemetry end of train device to allow train crews to apply emergency brakes from both ends of the train, thereby stopping the train faster and reducing the kinetic energy (or pile-up effect) of trains in the event of derailment;

• On mainline routes over which Key Crude Oil Trains will operate, perform annual internal rail inspections and track geometry inspections beyond the inspection requirements currently specified in the regulations;

• Install wayside defective bearing detectors along mainline routes over which Key Crude Oil Trains will operate;

• Inventory emergency response resources along the routes over which Key Crude Oil Trains will operate, and provide that information to the Department of Transportation and the appropriate emergency responders;

• Develop and provide a hazardous material transportation training curriculum for emergency responders;

• Work with local communities to identify location-specific concerns.



Accident Rates

Train accidents are required to be reported to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and typically identify the causes and contributing factors (Table 4.6-2).

The transportation of hazardous substances poses a potential for fires, explosions, and hazardous materials releases. In general, the greater the miles traveled the greater the potential for an accident. Statistical accident frequency varies. The size of a potential release is related to the maximum volume of a hazardous substance that can be released in a single accident, should an accident occur, and the type of failure of the containment structure, e.g., rupture or leak. The potential consequences of the accident are related to the size of the release, the population density at the location of the accident, the specific release scenario, the physical and chemical properties of the hazardous material, and the local meteorological conditions.

The FRA regulations on reporting railroad accidents/incidents are found primarily in 49 CFR Part 225. The purpose of the regulations is to provide FRA with accurate information concerning the hazards and risks that exist on the nation’s railroads. The FRA uses this information for regulatory and enforcement purposes, and for determining comparative trends of railroad safety. These regulations preempt states from prescribing accident/incident reporting requirements.

The FRA compiles data on railroad-related accidents, injuries and fatalities to depict the nature and cause of rail-related accidents and improve safety. Train accident data reported in the United States, in California, and accidents reported by BNSF between 2003 and 2012 are summarized in Table 4.6-3. Based on the train accident data for the United States, the train accident rate varied from 2.3 accidents per million miles traveled to 4.4 accidents per million miles traveled over the 10-year period from January 2003 to December 2012. The train accident rate for 2012 was 2.3 train accidents per million miles traveled. However, the train accident rate on mainline Class 5 and 6 tracks was lower at 1.0 train accidents per million miles traveled. Of the train accidents reported during the 10-year period (a total of 128,974), less than one percent of the train accidents resulted in a release of hazardous materials (287/128,974 = 0.0022 or 0.22%).

Injury and Fatality Rates

The CTSB (2012) indicated that fatalities, generally associated with crossings and trespassing, occurred at a rate of 0.9 fatality and 0.7 injuries per million train miles.

Accident vs. Hazmat Release Impacts

The vast majority of rail-related injuries and fatalities are associated with trauma due to train impacts to persons on or near railroad tracks. As the injury and fatality rates above show, the odds of experiencing a train-related fatality or injury are 10 to 20 times greater than experiencing a release of material. The CTSB (2012) 2006-2010 statistics show that, between the years 2006 to 2010, there were an annual average of 142 injuries and fatalities while there was an average of three “dangerous goods” release accidents nationally.



Table 4.6-2. Rail Incidents-Initiating and Contributing Causes

Human Errors Equipment Failures System or Procedural

Failures External Events Humping Nondedicated car Routing Vandalism/sabotage Switching Crossing guard failure Control At-grade crossing Coupling Overpressure -yards Flood/washout Transloading Leaking valve -mainline Earthquake lnerting Roller bearing failure -in-plant Rockslide/landslide Contamination Coupling failure Interim storage at Avalanche Heating and cooling Broken rail holding track Fire on rail siding Overfilling Brake failure Car tracking Fog/blizzard Speeding Roadbed failure Container specification Bridge failure Ignoring closed Protective coating/

insulation/thermal protection failure

Emergency response training

Block signals Relief device failure Maintenance Driver impairment Track sensor failure Inspection

Switchgear failure Circuitous routing

Signal failure

Communications

system failure

Broken wheel

Suspension failure

Fitting defect

Corrosion

Material defect

Bad weld

Source: CCPS, 1995.



Table 4.6-3 Summary of National and California Train Accident Data

Category 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Train Accident Data for United States Total Accidents/ Incidents(1) 14,371 14,523 14,311 13,803 13,936 12,958 11,263 11,628 11,434 10,747

Accident Rate(2) 19.3 18.9 18.1 17.0 17.6 16.7 16.9 16.5 15.9 14.5

Train Accidents 3,019 3,385 3,266 2,998 2,693 2,482 1,911 1,902 2,019 1,712

Train Accident Rate(2) 4.1 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.3 Train Accidents on Main Line 976 1,033 1,021 981 854 767 619 616 619 489

Accident Rate on Main Line 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.7

Hazmat Releases(3) 30 31 39 30 46 22 22 21 21 25

Cars Carrying Hazmat(4) 7,790 8,185 8,034 9,000 8,562 8,451 6,440 7,509 7,582 6,680

Hazmat Cars Damaged/Derailed 1,072 998 915 1,047 1,056 751 749 719 666 661

Cars Releasing 41 49 52 71 76 38 44 40 66 45 Total Train Miles(5) 743.3 770.2 789.0 813.6 793.6 774.1 668.0 704.8 717.6 740.4

Train Accident Data for BNSF Total Accidents/ Incidents(1)

1,972 2,090 2,208 2,042 2,083 1,991 1,611 1,683 1,534 1,308

Train Accidents 583 672 677 658 629 602 411 445 473 377

Hazmat Releases 4 10 10 7 10 6 7 7 5 5

Train Accident Data for California Total Accidents/ Incidents(1)

1,002 865 965 944 950 843 727 720 704 807

Train Accidents 175 185 199 191 155 120 101 87 88 83

Hazmat Releases 1 3 2 3 4 1 1 1 0 0 Source: Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety Analysis data reports.

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/query/tenyr1a.aspx (1) Total accident/incidents include train accidents, highway-rail accidents, and other incidents. (2) Events per million train miles. (3) Number of accidents involving a hazmat release. (4) Number of rail cars that released hazardous materials. (5) Number in million train miles.

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/query/tenyr1a.aspx



Rail Crossings and Accidents

The rail cars serving the proposed project will be delivered via the BNSF Bakersfield subdivision rail tracks by a connection to the on-site rail track at milepost 891.2.

As shown in the Proposed Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project Appendix C: Non- Permitted Source/Activity Emissions, trains serving the proposed project would travel north to/from north of the project site to the California/Oregon border and east to/from the California/Arizona border. Within Kern County, trains would travel as far north as Garces Highway (north of Wasco) which is 33.4 miles from the proposed project site and trains would travel as far east as Boron Avenue in unincorporated Boron which is 80.9 miles from the proposed project site. Trains to/from the north of the proposed project site would use the BNSF Bakersfield subdivision for the entirety of their trips within Kern County. Trains coming to and from the east of the proposed project site would travel along the BNSF subdivision for 5.8 miles to the Kern Junction with the Union Pacific Rail Road’s Mojave Subdivision. The trains would travel along the Union Pacific Mojave Subdivision for 61.9 miles, after which they would switch to the BNSF Mojave Subdivision at Mojave.

Within Kern County, the rail tracks utilized by trains serving the proposed project would cross several roadways. In the immediate project area, many of the crossings have been grade separated. Every road crossing between Hageman Road and Oak Street is grade separated which includes the following crossings:

• Hageman Road (Milepost 895.31)

• Allen Road (Milepost 895.21)

• Rosedale Highway (Milepost 893.8)

• Calloway Drive (Milepost 892.7)

• Coffee Road (Milepost 891.7)

• Mohawk Road (Milepost 890.1)

• Truxtun Avenue (Milepost 889.4)

• SR-99 (Milepost 888.7)

• Oak Road (Milepost 888.5)

North of the proposed project site, the closest at-grade crossing is Reina Road (Milepost 896.6) which is 5.4 miles from the proposed project site rail track. East of the proposed project rail connection, the closed at-grade crossing is “L” Street which is 4.0 miles from the proposed project. Within Kern County trains serving the proposed project would traverse 28 at-grade crossings north along the BNSF Bakersfield Subdivision and 38 at-grade crossings east along the BNSF Bakersfield Subdivision, the UPRR Mojave Subdivision, and the BNSF Mojave Subdivision. Table 4.6-4 describes the Kern County at-grade crossings north of the proposed project and Table 4.6-5 describes the Kern County at-grade crossings east of the proposed project.

At-Grade railroad crossing create a situation where adverse train, vehicle and/or pedestrian interactions can occur.



Table 4.6-4. Kern County At-Grade Crossings North of the Proposed Project

DOT Number CPUC Number Street Incidents

2008-2013 Devices City Rail Line Milepost Note

028379W 002-896.60 Reina Rd 2 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 896.6 028380R 002-897.30 Kratzmeyer Road 2 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 897.3 030101T 002-901.94-C Santa Fe Way 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 901.94 Spur 028383L 002-902.30 Burbank Street 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 902.3 030102A 002-902.68-C Cherry Avenue 1 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 902.68 Spur 028384T 002-903.00 Cherry Avenue 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 903 TBD 002-903.38-CX Private (San Diego St) 0 None Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 903.38 Spur TBD 002-903.63-CX Private (Waymon Av) 0 None Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 903.63 Spur 028385A 002-903.70 Riverside Avenue 1 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 903.7 TBD 002-903.88-CX Private (Imperial St) 0 None Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 903.88 Spur 030103G 002-904.37-C Enos Lane (Sr 43) 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 904.37 Spur 028386G 002-904.40 Beech Av & Los Angeles St 0 Gates Shafter BNSF-Bakersfield 904.4 028390W 002-905.10 Lerdo Highway 0 Gates Shafter BNSF-Bakersfield 905.1 028391D 002-905.50 Central Avenue 0 Gates Shafter BNSF-Bakersfield 905.5 028392K 002-905.80 Shafter Avenue 1 Gates Shafter BNSF-Bakersfield 905.8 028393S 002-906.50 Fresno Avenue 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 906.5 028394Y 002-907.20 Poplar Av 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 907.2 028395F 002-908.00 Merced Avenue 1 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 908 028397U 002-910.40 Kimberlina Road 1 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 910.4 028300V 002-912.50 Poso Drive 0 Gates Wasco BNSF-Bakersfield 912.5 028302J 002-913.10 6th Street 0 Gates Wasco BNSF-Bakersfield 913.1 028306L 002-914.50 Mccombs Road 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 914.5 028308A 002-917.00 Taussig Avenue 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 917 028309G 002-918.00 Blankenship Avenue 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 918 028310B 002-920.50 Peterson Road 1 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 920.5 028315K 002-921.50 Pond Road 1 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 921.5 028316S 002-922.50 Schuster Road 1 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 922.5 028317Y 002-924.60 Garces Highway 2 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 924.6



Table 4.6-5. Kern County At-Grade Crossings East of the Proposed Project



028354B 002-887.20 "L" Street 2 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 887.2 Quiet Zone 20 mph 028351F 002-887.10 "N" Street 0 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 887.1 Quiet Zone 20 mph 028289X 002-886.40 Sonora Street 0 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 886.4 Quiet Zone 20 mph 028288R 002-886.20 Tulare Street 0 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 886.2 Quiet Zone 20 mph 028285V 002-885.95 Baker Street 1 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 885.95 Quiet Zone 20 mph 028284N 002-885.77 E Truxtun Avenue 0 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 885.77 Quiet Zone 20 mph 028280L 002-885.40 Sumner/Miller Street 0 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 885.4 Quiet Zone 20 mph 757413M 001B-317.50 Morning Drive (Sr 184) 1 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 317.5 Kern Jctn. to UPRR 757414U 001B-318.50 Vineland Road 1 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 318.5 757415B 001B-319.56-X Prvt. (Giumarra Vineyard Rd) 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 319.56 757416H 001B-319.90 Pepper Drive 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 319.9 757417P 001B-320.90 Private Road 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 320.9 757418W 001B-321.70 Comanche Drive 1 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 321.7 757419D 001B-322.70-X Private (Tejon Highway Ext) 0 Passive Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 322.7 757420X 001B-323.80-X Prvt. (Tower Line Patrol Rd) 0 Passive Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 323.8 757421E 001B-324.80 Neumarkel Rd-Landfill 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 324.8

757423T 001B-327.70-X Private Baker Grade Rd - Bena Corrals (Simcal Chemical)

0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 327.7

757427V 001B-335.30 Norton Street 0 Passive Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 335.3 757428C 001B-335.50 Caliente Bodfish Rd 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 335.5

757430D 001B-340.50 Bealville Road 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 340.5 End - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

757436U 001B-360.50 N Green Street 0 Gates Tehachapi UPRR-Mojave 360.5 757246R 001B-360.90 Hayes Street 0 Gates Tehachapi UPRR-Mojave 360.9 757247X 001B-361.40 Dennison Rd 0 Gates Tehachapi UPRR-Mojave 361.4 757253B 001B-364.40 Williamson Road 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 364.4 757254H 001B-364.90-D Monolith Port. Cem. 0 None Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 364.9 757255P 001B-365.20 Tehachapi Bl/Old State Hy 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 365.2 757258K 001B-369.20 Cameron Canyon Road 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 369.2 757259S 001B-377.30-X Private Xing 0 None Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 377.3 757244C 001B-379.40 Arroyo Avenue 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 379.4



Table 4.6-5. Kern County At-Grade Crossings East of the Proposed Project



028246E 002-797.10-X Rosamond Bl (Private) 0 Flashers Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 797.1 BNSF-Mojave Jctn. 028221J 002-789.30-C Suckow Road 0 Flashers Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 789.3 Spur 028243J 002-788.30-X Rocket Site (Air Force) 0 Flashers Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 788.3 028220C 002-788.20-C Suckow Road 0 Flashers Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 788.2 Spur 028216M 002-787.80-C Suckow Road 0 Flashers Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 787.8 Spur 028214Y 002-787.70-C Suckow Road 0 Flashers Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 787.7 Spur 028242C 002-786.38-X Del Oro Rd (Private) 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 786.38 028211D 002-784.93-C 20 Mule Team Road 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 784.93 Spur 028210W 002-783.90 Boron Av 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 783.9

Based on Kern County traffic counts, the at-grade crossings outside of the cities of Bakersfield, Shafer, and Wasco are located in rural areas with low traffic volumes (typically less than 5,000 average daily trips).



Between 2008 and 2013 there were 20 incidents along the at-grade crossings that would be utilized by trains serving the proposed project, seven of which involved Amtrak trains and 13 involved freight trains. The locations of these incidents are indicated in Tables 4.6-4 and 4.6-5.

Probability of Transportation Accidents

Trucks. Petroleum products shipped by truck from the refinery go to Los Angeles and Fresno Area markets. Truck shipments of crude, refinery feedstock hazardous waste, and catalyst and caustic travel come from Los Angeles as well as from out of state. Every time hazardous materials are moved from the site of generation, there are opportunities for accidental (unintentional) releases. The U.S. DOT conducted a study on the comparative risks of hazardous materials and non-hazardous materials and non-hazardous materials truck shipment accidents and incidents. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) compared risks of hazardous materials truck shipment accidents and incidents to non-hazardous materials truck shipment accidents and incidents (FMCSA, 2001). The estimated accident rate for trucks (shipping non-hazardous materials) was 0.73 per million miles traveled. The average accident rate for trucks transporting hazardous materials (all hazard classes) was estimated to be 0.32 per million miles traveled (FMCSA, 2001, Table 24). Not all accidents involving hazardous materials transport result in releases of hazardous materials. For flammable materials (hazard class 2.1), only 47 involved releases (FMCSA, 2001, Table 10). The average accident rate for trucks carrying flammable materials involving a release (hazard class 2.1), such as petroleum products, was estimated to be 0.06 per million miles traveled (47/805,000,000) (FMCSA, 2001, Table 10 and 24). Though it is difficult to compare hazardous and non-hazardous transport risk, the differences appear to be significant enough to conclude that the magnitude of non-hazardous transport accidents dominates highway transport risk. The specific hazardous material trucking regulations and additional care provided by carriers and shippers of hazardous materials appear to be reducing the accident rate for hazardous material shipments (FMCSA, 2001).

For baseline conditions, there were an estimated 106,408 truck trips annually to and from the refinery covering an estimated 10,176,101 truck miles. The transportation analysis is based on the annual mileage trucks carrying feedstock and product travel. As noted above, the probability of accidents involving truck shipments of these materials was estimated to be about 0.06 per million miles traveled (FMCSA, 2001). Based on this annual mileage, there is a probability of less than one (0.06) accident per year involving a truck from the refinery carrying petroleum products.

The proposed project will result in a decrease in truck traffic; and therefore, a reduction in the transportation risk associated with existing refinery operations.

Pipelines. For the purpose of this discussion, the refinery pipelines are divided between those which are primarily onsite and those which are primarily offsite. The onsite pipelines are those which connect the refinery facilities: process equipment, storage tanks, loading racks, etc. The offsite pipelines are those which transport feedstock and products to and from the refinery. There are approximately 17 miles of onsite pipelines and 820 miles of offsite pipelines servicing the refinery.

The U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA), keeps detailed pipeline incident and mileage reports to chart fatalities, injuries, property damage, and loss of barrels of product resulting from pipeline incidents.

Pipeline accident events, referred to as “significant incidents” by the PHMSA, include all incidents reported by a pipeline operator when any of the following conditions are met: (1) fatality or injury



requiring in-patient hospitalization (also referred to as a “serious incident”); (2) $50,000 or more in total costs; (3) highly volatile liquid releases of five barrels or more or other liquid releases of 50 barrels or more; and/or (4) liquid releases resulting in an unintentional fire or explosion.

Table 4.6-6 shows the total number of incidents each year between 2003 and 2012 for onshore hazardous liquid pipelines, including crude oil and petroleum products, in California. The 10-year total (2003 - 2012) reported 268 incidents, one of which resulted in fatalities and two of which resulted in serious injuries. These 268 significant incidents resulted in 36,161 gross barrels spilled, and a net loss of 12,105 barrels (barrels not recovered). According to the U.S. DOT Incident and Mileage Reports, California contains 6,525 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline, transporting primarily crude oil and petroleum products.

Table 4.6-6. California Hazardous Liquid Onshore Pipeline Incidents (2003 – 2012)

Year Number Serious Significant Fatalities Injuries Gross Barrels Spilled

Net Barrels

Lost 2003 31 1 12 0 1 4,260 889 2004 34 1 9 5 3 8,543 4,655 2005 28 0 13 0 0 7,265 3,468 2006 33 0 13 0 0 3,954 1,704 2007 32 0 7 0 0 1,214 193 2008 30 0 11 0 0 8,596 854 2009 19 0 2 0 0 294 26 2010 15 0 6 0 0 981 162 2011 24 0 8 0 0 272 127 2012 22 0 6 0 0 777 22 Totals 268 0 87 5 4 36,161 12,105 2013 YTD 7 2 1 0 0 21 1 3 Year Average (2010 – 2012) 20 0 7 0 0 677 104

5 Year Average (2008 – 2012) 22 0 7 0 0 2,185 239

10 Year Average (2003 – 2012) 27 0 9 1 0 3,616 1,211

Source: U.S. DOT, PHMSA, 2013. Notes: Net Barrels Lost applies only to Liquid incidents and is the difference between Gross Barrels Spilled and Barrels Recovered

As shown in Table 4.6-6, over a 10-year period (2003 - 2012), the U.S. DOT reported 87 “significant” accidents over 6,525 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline in California. Therefore, the accident rate was 0.00133 accidents per mile of hazardous liquid pipeline per year. It is noted that the significant and serious accident rates associated with hazardous liquid pipelines are calculated by dividing the total number of incidents by the duration of the study divided by the total number of hazardous liquid pipelines miles (e.g., [87/10]/6,525 = 0.00133). “Serious” incidents (those resulting in fatality or serious injury) accounted for two accidents (resulting in five fatalities and



four injuries) over the 10-year period (2003 - 2012) over 6,525 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline in California, or an accident rate of 0.000031 per mile of hazardous liquid pipeline per year. The data demonstrates that the rate of risk of hazardous liquid pipeline accidents resulting in serious injury, or fatality is very low.

The probability of a serious incident by the offsite pipeline, while it is carrying Alon Bakersfield Refinery feedstocks and products to Fresno, Los Angeles, and San Francisco is about 0.025 per year or about one accident every 39 years.

Soils and Groundwater

Historic operations at the refinery since 1932 have resulted in releases to soil and groundwater in some areas at the refinery. This includes proposed project areas as wells non- project areas. These releases deposited petroleum hydrocarbons in soils in these areas, from which the petroleum hydrocarbons then migrated to and polluted underlying groundwater as described below. Alon USA assumed responsibility for the refinery soil investigations based on the terms of the 2010 Sales Agreement between Alon USA and Big West who formerly operated the refinery. Following the sale of the refinery to Big West, Equilon retained responsibility for the refinery groundwater programs, except for releases occurring after March 2005 when Big West assumed operations.

Approximately 350groundwater monitoring wells and supply wells at the refinery are currently being maintained, including wells in the proposed project areas. The wells monitor groundwater conditions from current and historic releases under the regulatory oversight of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Since assuming ownership and operation in 2005, Big West in cooperation with Equilon, conducted additional soil and groundwater assessments in the areas of the refinery where the proposed facilities will be located.

The results of the soil and groundwater assessment programs conducted to date, in and adjacent to the proposed project areas, indicate that soils are impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons, metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium and lead) and organochlorine pesticides (DDT and DDE). A review of the results reported to the RWQCB indicated that concentrations of some of these constituents exceeded the Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) and California Human Health Screen Levels (CHHSLs). This was expected with the prior historical land use for agricultural purposes and as a refinery. However, most of the proposed project areas are not impacted by soils exceeding levels of regulatory concern.

Cleanup and Abatement Order No. R5-2007-0728. On October 10, 2007 the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region issued Cleanup and Abatement Order, No. R5-2007-07283 (Order). The Order was issued pursuant to California Water Code Sections 13267 and 13304. It requires that Big West of California, LLC and Equilon Enterprises, LLC investigate the discharges of waste, cleanup the wastes and abate the affects of the discharge of wastes, including petroleum hydrocarbons and hazardous substances, to soil and groundwater at the refinery. Alon USA has assumed many of Big West's responsibilities under the Order.

The Order specifies a timetable for performing assessments of soil and groundwater contamination at various designated areas within the refinery. It also requires development of technical reports evaluating effective cleanup and abatement options as well as selection of the preferred alternative. Upon RWQCB concurrence the approved alternative will implemented in accordance with a time schedule approved by the RWQCB.

Other areas addressed in the Order are the following:



• Development of processes for routine maintenance and testing of underground pipelines,

• Procedures for reporting and response to, and assessment of future discharges of hydrocarbon liquids and/or other hazardous liquid materials,

• Technical reports that document that each Above Ground Storage Tank is either equipped or is proposed to be equipped with a reliable method of detecting a leak or discharge to prevent and minimize future impacts to groundwater. A plan to implement such action will also be submitted to RWQCB.

• Development of a Public Participation Plan

• Work plan to assess whether soil and/or groundwater impacted petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and/or other constituents pose a threat to human health and safety.

The Order also specifies a monitoring and reporting program required pursuant to California Water Code Section 13267. The following are specific items identified in the Order.

• Groundwater Monitoring – Big West (now Alon USA) shall collect groundwater samples from groundwater monitoring wells (provided sufficient water exists in a well to be sampled) and nearby supply wells in accordance with the Groundwater Monitoring Schedule.

• Remediation Systems – Sets the requirements for remediation systems reporting and what information will be included in the reports.

• Monitoring Frequencies – The monitoring programs are subject to periodic revisions based on submitted monitoring data.

• Reporting Requirements – Groundwater monitoring and remediation system reports are required to be be submitted to the RWQCB on a quarterly and Annual Basis.

Disposal of Hazardous Materials

All waste generated at the refinery is handled and shipped in accordance with all DOT and waste regulatory requirements. In California the hazardous waste facility is Clean Harbors (formerly Safety-Kleen) in Buttonwillow (Kern County). Hazardous waste also can be transported to permitted facilities outside of California. The nearest out-of-state landfills are U.S. Ecology, Inc., located in Beatty, Nevada and USPCI, Inc., in Murray, Utah.

4.6.3 Regulatory Setting A variety of federal and state laws have been in existence for many years to promote safe industrial practices. The regulations are aimed at protecting workers and the public from catastrophic accidents at industrial plants, including refineries. Process units that comprise the Alon Bakersfield Refinery must comply with federal and state process safety regulations. Federal and state OSHA regulations are focused on the impact of accidental releases to onsite employees. Federal and state Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulations are focused on the impact accidental releases may have on the public. The key regulations relevant to the project are summarized below.

Federal

Federal laws address gas and liquid pipelines and oil facilities.



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

The USEPA was established in 1970 to consolidate in one agency a variety of Federal research, monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement activities to ensure environmental protection. The USEPA's mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment - air, water, and land - upon which life depends. The USEPA works to develop and enforce regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress, is responsible for researching and setting national standards for a variety of environmental programs, and delegates to states and tribes the responsibility for issuing permits and for monitoring and enforcing compliance. Where national standards are not met, the USEPA can issue sanctions and take other steps to assist the states and tribes in reaching the desired levels of environmental quality.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (CERCLA)

CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law (U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 103) provides broad Federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and, establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be identified. CERCLA also enables the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation [CFR], Part 300) provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List (NPL). CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) on October 17, 1986.

Liquid Pipelines and Oil Facilities Hazardous liquid pipelines are under the jurisdiction of the DOT and must follow the regulations in 49 CFR Part 195, Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline, as authorized by the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (49 USC 2004). Other applicable Federal requirements are contained in 40 CFR Parts 109, 110, 112, 113, and 114, pertaining to the need for Oil Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasures Plans; 40 CFR Parts 109–114 promulgated in response to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

Overview of the 49 CFR 195 Requirements. Part 195.30 incorporates many of the applicable national safety standards of the:

• American Petroleum Institute (API);

• American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME);

• American National Standards Institute (ANSI); and

• American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

Part 195.50 requires reporting of accidents by telephone and in writing for:

• Explosion or fire not intentionally set by the operator;



• Spills of 5 gallons or more or 5 barrels if confined to company property and cleaned up promptly;

• Daily loss of 5 barrels a day to the atmosphere;

• Death or injury necessitating hospitalization; or

• Estimated property damage, including cleanup costs, greater than $50,000.

The Part 195.100 series includes design requirements for the temperature environment, variations in pressure, internal design pressure for pipe specifications, external pressure and external loads, new and used pipe, valves, fittings, and flanges.

The Part 195.200 series provides construction requirements for standards such as compliance, inspections, welding, siting and routing, bending, welding and welders, inspection and nondestructive testing of welds, external corrosion and cathodic protection, installing in-ditch and covering, clearances and crossings, valves, pumping, breakout tanks, and construction records.

The Part 195.300 series prescribes minimum requirements for hydrostatic testing, compliance dates, test pressures and duration, test medium, and records.

The Part 195.400 series specifies minimum requirements for operating and maintaining steel pipeline systems, including:

• Correction of unsafe conditions within a reasonable time;

• Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies;

• Training;

• Maps;

• Maximum operating pressure;

• Communication system;

• Cathodic protection system;

• External and internal corrosion control;

• Valve maintenance;

• Pipeline repairs;

• Overpressure safety devices;

• Firefighting equipment; and

• Public education program for hazardous liquid pipeline emergencies and reporting.

Overview of 40 CFR Parts 109, 110, 112, 113, and 114 The SPCCs covered in these regulatory programs apply to oil storage and transportation facilities and terminals, tank farms, bulk plants, oil refineries, and production facilities, as well as bulk oil consumers, such as apartment houses, office buildings, schools, hospitals, farms, and state and federal facilities as follows:

• Part 109 establishes the minimum criteria for developing oil-removal contingency plans for certain inland navigable waters by state, local, and regional agencies in consultation with the regulated community (i.e., oil facilities).



• Part 110 prohibits discharge of oil such that applicable water quality standards would be violated, or that would cause a film or sheen upon or in the water. These regulations were updated in 1987 to adequately reflect the intent of Congress in Section 311(b) (3) and (4) of the Clean Water Act, specifically incorporating the provision “in such quantities as may be harmful.”

• Part 112 deals with oil spill prevention and preparation of Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans. These regulations establish procedures, methods, and equipment requirements to prevent the discharge of oil from onshore and offshore facilities into or upon the navigable waters of the United States. These regulations apply only to non-transportation-related facilities.

• Part 113 establishes financial liability limits; however, these limits were preempted by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

• Part 114 provides civil penalties for violations of the oil spill regulations.

Overview of 6 CFR Part 27 Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, 6 CFR 27. The Federal Department of Homeland Security established the chemical facility anti-terrorism standards of 2007. This 2007 rule established risk-based performance standards for the security of chemical facilities. It requires covered chemical facilities to prepare Security Vulnerability Assessments, which identify facility security vulnerabilities, and to develop and implement Site Security Plans, which include measures that satisfy the identified risk-based performance standards.

Hazardous Waste Handling Requirements

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Associated Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, 40 CFR 260 Implementation of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) resulted in the creation of a major federal hazardous waste regulatory program that is administered by the EPA. Under RCRA, the EPA regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended by the Associated Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), which affirmed and extended the concept of regulating hazardous wastes from generation through disposal. HSWA specifically prohibits the use of certain techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes. Under RCRA, individual states may implement their own hazardous waste programs instead of RCRA, as long as the state program is at least as stringent as the Federal RCRA requirements. The EPA approved California's program to implement Federal hazardous waste regulations on August 1, 1992.

Toxic Air Contaminants

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR 61 Subpart M Under Subpart M, an asbestos containing materials survey must be performed prior to renovation or demolition activities. Notification to the lead agency is required 10 working days prior to the start of work (disturbance of asbestos containing materials). Additional federal- and state-level asbestos



requirements related to OSHA standards in 29 CFR 1926.1101 are covered by the Asbestos Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR Section 1529, which is described separately below.

The Worker Protection Rule (40 CFR 763, Subpart G, and 29 CFR 1910.1001) provides worker protection measures through engineering controls, worker training, labeling, respiratory protection, and waste management; the rule also defines asbestos containing materials and sets the permissible exposure level for asbestos.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, or Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, the EPA requires local agencies to regulate the storage and handling of hazardous materials and requires development of a plan to mitigate the release of hazardous materials. Businesses that handle any of the specified hazardous materials must submit to government agencies (i.e., fire departments or Public Health Departments), an inventory of the hazardous materials, an emergency response plan, and an employee training program. The business plans must provide a description of the types of hazardous materials/waste onsite and the location of these materials. The information in the business plan can then be used in the event of an emergency to determine the appropriate response action, the need for public notification, and the need for evacuation.

In 1990, Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act which requires facilities to report additional data on waste management and source reduction activities to EPA under Toxics Release Inventory Program. The goal of the Toxics Release Inventory is to provide communities with information about toxic chemical releases and waste management activities and to support informed decision making at all levels by industry, government, non-governmental organizations, and the public.

Hazardous Materials Management Planning

Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 40 CFR 68 The EPA requires facilities that handle listed regulated substances to develop Risk Management Programs (RMP) to prevent accidental releases of these substances. RMP materials are submitted to both local agencies (generally the fire department) and the Federal EPA. Stationary sources with more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance shall be evaluated to determine the potential for, and impacts of, accidental releases of that substance. Under certain conditions, the owner or operator of a stationary source may be required to develop and submit a Risk Management Program. Risk Management Programs consist of three main elements: a hazard assessment that includes off site consequences analyses and a five-year accident history; a prevention program; and an emergency response program.

National Contingency Plan Requirements

Clean Water Act (CWA)/ Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plans (SPCC), 40 CFR 112.3 and 112.7 The CWA (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq., formally the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972), was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. As part of the CWA, the USEPA oversees and enforces the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation contained in Title 40 of the CFR, Part 112



(Title 40 CFR, Part 112), which is often referred to as the “SPCC rule” because the regulations describe the requirements for facilities to prepare, amend, and implement SPCC plans. A facility is subject to SPCC regulations if a single oil storage tank has a capacity greater than 660 gallons, or the total above ground oil storage capacity exceeds 1,320 gallons, or the underground oil storage capacity exceeds 42,000 gallons, and if, due to its location, the facility could reasonably be expected to discharge oil into or upon the “navigable waters” of the U.S.

Other Federal regulations overseen by the USEPA relevant to hazardous materials and environmental contamination include Title 40 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter D – Water Programs and Subchapter I – Solid Wastes. Title 40 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter D, Parts 116 and 117 designate hazardous substances under the CWA. Title 40 CFR Part 116 sets forth a determination of the reportable quantity for each substance that is designated as hazardous. Title 40 CFR Part 117 applies to quantities of designated substances equal to or greater than the reportable quantities that may be discharged into waters of the U.S.

Hazardous Materials Transportation

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 CFR 171, Subchapter C The DOT, Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration regulate transportation of hazardous materials at the Federal level (state requirements are discussed in following sections). The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act requires that carriers report accidental releases of hazardous materials to DOT at the earliest practical moment. Other incidents that must be reported include deaths, injuries requiring hospitalization, and property damage exceeding $50,000. The DOT also specifies the types of cars that must be used to ship crude oil and other materials Crude oil is generally required to be shipped in DOT-111 non-pressurized tank cars (DOT 111A60W1). The DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has initiated rule-making aimed at enhancing the standards for DOT-111 tank cars used in crude oil service.

Worker Health and Safety

Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 CFR et seq. OSHA’s mission is to ensure the safety and health of America's workers by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health. OSHA staff establishes and enforces protective standards and reaches out to employers and employees through technical assistance and consultation programs. OSHA standards are listed in Title 29 CFR Part 1910.

Hazard Communication, 29 CFR 1910.1200 The purpose of the OSHA Hazard Communication law is to ensure that the hazards of all chemicals produced or imported are evaluated, and that information concerning any potential hazards is transmitted to employers and employees. This transmittal of information is to be accomplished by means of comprehensive hazard communication programs, which are to include container labeling and other forms of warning, material safety data sheets, and employee training.



Process Safety Management, 29 CFR 1910.119 Under this section, facilities that use, store, manufacture, handle, process, or move hazardous materials are required to:

• Conduct employee safety training;

• Have an inventory of safety equipment relevant to potential hazards;

• Have knowledge on use of the safety equipment;

• Prepare an illness prevention program;

• Provide hazardous substance exposure warnings;

• Prepare an emergency response plan; and

• Prepare a fire prevention plan.

In addition, 29 CFR 1910.119, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, OSHA specifically requires prevention program elements to protect workers at facilities that have toxic, flammable, reactive or explosive materials. Prevention program elements are aimed at preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of chemicals and include process hazard analyses, formal training programs for employees and contractors, investigation of equipment mechanical integrity, and an emergency response plan.

State

State laws address gas and liquid pipelines, oil and gas facilities and hazardous materials and waste. The following sections discuss each of these.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)

The CPUC has an extensive rail safety program to address both passenger and freight rail safety:

State Constitution, Article XII, Sec. 4

The commission may fix rates and establish rules for the transportation of passengers and property by transportation companies ….

PU Code Sec. 309.7 (a)

(a) The division of the commission responsible for consumer protection and safety shall be responsible for inspection, surveillance, and investigation of the rights-of-way, facilities, equipment, and operations of railroads and public mass transit guideways, and for enforcing state and federal laws, regulations, orders, and directives relating to transportation of persons or commodities, or both, of any nature or description by rail. The consumer protection and safety division shall advise the commission on all matters relating to rail safety, and shall propose to the commission rules, regulations, orders, and other measures necessary to reduce the dangers caused by unsafe conditions on the railroads of the state.

PU Code Sec. 309.7 (b)

(b) In performing its duties, the consumer protection and safety division shall exercise all powers of investigation granted to the commission, including rights to enter upon land or facilities, inspect books and records, and compel testimony. The commission shall employ sufficient federally certified inspectors to ensure at the time of inspection that railroad locomotives and equipment and facilities located in class I railroad yards in California are inspected not less frequently than every 180 days, and all main and branch line tracks are inspected not less frequently than every 12 months.



PU Code Sec. 309.7 (c)

(c) The general counsel shall assign to the consumer protection and safety division the personnel and attorneys necessary …to enforce safety laws, rules, regulations, and orders, and to collect fines and penalties resulting from the violation of any safety rule or regulation.

PU Code Sec. 309.7 (d)

(d) The activities of the consumer protection and safety division that relate to safe operation of common carriers by rail, other than those relating to grade crossing protection, shall also be supported by the fees paid by railroad corporations.

PU Code Sec. 315 315. The commission shall investigate the cause of all accidents occurring within this State upon the property of any public utility or directly or indirectly arising from or connected with its maintenance or operation, resulting in loss of life or injury to person or property and requiring, in the judgment of the commission, investigation by it, and may make such order or recommendation with respect thereto as in its judgment seems just and reasonable.

PU Code Sec. 765.5

(a) The purpose of this section is to provide that the commission takes all appropriate action necessary to ensure the safe operation of railroads in this state. (b) The commission shall dedicate sufficient resources necessary to adequately carry out the State Participation Program for the regulation of rail transportation of hazardous materials as authorized by the Hazardous Material Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-615). (c) On or before July 1, 1992, the commission shall hire a minimum of six additional rail inspectors who are or shall become federally certified, consisting of three additional motive power and equipment inspectors, two signal inspectors, and one operating practices inspector, for the purpose of enforcing compliance by railroads operating in this state with state and federal safety regulations. (d) On or before July 1, 1992, the commission shall establish, by regulation, a minimum inspection standard to ensure, at the time of inspection, that railroad locomotives, equipment, and facilities located in class I railroad yards in California will be inspected not less frequently than every 120 days, and inspection of all branch and main line track not less frequently than every 12 months. (e) Commencing July 1, 2008, in addition to the minimum inspections undertaken pursuant to subdivision (d), the commission shall conduct focused inspections of railroad yards and track, either in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration, or as the commission determines to be necessary. The focused inspection program shall target railroad yards and track that pose the greatest safety risk, based on inspection data, accident history, and rail traffic density.

PU Code Sec. 768 768. The commission may, after a hearing, require every public utility to construct, maintain, and operate its line, plant, system, equipment, apparatus, tracks, and premises in a manner so as to promote and safeguard the health and safety of its employees, passengers, customers, and the public. The commission may prescribe, among other things, the installation, use, maintenance, and operation of appropriate safety or other devices or appliances, including interlocking and other protective devices at grade crossings or junctions and block or other systems of signaling. The commission may establish uniform or other standards of construction and equipment, and require the performance of any other act which the health or safety of its employees, passengers, customers, or the public may demand.

PU Code Sec. 7661

The consumer protection and safety division shall investigate any incident that results in a notification…and shall report its findings concerning the cause or causes to the commission.

PU Code Sec. 7662

Requires a railroad to place appropriate signage to notify an engineer of an approaching grade crossing and establishes standards for the posting of signage and flags, milepost markers, and permanent speed signs.



PU Code Sec. 7665.2

By July 1, 2007, requires every operator of rail facilities to provide a risk assessment to the commission and the agency for each rail facility in the state that is under its ownership, operation, or control, and prescribes the elements of the risk assessment.

PU Code Sec 7665.4

(f) Requires the rail operators to develop an infrastructure protection program, and requires the CPUC to review the infrastructure protection program submitted by a rail operator. Permits the CPUC to conduct inspections to facilitate the review, and permits the CPUC to order a rail operator to improve, modify, or change its program to comply with the requirements of this article. (g) Permits the CPUC to fine a rail operator for failure to comply with the requirements of this section or an order of the commission pursuant to this section.

General Order 22-B

Requires accident investigations on all incidents occurring on railroad property.

General Order 26-D

Establishes minimum clearances between railroad tracks, parallel tracks, side clearances, overhead clearances, freight car clearances, and clearances for obstructions, motor vehicles, and warning devices to prevent injuries and fatalities to rail employees by providing a minimum standards for overhead and side clearance on the railroad tracks. (Pursuant to PUC Sec. 768.)

General Order 72-B

Formulates uniform standards for grade crossing construction to increase public safety. (Pursuant to PUC Sec. 768.)

General Order 75-D

Establishes uniform standards for warning devices for at-grade crossings to reduce hazards associated with persons traversing at- grade crossings. (Pursuant to PUC Sec. 768.)

General Order 118-A

Provides standards for the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of walkways adjacent to railroad tracks to provide a safe area for train crews to work. (Pursuant to PUC Sec. 768.)

General Order 126

Establishes requirements for the contents of First-Aid kits provided by common carrier railroads. (Pursuant to PUC Sec. 768.)

General Order 161

Establishes safety standards for the rail transportation of hazardous materials. (Pursuant to PUC Sec. 768.)

General Order 135

Establishes regulations governing the occupancy of public grade crossings by railroads. (Pursuant to PUC Sec. 768.)

California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA)

The Cal/EPA was created in 1991, unifying California’s environmental authority in a single cabinet-level agency and brought the California Air Resources Board (CARB), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) - formerly the Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB), DTSC, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) under one agency. These agencies were placed within the Cal/EPA “umbrella” for the protection of human health and the environment and to ensure the coordinated deployment of State resources. Their mission is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment, to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality.



DTSC is a department of Cal/EPA and is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code. Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.

California Accident Release Prevention

The California Accident Release Prevention program mirrors the Federal Risk Management program, except that it adds external events and seismic analysis to the requirements and includes facilities with lower inventories of materials. A California Accident Release Prevention or Risk Management Plan, as administered by the Fire Departments and the EPA, if applicable, is a document prepared by the owner or operator of a stationary source containing detailed information including: • Regulated substances held onsite at the stationary source;

• Offsite consequences of an accidental release of a regulated substance;

• The accident history at the stationary source;

• The emergency response program for the stationary source;

• Coordination with local emergency responders;

• Hazard review or process hazard analysis;

• Operating procedures at the stationary source;

• Training of the stationary source’s personnel;

• Maintenance and mechanical integrity of the stationary source’s physical plant; and

• Incident investigation.

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste

Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCA) The HWCA created the State hazardous waste management program, which is similar to, but more stringent than, the Federal RCRA program. The HWCA is implemented by regulations contained in Title 26 of the CCR, which describes the following required aspects for the proper management of hazardous waste:

• Identification and classification;

• Generation and transportation;

• Design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities;

• Treatment standards;

• Operation of facilities and staff training; and

• Closure of facilities and liability requirements.

These regulations list more than 800 materials that may be hazardous and establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and disposing of such waste. Under the HWCA and Title 26, the generator of hazardous waste must complete a manifest that accompanies the waste from generator to



transporter to the ultimate disposal location. Copies of the manifest must be filed with the California Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC).

Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) DTSC is a department of Cal/EPA and is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans-up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the Federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.

Government Code §65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC-listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, DHS lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the SWRCB as having UST leaks and which have had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater, and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of hazardous waste/material.

Hazardous Materials Management Planning The Office of Emergency Services, in support of local government, coordinates overall state agency response to major disasters. The office is responsible for assuring the State's readiness to respond to and recover from natural, manmade, and war-caused emergencies, and for assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. During major emergencies, Office of Emergency Services may call upon all State agencies to help provide support. Due to their expertise, the California National Guard, California Highway Patrol (CHP), Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Conservation Corps, Department of Social Services, and Caltrans are the agencies most often asked to respond and assist in emergency response activities.

California Office of Emergency Services (OES) In order to protect the public health and safety and the environment, the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) is responsible for establishing and managing statewide standards for business and area plans relating to the handling and release or threatened release of hazardous materials. Basic information on hazardous materials handled, used, stored, or disposed of (including location, type, quantity, and the health risks) needs to be available to firefighters, public safety officers, and regulatory agencies and needs to be included in business plans in order to prevent or mitigate the damage to the health and safety of persons and the environment from the release or threatened release of these materials into the workplace and environment. These regulations are covered under Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code Article 1–Hazardous Materials Release Response and Inventory Program (Sections 25500 to 25520) and Article 2–Hazardous Materials Management (Sections 25531 to 25543.3).

CCR Title 19, Public Safety, Division 2, Office of Emergency Services, Chapter 4–Hazardous Material Release Reporting, Inventory, and Response Plans, Article 4 (Minimum Standards for Business Plans) establishes minimum statewide standards for Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBPs). These plans shall include the following: (1) a hazardous material inventory in accordance with Sections 2729.2 to 2729.7; (2) emergency response plans and procedures in accordance with Section 2731; and, (3) training program information in accordance with Section 2732. Business



plans contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of in the State. Each business shall prepare a HMBP if that business uses, handles, or stores a hazardous material or an extremely hazardous material in quantities greater than or equal to the following:

• 500 pounds of a solid substance;

• 55 gallons of a liquid;

• 200 cubic feet of compressed gas;

• A hazardous compressed gas in any amount; or,

• Hazardous waste in any quantity.

Hazardous Materials Transportation in California California regulates the highway transportation of hazardous materials originating or passing through the State in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. The CHP and Caltrans have primary responsibility for enforcing Federal and State regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. The CHP enforces materials and hazardous waste labeling and packing regulations that prevent leakage and spills of material in transit and provide detailed information to cleanup crews in the event of an incident. Vehicle and equipment inspection, shipment preparation, container identification, and shipping documentation are all part of the responsibility of the CHP. The CHP conducts regular inspections of licensed highway transporters to ensure regulatory compliance. Caltrans has emergency chemical spill identification teams at locations throughout the State.

Hazardous waste must be regularly removed from generating sites by licensed hazardous waste transporters. Transported materials must be accompanied by hazardous waste manifests.

Hazardous Material Worker Safety, California Occupational Safety and Health Act The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) is responsible for assuring worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations in Title 8 CCR. Cal/OSHA hazardous materials regulations include requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation.

Cal/OSHA also enforces hazard communication program regulations, which contain training and information requirements, including procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances. The hazard communication program also requires that Material Safety Data Sheets be available to employees and that employee information and training programs be documented.

Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act of 1985 The Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act, also known as the Business Plan Act, requires businesses using hazardous materials to prepare a plan that describes their facilities, inventories, emergency response plans, and training programs. Hazardous materials are defined as unsafe raw or unused materials that are part of a process or manufacturing step. They are



not considered hazardous waste. Health concerns pertaining to the release of hazardous materials, however, are similar to those relating to hazardous waste.

Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program) Senate Bill 1082, introduced by Senator Charles Calderon (D-Whittier) and passed in 1993, created the Unified Program, which requires the administrative consolidation of six hazardous materials and waste programs (Program Elements) under one agency, a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The Program Elements consolidated under the Unified Program are:

• Hazardous Waste Generator and On-site Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs (a.k.a., Tiered Permitting);

• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC);

• Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program (a.k.a. Hazardous Materials Disclosure or “Community-Right-To-Know”);

• California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program;

• Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program; and

• Uniform Fire Code Plans and Inventory Requirements.

The Unified Program is intended to provide relief to businesses complying with the overlapping and sometimes conflicting requirements of formerly independently managed programs. The Unified Program is implemented at the local government level by CUPAs. Most CUPAs have been established as a function of a local environmental health or fire department. Some CUPAs have contractual agreements with another local agency, a participating agency, which implements one or more Program Elements in coordination with the CUPA.

Public Resources Code (PRC) 3208.1

Section 3208.1 of the PRC authorizes the State Oil and Gas Supervisor of the Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) to order the reabandonment of a previously abandoned well when construction of any structure over or in proximity to a well could result in a hazard. The cost of reabandonment operations is the responsibility of the owner or developer of a project upon which the structure would be located.

Local


The MBGP Safety Element (County of Kern and City of Bakersfield 2007) includes the following relevant goals and policies related to hazards and hazardous materials:

Chapter VIII – Public Safety

Goals • Goal 1: Ensure that the Bakersfield metropolitan area maintains a high level of public

safety for its citizenry.



• Goal 4: Assure that fire, hazardous substance regulation and emergency medical service problems are continuously identified and addressed in a proactive way, in order to optimize safety and efficiency.

Policies • Policy 2: Require discretionary projects to assess impacts on police and fire services and

facilities.

• Policy 6: Promote fire prevention methods to reduce service protection costs and costs to the taxpayer.

• Policy 7: Enforce ordinances regulating the use/manufacture/sale/transport/ disposal of hazardous substances, and require compliance with state and federal laws regulating such substances.

• Policy 8: The Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report serves as the policy document guiding all facets of hazardous waste.

• Policy 12: Where recommended by appropriate local, State or Federal agencies for discretionary projects, soils shall be tested for concentrations of agricultural chemicals prior to grading permit approval, whenever feasible. Contaminated soils shall be excavated and disposed of at a certified hazardous waste disposal facility whenever necessary.

• Policy 16: All new discretionary development projects shall be subject to environmental and design review on a site-specific, project-by-project basis, including but not limited to, an assessment to determine whether hazardous materials present potential health effects to human health as required by the Department of Environmental Services.

Other Applicable Kern County Plans/Documents

Kern County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (2005) The purpose of hazard mitigation and the plan is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards and their effects in Kern County, California. This plan has been prepared to meet the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) requirements. The plan and planning process lays out the strategy that will enable Kern County to become less vulnerable to future disaster losses.

Kern County Hazardous Waste Management Plan State Assembly Bill 2948 (1986) authorized local governments to develop comprehensive hazardous waste management plans. The intent of each plan is to ensure that adequate treatment and disposal capacity is available to manage the hazardous wastes generated within the local government’s jurisdiction.

The Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Hazardous Waste Plan) was first adopted by Kern County and each incorporated city before September 1988 and was subsequently approved by the State Department of Health Services. The Hazardous Waste Plan was updated and incorporated by reference into the Kern County General Plan in 2004 as permitted by



Health and Safety Code Section 25135.7(b), and thus must be consistent with all other aspects of the Kern County General Plan.

The Hazardous Waste Plan provides policy direction and action programs to address current and future hazardous waste management issues that require local responsibility and involvement in Kern County. In addition, the Hazardous Waste Plan discusses hazardous waste issues and analyzes current and future waste generation in the incorporated cities, County, and State and Federal lands. The purpose of the Hazardous Waste Plan is to coordinate local implementation of a regional action to effect comprehensive hazardous waste management throughout Kern County. The action program focuses on development of programs to equitably site needed hazardous waste management facilities; to promote on-site source reduction, treatment, and recycling; and to provide for the collection and treatment of small quantity hazardous waste generators. An important component of the Hazardous Waste Plan is the monitoring of hazardous waste management facilities to ensure compliance with Federal and State hazardous waste regulations. The siting criteria and any subsequent environmental documentation required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would also ensure the mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the siting of any new hazardous waste facility.


Methodology

The analysis in this section is largely based on the Alon Bakersfield Crude Flexibility Project- Hazards and Hazardous Materials Analysis, dated November 8, 2013 prepared by Environmental Audit, Inc. (Appendix F).. Methodology and assumptions from the technical studies are explained in detail in Appendix F, and are summarized below.

The potential for a hazards impact is a function of both the consequence of release and the probability of the release scenario occurring. The consequence of a hazardous material release is the physical impact expected to occur as the result of a release. Typically releases occur due to multiple circumstances occurring sequentially with each circumstance having its own probability of occurrence. Stopping any one of the circumstances from occurring can prevent the release from happening or can mitigate the consequence of the release.

The hazard analysis focuses on scenarios that may result in risk to offsite receptors. The hazard impact analysis for the proposed Project compares the existing Refinery hazards to the potential hazards associated with the proposed Project.


The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and Kern County Environmental Checklist state that a project would normally be considered to have a significant impact if it would: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,

or disposal of hazardous materials; b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable

upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;



d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;

e. For a project located within the adopted Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;

g. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;

h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands; or,

i. Would implementation of the project generate vectors (flies, mosquitoes, rodents, etc.) or have a component that includes agricultural waste. Specifically, would the project exceed the following qualitative threshold: The presence of domestic flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rodents, and/or any other vectors associated with the project is significant when the applicable enforcement agency determines that any of the vectors: i. Occur as immature stages and adults in numbers considerably in excess of those found in

the surrounding environment; and,

ii. Are associated with design, layout, and management of project operations; and,

iii. Disseminate widely from the property; and,

iv. Cause detrimental effects on the public health or well being of the majority of the surrounding population.

The Lead Agency determined in the NOP/IS (see Appendix A) that the following environmental issues areas resulted in no impact or less than significant impact and therefore; the following issue areas were scoped out of requiring further review and are not analyzed further in this EIR. Please refer to Appendix A of this draft EIR for a copy of the NOP/IS and additional information regarding the following impacts: d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant

to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;

h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands;

i. Would implementation of the project generate vectors (flies, mosquitoes, rodents, etc.) or have a component that includes agricultural waste. Specifically, would the project exceed the following qualitative threshold: The presence of domestic flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rodents, and/or any other vectors associated with the project is significant when the applicable enforcement agency determines that any of the vectors:



i. Occur as immature stages and adults in numbers considerably in excess of those found in the surrounding environment; and,

ii. Are associated with design, layout, and management of project operations; and,

iii. Disseminate widely from the property; and,

iv. Cause detrimental effects on the public health or well being of the majority of the surrounding population.

Additionally, the Lead Agency determined on Page 40 of the NOP/IS (see Appendix A) that the following environmental issues areas are expected to result in a less than significant impact, but would be further evaluated in this EIR. Please refer to Appendix A of this draft EIR for a copy of the NOP/IS and additional information regarding the following impacts: e. For a project located within the adopted Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,

would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety

hazard for people residing or working in the project area;

However, upon further review, the Lead Agency has determined that the proposed project is not located within an adopted Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest public airport, Meadows Field Airport (BFL), is located approximately five miles northeast of the project site. Therefore, the Lead Agency has determined that the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area and impacts would be less than significant and do not require further analysis in this EIR.

Project Impacts

Impact 4.6-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

This section is focused on the transportation and disposal of refining materials as well as their routine use in refining operations. Potential impacts related to upsets and/or accidental releases during operations are analyzed in Impact 4.6-2: “Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.”

Project Construction

Hazardous materials will be used during construction. These materials are the typical consumable materials used in the construction of an industrial facility such as fuels, lubricants, greases, rust preventatives and preservatives, solvents, and paints.

These materials can present a variety of health and safety risks to the workers, such as inhalation, burns, etc. These materials will be used and stored onsite for construction and will be controlled in accordance with the pollution prevention plan and other site environmental and employee safety procedures. These materials will be stored in approved containers. Appropriate precautions such as employee training, approved personnel protective equipment will be used in the handling of these materials. Material safety data sheets will be maintained for these materials for use by emergency responders and others. Emergency Response Guidelines for these materials with the appropriate safety equipment will be provided.



Refinery Operations

As discussed above, refining crude oil involves working with flammable and hazardous materials under heat and pressure. This type of operating environment creates inherent hazards for fire and explosion, and for the possible release of acutely hazardous materials. Materials of concern for the Alon Bakersfield Refinery are liquid petroleum gases, gasoline, diesel, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, etc.

Because of these inherent hazards, the design, operation, and maintenance of refineries, including the Alon Bakersfield Refinery, are oriented toward preventing accidents that would cause injury to employees or the public, damage to offsite property, or damage to the refinery and the environment. The refinery will employ a number of design features as well as operating and maintenance practices in place to prevent or minimize accidents. The existing refinery operates with the following safety features and these will also be applied to the proposed project, , including:

• Refinery Design. The refinery upgrades will be designed to minimize the occurrence of flammable mixtures of hydrocarbons and air and to minimize the presence of an ignition source in association with flammable materials.

• Employee Training. Comprehensive training is conducted in first aid; fire fighting; the use of personal protective equipment, including respiratory equipment; the handling of volatile materials; and the safe conduct of specific job assignments.

• Employee Participation in Safety. Alon encourages employees to participate in all facets of process safety management and accident prevention.

• Process Hazard Analysis. A systematic examination of every process unit in the refinery is conducted at least every 5 years to identify hazards and ensure that adequate controls are in place to manage those hazards.

• Safety Equipment. Safety equipment is located throughout the refinery. Personal protective equipment includes hard hats, safety glasses with side shields, and Nomex® coveralls, all of which are required for all refinery employees in operating areas.

• Operating Manuals. Operating procedures have been developed for each process unit at the refinery. These procedures are summarized in operating manuals for each specific unit.

• Emergency Procedures. Detailed emergency procedures are contained in the Alon Emergency Manual. Areas addressed are emergency procedures, action plan following environmental release, incident command, command responsibilities, emergency evacuation, and other essential items associated with environmental releases.

• Work Permit System. A detailed work permit system is in place at the refinery to provide a systematic approach to overseeing and approving work performed in the process areas to minimize the risk of accidents.

• Preventative Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance is performed according to specific schedules. Every operating unit has a Task Manual that identifies the preventative maintenance and safety check tasks to be performed for that unit for the day, shift, or month. Additionally, a l l r e f i n e r y u n i t s , the entire refinery, including all utilities, a r e periodically shut down. During the shutdown, equipment is opened, cleaned, and inspected. This enables Alon to perform maintenance and make repairs throughout the entire refinery.



• Incident Investigation Procedures. The Accident Prevention Manual includes detailed procedures for reporting on-the-job accidents that result in injuries to an employee.

• Industrial facilities handling hazardous chemicals must be constructed and operated to applicable codes and standards. These are enforced by administrative mechanisms such as audits, design reviews, and building inspections.

• Pre-Startup Review. The federal and state requirements for pre-startup review of the respective refinery processes are a critical safeguard for safe refinery operations. Process Hazard Analyses will be developed on all new and modified process equipment, the RMP and all its components will be updated, and the Process Safety Management System will be updated as required under 29 CFR 1910.119. Hazard and Operability Studies will be conducted on the final design of project facilities to identify specific process hazards involving acutely hazardous materials and recommend appropriate measures to mitigate or eliminate those hazards. The engineering team conducting the Hazard and Operability Studies will include qualified, registered engineers. Recommendations from the Hazard and Operability Studies will be incorporated into the project design of the refinery upgrades.

Transportation of Hazardous Materials

As noted in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the purpose of the proposed project is to increase the flexibility for the existing refinery to receive and process a variety of crude oils and expand the existing crude terminal operations (the "project") by constructing a double rail loop. To facilitate this request, the project proposes:

1. Expansion of existing and construction of new rail, transfer and storage facilities; to include construction of a double rail loop from a new on-site spur connection off of the existing BNSF Railway and the addition of up to three boilers;

2. Construction of process unit upgrades and/ or modifications;

3. Repurposing of existing tankage; and,

4. Relocation and modernization of existing Liquefied Propane Gas (LPG) truck rack and upgrades to sales rack.

The proposed project will result in substantial changes to crude oil transportation at the existing refinery. The expanded rail unloading facility will allow for a substantial increase in crude oil delivery via rail that is currently shipped via pipeline. Potential impacts associated with rail transportation are evaluated in Impact 4.6-2.

The proposed project will not result in any appreciable change in truck transportation of hazardous materials at the refinery. However, refinery operations will result in fewer truck trips to regional markets that are currently supplied by Bay area refineries and truck transportation of gasoline and diesel. Therefore, there will be a net reduction in regional truck trips and associated transportation risk.

Disposal of Hazardous Materials

As a result of the project, the refinery will likely generate an increased quantity of waste, some of which may be classified as hazardous. As discussed above, most of the hazardous waste consists of catalyst, sludges, or solvents, and /or other waste materials from the cleaning of process equipment. The project proponent will handle any waste generated by the project in the same way it handles its current waste stream. Wastes will be recycled, where feasible. The project proponent will ship



waste it is unable to recycle or otherwise use to appropriate facilities around the state and country. The majority of the wastes from the refinery are landfilled at the Clean Harbors site in Buttonwillow, California. All such waste will be handled and shipped in accordance with all Department of Transportation and waste regulatory requirements.

Oil and Gas Wells

The refinery currently has 9 active and 28 abandoned oil wells on the refinery property. The new rail spur will be located adjacent to three abandoned wells, and the new crude oil storage tank, in Unit 71, will be in close proximity to an active and abandoned well. No buildings will be located near any of the active or abandoned oil wells.

Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-1 Prior to: (1) the issuance of the first grading or building permit associated with the

Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project (Project); (2) commencement of construction of new rail facilities associated with the project; or, (3) commencement of operational activities associated with the Project (including operation of any new or modified equipment and/or facilities related to the proposed project); whichever occurs first; the project proponent shall provide evidence to the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department of compliance with the following mitigation measures or an anticipated date of completion as approved by the County:

1. Prior to the resumption of any refining process equipment related to the Project, the project proponent shall update the refinery safety procedures and provide certification to the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department that the documents have been updated and approved by relevant oversight agency prior to the startup of the process units; and the project proponent shall also provide documentation to the County that the pre-startup reviews, as specified by the State and federal safety regulations, have been conducted and approved by relevant agencies prior to startup of the process units.

2. Prior to the startup of any specific process units or pieces of equipment related to the Project, the Project Proponent shall consult with the Kern County and City of Bakersfield Fire Departments to determine the need for and establish a schedule for implementation of any specialized training to appropriate Staff in the areas needed to mitigate related hazardous material emergencies that might arise at the refinery for the first responder crews at fire stations which provide service to the refinery site.

3. Concurrent with an application for a building permit for any specific process unit or pieces of equipment, including but not limited to rail facilities, related to the Project, the project proponent shall provide a Fire Protection Engineering Consultant to the Kern County Fire Department for the plan check review process. The Fire Department will provide a list of qualified consultants to the project proponent for selection. The Consultant will provide the Fire Department with a review of the design plans prior to issuance of building permit. The Consultant will also be responsible to provide onsite fire and life safety inspections for the same equipment and facilities during the construction process along with the County or City Building Inspector, as applicable.



4. Concurrent with an application for a building permit for any specific process units or pieces of equipment, including but not limited to rail facilities, related to the Project, the Project Proponent shall provide a Fire Protection Specialist/Fire Protection Engineering Consultant to the Kern County Fire Department for use during the plan review phase to develop a third party Fire and Life Safety Plan that will be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of the building permit. The Project Proponent will be allowed to select the Specialist from a list of qualified individuals provided by the Fire Department. Furthermore, the Project Proponent and the Fire Protection Specialist shall develop a comprehensive Fire and Life Safety plan for equipment and facilities associated with the Project that describes the methods to reduce the potential of an uncontrolled fire thus reducing the threat to life and property. These plans must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to commencement of operations.

MM 4.6-2 Prior to the commencement of project operations, the Project Proponent shall provide evidence of compliance with the following measures related to the Kern County Environmental Health Division of the Public Health Department:

1. The project proponent shall provide sensors and/or detectors at the refinery site, if determined necessary and as approved by the Environmental Health Division. The purpose of the sensors will be to provide early notification of an accidental release of large quantities of toxic and flammable gasses/vapors from hazardous materials stored or generated on site.

2. The project proponent shall comply with all regulations pertaining to the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Program elements consolidated under the CUPA are: Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan, Chemical Inventory, Hazardous Waste Generator, Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs, California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP), Underground Storage Tanks, and Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC). The Hazardous Materials Business Plan must be completed prior to operations of the facility into the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS).

3. The project proponent shall provide (or maintain if already in place) a locked storage location (Knox box or equivalent) outside the main entrance or other mutually agreed to location that can be accessed by first responders. If permitted by U.S. Department of Home Land Security regulations, it shall also provide first responders with the ability to access the site immediately and shall contain the following information:

• Hazardous materials business plan • MSDS sheets for all chemicals stored at the site • Emergency contact numbers

4. The project proponent shall develop a letter/pamphlet/brochure to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Environmental Health Division that provides information to the residences/businesses within the impact area of the off-site consequence analysis (OCA) as deemed appropriate by that Agency.



The information must describe the OCA findings and actions to follow in the event of a release from any covered Cal ARP process.

5. The project proponent shall provide documentation of an Emergency Response Plan for the accidental release of all applicable hazardous materials. A continuous training program for employees shall be established to ensure a proper response to a release will occur and public health will be protected. Issues of site security, off-site monitoring, and public notification in the event of a release must be included. The Emergency Response Plan shall be developed in conjunction with the Environmental Health Division and the Kern County Fire Department.

MM 4.6-3 The Project Proponent shall continuously comply with the following during operation of the project:

1. The Project Proponent shall be responsible to contribute annually to the Kern County Fire Department for the reverse 9-1-1 system, based upon the number of addresses that would be directly affected by a major emergency at the facility requiring surrounding residences to shelter-in-place or evacuate, as determined by the County.

2. Any structures constructed adjacent to an active or abandoned crude oil production well shall maintain a distance of at least 10 feet on two sides, no less than 50 feet on a third side and the forth side shall remain open to allow for well access. This condition shall not require the demolition or moving of any existing structures; unless required by the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources.


Impact 4.6-2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Hazards Associated with Construction Activities Vehicles and equipment used for construction of the proposed project would contain or require the short-term use of small amounts of potentially hazardous materials including, but not limited to, fuels, lubricating oils, solvents, antifreeze, hydraulic fluid, and compressed gasses. In addition, construction activities would utilize some hazardous materials, such as paints and solvents, and would generate hazardous waste streams such as waste oil and empty containers that previously held hazardous materials. The potential exists for an accidental release of these hazardous materials during routine construction activities or routine hazardous materials transport related to construction. Project-related construction activities also have the potential to result in exposure to these hazardous materials by workers, or by the public, if access to the construction site is not adequately controlled or if the materials are not properly handled and contained. Potential hazards to workers, the public, and the environment from routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials handled for routine construction would be limited through adherence to existing pollution



prevention, waste management, worker health and safety, and transportation safety regulations that would apply to the proposed project, as described in the following paragraphs.

Construction projects that disturb one or more acres of land are required to obtain coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for discharges of stormwater. In order to obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. CAS000002, State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ), a Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would need to be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan would include best management practices that would prevent or minimize the release and/or dispersion of potential pollutants from storm events during construction activity. These best management practices would need to encompass measures to effectively prevent or minimize pollutants from being discharged in stormwater. Such measures would include, but would not be limited to, measures for proper containment of hazardous materials and frequent inspections to ensure that best management practices are in place and effective. These measures would directly limit the potential for hazardous materials exposure via stormwater for workers, the public, and the environment. In addition, the hazardous materials containment and control measures that would necessarily be implemented as part of best management practices would limit the potential for direct exposure to hazardous materials.

Regulations promulgated under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and California Hazardous Waste Control Law include rigorous requirements that limit the potential for releases of hazardous waste to the environment and the potential for public and worker exposure. These regulations include specific requirements for identifying, accumulating, and managing hazardous wastes onsite, transport of hazardous wastes offsite, and treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes at properly designed and permitted facilities. Compliance with these requirements will minimize the risk of hazardous wastes being released to the environment where public exposure could occur.

In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with California Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards for worker safety in the handling and use of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. These standards (found at 8 CCR Sections 337-340) require an employer to monitor worker exposure to hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure to hazardous substances. The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety equipment, accident-prevention programs, and hazardous substances exposure warnings. These requirements would limit the potential for unhealthful exposure of workers to hazardous materials during project construction.

If construction activities include staging of fuel or other petroleum products in above ground tanks or other containers with individual volumes greater than 55 gallons and that have a total volume of more than 1,320 gallons, then such petroleum storage would be subject to the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan requirements of 40 CFR Part 112. These regulations are designed, in part, to ensure that petroleum products are properly contained to minimize the potential for a release to surface waters, thereby limiting the potential for related exposure to the environment, workers, and the public.

The Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law (49 U.S.C. 5101-5127) is the primary foundation for the regulatory control of transportation of hazardous materials. The purpose of the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law is to “protect against the risks to life, property, and the environment that are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials.” In addition, the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-180) contain requirements for hazardous



materials classification, hazard communication, packaging requirements, operational rules, training and security, and registration. Hazardous materials may be transported as part of the Project construction phase. For example, asbestos-containing materials may be present in demolition wastes. The transportation of hazardous building materials and supplies is subject to full regulation under Section 171.3 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations. All hazardous materials being transported must be handled, packaged, labeled, and transported in a manner that is consistent with Hazardous Materials Regulations set forth for each categorized hazardous material/waste.

Structures that are proposed for demolition activities that may contain asbestos are required to be handled in accordance with SJVAPCD Rule 4002 which requires the inspection of regulated facilities and abatement of asbestos containing material prior to demolition activities. Compliance with Rule 4002 would minimize potential exposure of construction workers to asbestos during demolition activities, as asbestos would be removed prior to demolition.

Adherence to the regulations and requirements described in the preceding paragraphs will limit the potential for exposure from routine use of hazardous materials or routine generation of hazardous wastes during construction such that unhealthful levels of exposure by workers at the construction site, or to the general public located outside of Project construction areas, would not be expected. Furthermore, adherence to these regulations and requirements would limit the potential for hazardous materials or wastes to be released to the environment due to routine use, transport, or disposal. With adherence to these requirements, routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials related to Project construction would have a low likelihood of resulting in health or environmental consequences from exposure to a hazard by the public offsite or to construction workers onsite. Therefore, with adherence to these requirements, the risk of health or environmental consequences from exposure to a hazard by the public offsite or to construction workers onsite would be less than significant. Considering these factors, the potential for the routine transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials during construction of the proposed Project to result in a hazard to the environment, workers, or the public is less than significant.

Hazards Associated with Operational Activities

Process Hazards

The processing and transport activities were reviewed to determine the operations with the most potential to create offsite hazard impacts. The processing unit upgrades and modifications that were analyzed for potential hazards include:

• Crude Vacuum Unit 10/11: The crude unit atmospheric crude tower (10-V1) will be upgraded, which may include the addition of a crude flash tower and associated ancillary equipment to improve the unit’s cuts. Other changes include new pumps, nozzles, a jet draw, and new and re-serviced exchangers. A new heat recovery coil will be installed. In addition, a new jet fuel treater will be located in either the crude unit or tank farm.

• Light Ends Unit (Unit 12): Additional heat removal exchangers are proposed to be added to the Light Ends Unit overhead system and pumps will be upgraded.

• Mild Hydrocracking Unit (Unit 14): New pumps will be added and existing pumps and heater tubing will be upgraded. In addition, a new salt drier and water coalescer will be added to the kerosene product stream to improve the quality of the jet fuel product. Two existing fractionator overhead compressors (14-C3A/B) will be replaced with state-of- the-



art compressors and associated equipment. An existing recycle gas scrubber will be upgraded and new (replacement) amine feed pumps will be installed. The upgrades will improve the amine circulation rate thereby reducing amine loading and the potential for corrosion.

• Hydrocracker (Unit 21): A new reactor with associated equipment in the hydrocracker unit (HCU) will be installed. In addition, new hydrogen recycle compressor(s) and hydrogen make-up compressor(s) will be installed. An existing heater will be modified and retrofitted with low nitrogen oxide (NOx) burners. Lastly, as a water conservation measure, new piping and instrumentation will be installed to allow recycling of wash water in the HCU.

• Naphtha Hydrotreater #1 and #3 (Unit 8 and Units 26/22): Pumps, heat exchangers, and fin fan heat exchangers will be upgraded in both hydrotreaters. In addition, to increase the energy efficiency of Unit 8, the convection section of the existing charge heater (8- H1) will be replaced. In Unit 26, an existing permitted heater will be modified and retrofitted with low NOx burners and upgraded heater tubes.

• CD Hydro (Unit 27): The Unit 27 modifications will be made to ensure proper processing of additional light hydrocarbons in various crude oils. Modifications include the addition of a parallel reactor(s), vessels, new pumps and exchangers, the upgrading of existing pumps and exchangers, and the modification and retrofitting of an existing permitted heater with low NOx burners.

• Sour Water (Units 15 and 23): In order to conserve water and reduce the facility’s waste water discharges, a new steam reboiler for 15-V12 (Sour Water Stripper) will be installed. The project will also re-pipe the feeds and products for 23-V4 and 23-V5 to bypass the existing Phosam equipment (ammonia recovery section) which is no longer necessary. This modification eliminates production and storage of anhydrous ammonia. The changes to the Sour Water Unit would produce no significant hazardous consequences and have not been included in the analysis. However, the change in hazards associated with the modification of the existing anhydrous ammonia storage to propane storage has been evaluated (see discussion under Tank Farm below).

• Tank Farm: New custody transfer tanks will be installed. The project proponent estimates their sizes to be between 10,000 and 25,000 barrels. A new jet fuel treater will be located in either the tank farm or the crude unit. In addition to the custody transfer tanks, the project proponent intends to install up to two 250,000 barrel crude oil storage tanks.

Additional inter-tank piping and pumps will be added to facilitate movement of the crude from rail cars into the custody transfer tanks and storage tanks. The custody-transfer tanks will be equipped with vapor control, either floating roofs or vapor recovery. The new crude storage tanks will have external floating roofs. Tank farm and process unit inter-connecting piping will be reconfigured to allow the crude tanks additional flexibility for crude unit charge, storage for shipping into third-party pipeline systems, or receiving crude from local crude sources. To facilitate inter-plant movement new and modified piping, pumps and equipment will be reconfigured or added.

Lastly, some of the existing tankage will be repurposed by changing the current product stored. These changes are listed in Table 4.6-7. To simplify the presentation of results, modeling for the tankage was included as part of a chosen nearby unit.



Table 4.6-7. List of Proposed Storage Tank Changes

Tank Number

Tank Contents

Included with Unit Existing After Proposed Project 70-T 11003 Out of Service Biodiesel Unit 10 70-T 11007 Out of Service Asphalt Unit 10 70-T 11008 Out of Service Asphalt Unit 10 70-T 11009 Out of Service Slop Oil Unit 10 70-T 55006 Gas Oil Diesel Unit 27 71-T 10M25 * Crude Crude 71-T 10M26 * Crude Crude 71-T 24M02 Sour Water Diesel Unit 27 71-T 24M04 Sour Water Diesel Unit 27 71-T 96M03 Diesel Crude Crude 71-T 96M04 Wastewater Crude Crude 71-T 150M01 * Crude Crude 71-T 150M02 * Crude Crude 85-T 13C01 Anhydrous Ammonia Propane Ammonia

* Does not currently exist.

A new fire protection and safety system will be installed for the unloading rack. The fire protection and safety system will include fire detection equipment, fire monitors, safety showers, eyewash stations, hydrants, controls and piping. The monitors at the unloading rack will be capable of reaching all of the cars being offloaded and will have with foam generators.

Each of the monitors will have self-educting nozzles with individual foam totes. The monitors shall be mounted at grade a minimum of 50 feet away from unloading cars. The system will utilize the refinery’s existing fire water supply system. The system has a storage capacity of 3,000,000 gallons and capable of delivering up to 3,500 gallons per minute of water. The system includes 4 fire water pumps with pumping capacities between 1500 gpm and 3500 gpm.

Hazards Modeling Methodology

For any one of the hazards that are inherent to the process systems at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery to impact an area, there first must be a loss of containment event. If the hydrocarbons normally contained within the piping or equipment at the site are released and are ignited, the resulting flash fire, vapor cloud explosion, torch fire, pool fire, or toxic vapor cloud has specific consequences that can be described by modeling.

A hazard analysis was conducted by Quest Consultants for the proposed project using the CANARY by Quest model that contains a set of complex models that calculate release conditions, initial dilution of the vapor, and the subsequent dispersion of the vapor introduced into the atmosphere. The models contain algorithms that account for thermodynamics, mixture behavior, transient release rates, gas cloud density relative to air, initial velocity of the released gas, and heat transfer effects from the surrounding atmosphere and the substrate. CANARY also contains models for pool fire and torch fire radiation. For vapor cloud explosion calculations, the Quest Model for



Estimation of Flame Speeds was used which is based on experimental data involving vapor cloud explosions. The details of the hazard analysis are included in Appendix F.

Hazard Endpoints

The purpose of the modeling is to determine if a release of vapors or liquids would cause injury and, if so, the distance from the Refinery that the injury might occur. The injury thresholds used in the modeling are based on adopted/regulatory standards, and are called “hazard endpoints”. If the modeling concludes that for a particular release scenario it is 1,000 feet to the hazard endpoint, this means that the injury of concern may occur up to 1,000 feet from the release event but is not likely to occur beyond 1,000 feet. The area within which the injury may occur is called the hazard zone.

The endpoint hazard criterion used for the Hazard Analysis corresponds to a hazard level which might cause an injury. With this definition, the injury level has been defined for each type of hazard (toxic, radiant heat, or overpressure exposure). Table 4.6-8 presents the endpoint hazard criteria used by federal agencies and national associations for this type of analysis. Note that these hazard endpoints are also used as significance thresholds.

Table 4.6-8. Consequence Analysis Hazard Endpoints

Hazard Type

Injury Threshold Exposure Duration Hazard Level Reference

Ammonia Up to 60 minutes 150 ppm ERPG-2 (AIHA, 2011)(1)

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) exposure

Up to 60 minutes 30 ppm ERPG-2 (AIHA, 2011) (1)

Radiant heat exposure 40 seconds 1,600 Btu/(hr-ft2) (3) 40 CFR 68 (EPA, 1996) (2)

Explosion overpressure Instantaneous 1.0 psig(4) 40 CFR 68 (EPA, 1996) (2)

Flash fires (flammable vapor clouds)

Instantaneous Lower flammable limit 40 CFR 68 (EPA, 1996) (2)

(1) ERPG-2 = The maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms that could impair an individual’s ability to take protective action. (2) 40 CFR 68 = U.S. EPA RMP endpoints. (3) Corresponds to second-degree skin burns (4) An overpressure of 1 psi may cause partial demolition of houses, which can result in serious injuries to people, and shattering of glass windows, which may cause skin laceration from flying glass.

Modeling Results

When the hazard identification and consequence modeling calculations described above are completed for the identified accidents for both the existing Refinery and the proposed project changes to the Refinery, the releases which generate the largest hazard zones can be defined for each component of the proposed project.

Flash Fires: Flash Fires are the result of a release, formation of a flammable vapor cloud and ignition of the cloud. Flash fire hazard zones are defined by the maximum extent of the lower flammable limit (LFL) portion of the vapor cloud. The “worst-case” flash fire results for each Refinery unit or process that is proposed for modification are listed in Table 4.6-9. Most of the project modifications would result in a decrease in the distance that flash fire hazards would travel.



The exceptions to this are Unit 10 and Unit 14, where the “worst-case” flash fire distances would potentially extend further from the unit. For both Unit 10 and Unit 14, a “worst- case” flash fire would extend an additional 50 to 200 feet beyond the location of the maximum existing flash fire hazard and both would potentially extend further into adjacent industrial properties east and west of the project site.

Table 4.6-9. Maximum Distance to Fire Radiation Endpoints(1)

Unit

Flash Fire Distance (ft) to LFL

Torch or Pool Fire Distance (ft) to 1,600 Btu/(hr-ft2)

Existing

Proposed Project

Existing

Proposed Project

Unit 8 950 930 450 460 Unit 10 1,100 1,300* 650 630 Unit 12 940 860 400 390 Unit 14 880 930* 490 470 Unit 21 730 720 330 330 Unit 26 780 770 300 310 Unit 27 1,800 1,600 930 900 Anhydrous Ammonia to Propane Tank -- 590 -- 140

New Crude Tanks -- -- -- 467 Diesel Tank Modified to Crude Tank 525 510 -- --

(1) See Appendix A for further details on the hazard analysis results. * Designates a potentially significant impact as the hazard zone would extend off-site into adjacent industrial areas.

Fire Radiation: The fire radiation hazards for the Refinery are a result of torch fires or pool fires. Consequence result for the “worst-case” fire radiation hazards are shown in Table 4.6-9. Most of the project modifications would result in a decrease or no substantial increase in the distance that fire radiation hazards would travel and fire radiation hazards generally remain onsite. The proposed new crude tanks would result in an increased fire radiation hazard that would extend about 467 feet; however, these fire radiation hazards would remain onsite. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected due to implementation of the proposed Refinery modifications.

Toxic Vapor Clouds: Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia are the most prevalent toxic components associated with the proposed project that are of concern from an accidental release perspective. A toxic vapor cloud could be generated due to a release of a stream containing hydrogen sulfide. The hazard zone of a toxic vapor cloud containing hydrogen sulfide is defined by the ERPG-2 concentration level of 30 ppm. A toxic vapor cloud is also possible with a release from a stream containing ammonia. The hazard zone of a toxic vapor cloud containing ammonia is defined by the ERPG-2 concentration level of 150 ppm ammonia. The results from the toxic vapor cloud analysis are listed in Table 4.6-10.



Table 4.6-10. Distance to Endpoints for Toxic Vapor Cloud(1)

Hazard Scenario

Distance to Toxic Endpoint (feet) Existing Proposed Project

Hydrogen sulfide (14_06) 810 160 New Ammonia Tank -- 85 Conversion of anhydrous ammonia tank to propane storage 10,000 --

(1) Hazard endpoint is 150 ppm for hydrogen sulfide and 30 ppm for ammonia. See Appendix A for further details.

A pressurized storage vessel is proposed to be converted from anhydrous ammonia storage to propane storage. The proposed conversion substantially reduces the anhydrous ammonia risk at the Refinery. The hazards created by a release from the existing anhydrous ammonia storage vessel would extend nearly two miles to the ERPG-2 concentration level of 150 ppm. After the proposed changes, this tank will be used as a pressurized propane storage tank. The hazard zone for a release from the pressurized propane storage tank would be approximately 600 feet (see Table 4.6-9) and would remain within the confines of the project site. The proposed modification of this pressurized storage vessel from storage of anhydrous ammonia to propane would result in a large reduction in hazards associated with Refinery operations due to the elimination of anhydrous ammonia storage, reducing the potential hazard impacts associated with the refinery operations.

Vapor Cloud Explosions: One of the possible results of a flammable fluid or gas release is the potential ignition of the vapor which could then result in a vapor cloud explosion. The only loss of containment events that could result in open air vapor cloud explosions with overpressures greater than one psig were releases from Unit 21 that contained a substantial quantity of hydrogen; therefore, only two accident scenarios were modeled for vapor cloud explosion consequences. The results for vapor cloud explosion modeling are shown in Table 4.6-11. In neither case does the extent of the overpressure endpoint exceed that of a flash fire (see Table 4.6-9). Overpressure hazards would remain onsite and, therefore, would be less than significant.

Table 4.6-11. Distance to Overpressure Endpoint for Unit 21 Modifications (1)

Accident Identifier

Distance to Overpressure Endpoint (ft) Existing Proposed Project

Hydrogen from Compressors 640 640 H2S from Stripper Bottoms 490 680

Conclusions: The hazard zones for the existing equipment and proposed changes are presented in Figure 4.6-2. Many of the units have larger hazard zones for the existing facility than for those that would be produced following the proposed project changes, resulting in beneficial hazard impacts.



Figure 4.6-2. Alon Bakersfield Refinery Hazard Zones

Flash fires associated with Unit 10 and Unit 14 modifications would potentially extend further from the unit, under “worst-case” conditions. For both Unit 10 and Unit 14, a “worst-case” flash fire would extend an additional 50 to 200 feet for the existing flash fire hazard and both would



potentially extend into adjacent industrial properties east and west of the project site, resulting in potentially significant impacts as there would be potentially greater exposure to fire hazards offsite that would exceed the lower flammable limit.

Based on the modeling results, no significant increase in radiant exposures in excess of 1,600 Btu/hr-ft2 would be expected (see Table 4.6-9) and no increase in overpressure hazards in excess of one psig would be expected (see Table 4.6-11). Further, there would be a reduced exposure to toxic vapor clouds as the proposed project would remove the storage of anhydrous ammonia, eliminating the potential exposure to anhydrous ammonia from this storage tank (see Table 4.6-11), providing a beneficial hazard impact associated with the proposed project.

Regulatory Compliance

The proposed project will require compliance with various regulations, including OSHA regulations (29 CFR Part 1910) that require the preparation of a fire prevention plan, and 29 CFR Part 1910 and Title 8 of the CCR that require prevention programs to protect workers that handle toxic, flammable, reactive, or explosive materials.

Section 112 (r) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 [42 U.S.C. 7401 et. Seq.] and Article 2, Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code require facilities that handle listed regulated substances to develop Risk Management Programs (RMPs) to prevent accidental releases of these substances. The project proponent will be required to prepare an RMP for the facility for any listed chemicals for which a storage threshold is exceeded. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act is the federal legislation that regulates transportation of hazardous materials. Shipments from the facility will be required to comply with transportation regulations.

Under federal OSHA, regulations have been promulgated that require the preparation and implementation of a Process Safety Management Program (PSM) (40 CFR Part 1910, Section 119, and Title 8, CCR, Section 5189). A PSM Program that meets the requirements of the regulations and is appropriately implemented is intended to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release involving a toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemical. The primary components of a PSM Program include written safety information; performance of process safety analysis; detailed operating procedures; training; and pre-start up safety review for new and modified facilities.

Rail Transport

The transportation of hazardous substances poses a potential for fires, explosions, and hazardous materials releases. In general, the greater the miles traveled, the greater the potential for an accident. Statistical accident frequency varies. The size of a potential release is related to the maximum volume of a hazardous substance that can be released in a single accident, should an accident occur, and the type of failure of the containment structure, e.g., rupture or leak. The potential consequences of the accident are related to the size of the release, the population density at the location of the accident, the specific release scenario, the physical and chemical properties of the hazardous material, and the local meteorological conditions. The proposed project will increase the transport of crude by rail and increase the potential hazards associated with crude rail transport.

A recent crude oil incident in Lac-Mégantic, Canada occurred when an uncontrolled crude oil unit train derailed. On July 6, 2013 an unattended crude oil unit train consisting of 72 loaded tank cars and five locomotives ran eight miles downgrade (1.2 percent grade) into downtown Lac-Mégantic. 63 tank cars derailed, resulting in approximately 1.5 million gallons of crude oil being spilled and



subsequently ignited. Several derailed tank cars released product resulting in multiple explosions and fires causing 47 fatalities, extensive damage to the town centre and precipitated the evacuation of about 2,000 people from the surrounding area. While non-pressurized tank cars typically do not pose a significant explosion hazard, several of the DOT-111 tank cars that did not fail as a result of the derailment subsequently failed due to overheating and over-pressurization caused by the spilled crude oil pool fire. Other recent accidents involving rail transport of crude oil have caused spills and explosions, including in Aliceville, Alabama (November 1, 2013), Casselton, North Dakota (December 30, 2013), and New Brunswick, Canada (January 7, 2014).

In the U.S, train accidents are required to be reported to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The FRA regulations on reporting railroad accidents/incidents are found primarily in 49 CFR Part 225. The purpose of the regulations is to provide FRA with accurate information concerning the hazards and risks that exist on the nation’s railroads. The FRA uses this information for regulatory and enforcement purposes, and for determining comparative trends of railroad safety. These regulations preempt states from prescribing accident/incident reporting requirements.

The FRA compiles data on railroad-related accidents, injuries and fatalities to depict the nature and cause of rail-related accidents and improve safety. Train accident data reported in the United States, in California, and accidents reported by BNSF between 2003 and 2012 are summarized in Table 4.6-5. Based on the train accident data for the United States, the train accident rate varied from 2.3 accidents per million miles traveled to 4.4 accidents per million miles traveled over the 10-year period from January 2003 to December 2012. The train accident rate for 2012 was 2.3 train accidents per million miles traveled. Of the train accidents reported during the 10-year period (a total of 128,974), about one percent of the train accidents resulted in a release of hazardous materials (287/128,974 = 0.0022 or 0.22%).

The estimated existing accident rate for trains based on national averages was about 3.4 accidents per million miles traveled (see Table 4.6-4). Based on these statistics, the existing train traffic and the projected train trips for the existing facility and proposed project, the potential rate of train accidents can be estimated and evaluated. The proposed project would result in an increase in train traffic, increasing the potential accident rates associated with the Refinery (see Table 4.6-12). Given the estimated miles traveled by trains within California and the published accident rate, the estimated probability of hazardous material releases associated with rail transportation of materials to/from the refinery would increase from 0.0001 to 0.0065 per year (see Table 4.6-12). This would increase the potential rail accident frequency resulting in a release from approximately once every 9,000 years to once every 150 years.

Table 4.6-12. Existing and Projected Project Rail Accident Frequency

Operations Annual Rail Miles Traveled

Accident Rate (per year) (1)

HazMat Release Probability (per year) (2)

Accident Resulting in a Release Frequency

Existing Rail Transport 16,405 0.056 0.0001 Once every 9,000 years

Proposed Project 874,553 2.97 0.0065 Once every 150 years

(1) 3.4/1,000,000 x annual miles traveled. (2) Accident rate x 0.0022 releases/accident.



The occurrence of rail accidents associated with the proposed project would be expected to happen more than once a year. However, the frequency of an accident resulting in a release is estimated to occur once every 150 years. The life time of the rail facilities is considered to be 30 years, therefore, a rail accident resulting in a release is not expected to occur within the life time of the facilities. The hazards associated with rail transport are expected to be less than significant.

Even though there is a very low risk of accident resulting in release of crude oil, the recent rail accidents involving explosions and fires shows that severe consequences may result from the release of some types of crude oil. However, a number of steps have been taken by the federal government, which has exclusive regulatory authority over the railroads, to reduce the risk of accident as well as the consequences of an accident. On August 2, 2013, PHMSA issued an emergency order and safety advisory to help prevent trains operating on mainline tracks or sidings from moving unintentionally, such as what happened in the Lac Megantic, Canada accident. The emergency order prohibits leaving trains unattended unless certain protocols are followed to secure the train, communicate its status, and receive approval. On September 6, 2013, PHMSA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking relating to the design and safety standards for DOT 111 rail cars. On February 20, 2014, the United States Secretary of Transportation entered into an agreement with the Association of American Railroads that includes use of route technology to select the safest and most secure routes for crude trains; increased track inspections; enhanced braking systems; speed restrictions; increased trackside safety technology; increased training; increased emergency response planning; and communication with local communities to identify location-specific concerns.

The rail traffic associated with the proposed project will use existing BNSF and UP railways. Both carriers maintain insurance to cover rail incidents/accidents and maintain emergency response plans for accidents and releases along the main rail lines.

The proposed project is expected to result in a reduction of about 100 truck trips per day to/from the Alon USA Bakersfield Refinery. Therefore, the proposed project will result in a reduction in transportation hazards associated with truck transportation. Emergency Access Construction: Demolition, site preparation, and facility development and finishing activities would involve the use of various construction vehicles and equipment on site that would utilize the local street system. Construction activities would remain within the confines of the Refinery and would not be expected to impact emergency access to other adjacent properties.

Construction of the proposed project shall require revisions to the project proponent’s emergency response and emergency evacuation plan. Emergency response and evacuations plans are administered by state and local agencies. Construction activities associated with the proposed project may temporarily block certain access roads within the Refinery. Therefore, the emergency response and evacuation plans for the Refinery may need to be revised during construction activities. Since the construction activities are limited to the project site, no emergency access impacts are expected to other facilities. Access within the Refinery boundaries can be rerouted so no significant impacts on emergency access are expected.

Operation: Once constructed, the proposed project would not impede any designated disaster evacuation routes or impair implementation of any emergency response plans through long-term street blockage. All of the crossings near the project area are either above or below grade crossings. No off-site roads or streets will be blocked by project-related activities. The operation of the rail



unloading facilities will result in the temporary parking of railcars along the proposed onsite railroad tracks and may temporarily block certain access roads within the Refinery. Emergency Response Plans are required for the Refinery under OSHA regulations (29 CFR §1910.120). The Emergency Response Plan for the Refinery will be reviewed and updated, as applicable, for the proposed project to account for areas of the Refinery where railcars could block ingress and egress from the Refinery. Impacts to adopted emergency plans or emergency evacuation plans during proposed project operation would be less than significant as the plans would be updated to account for project-related modifications.

Risk management plans are required under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act for facilities that store certain hazardous materials. It is expected that the risk management plan for the Refinery will be updated to account for the conversion of the anhydrous ammonia tank to propane, minimizing the potential for offsite impacts.

The Refinery will comply with all applicable design codes and regulations, conform to National Fire Protection Association standards, and conform to policies and procedures concerning leak detection containment and fire protection. Therefore, no significant adverse compliance impacts are expected. Hazardous Materials or Waste A potential impact could occur if construction activities or operations would involve the handling of hazardous materials or waste (including contaminated soil or groundwater) during construction. The potential for exposure would primarily be to construction workers and operators directly handling or in the immediate work area of any hazardous materials encountered during construction and operation. Improper handling of hazardous materials can lead to adverse health effects for the handler, and potentially for other workers in the immediate vicinity. For instance, handling of solvent-containing materials without proper respiratory protection can cause adverse effects to the human respiratory system. Therefore, it is important to accurately assess the presence of hazardous materials and waste prior to the beginning of construction activities and properly handle hazardous materials during operations. Additionally, if the construction or operating site is not properly restricted, or if hazardous materials are not properly handled, stored, or transported, the public could be subjected to health risks from exposure to hazardous materials and waste. Because the public is not allowed access to the Refinery without escort, the risk of exposure for members of the public is considerably lower than the risk to construction workers and Refinery operators.

Project facilities would be constructed in operating areas of the Refinery where potentially contaminated soil may be present. Portions of the Refinery where the proposed project is to be constructed have historically been used as an oil refinery. The possibility of encountering previously unidentified contaminated soil exists during construction. Provided that applicable federal, state, and local regulations are adhered to, the risk of exposure to hazardous materials or waste is limited. Hazardous waste handling and transportation regulations contain specific procedures to ensure that hazardous waste and hazardous waste sites are managed in such a manner as to limit the potential exposure to workers and the general public. The following existing regulatory framework would help to ensure that potential impacts from existing hazardous materials, waste, or soil/groundwater contamination would be less than significant:

• CCR Title 22, Division 4.5 regulations, as overseen by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, require the following;



o Identification and listing of hazardous waste, including specifications for when excavated soils must be classified as hazardous waste;

o Standards for generators and transporters of hazardous waste; o Standards for universal waste management; o Requirement for handling of specific wastes, including extremely hazardous waste; and o Site remediation and corrective action requirements and guidelines.

• Regulations promulgated under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and California Hazardous Waste Management Act, which include specific requirements for safe accumulation, transport, and disposal of hazardous wastes.

• California Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards for worker safety relating to the handling and use of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, which include requirements for employee training and accident-prevention programs that help to limit the potential for a hazardous material release to occur from an accident or upset condition.

Regulations for the transportation of hazardous and other regulated substances are covered under the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law (49 U.S.C. 5101-5127) and the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-180). Under these regulations, hazardous materials must be transported pursuant to materials classification, hazard communication, packaging requirements, operational rules, training and security, and registration. The transportation of hazardous building materials and supplies or demolition waste (such as lead-based paint, asbestos, and solvents) are subject to full regulation under Section 171.3 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations. All hazardous materials being transported must be handled, packaged, labeled, and transported in a manner that is consistent with the Hazardous Materials Regulations set forth for each categorized hazardous material/waste. Therefore, the existing laws and regulations discussed above, would reduce the potential impacts associated with development on or adjacent to sites containing hazardous materials, waste and contamination to a less than significant level. Applicable Risk Reduction Measures Feasible mitigation measures are required to minimize the potentially significant hazard impacts associated with flash fires for Units 10 and 14. There are a number of rules, regulations, and laws that the Refinery has complied or must comply with that serve to minimize the potential adverse impacts associated with hazards at the facility and will minimize the hazards associated with the new units. Under federal OSHA, regulations have been promulgated that require the preparation and implementation of a PSM Program (40 CFR Part 1910, Section 119, and Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 5189). Risk Management Programs are covered under the California Health and Safety Code Section 25534 and 40 CFR Part 68, and Section 112r, by the Clean Air Act.

A PSM that meets the requirements of the regulations and is appropriately implemented is intended to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release involving a toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemical. A PSM review will be required as part of the proposed project. The primary components of a PSM include the following:

• Compilation of written process safety information to enable the employer and employees to identify and understand the hazards posed by the process;

• Performance of a process safety analysis to determine and evaluate the hazard of the process being analyzed;



• Development of operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each process identified for analysis;

• Training in the overview of the process and in the operating procedures is required for facility personnel and contractors. The training is required to emphasize the specific safety and health hazards, procedures, and safe practices; and

• A pre-start up safety review for new facilities and for modified facilities where a change is made in the process safety information.

An RMP is required for certain chemicals at the Refinery. The RMP consists of four main parts: hazard assessment that includes an off-site consequence analysis, five-year accident history, prevention program, and emergency response program. The Refinery’s existing RMP will need to be reviewed and revised to include the new and modified Refinery units, and to ensure that no unexpected or adverse interactions with existing systems occur. Such reviews are required as part of the RMP, CalARP, and PSM programs for covered processes. It is expected that such reviews will take place for elements of the proposed Project including the conversion of the anhydrous ammonia tank to propane and modifications to Units 10 and 14.

The Refinery has worked with Kern County to establish a reverse 911 system where affected individuals can be contacted in the event of an emergency situation at the Refinery. This system allows the Refinery to contact individuals in the surrounding community to notify them of potential hazards and the appropriate actions that need to be taken, e.g., shelter in place, evacuation, etc.

Additionally, the proposed Project will provide a large reduction in hazards associated with the conversion of an anhydrous ammonia tank to propane storage, reducing the overall hazards associated with Refinery operations.

Source of incoming Crude Oils. As noted throughout this EIR, the refinery’s existing limit of 70,000 barrels per day (BPD) maximum crude processing capacity would not be increased as a part of this project. However, there would be a variety of new crude oil materials being transported to the site via rail. The sources for these materials will vary and can come from a multitude of locations across the United States; including locations such as North Dakota and others where a variety of extraction technologies are used which may or may not impact the flammability of materials that are transported.

The interstate transport of these materials is regulated by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; which also regulates tank car safety. The Agency has issued “safety alerts” related to certain materials which are extracted from various regions across the United States. The Agency also conducts new testing to determine the gas content, corrosivity, toxicity and flammability of various crudes. The agency also requires that all railroads properly label the crude materials, based on three levels of volatility.

The regulation of these materials is subject to the jurisdiction of the applicable state and federal Agencies; however, to ensure that the project proponent maintains adequate records for inspection, MM 4.6-4 is proposed which will require that the project proponent continuously obtains manifests for all materials received via rail car. These records will be maintained on site for no less than three years and will be made readily available for inspection by appropriate County, State and federal agencies.

No additional feasible mitigation measures have been identified, over and above the extensive safety regulations that currently apply to the Refinery facilities and the transportation network.



Conclusion. The impacts of the proposed project on hazards are expected to be significant for flash fires prior to mitigation. Compliance with existing regulations and implementation of the recommended safety measures would further minimize the potential impacts associated with a release, but are not expected to eliminate the potential hazard impacts. No additional feasible mitigation measures were identified to further reduce significant adverse hazard impacts associated with flash fires. Therefore, hazards and hazardous material impacts generated by the proposed project are expected to remain significant.

No significant impacts were identified for the other Refinery hazards including toxic vapor clouds and overpressure associated with modifications to the Refinery units. No significant hazard impacts were identified for regulatory compliance or the increased rail transport associated with the proposed Project. No significant impacts were identified to emergency access and no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, the hazard impacts associated with emergency access will remain less than significant following mitigation.

Further, there would be a reduced exposure to toxic vapor clouds as the proposed project would remove the storage of anhydrous ammonia, eliminating the potential exposure to anhydrous ammonia from this storage tank (which extended almost two miles), reducing the potential hazard impacts associated with the refinery operations.

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.6-4 Upon startup of the Project-related operations at the rail terminal, the Project Operator shall continuously maintain a log of all train crude oil deliveries to the Alon Bakersfield Refinery facility in a manner specified by the Kern County Fire Department and shall provide the log and shipping manifests to the Kern County Fire Department upon request. The log must include, but is not limited to: type of crude being transported in each tank car, location from where the crude derived, and type of tank car.

MM 4.6-5 Prior to the issuance of the first grading or building permit associated with equipment and facilities related to Project, the Project Proponent shall fund the purchase and delivery to the Fire Department of a fully equipped Industrial Foam pumper/tender, which will be housed and maintained by the Kern County Fire Department; and an additional 2,500 gallon cache of Class B foam to be provided to the Department to be stored at an off-site location. The Industrial Foam pumper/tender, with its onboard foam capabilities, and the 2,500 gallon cache of Class B foam, will allow the Department to have the specialized capabilities and equipment necessary to control and contain a fire or product leak emergency that occurs at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery.

The Industrial Foam pumper/tender and 2,500 gallon cache of Class B foam shall adhere to the following minimum standards.

a. The Industrial Foam pumper/tender shall be manufactured to the Kern County Fire Department’s standards and the Fire Department shall order Industrial Foam pumper/tender within 90 days of the issuance of the first grading or building permit for the project.

b. The Industrial Foam pumper/tender must be purchased, constructed, and delivered (construction and delivery time is estimated to be nine months) to the



Kern County Fire Department 30 days prior to the start-up of the project. Additional time may be required in order to place the Industrial Foam pumper/tender in service and to allow for training personnel assigned to operate the pumper.

c. The Industrial Foam pumper/tender shall be fully equipped to Kern County Fire Department specifications.

d. The final authority on the specifications for the Industrial Foam Pumper/Tender shall rest with the Kern County Fire Department. The project proponent’s contribution toward the purchase of the Industrial Foam pumper shall not exceed $1,000,000.00 and contribution toward the foam/tender cache shall not exceed $75,000.

e. The Title for the Industrial Foam Pumper/Tender shall be transferred to the County upon delivery.

f. The cache of foam shall meet the Kern County Fire Department’s standards.

g. If the Kern County Fire Department responds to an emergency at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery and uses the cache of foam to control or contain the emergency, the Project Proponent will be required to replace the amount used within 30 days of the incident.

The requirement for on-site foam storage shall be determined based on the potential tank storage or railcar numbers during the fire protection plan review, with a minimum requirement of 2,500 gallons. The Kern County Fire Department may increase the minimum size of the Class B foam cache following review of the fire protection plan. If so increased, the project applicant shall be required to maintain a cache of Class B foam in such an increased amount.

MM 4.6-6 The project proponent shall continuously comply with the following during operation of the facility:

a. The project proponent shall maintain adequate records of all crude oil received at the rail terminal via rail and train deliveries. These records shall be in the form of formal manifests that accompany each shipment and which properly label the crude materials, based on levels of volatility and as required by the applicable federal and State regulatory requirements. These records shall be continuously maintained on the refinery site for no less than three years and shall be made readily available for inspection by appropriate County, State and federal agencies.

b. The project proponent/operator shall work with rail carriers delivering crude oil to the proposed rail terminal to ensure compliance with any Emergency Order (EO) issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) related to requirements for rail carriers to notify State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs), and others as specified by the EO, regarding the expected routing of the Project’s unit trains of Bakken crude oil. The notice shall include, but not be limited to the following information:



1. reasonable estimate of the number of trains carrying 1,000,000 gallons or more of Bakken crude oil, per week and by county;

2. with the crude oil identified and described in accordance with 49 CFR part 172, subpart C;

3. with the emergency response information required by 49 CFR part 172, subpart G; and

4. the routes over which the crude oil will be transported.

MM 4.6-7 Prior to the startup of equipment and facilities related to the Project, the Project Proponent shall provide evidence of completion of the following:

a. The Project Proponent shall provide the Kern County Fire Department with personal or hand-held monitoring devices that provide first responders with the capability to monitor toxic gases; including but not limited to: organic gases (LEL), hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and oxygen levels, etc during an emergency at the facility. The monitoring devices shall be to the Kern County Fire Department specifications.

b. The Project Proponent shall arrange for initial onsite training to Kern County Fire Department Staff, as identified by the Fire Department, to familiarize Fire Department Staff with the Bakersfield refinery so they can better respond to and mitigate hazardous material emergencies that might arise at the project site for the crews that are stationed at Fire Station 66 (Landco), Fire Station 61 (Norris), and Fire Station 65 (Greenacres). This will also be an annual requirement to train personnel from these three (3) Kern County Fire Department stations.


Impact 4.6-3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

Potential impacts associated with hazardous air emissions are addressed in Section 4.1, Air Quality. The proposed project and rail operations would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school is the Vista West Continuation High School, which is located more than 1/2 mile from the nearest refinery unit and 1/3 mile from the proposed rail spur at the closest location where it connected to the main BNSF rail line. None of the refinery hazard zones identified in Figure 4.6-2 would reach any existing or planned school.





Impact 4.6-4: Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

The proposed Project would be conducted on a site currently used as a petroleum Refinery. The existing Refinery has an emergency evacuation plan, and local responders have adopted emergency response plans. A portion of the proposed Project includes a grade separation (bridge over or underpass under rail lines) to assure access to the site for emergency responders. No conflicts with emergency response or evacuation plans are expected as a result of the proposed Project, and impacts are expected to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation

Impacts would be less than significant.


Cumulative Setting This cumulative impact analysis discusses the impacts that the project will have on the regional and local hazards and hazardous materials. Based on record searches performed by Kern County, no other reasonably foreseeable heavy industrial projects are proposed in Bakersfield. However, there are several other non-industrial (i.e., residential and commercial) projects and some light industrial projects that are reasonably foreseeable. As discussed in Section 3.8.2, the geographic area for the cumulative hazard analysis would be a six mile radius from the refinery.

Impact 4.6-4: Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts The region of influence for hazards and hazardous material impacts would include all of the cumulative projects listed in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, as all existing large industrial facilities near the Alon Bakersfield Refinery. Although other industrial facilities exist in the general vicinity of the Refinery, the cumulative impacts from the other industrial projects are not expected to be significant because it is extremely unlikely that upset conditions would occur at more than one facility at the same time. The potential hazards associated with the operation of the proposed project at the refinery are only expected to go offsite into the adjacent existing commercial area. Therefore, the hazard impacts associated with the proposed project are not expected to overlap with other hazards. The three other refineries located in the Bakersfield area are located a sufficient distance from Alon that hazards associated with their operation would not overlap with hazards associated with the proposed project. It also is extremely unlikely that an upset condition at one facility would create an upset at another nearby industrial facility because of the distance between facilities. Most of the other related projects are associated with office buildings or other commercial uses, which generally do not handle or store large quantities of hazardous materials that could create hazardous situations.

The proposed project at the refinery is not expected to result in cumulative impacts because the project is expected to result in a decrease in the amount of anhydrous ammonia stored and a subsequent decrease in the potential offsite exposure to anhydrous ammonia. Therefore, hazards are



not expected to reach or overlap with hazard impacts from other industrial projects, so hazard impacts are not expected to be cumulatively considerable.

Kern Oil and Refining and Tricor Refining operate rail facilities and marketing terminals, however, no modifications to those facilities are expected at this time. Therefore, no cumulative impacts are expected related to rail traffic.

Mitigation Measures

Implementation of MM 4.6-1 through 4.6-3 would reduce potential hazards at the project site.


Cumulative Impacts would be less than significant.

Section 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality


Section 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.7.1 Introduction This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) discusses the environmental and regulatory setting, impact methodology and thresholds of significance, and potential impacts of all components of the project to hydrology, water quality, and water supply. A complete description of the proposed project can be found in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR. This section also summarizes construction techniques, Best Management Practices (BMPs), permit requirements, and monitoring that will be implemented to reduce, minimize, or avoid impacts.


Surface Water

Bakersfield and the surrounding unincorporated Kern County are located within the Kern River sub-watershed in the southern portion of the Tulare Lake Basin hydrologic area. The Tulare Lake Basin hydrologic area comprises the drainage area of the San Joaquin Valley, south of the San Joaquin River, and encompasses approximately 17,650 square miles. The Kern River is the major surface water feature in the Kern River sub-watershed, flowing from the Sierra Nevada in northeastern Tulare County, in a southern direction, to Lake Isabella, an impounded basin created by Isabella Dam (Figure 4.7-1). Below the dam, the Kern River flows southwest, emerging from the mountains east of Bakersfield into the Central Valley. Downstream from Bakersfield, the river is diverted through a series of canals for irrigation and municipal water supplies to Bakersfield and the surrounding areas.

The Kern River is located adjacent to the project site and is typically dry except during storm events and when water is being released upstream from Lake Isabella for flood management, local groundwater recharge, and water banking purposes. The unlined Calloway Canal conveys Kern River water through Bakersfield to a North Kern Water Storage District recharge basin, located in the vicinity of the project site.

In addition to the Kern River, two other sources of surface water in the area include the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP). CVP water is delivered to Kern County primarily through the Friant-Kern Canal. The SWP water, and at times additional CVP water, is supplied from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta area and delivered through the California Aqueduct to Kern County, where it is diverted into the Cross Valley Canal. When the lower Kern River is dry, surface water from either the Friant-Kern Canal or Cross Valley Canal may be intentionally discharged into the Kern River channel for groundwater recharge.

The Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) was created in 1961 by a special act of the California State Legislature. Its mission is to secure adequate water supplies for Kern County by serving as the local contracting entity for water from the SWP. Local water agencies within Kern County contract with KCWA for surface water supplies, some of which are delivered through the Cross Valley Canal. KCWA was also granted powers that enable it to participate in a wide range of water management activities including water quality, flood control, and groundwater issues.

County of Kern 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality


Figure 4.7-1. Surface Water Features in the Bakersfield Area



Improvement District No. 4 (ID4) was formed by the KCWA Board of Directors in 1971 to act as the wholesale provider of drinking water supply for portions of the metropolitan Bakersfield area. ID4 includes portions of the City of Bakersfield, unincorporated areas of Oildale, and other unincorporated sections of the northern and eastern metropolitan Bakersfield area. ID4 operates the Henry C. Garnett Water Purification Plant, a 38-million gallon per day (MGD) conventional water purification plant. Residents do not receive their drinking water directly from the plant, but from several retail “purveyors” to which residents pay their water bills. These retail purveyors include the California Water Service Company (CWSC), which provides potable and operational water to the refinery. The Alon Bakersfield Refinery lies within the ID4 service area of the KCWA and is therefore subject to the requirements of the ID4.

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approved a Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin (RWQCB Basin Plan, 2004). The Basin Plan designates standards and water quality objectives for surface water and groundwater based on beneficial uses. The Kern River is designated with the following beneficial uses: Municipal water supply (MUN); Agricultural (AGR); Industrial Service (IND); Industrial Process Supply (PRO); Water Contact Recreation (REC-1); Non-water Contact Recreation (REC-2); Warmwater Freshwater Habitat (WARM); Wildlife Habitat (WILD); Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species (RARE); and Ground Water Recharge (GWR). Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) tributary rule, as the Cross-Valley and Friant-Kern water supply canals discharge to the Kern River, the applicable standards and beneficial uses applicable to the Kern River would apply to these channels.

Flooding

A Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for Kern County, California (unincorporated areas). The FIRM for the Alon Bakersfield Refinery and surrounding area, which was effective on September 26, 2008 (Map Number 06029C2277E), indicates that the southern footprint of refinery Area 2, comprising the southern portion of the Area 2 tank farm, is located within an area designated as A5 (Figure 4.7-2). This zone, which is referred to as the 100-year floodplain, has a one percent chance of flooding during any given year and generally indicates the extent of shallow flooding. Base flood elevations of 387 to 389 feet above mean sea level have been established on the FIRM within the southern portion of Area 2. The remainder of Area 2 is located within a 0.2 percent return or 500 year floodplain.

In addition, potential failure of Lake Isabella Dam could result in inundation of the project site. A flood inundation map prepared by Kern County shows the inundation area and time-step of flood arrival, assuming a full reservoir and complete failure of both dams. Under this scenario, the Alon Bakersfield Refinery would be inundated by a minimum of one foot of water approximately six hours subsequent to dam failure (Kern County, 2008).

Lake Isabella is 35 miles northeast of Bakersfield and the Alon Bakersfield Refinery. Lake Isabella was created by a dam completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1953. The Lake Isabella dam consists of a main dam and an auxiliary dam, which are located 2,000 feet laterally apart. The main earthfill dam is 185 feet high and 1,725 feet long, while the auxiliary earthfill structure is 100 feet high and 3,275 feet long. The gross capacity of both dams is 568,100 acre-feet. The total capacity may be operated to control snowmelt floods.



Figure 4.7-2. 100-Year Flood Zone in the Project Area

A USACE Dam Safety Action Classification External Peer Review Panel completed the “Isabella Dam Consensus Report; External Peer Review of DSAC-1 Projects” in November 2007 (USACE, 2007 as cited in Kern County, 2008), analyzing the current condition of the dam based on site reviews, existing data, and a prior USACE Class I designation for Isabella Dam under EC 1110-2-6064, “Interim Risk Reduction Measures for Dam Safety”, dated May 31, 2007. The Class I designation requires urgent and compelling action by the USACE to reduce probabilities and consequences of failure and remediate dam safety concerns. Areas of concern at the dam site include seepage, an underlying active fault, loose foundation, inadequate spillway capacity, poor drainage blanket, and piping in the outlet conduit. The Panel concluded that the May 2007 designation was appropriate and made major recommendations for immediate, short term and long term risk reduction measures. As a result, a baseline risk assessment, consisting of a Potential Failure Modes Analysis, was completed in August 2009 (Serafini and Rose 2009). Additional documents required prior to dam repair will include an Isabella Dam Safety Modification Report, an



Environmental Impact Statement, and a Real Estate Design Memorandum (USACE, Sacramento District 2012).

Groundwater

The existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery overlies the lower portion of the Kern River Fan, which consists of alluvial deposits that cover approximately 300 square miles of the San Joaquin Valley. The Kern River Fan is a highly-productive part of the Kern County Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (Figure 4.7-3) and an important water supply for the region (DWR, 2006). Site-specific hydrostratigraphy is provided in Figure 4.7-4. The underlying Kern River Fan aquifers are divided into the lower and upper zones by an approximately 100 foot thick clay layer (aquitard), located approximately 300 feet below the refinery site. The clay layer dips generally to the west and pinches out west of the refinery (USGS, 1966 as cited in Kern County, 2008). The upper aquifer is generally not a drinking water source due to high salt and total dissolved solids concentrations and hydrocarbon contamination. The upper aquifer is broken further into three horizons for monitoring purposes:

• Depths of less than 110 feet below ground surface (bgs) are designated as the Shallow Zone

• Depths between 110 feet and 140 feet bgs are designated as the Intermediate Zone

• Depths greater than 140 feet bgs are designated as the Deep Zone

The lower aquifer is the main drinking water supply and is confined below the 100 foot-thick clay layer beneath the project site. The lower aquifer is approximately 400 feet thick. Below the lower aquifer is the Kern River Zone, which consists of sands and shales that are generally low-water yielding and non-oil bearing. Beneath the Kern River Zone, at over 3,000 feet bgs, is the Etchegion, Chanac, and Santa Margarita formations. These formations are separated by confining layers and are hydrocarbon bearing and are used for injection zones to dispose of non-hazardous wastewater from the refinery.

The Kern County Sub-basin receives recharge from seepage from the Kern River and the adjacent unlined canals, which receive runoff from the City of Bakersfield. Kern County Water Authority estimates the total water in groundwater storage in the Kern County Subbasin to be 40,000,000 AF and dewatered aquifer storage to be 10,000,000 AF (DWR, 2006).

Recharge projects in the ID4 service area include the Kern Water Bank, the City of Bakersfield recharge area, the Pioneer Project recharge and recovery facilities, and the Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District/Allen Road Complex well field. The DWR purchased about 19,600 acres of land to be used for the Kern Water Bank, which is a banking/extraction program that will ultimately provide as much as 100,000 AF (32,900 MG) of annual dry-yield water for the SWP. The City of Bakersfield has for many years maintained a 2,800-acre recharge area adjacent to the Kern River as a “banking” site. The Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District maintains a 179-acre recharge basin facility on Allen Road, as well as several hundred acres of channels and basins within or near Goose Lake Slough.

The KCWA has identified the need for long-range groundwater supply planning for the urban Bakersfield area. Resolution No. 21-93, adopted by the KCWA Board on May 27, 1993, established policy for meeting the future water supply requirements of ID4 and the joint City of Bakersfield/Kern County General Plan Area. The ID4 Water Supply Project was initiated to both replace a portion of the groundwater currently being pumped with surface water supplies and to use imported water as recharge to supply ongoing groundwater pumping.



Figure 4.7-3. Kern County Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin



Figure 4.7-4. Hydrostratigraphy Beneath the Alon Bakersfield Refinery



Groundwater Level Trends. Fluctuations of water levels in the wells within the Kern County Subbasin, installed at different depths, indicate that water moves not only within aquifers, but also around or through the less permeable sediments, with movement through low permeability units resulting in a much slower rate of movement.

Groundwater trends in the area can be seen to be extremely variable over time (Figures 4.7-5 and 4.7-6). Groundwater elevation in this area is heavily influenced by recharge from the Kern River. Groundwater levels decrease dramatically in response to droughts as they did in 1978 and 1998, but recover quickly in response to flows in the Kern River and discharges of unstorable CVP water from the terminus of the Friant-Kern Canal into the Kern River, immediately south of the refinery. According to well sampling data near the refinery compiled by DWR, notwithstanding the annual fluctuations, there is no noticeable downward trend in groundwater elevation that would indicate an overdraft condition in the alluvial aquifer.

Based on monitoring data from the upper aquifer beneath the refinery, groundwater levels have ranged from 10 feet to 100 feet bgs. In the last decade, groundwater levels were highest in 2006 and 2011, following wet years. The water levels were lowest in 2009. Lower than average rainfall experienced during the 2011–2012 and 2012–2013 rainy seasons has resulted in the lowering of water levels beneath the refinery (URS, 2013).

Figure 4.7-5. Long-term Groundwater Elevations near Alon Bakersfield Refinery (Well 29S27E26D002M)



Figure 4.7-6. Groundwater Elevations in the Upper Aquifer Beneath the Alon Bakersfield Refinery (Monitoring Well B-075, URS 2013)

Groundwater Quality. The 2004 RWQCB Basin Plan includes groundwater quality objectives based on the following beneficial uses: Municipal, Agricultural, Industrial Service, and Industrial Process Supply. In general, the groundwater quality in the Kern County Sub-basin, including the Bakersfield area, is suitable for such beneficial uses, except where contamination has occurred. The eastern part of the sub-basin contains primarily calcium bicarbonate waters in the shallow zones, increasing in sodium with depth. Bicarbonate is replaced by sulfate and lesser chloride in an east to west trend across the sub-basin. West side waters are primarily sodium sulfate to calcium-sodium sulfate type. The average total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of groundwater is 400 to 450 milligrams per liter (mg/L), with a range of 150 to 5,000 mg/L (DWR, 2006). With respect to water quality impairments in the sub-basin, shallow groundwater presents problems for agriculture in the western portion of the basin. High TDS, sodium chloride, and sulfate are associated with the axial trough of the sub-basin. Elevated arsenic concentrations exist in some areas associated with lakebed deposits. Nitrate, dibromochloropropane, and ethylene dibromide concentrations exceed maximum contaminant levels in various areas of the basin (DWR, 2006).

Local Groundwater Quality at the Refinery. The remainder of this section includes discussion of water quality issues in the vicinity of the refinery, including descriptions of spill events with associated regulatory actions, monitoring, and remediation. Background. The Alon Bakersfield Refinery has a long operational history extending back to 1932. Ownership has changed many times during its history. The refinery is currently owned by Alon USA. Operations over the years have resulted in discharges of crude oil and various refinery products and additives, including, but not limited to, diesel and gasoline constituents, reformate, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), and other constituents from the processing facilities, blending operations, tanks, and pipelines. These discharges have deposited petroleum hydrocarbons and other chemicals in soils. Once deposited in the soils, the petroleum hydrocarbons and other constituents have migrated to and polluted underlying groundwater (RWQCB, 2012). Documented releases or



inferred releases are summarized below (URS, 2013). The proposed project does not include construction activities (e.g., excavation or grading) within the Sales Terminal Area, the Blending Area or the Mohawk Tank Farm. The proposed project activities are located primarily within Area 2 and 4 of the refinery.

Approximately 350 groundwater monitoring wells and supply wells at the refinery are currently being monitored. The wells monitor groundwater conditions from recent and historic releases, under the regulatory oversight of the RWQCB and as required in Cleanup and Abatement Order No. R5-2012-0701, issued in 2012 by the RWQCB and superseding Order No. R5-2007-0728. Order No. R5-2012-0701 requires that the responsible parties investigate and cleanup the releases and abate the effects to soil and groundwater (RWQCB 2012).

With regulatory oversight by the RWQCB, Alon USA has implemented an assessment and remediation program for soil and groundwater at the refinery. Under the requirements set forth in Order No. R5-2012-0701, Alon USA is evaluating the potential impacts to groundwater, health and safety, and the environment, from historic releases of petroleum hydrocarbons and hazardous substances, to design and implement remedial actions to address the impacts. The following sections describe the contamination and remediation activities being undertaken at the refinery, based on Order No. R5-2012-0701.

Area 2 Refinery – Historical discharges of petroleum hydrocarbons in the form of reformate (main reformate discharge) from an underground pipeline were discovered in March 1987 in the vicinity of the Area 2 Refinery hydrocracker unit. Estimates of the volume of that discharge range from 1.5 million to over 2.8 million gallons. A discharge of petroleum hydrocarbons in the form of diesel in the vicinity of monitoring well R6B was reported in May 2006. A separate discharge in the vicinity of well R3 and the mid-aromatic pipeline occurred in 2008. Liquid petroleum hydrocarbons have



been detected in at least 12 monitoring wells in the Area 2 Refinery. Maximum detected concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHG), total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPHD), and benzene in groundwater beneath this area in November 2011 were 96,000 micrograms per liter (µg/L), 180,000 µg /L, and 1,500 µg /L, respectively. Assessment in portions of the Area 2 Refinery is ongoing. Ongoing remediation in the Area 2 Refinery consists of soil vapor extraction and air sparging programs to address soil and groundwater contamination from historic sources and operations.

Sales Terminal – Discharges of petroleum hydrocarbons containing MTBE occurred in the Sales Terminal area in March 1999, December 2000, and April 2001. Two groundwater extraction systems were installed downgradient of the discharge and vapor extraction wells were installed in the vicinity of the discharge by Equilon. Maximum detected concentrations of TPHG, TPHD, and benzene in groundwater beneath this area in November 2011 were 4,700 ug/L, 1,200 ug/L, and 12 ug/L, respectively.

Blending Area – A discharge of 2,300 gallons of MTBE from a railroad car occurred in July 1996 in the Blending Area. Several smaller discharges were also reported in this area. Liquid petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in seven monitoring wells in November 2011. The source for the liquid petroleum hydrocarbons is unknown. Studies in the Blending Area indicate that some soils in this area contain elevated concentrations of chromium and arsenic, and elevated-to-hazardous concentrations of lead. Soils in the southeastern and southern portions of this area are impacted by gasoline and diesel. Soils had a maximum detected total lead concentration of 8,560 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and a maximum detected total chromium concentration of 164 mg/kg. Maximum detected concentrations of TPHG, TPHD, and benzene in groundwater beneath this area in November 2011 were 140,000 ug/L, 23,000 ug/L, and 17,000 ug/L, respectively. Soil vapor samples were collected at selected soil vapor wells and monitoring wells in the Blending Area during early 2011. TPHG and benzene were detected in soil vapor at maximum concentrations of 57,000,000 and 2,018,000 micrograms per cubic meter, respectively. TPHD was also detected in soil vapor in excess of 100,000 micrograms per cubic meter. Soil vapor extraction tests conducted on several soil vapor wells in the Blending Area indicate that soil vapor extraction is a viable option for remediating soils impacted by volatile organic compounds.

Mohawk Tank Farm – This area is directly south of the Blending Area. A discharge of less than 500 barrels of residual gas oil from the RGO pipeline, located in the northwest corner of the area, was reported in January 2007. Big West, the previous owner of the refinery, reported greater than 20 feet of liquid petroleum hydrocarbons in monitoring well BWM-5U in June 2007. Assessment and remediation of the liquid petroleum hydrocarbons is ongoing. A discharge of an unknown amount of petroleum hydrocarbons was reported from a flange near 72P15 in January 2006. Initial assessment in the vicinity of the flange indicates impacts of petroleum hydrocarbons to deeper soils may be related to operation of other equipment in the area. A release of crude oil occurred in the southeast corner of the Mohawk Tank Farm in November 2010. Liquid petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in approximately 20 monitoring wells in the Mohawk Tank Farm area in November 2011. Groundwater in the northern and west central portions of this area has been impacted by high concentrations of gasoline and diesel constituents. Soils had a maximum detected total lead concentration of 5,670 mg/kg and maximum detected total chromium concentration of 6,920 mg/kg.



Refinery Current Water Supply and Consumption

The water use during 2000–2007 supported refinery operations at approximately 70 percent of the 70,000 barrels per day (BPD) historical maximum crude processing rate for the refinery of crude oil. Water use quantities are included in Table 4.7-1. Table 4.7-1. Historical Water Use

Groundwater Production (CWSC) Water Use Historic Total Water Use Year MGY AFY MGY AFY MGY AFY

2000 534 1,640 96 295 630 1,935

2001 531 1,629 99 304 630 1,934

2002 548 1,681 103 315 651 1,996

2003 529 1,623 99 303 628 1,926

2004 507 1,557 94 289 601 1,845

2005 441 1,353 99 302 540 1,655

2007 533 1,636 96 295 629 1,930

Seven Year Average (2006 data missing) 524 1,608 97 298 621 1,906

In 2007, in addition to bottled potable water from a commercial supplier, the Alon Bakersfield Refinery received approximately 96 million gallons per year of potable water from the CWSC Bakersfield service system. Some of the potable water delivered by CWSC was also used as process water in refinery Area 3. The majority of the refinery’s process water, approximately 533 million gallons per year, was drawn from four private, onsite wells. Combined, these two water sources supplied approximately 629 million gallons annually.

Water Supply Wells. A groundwater quality study dated October 1, 1974 was conducted for Mohawk Petroleum Corporation to determine the availability of high quality groundwater within the current refinery footprint. The report stated that the groundwater from the surface to 300 feet is poor quality, with high levels of TDS and refinery related pollutants. A clay bed from 295 feet to 320 feet bgs separates the upper poor quality water from underlying higher quality water. This information contrasts with USGS data (1966 as cited in Kern County, 2008) previously discussed, which indicates that the clay-rich aquitard is approximately 100 feet thick. The higher quality water, which is currently extracted from onsite water supply wells, is associated with a sandy water bearing formation from 400 to 500 feet bgs.

Refinery Wastewater Generation and Treatment

Injection Zone Hydrogeology. The existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery disposes of process wastewater in injection wells. Wastewater from throughout the refinery is transported to tanks in Area 1 and subsequently treated in the wastewater treatment plant in Area 1. The wastewater treatment plants use gravity separation, dissolved air flotation units, and filters to remove hydrocarbons from the water. The hydrocarbons are returned to processing units and the treated wastewater is injected into permitted injection wells for disposal. Injection zones for process wastewater disposal are located beneath confining zones composed of relatively impermeable shale.



The refinery utilizes two injection zones at different depths: the Etchegoin/Chanac and the Santa Margarita.

Etchegoin/Chanac. The Etchegoin/Chanac confining zone is a laterally continuous shale located at an approximate depth of 3,300 feet. The thickness of the confining zone within the area of injection for well W.I.W. No. 1 in Area 3 ranges from 13 to 19 feet (Petrotech, 2006 as cited in Kern County, 2008). The injection zone has been divided into two intervals: the Chanac injection zone ranges from 317 to 450 feet thick and the Etchegoin ranges from 222 to 251 feet thick. The total thickness in the area of injection is approximately 620 feet (Figure 4.7-4).

Santa Margarita. The Santa Margarita confining zone is an approximately 10- to 15-foot-thick, laterally continuous shale located at an approximate depth of 4,350 feet. The thickness of the confining zone for the “Red Ribbon” WD-1 and WD-2 wells is 14 feet. This laterally continuous shale thickens to the southeast and north. The Santa Margarita injection zone ranges from 850 to 1,000 feet thick within Area 1. The total thickness is approximately 1,000 feet in the immediate area of injection (Figure 4.7-4).

Current Injection Wells.

UIC Permitting Status. The Alon Bakersfield Refinery is currently permitted by the RWQCB Central Valley Region Order No. 91-102 (Order 91-102) to inject wastewater into four existing Class V disposal “injection” wells. Order 91-102 states that a maximum of 1.05 MGD of wastewater may be disposed in permitted wells. The California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) also exerts regulatory jurisdiction over these wells.

The injection wells at the refinery were originally designated as Class V wells by the USEPA because the water quality in the injection zone contained less than 10,000 mg/L of TDS and the fluids being injected are non-hazardous and they did not fit into any of the other four classifications. (See Section 4.7.3 Regulatory Setting Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program.) USEPA subsequently delegated permitting authority for the Class V injection wells at the refinery to the Central Valley RWQCB. Groundwater with less than 10,000 mg/L TDS is considered by USEPA to be an underground source of drinking water (USDW) unless an exemption is granted. USEPA has determined that the Etchegoin/Chanac and Santa Margarita injection zones meet the criteria outlined in 40 CFR Section 146.4 for exemption from classification as a USDW. The exemption is applicable because the receiving aquifers are not currently serving as underground sources of drinking water or an agricultural, municipal, or industrial water supply. The injection zone is not considered a future underground source of drinking water based on its stratigraphic location, water quality, and availability of higher quality water on or near the ground surface. The California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) has determined the Etchegoin/Chanac and Santa Margarita zones to be non-underground sources of drinking water suitable for the injection of produced waters (Class II).

County Condition Use Permit Status: A CUP was issued in 2008 and modified in 2012 by Alon that allowed the refinery operator to install of up to nine additional injection wells, which were evaluated as part of a previous EIR (SCH No. 2005121041).

Facility Drainage

The current Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, is dated October 20, 2011 and amended July 2013. The Plan includes refinery drainage diagrams and written descriptions of drainage systems for the following: diked storage areas, undiked storage areas, and process areas.



Diked storage areas, undiked storage areas, and process areas are found in all three areas of the refinery (i.e., Areas 1, 2, and 3). The refinery is located on essentially flat terrain with natural drainage to the west/southwest, at less than a 0.25 percent slope. This natural drainage was altered within the refinery boundaries during the construction of the refinery.

Diked areas are those areas where secondary containment is required. The refinery tank farms in Areas 1, 2, and 3 are located within diked storage areas. The drainage system within each tank farm secondary containment facility can be either gravity fed or pumped via lift station to the oily water sewer. If the rainfall event is minimal, the stormwater is allowed to evaporate within the secondary containment. In Area 1, most of the oily water sewer lines gravity flow directly to the wastewater treatment plant inlet sump. The other oily water sewer lines from the tankage in Area 1 flow into either the north (American Petroleum Institute (API) separator (primary oil water solids separator) or , the south API separator. In the Area 2 tank farm, two lift stations move oily water to the oily water sewer. In Area 3, the diked tank farm is drained through an oily water sewer system that discharges to an accumulation drum that pumps oily fluids to the Area 3 wastewater treatment plant. Light rainfall within the secondary containment areas is usually allowed to evaporate. Larger amounts of standing water within the secondary containment areas are removed by vacuum truck.

Drainage from the process units is transported by three systems: the oily water sewer, stormwater sewer, and the non-oily water sewer. The oily water sewer and stormwater sewer are typically segregated in the process units but are commingled in collection tanks prior to treatment. Both the Area 1 and Area 3 wastewater treatment plants are designed with the capacity to manage the oily waste streams at the refinery along with the process area collected rainwater from a 25-year storm event.

Undiked areas include process units in Areas 1, 2, and 3. The SPCC Plan states that due to secondary containment, grading, and diversionary structures, there is no offsite drainage from the diked and undiked areas within the refinery. In 1992, Texaco conducted an extensive stormwater containment project that included a refinery-wide stormwater runoff assessment. The assessment included a survey of all property lines along the perimeters of Areas 1, 2, and 3. The Alon Bakersfield Refinery is currently not covered under a general industrial stormwater permit and does not maintain a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) because all stormwater is retained onsite.

4.7.3 Regulatory Setting This section describes Federal, State, and local regulatory permits and approvals that apply to the project. Although regulatory permits may be applied for and processed concurrent with the preparation of an EIR, implementation of a project, construction, and operations cannot commence without local, state, or federal permits or approvals.

Federal

Clean Water Act (CWA) The CWA (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), formally the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and has given the USEPA the authority to implement pollution control programs. The CWA requires states to set standards to



protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and certain non-point source discharges to surface water. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). In California, NPDES permitting authority is delegated to, and administered by, the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The project is within the jurisdiction of the Central RWQCB.

Section 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Section 402 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the SWRCB to issue a NPDES General Construction Storm Water Permit (Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ), referred to as the “General Construction Permit.” Construction activities can comply with and be covered under the General Construction Permit provided that they:

• Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off site into receiving waters.

• Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation.

• Perform inspections of all BMPs.

For the project, NPDES regulations are administered by the Central RWQCB. Projects that disturb one or more acres, including the project, are required to obtain NPDES coverage under the Construction General Permits.

Section 303, Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans. Section 303(d) of the CWA (CWA, 33 USC 1250, et seq., at 1313(d)) requires states to identify “impaired” water bodies as those which do not meet water quality standards. States are required to compile this information in a list and submit the list to the USEPA for review and approval. This list is known as the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. As part of this listing process, states are required to prioritize waters and watersheds for future development of Total Maximum Daily loads (TMDL) requirements. The SWRCB and RWQCBs have ongoing efforts to monitor and assess water quality, to prepare the Section 303(d) list, and to develop TMDL requirements.

Stormwater Permitting Applicable to Refineries: On November 16, 1990, the USEPA published final regulations that establish application requirements for stormwater permits (Phase 1). Along with other facilities, the Phase I industrial stormwater program requires permitting for construction sites that disturb five or more acres and for numerous types of industrial facilities, which are identified in the regulations by standard industrial classification (SIC). The regulations require that stormwater associated with industrial activity (stormwater) that discharges either directly to surface waters or indirectly through municipal separate storm sewers must be regulated by an NPDES permit.

Specific stormwater effluent limitations guidelines for refineries have been published under 40 CFR Part 419. These effluent limitations set specific maximum and daily average mass based limitations. Petroleum refineries are subject to the effluent limitations guidelines in addition to the Industrial General Permit for stormwater discharged to Waters of the U.S.

Oil Pollution Act: Under the authority of §311 of the CWA, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 established a single uniform Federal system of liability and compensation for damages caused by oil spills in U.S. navigable waters. Specifically, §311(j) (1) (C) requires removal of spilled oil and

http://155.103.6.10/cgi-bin/sic/sicser5

http://155.103.6.10/cgi-bin/sic/sicser5



establishes a national system of planning for and responding to oil spill incidents. It includes provisions to:

• Improve oil-spill prevention, preparedness, and response capability;

• Establish limitations on liabilities for damages resulting from oil pollution;

• Provide funding for natural resource damage assessments;

• Implement a fund for the payment of compensation for such damages; and

• Establish an oil pollution research and development program.

Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plans: To prevent oil from reaching navigable waters and adjoining shorelines, and to contain discharges of oil, §311 of the CWA (Oil Pollution Act, 1990) requires these facilities to develop and implement SPCC Plans and establishes procedures, methods, and equipment requirements. The requirements for SPCC plans are included in the federal regulations under 40 CFR §112. Subparts A through C of part 112 are often referred to as the “SPCC rule”. Focusing on oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response, the SPCC rule is designed to protect public health, public welfare, and the environment from potential harmful effects of oil discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines. The rule requires facilities that could reasonably be expected to discharge oil in quantities that may be harmful into navigable waters to develop and implement SPCC Plans.

SPCC Plans must be prepared and certified by a professional engineer, and implemented for facilities which store, process, transfer, distribute, use, drill, produce, or refine oil or oil production. At a minimum, the SPCC Plan must include the following requirements:

• Procedures and methods for proper installation of equipment to prevent an oil release;

• A training and drill program for all personnel addressing oil spill response; and

• A plan that outlines steps to contain, clean up, and mitigate any effects that an oil spill may have on waterways.

The Alon Bakersfield Refinery maintains an SPCC for the existing refinery, including Areas 1 and 2, located in the main area of the refinery, and Area 3, the delayed coker located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of Area 1. The SPCC plan was developed in accordance with the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR Part 112 and was certified by a registered professional engineer (PE in October of 2011. The refinery site inspection and field examination were completed and the PE’s Certification deemed valid as of June 22, 2005. The SPCC Plan states that the Plan will be revised when there are changes in the refinery’s design, construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affect the refinery’s discharge of oil into or upon the navigable “Waters of the U.S.” The requirement for preparation is within six months of the material change and implementation as soon as possible, but no later than six months following preparation of the amendment. The implementation of the proposed project would require an amendment to the current SPCC plan for the refinery prior to construction and operation.

Facility Response Plan: Facilities that store large amounts of oil must have the capability to adequately respond to a spill. Under the CWA, such facilities must submit Facility Response Plans (FRPs) to respond to a worst-case discharge and the resulting threats to human health or the environment. Basic requirements include:

• Immediate spill notification to the National Response Center;



• Timely deployment of spill response equipment; and

• Oil Spill Monitoring and Response.

The Alon Bakersfield Refinery has an Emergency Response Action Plan that was incorporated as part of the current SPCC Plan. The Emergency Response Action Plan incorporates all of the statutory requirements for a FRP. The Emergency Response Action Plan would need to be revised and updated prior to construction and operation of the proposed project.

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The NFIP, implemented by the Congress of the United States in 1968, enables participating communities to purchase flood insurance. Flood insurance rates are set according to flood-prone status of property as indicated by FIRM developed by FEMA. FIRMs identify the estimated limits of the 100 year floodplain for mapped watercourses, among other flood hazards. As a condition of participation in the NFIP, communities must adopt regulations for floodplain development intended to reduce flood damage for new development through such measures as flood proofing, elevation on fill, or floodplain avoidance. Kern County participates in the NFIP. FIRM for the Alon Bakersfield Refinery and surrounding area, which was effective on September 26, 2008 (Map Number 06029C2277E), indicates that the southern footprint of refinery Area 2, comprising the southern portion of the Area 2 tank farm, is located within an area designated as A5 (Figure 4.7-2). This zone, which is referred to as the 100-year floodplain, has a one percent chance of flooding during any given year and generally indicates the extent of shallow flooding. Base flood elevations of 387 to 389 feet above mean sea level have been established on the FIRM within the southern portion of Area 2. The remainder of Area 2 is located within a 0.2 percent return or 500 year floodplain.

Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was originally passed by Congress in 1974 to protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply. The law was amended in 1986 and 1996, and requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources: rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs, and groundwater wells. The SDWA authorizes the USEPA to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally occurring and man-made contaminants that may be found in drinking water.

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program

The requirements for the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program were promulgated under Part C of the SDWA. The regulations at 40 CFR parts 144-147 address the subsurface injection of waste fluids below, into, and above underground sources of drinking water. “Injection” includes seeping, flowing, leaching, and pumping, with or without added pressure. A USDW is defined as any groundwater containing 10,000 mg/L or less of TDS, in a quantity that can sustain a public water supply system (minimum 15 connections or 25 persons). Injection wells are classified by the USEPA into five classes according to the type and location of fluid injected, including:

• Class I wells – inject hazardous and non-hazardous wastes below the lowermost USDW. Injection occurs into deep, isolated rock formations that are separated from the lowermost USDW by layers of impermeable clay and rock.

• Class II wells – inject fluids associated with oil and natural gas production operations. Most of the injected fluid is brine that is produced when oil and gas are extracted from the earth.



• Class III wells – inject super-heated steam, water, or other fluids into formations to extract minerals. The injected fluids are then pumped to the surface and the minerals in solution are extracted. Generally, the fluid is treated and re-injected into the same formation.

• Class IV wells – inject hazardous or radioactive wastes into underground sources of drinking water. These wells are banned under the UIC program because they directly threaten public health.

• Class V wells –injection wells that are not included in the other 4 classes. Some Class V wells are wastewater disposal wells used by the geothermal industry, but most are wells associated with septic systems and cesspools. Generally, these wells are shallow and depend upon gravity to drain or “inject” liquid waste into the ground. See Section 4.7.2, Refinery Wastewater Generation and Treatment subsection for additional information regarding designation of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery four injection wells as Class V wells.

In general, owners and operators of most new Class I, II, and III injection wells are required to:

• Site the wells in a location that is free of faults and other adverse geological features.

• Drill to a depth that allows the injection into formations that do not contain water that can potentially be used as a source of drinking water. These injection zones must be confined from any formation that may contain water that may potentially be used as a source of drinking water.

• Construct the well such that injection occurs through an internal pipe (tubing) that is located inside another pipe (casing). This outer pipe has cement on the outside to fill any voids occurring between the outside pipe and the hole that was bored for the well (borehole). This allows for multiple layers of containment of the potentially contaminating injection fluids.

• Test for integrity at the time of completion and every five years thereafter (more frequently for hazardous waste wells.

• Monitor continuously to assure the integrity of the well.

In California, the USEPA retains sole permitting authority over Class I, III, and IV wells.

State

Department of Water Resources (DWR) The California DWR major responsibilities include preparing and updating the California Water Plan to guide development and management of the State's water resources; planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the State Water Resources Development System; regulating dams; providing flood protection; assisting in emergency management to safeguard life and property; educating the public; and serving local water needs by providing technical assistance. In addition, DWR cooperates with local agencies on water resources investigations; supports watershed and river restoration programs; encourages water conservation; explores conjunctive use of ground and surface water; facilitates voluntary water transfers; and, when needed, operates a State drought water bank.



Senate Bill (SB) 610 SB 610 was passed on January 1, 2002, amending California state law to require detailed analysis of water supply availability for large development projects. An SB 610 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) must be prepared if the following three conditions are met: 1) The project is subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Water Code

Section 10910; 2) The project meets criteria to be defined as a “Project” under Water Code Section 10912; and 3) The applicable water agency’s current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) does not

account for the water supply demand associated with the project.

A project would meet the definition of “Project” per Water Code Section 10912 if it is:

• A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units;

• A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space;

• A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space;

• A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms;

• A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area;

• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision; or

• A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project (DWR 2003b).

The project would not result in increased water demand; therefore, a water supply assessment is not required. In 2011, SB 267 was signed into law, which amended Water Code section 10912 to exempt photovoltaic and wind energy generation facilities from the definition of “Project,” provided they demand no more than 75 acre feet (AF) of water annually.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The SWRCB regulates water quality through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act of 1969, which contains a complete framework for the regulation of waste discharges to both surface waters and groundwater of the State. On the regional level, the project falls under the jurisdiction of the Central RWQCB, which is responsible for the implementation of State and federal water quality protection statutes, regulations and guidelines. The Central Valley has developed a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) to show how the quality of the surface and ground waters in the Central Valley should be managed to provide the highest water quality reasonably possible. The Basin Plan lists the various beneficial uses of water within the region, describes the water quality which must be maintained to allow those uses, describes the programs, projects, and other actions which are necessary to achieve the standards established in this plan, and summarizes plans and policies to protect water quality. Surface waters located within the vicinity of the project site are identified in the Basin Plan as minor surface waters and minor wetlands.



California Water Code §13260: Under Porter-Cologne, California Water Code §13260 requires that any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, must submit a report of waste discharge to the applicable RWQCB. “Waste” is defined in the Basin Plan to include any waste or deleterious material including, but not limited to, waste earthen materials (such as soil, silt, clay, rock, or other organic or mineral material) and any other waste as defined in the California Water Code, §13050(d). Any actions related to the project that would be applicable to California Water Code §13260 would be reported to the Central RWQCB.

Regional Water Quality Control Board Order 91-102 Waste Discharge Requirements: California Water Code §13260(a) requires that any person discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of waste discharge (RWD) containing such information and data as may be required by the RWQCB. The RWQCB has a statutory obligation, pursuant to California Water Code §13263, to prescribe waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for each discharge of waste, except where a waiver of WDRs for a specific type of discharge is not against the public interest as described in California Water Code §13269.

Order 91-102, Waste Discharge Requirements for Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. Wastewater Injections Wells, Kern County and Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 91102 were approved by the RWQCB on April 26, 1991, in accordance with Division 7 of the Porter-Cologne Act. Order 91-102 authorizes the disposal of refinery wastewater in four existing deep injection wells and three proposed deep injection wells. Order 91-102 contains requirements regarding the construction and operation of the wells, as well as specific concentration limitations for seven constituents.

Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game Code) Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code protects the natural flow, bed, channel, and bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in which there is, at any time, any existing fish or wildlife resources, or benefit for the resources. Section 1602 applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the State, and requires any person, State or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify the CDFG before beginning any activity that will:

• Substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake;

• Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake; or

• Deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.

None of these are expected to result from the project as currently proposed and no streambed alteration agreement is expected to be required.

California Water Code §13751 California Water Code §13751 requires a Report of Well Completion to be filed with the Department of Water Resources within 60 days of well completion. New wells must comply with California Department of Water Resources Well Standards as described in Water Resources Bulletins 74-81 and 74-90.



NPDES General Construction Permit

The NPDES was established per 1972 amendments to the federal Water Pollution Control Act, in order to control discharges of pollutants from point sources (Section 402). As described above, under “Federal,” 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act created a new section of the act devoted to storm water permitting (Section 402[p]), with individual States designated for administration and enforcement of the provisions of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES permit program. The SWRCB issues both General Construction Permits and individual permits under this program.

The NPDES General Construction Stormwater Permit, Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ, contains requirements for post-construction stormwater management. The project must include the implementation of long-term BMPs to address post-construction stormwater, particularly for impervious surface runoff, access road alignment, and proposed drainage crossings.

Projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction are required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the SWRCB to be covered under the State NPDES General Construction Permit for discharges of storm water associated with construction activity. The Project proponent must control measures that are consistent with the State General Permit. A SWPPP must be developed and implemented for each site covered by the General Permit. A SWPPP describes BMPs the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction period. The SWPPP must contain the following: a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment (SWRCB 2009). The area that would be disturbed under the project exceeds one acre and therefore, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit. The stormwater would continue to be contained onsite so that no stormwater discharge would be expected due to implementation of the proposed project.

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Cleanup and Abatement Order R5-2012-0701 The Cleanup and Abatement Order No. R5-2012-0701 was issued to Alon Bakersfield Property, Inc., and Equilon Enterprises LLC (Equilon) by the California RWQCB in 2012. Order No. R5-2012-0701 is issued under the provisions of the California Water Code Sections 13267 and 13340 and requires that Alon and Equilon investigate the discharges of waste, cleanup the wastes, and abate the affects of the discharge of wastes, including petroleum hydrocarbons and hazardous substances, to soil and groundwater at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery, 6451 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, California, Kern County. Order No. R5-2012-07201authorizes the RWQCB to require Alon and Equilon to prepare and submit technical and monitoring reports concerning the discharges of wastes at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery and to complete the necessary investigations and cleanup.

Industrial General Stormwater Permit NPDES General Permit CAS000001 (Industrial General Permit) was issued by the SWRCB for discharges of stormwater associated with industrial activities, excluding construction activities. The Industrial General Permit requires the implementation of management measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology. The General Industrial Permit also requires the development of a SWPPP and a monitoring plan. Through the SWPPP, sources of pollutants are to



be identified and the means to manage the sources to reduce stormwater pollution are described. The Alon Bakersfield Refinery is currently not covered under a general industrial stormwater permit and does not maintain a SWPPP because all stormwater is retained onsite.

California Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (CDOGGR) Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program The California Public Resources Code addresses the development, regulation, and conservation of oil and gas resources in California. Regulations implementing these laws are found in the California Code of Regulations. Articles under Chapter 4 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations address the requirements for initiating new injection wells at oil and gas facilities and the modification or abandonment of existing wells. Proposals to drill new wells for injection purposes, or to modify or abandon existing wells, are to be filed with CDOGGR. The CDOGGR UIC program is monitored and audited by the USEPA under the provisions of the state Public Resources Code and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The main features of the UIC program include permitting, inspection, enforcement, mechanical integrity testing, plugging and abandonment oversight, data management, and public outreach.

Local Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The MBGP Conservation and Public Services and Utilities Elements (County of Kern and City of Bakersfield 2007) include the following relevant goal and policies related to hydrology and water quality:

Chapter V. Conservation / Water Resources

Water Quality Goals and Policies Goals:

• Goal 1: Conserve and augment the available water resources of the planning area.

• Goal 2: Assure that adequate groundwater resources remain available to the planning area.

• Goal 3: Assure that adequate surface water supplies remain available to the planning area.

• Goal 5: Achieve a continuing balance between competing demands for water resource usage.

Policies:

• Policy 2: Minimize the loss of water which could otherwise be utilized for groundwater recharge purposes and benefit planning area groundwater aquifers from diversion to locations outside the area.

• Policy 6: Protect Planning area groundwater resources from further quality degradation.



• Policy 8: Consider each proposal for water resource usage within the context of total Planning area needs and priorities-major incremental water transport, groundwater recharge, flood control, recreational needs, riparian habitat preservation and conservation.

• Policy 9: Encourage and implement water conservation measures and programs.

Chapter X. Public Services and Utilities Element

Water Distribution Goals and Policies Goals:

• Goal 1: Ensure the provision of adequate water service to all developed and developing portions of the planning area.

Policies: • Policy 2: Continue to provide domestic water facilities which are contributed directly by

developers, through development and/or availability fees.

• Policy 3: Require that all new development proposals have an adequate water supply available.

Kern County Environmental Health Services Division, Public Health (EHS)

The California Department of Water Resources, Southern District, Groundwater Division has designated the Kern County EHS as the local agency with jurisdiction over groundwater wells. Prior to the construction, alteration, or destruction of a water supply well, cathodic protection well, groundwater monitoring well, or geothermal heat exchange well, a permit must be obtained from the EHS.

Stormwater Program

Kern County implements a Stormwater Program under a Municipal Stormwater Discharge Permit (NPDES Permit No. CA00883399), issued by the Central Valley RWQCB. The Kern County ESS administers the NPDES Stormwater Program and determines the applicability of the permit to projects disturbing one acre or greater in Kern County. Applicants are required to make a determination whether or not the construction general permit applies to their project and must submit an Applicability of NPDES Stormwater Program form to ESS. If the Applicant determines that all stormwater will be retained onsite and no offsite discharges will occur, then no Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the permit is required. ESS has developed recommended BMPs for construction to control sedimentation and erosion.

Floodplain Management

Kern County has adopted ordinances, which address flood hazards and floodplain management. The Kern County General Plan Safety Element indicates that the Primary Floodplain illustrated on relevant FIRMs be mapped with respect to any proposed development. The Primary Floodplain is the area that has a one percent probability of occurrence in any give year; sometimes referred to as the 100-year storm. Chapter 19.50 of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance establishes a Floodplain Primary (FPP) and a combining Floodplain Secondary (FPS) district with associated restrictions on land use. The FFP District prohibits construction of storage tanks, sumps, processing equipment, or



other similar facilities related to oil and gas production not expressly permitted pursuant to Section 19.50.020 and Subsection C of Section 19.50.130 of Chapter 19.50 of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance. In addition, any structures or improvements that would obstruct the natural flow of waters within a designated floodway, or which will endanger life and property, are prohibited (Kern County 2012).

In addition, the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan addresses the need for hazard identification associated with flooding in Chapter VIII – Safety Element.

Grading Plans

The Kern County Grading Code is established as Chapter 17.28 of the County Code of Regulations. Unless exempted, no grading can be conducted in unincorporated Kern County without obtaining a grading permit from the Engineering and Survey Services Department. To obtain a grading permit from the County, a soil engineering report and an engineering geology report must be prepared. A drainage plan must be included based on the drainage area and the estimated runoff of the area served by any drains.

Improvement District No. 4

Groundwater management is not the responsibility of the State, but rather of local agencies as authorized by the California Water Code (Water Code §10750 et seq.). Multiple acceptable methods for managing groundwater have been developed, such as adjudicated basins, AB 3030 management plans (Water Code §10750-10756), local county groundwater ordinances, and special acts districts. The refinery is not located within an adjudicated basin so two management methods apply in the basin:

• Overlying rights allow owners of property above a groundwater source to build a well(s) and extract their correlative share of water for reasonable and beneficial uses. The share is not explicitly defined until a basin is adjudicated or quantitatively managed in some other manner.

• Local agencies, such as sanitation districts, water authorities, water districts, and conservation districts, are authorized by statute to develop groundwater management plans which may include groundwater replenishment strategies.

The California Urban Water Planning Act requires urban water suppliers such as the ID4 to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which must be submitted to the DWR every five years. The ID4 2010 UWMP concluded that ID4 will have adequate supplies to meet demands during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years throughout the 25-year planning period (2010-2035) (Kennedy Jenks 2012).

California Water Service Company

A major portion of the City of Bakersfield is served by the CWSC, a retail water purveyor within ID4. The Bakersfield District of CWSC was formed in 1927 with the purchase of the Bakersfield Water Works. The Bakersfield District of CWSC currently operates 137 ground-water wells and pumps 56.7 MGD (20,695 MGY). The CWSC also purchases water from the KCWA, which is imported from the SWP in northern California. CWSC operates a state-of-the-art water treatment plant, which was upgraded along with its associated pipelines in June 2003. The plant adds 20 MGD (7,300 MGY) of treated SWP water to the Bakersfield supply, approximately a third of the Bakersfield District’s potable water supply. The Bakersfield District of the CWSC serves four drinking water systems located in Kern County: Bakersfield, City of Bakersfield, Olcese, and North



Garden. The Alon Bakersfield Refinery is located within the City of Bakersfield service system and purchases potable water from CWSC.


Methodology

This section describes the potential hydrology and water quality impacts associated with development of the project. This analysis compares the baseline conditions for the affected environment relevant to hydrology and water quality, as presented above in Section 4.7.2, Environmental Setting, to anticipated conditions during project construction and future operations, as described in Sections 3.5, Proposed Project Characteristics, 3.6, Entitlements, 3.7, Construction, and 3.8, Operation. The predicted interactions between the affected environment and project activities are evaluated based on the significance criteria defined below.


The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and Kern County Environmental Checklist state that a project would have significant impacts on hydrology and water quality if it would:

• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;

• Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted);

• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite;

• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite;

• Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;

• Otherwise substantially degrade water quality;

• Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map;

• Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows;

• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or

• Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

The lead agency determined in the NOP/IS (see Appendix A) that the following environmental issues areas resulted in no impact or less than significant impact and were scoped out of requiring further review in this draft EIR. Please refer to Appendix A of this draft EIR for a copy of the NOP/IS and additional information regarding the following impacts:



• Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map

The proposed project does not include the construction of any residential housing units. Therefore, the project would not place housing within a 100-year or any other type of flood zone.

• Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

The proposed project would not create conditions that could increase the risk of seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows. The refinery is not located near large water bodies such that seiches would be expected to occur and is not located near the ocean where tsunamis would occur. Further, the topography in the vicinity of the project site is flat so that no mudflows are expected.

Project Impacts

Impact 4.7-1: Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements

Development of the project would result in a significant impact to hydrology and water quality if associated construction, maintenance, or operational activities would result in the violation of any water quality or waste discharge standards. Such violations could occur through the creation of erosion, sedimentation, and/or polluted runoff, through the accidental release of potentially hazardous materials required during construction or operational activities. Applicable water quality standards and regulations are presented in Section 4.7.3, Regulatory Setting. Potential impacts associated with water quality or waste discharge violations are described below.

Project demolition, grading, and construction could result in incidental spills of petroleum products or other contaminants that could adversely affect water quality from demolition equipment, excavation and grading equipment, concrete washout, construction chemicals, cleaning solvents, pesticides, and construction debris. Similarly, incidental spills of oil and other petroleum products could occur during operations, most notably during rail car unloading and transfer of oil between facilities within the refinery. Any of these contaminants would potentially impair local surface water runoff.

However, as a result of secondary containment, grading, and diversionary structures, there is no offsite storm water drainage from the refinery. Storm water runoff would continue to be contained onsite and percolated into the ground either naturally or through French drains. The modifications to the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery units would occur within the existing operating portions of the refinery. As a result, no offsite drainage features would be impacted by demolition, grading, or construction. In addition, runoff to secondary containment areas associated with the tank farms and drainage from process unit areas would continue to be transported to the oily water, storm water, and non-oily water containment systems, as applicable. Oily water and storm water would continue to be treated in Area 1 and 3 wastewater treatment plants using gravity separation, dissolved air flotation units, and filters to remove hydrocarbons from water. The removed hydrocarbons are returned to processing units and the treated wastewater is injected into permitted injection wells for disposal.

Rail car unloading, conveyance of oil through intra-refinery pipelines, temporary oil storage in 10,000- to 25,000-barrel custody transfer tanks, storage in 250,000-barrel oil storage tanks, and processing of crude oil could result in spills due to geologic hazards, mechanical failure, structural failure, corrosion, or human error. Although the potential for oil spills currently exists



at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery, the proposed project increases the potential for leaks or spills, and associated water quality impacts, due to construction of the unloading facility, storage tanks, and associated pipelines, as well as operation of the rail loops.

Any portion of the proposed project infrastructure has the potential to rupture or leak. The worst case scenario would involve rupture of a 250,000 barrel oil storage tank (see Section 4.6 for a discussion of spill volumes). The rupture of a storage tank would be confined as all storage tanks are constructed with secondary containment as spill containment berms would be designed to contain a maximum spill scenario. Spills at any other location within the refinery would be contained onsite, as there are no surface water connections to offsite water bodies, including the nearby Kern River and three water supply canals. Surface spills in areas of the refinery that drain to onsite sumps would be contained, treated onsite, and disposed in onsite injection wells or appropriate disposal site. Other emergency response procedures would be employed as necessary, e.g., use of vacuum trucks to rapidly remove spilled materials. The presence of secondary containment and the fact that there is no drainage of wastewater or other materials offsite reduces the potential impacts of a spill associated with the proposed project to less than significant. Further, groundwater quality impacts associated with a large spill from proposed project infrastructure, including the rail car unloading facility, storage tanks, intra-refinery pipelines, and other infrastructure upgrades/modifications, are expected to be less than significant, as spilled material would be confined to secondary containment within the refinery and remediated as soon as possible, per RWQCB requirements.

Injection zones for process wastewater disposal are located beneath confining zones composed of relatively impermeable shale (Figure 4.7-4). The refinery is permitted by the RWQCB to inject wastewater into existing permitted injection wells. The ground water in the injection zones is not considered to be a source of potable water. The RWQCB has established maximum concentrations of contaminants and other requirements for wastewater injection and has established enforceable monitoring requirements for the refinery. Further, the injection wells are designed to prevent the discharge or seepage of wastewater into formations overlying the approved injection zone. Monitoring of the injection well annulus is required to detect leaks and an outer casing with cement between the casing and the formation further protects groundwater. The project proponent is required to comply with these various permit conditions and regulatory requirements relative to wastewater disposal.

The measures discussed above would minimize water quality impacts associated with incidental spills of petroleum products and hazardous materials during grading, construction, and operations.

As discussed in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the probability of train accident rates in Kern County are relatively low. Based upon historical data, the likelihood of a train accident leading to a release of oil on the BNSF Railway or UPRR mainline within Kern County is once in 150 years. Although it is unlikely, derailment of a train could result in the release of crude oil from a rail tanker car, which could cause substantial degradation to surface water and/or groundwater quality depending upon the location of the spill. This would be considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures

Although the proposed project is not expected to result in significant impacts, the County will impose MM 4.7-1 to assure compliance with regulations that minimize the potential impacts from spills.



MM 4.7-1 The project proponent shall continuously adhere to and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) and a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan, including but not limited to the following practices: a. Personnel at the site shall be trained in equipment use and containment and

cleanup of an oil spill. Dry cleanup methods, such as absorbents, shall be used on paved and impermeable surfaces. Spills in dirt areas shall be immediately contained with an earthen dike and the contaminated soil shall be dug up and discarded in accordance with local and state regulations.

b. During construction and operations, oil spills shall be contained and cleaned according to measures outlined in the California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practice Handbook.

c. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the existing 2011 Alon Refinery Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan shall be amended to reflect operation of the proposed rail car unloading facility, storage tanks, and upgraded infrastructure. The plan shall outline response actions in the event of a spill, including a spill response trailer, equipment, and personnel training. The plan shall outline steps that would be taken, including identification and elimination of the spill, containment of the spill, notification of the designated emergency response coordinators, and initiation of clean-up measures, using either onsite equipment and/or outside emergency response contractors. Spill notification shall include both verbal notification and written notification to the U.S. EPA, State of California, Kern County, and local law enforcement, fire, and ambulance. The plan shall be completed prior to operation of the unloading facility, storage tanks, and other upgraded infrastructure. Spill cleanup shall be completed under the oversight of the lead regulatory agency, with respect to oil spills, as identified in the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan.


Impacts associated with operations would be less than significant at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery. However, impacts associated with a mainline rail accident and oil spill would be considered significant.

Impact 4.7-2: Substantially Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Recharge Such That There Would be a Net Deficit in Aquifer Volume or a Lowering of the Local Groundwater Table Level

The proposed project would not result in increased petroleum throughput and is not expected to require the withdrawal of additional quantities of groundwater. The majority of the refinery’s process water, approximately 533 million gallons per year, is drawn from four private onsite wells. In addition, about 96 million gallons of water is delivered each year to the refinery from the California Water Service Company (CWSC). Therefore, the total water use at the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery is about 629 million gallons of water per year, based on 2007 operations.

The proposed project would allow the Refinery to bring in more crude via rail but would not increase the crude throughput of the Refinery. Further, the proposed process unit upgrades and modifications would not require an increase in water use or wastewater discharged. As a water conservation measure, new piping and instrumentation would be installed to the Hydrocracker



(HCU Unit 21) to allow recycling of wash water. Approximately 10 million gallons of water a year would be saved as a result of the facility upgrades. These water savings would offset increased water demand associated with three package boilers associated with heating the rail cars for unloading purposes. The proposed project is expected to result in an increase in water use of about 2,750 gallons per day or about 1,000,000 gallons per year. This increase in water use can be compared to the water savings of 10 million gallons per year so that an overall reduction of 9,000,000 gallons per year would be expected. As a result, the proposed project would not result in increased water use and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance


Impact 4.7-3: Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of the Site or Area, Including through the Alteration of the Course of a Stream or River, or Substantially Increase the Rate or Amount of Surface Runoff in a Manner Which Would Result in Substantial Erosion or Siltation On-site or Off-site

The Alon Bakerfield Rrefinery is located approximately 1,000 feet north of the Kern River, which flows through the metropolitan Bakersfield area. Three major surface water supply channels (the Cross Valley Canal, the Friant-Kern Canal, and the Calloway Canal) cross through or run adjacent to portions of the refinery site. Additionally, the Cross Valley/Calloway Intertie Canal is under construction and runs parallel along the east side of the Friant-Kern Canal. The Friant-Kern Canal and the Cross Valley Canal/Calloway Intertie Canal are both concrete lined canals. The Cross Valley Canal is partially concrete lined. These canals along with the BNSF Railway have elevated banks that serve to impede runoff from the refinery.

The proposed project is expected to be constructed and operated on land which has been graded and operated as a refinery for approximately 80 years. Neither project construction nor operation is expected to alter any stream course or change any drainage pattern in the area. The process unit modifications would be constructed on the previously graded portion of the refinery property. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures






Impact 4.7-4: Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of the Site or Area, Including through the Alteration of the Course of a Stream or River, or Substantially Increase the Rate or Amount of Surface Runoff in a Manner Which Would Result in Substantial Flooding On-site or Off-site

The proposed project would be built within an existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery that is currently graded and would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Secondary containment areas associated with the tank farms and drainage from process unit areas is transported to the oily water, storm water, and non-oily water systems, as applicable. Oily water and storm water are treated prior to discharge.

Because of the secondary containment, grading and diversionary structures, there is no offsite storm water drainage from the refinery. Storm water runoff would continue to be contained onsite and percolated into the ground either naturally, through French drains, or collected for onsite treatment and subsurface reinjection.. The modifications to the existing refinery units would occur within the existing operating portions of the refinery. The addition of the rail would not substantially increase the impervious surface areas or increase the storm water runoff generated at the proposed project site. The storm water would continue to be contained onsite. Further, the proposed project is not expected to alter any streams or streambeds and is not expected to require a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW. Therefore, there would be a negligible increase in the rate or volume of surface runoff that could result in on- or off-site flooding and impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures




Impact 4.7-5: Create or Contribute Runoff Water Which Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff

The proposed project would be built within an existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery that is currently graded and would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Neither project construction nor operation is expected to alter any stream course or change any drainage patterns. As discussed for Impact 4.7-1, as a result of secondary containment, grading, and diversionary structures, there is no offsite storm water drainage from the refinery. Storm water runoff would continue to be contained onsite and percolated into the ground either naturally, through French drains, or into sumps for onsite treatment and subsurface reinjection. Therefore, increases in impermeable surfaces as a result of construction of large storage tanks and the rail car unloading facility would not result in increased offsite flows and impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures






Impact 4.7-6: Otherwise substantially degrade water quality

Process wastewater from the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery is treated in existing wastewater treatment plants and disposed of via injection wells. Areas 1 and 3 wastewater treatment plants use gravity separation, dissolved air flotation units, and filters to remove hydrocarbons from water. The removed hydrocarbons are returned to processing units and the treated wastewater is injected into permitted injection wells for disposal. The proposed project is not expected to change the quality of wastewater generated at the refinery as the same wastewater streams would be generated by the refinery. Injection zones for process wastewater disposal are located beneath confining zones composed of relatively impermeable shale. The refinery is permitted by the RWQCB to inject wastewater into existing permitted injection wells. Further, the RWQCB has approved additional injection wells at the refinery. The groundwater in the vicinity of the refinery is not considered to be a source of potable water. The RWQCB has established maximum concentrations of contaminants and other requirements for wastewater injection, and has established enforceable monitoring requirements for the refinery. Further, the injection wells are designed to prevent the discharge or seepage of wastewater into formations overlying the approved injection zone. Monitoring of the injection well annulus is required to detect leaks and an outer casing with cement between the casing and the formation further protects groundwater. The project proponent is required to comply with these various permit conditions and regulatory requirements relative to wastewater disposal.

The proposed project would allow the refinery to bring in more crude via rail but would not increase the crude throughput of the refinery. The proposed process unit upgrades and modifications would not require an increase in water use or wastewater discharged. The proposed project includes modifications to the Hydrocracker that would install new piping and instrumentation to allow recycling of wash water in the Hydrocracker Unit. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to result in a decrease in water use and wastewater discharged from the refinery and impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures




Impact 4.7-7: Place Structures within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows

The southern portion of the Area 2 tank farm is located within the 100-year flood plain (Figure 4.7-2). Most of the proposed process unit changes are minor in nature, e.g., new pumps, replacement of old compressors with state of the art equipment, additional control values and new heat exchangers, and would occur north of the flood plain. However, one of two rail loops within Area 2 would be equipped with unloading facilities and associated steam stations to allow heavy crude to be offloaded. Steam for heating the rail cars, as well as the tankage, would be provided by three package boilers equipped with low nitrogen oxide (NOx) burners. New custody-transfer tanks



would be installed to allow accurate metering of crude oil entering the facility. The project proponent does not expect to construct more than two custody transfer tanks and estimates their size to be between 10,000 and 25,000 barrels. The project proponent also intends to install up to two 250,000 barrel crude oil storage tanks and a new jet treater, possibly within the tank farm. In the event that any of these new tanks and facilities are located within the floodplain, impacts would be potentially significant, as not only would these structures potentially impede and redirect flood flows, but flooding could damage and/or rupture these facilities, resulting in oil and/or product spills.

Proposed custody-transfer tanks and crude oil storage tanks would be surrounded by spill containment berms, which would also serve as flood control features in the tank farm area. The Cross Valley Canal, located immediately south of the refinery, is constructed partially within a levee, which would also partially impede flood flows. However, the 100-year floodplain extends north of this levee and encroaches on the southern portion of the Area 2 tank farm. In addition, a new elevated County roadway constructed between the Kern River and the refinery, which is not reflected in the latest flood maps, would contribute in diverting flood waters away from the refinery. However, in the absences of a specific plot plan illustrating project components, it is not clear whether any of the proposed facilities would be located within the flood plain, and if so, whether proper flood prevention features have been designed for the project, such as construction above base flood elevations and/or protective levees or berms. Therefore, flooding impacts are considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.7-2 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project proponent shall demonstrate the following: With the exception of the rail loops, any project components constructed within the 100-year floodplain shall be designed such that the foundations are above base flood elevations of 387 to 389 feet above mean sea level, as established on Flood Insurance Rate Map 06029C2277E, dated September 26, 2008, or protected from flooding by containment berms or other protective measures constructed to the standards of the Kern County Floodplain Management Code.


With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-2, impacts would be less than significant.

Impact 4.7-8: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam

Construction and operation of the proposed project would not have a direct impact on any levee or dam but would slightly increase the amount of structures susceptible to flood damage as a result of failure of the Lake Isabella dam. A flood inundation map prepared by Kern County shows the inundation area and time-step of flood arrival, assuming a full reservoir and complete failure of both dams. Under this scenario, the Alon Bakersfield Refinery would be inundated by a minimum of one foot of water approximately six hours subsequent to dam failure (Kern County, 2008). In the event that evacuation of the facility is necessary, the inundation map indicates the refinery would have a minimum of six hours to evacuate personnel and shut down the refinery. Emergency shutdown



procedures would be followed for each unit of the refinery, the same as would be done for other emergency situations at the refinery, such as power outages or other natural disasters.

The Lake Isabella dam has been designated a Class I dam by the USACE. The Class I designation requires urgent and compelling action by the USACE to reduce probabilities and consequences of failure and remediate dam safety concerns. Remedial investigations have been completed and the planning process required to repair the dam are currently underway. Therefore, based on emergency shutdown procedures that would be followed in the event of dam failure, in combination with remedial actions currently underway with respect to repair of the dam, project flooding related impacts related to potential failure of Lake Isabella Dam are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

Implement MM 4.7-2.


With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-2, impacts would be less than significant.


Cumulative Setting The region of influence for water quality impacts would include all of the cumulative projects listed in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, as all of these projects overlie the same upper and lower aquifer that underlies the refinery.

Impact 4.7-9: Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts

Potential spills from any of the three nearby refineries, including the Kern Oil & Refining Company, San Joaquin Refining Company, Inc. and Tricor Refining, as well as from any of the industrial facilities listed in Table 3-6, Relevant Cumulative Projects other than Energy in Kern County, could contribute to existing high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the upper aquifer and potentially result in adverse impacts to drinking water supplies of the lower aquifer. Fluctuations of water levels in the wells within the Kern County Subbasin, installed at different depths, indicate that water moves not only within aquifers, but also around or through the less permeable sediments (DWR, 2006), suggesting that the lower aquifer could ultimately be affected by spills. Impacts are considered significant and unavoidable, even with incorporation of SWPPPs, BMPs, and SPCCs at each of these facilities. In addition, cumulative crude oil rail transportation associated with the Alon Bakersfield Refinery and BNSF Railway mainline crude oil transportation are very low, estimated to be one accident every 150 years for the proposed project (see Chapter 4.6 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials), with cumulative spill probabilities associated with other regional rail crude oil transportation projects making the probability of an oil spill somewhat higher. Nonetheless, in the event of an accident the potential consequences are potentially severe, so the cumulative impacts of an oil spill and potential impacts to water quality that would be considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 would be imposed on the proposed project to minimize the potential impacts of oil spills at the refinery. However, no feasible mitigation measures have been identified for potential water quality impacts in the event of a spill on the main rail lines, so cumulative water quality impacts in the event of a spill would remain significant.

Section 4.8 Land Use and Planning


Section 4.8 Land Use and Planning

4.8.1 Introduction This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential effects of the proposed project on the surrounding lands in terms of conflicts with land use plans and policies. Descriptions of the existing land uses at the project site, and in the surrounding areas as applicable are also included.

The Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project (project) includes a request for Modification of a Precise Development (PD) Plan that would allow greater flexibility for the refinery to utilize a variety of crude oils that can be processed onsite. The project proponent is requesting: 1) expansion of rail, transfer and storage facilities including an addition of up to three boilers; 2) process unit upgrades and/ or modifications; 3) repurposing of existing tankage; and 4) relocation and modernization of existing Liquefied Propane Gas (LPG) truck rack and upgrades to the sales rack. The rail expansion would consist of the construction of a double rail loop from a new spur connection off of the existing BNSF Railway main line and would be fully contained onsite. Most of the proposed process unit changes are minor in scope. The refinery’s 70,000 barrels per day (BPD) maximum crude processing capacity would not be increased.

The project site has been used as a petroleum refinery since 1932. Current refinery process units include crude distillation, delayed coking, hydrocracking, and catalytic reforming. Current products include gas oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and petroleum coke. In addition, the existing refinery includes a number of ancillary and support facilities including steam boilers, process heaters, cooling towers, storage tanks and interconnecting pipelines. with the refinery also contains both truck and rail loading/offloading facilities. The refinery has current environmental permits, including permits to operate from the SJVAPCD.

The objectives of the project are to provide greater flexibility for the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery to utilize a variety of crude oils that can be processed in order to better manage operational costs and to increase efficiency of onsite production. In addition, the project would expand the existing crude terminal operations of the facility. In order to accomplish the project objectives, facilities must be installed to enable crude delivery via unit train and transfer of crude into the project site for processing and into the existing pipeline network for transfer to other refineries. A complete description of the proposed project can be found in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR.

4.8.2 Environmental Setting The project is located in a primarily unincorporated area of Kern County, in the western part of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The project site is located on parcels comprising approximately 448 acres (Refinery Areas 1, 2, 4, and sales terminal), with approximately 27 of those acres in the City of Bakersfield. Affected parcels are listed in Table 4.8-1. The Alon Bakerfield Refinery complex consists of two non-contiguous parts. The project portion/ parcels consist of Areas 1, 2, 4 and the sales terminal, and is 448 acres in size (see Figure 4.8-1 and 4.8-2). The second portion of the complex is located 1 mile north-northeast of the project area, referred to as Area 3. Area 3 is 92 acres in size, and is not part of the project. The total acreage of the two non-contiguous parcels is

County of Kern 4.8 Land Use and Planning


541 acres. The two portions of the refinery complex are connected by pipelines and fiber optic cables.

Table 4.8-1 – Parcels Included in the Proposed Project

Area APN Acres (Total) County Acres

City Acres

1 332-260-12 3.99 3.99 1 332-260-34 14.13 14.13 1 332-260-35 54.15 54.15 1 332-280-21 33.06 33.06 1 332-280-22 9.38 9.38

Area 1 Total 114.71 114.71 0 2 368-030-09 9.54 9.54 2 368-030-10 9.41 9.41 2 368-030-26 15.54 15.54 2 368-040-07 1.14 1.14 2 368-040-09 8.46 8.46 2 368-040-27 87.58 87.58 2 368-040-42 60.03 60.03 2 368-050-11 7.76 7.76 2 368-050-15 4.66 4.66 2 368-070-06 25.76 25.76 2 332-280-17 11.18 11.18 2 368-040-26 0.1 0.1 2 502.010.43 0.59 0.59 2 502.010.46 13.49 13.49 2 502.010.48 1.53 1.53

Area 2 Total 256.77 229.88 26.89 4 368-040-06 46.09 46.09 4 368-040-32 30.9 30.9

Area 4 Total 76.99 76.99 0 Total – Areas 1, 2, and 4: 448.47 421.58 26.89

The project site is generally bounded by Mohawk Street to the east, Rosedale Highway to the north, Coffee Road to the west, and the Westside Parkway to the south. The BNSF railroad tracks run from east to west through part of the existing refinery and physically divide the property. The Friant-Kern Canal runs from north to south through a western portion of the property, and the Cross Valley Canal runs from east to west at the southern end of the property. Figure 4.8-1 shows the project site



Figure 4.8-1. Project Site



Figure 4.8-2. Vicinity Map



Table 4.8-2 summarizes the land use designations for the project site and surrounding areas. The proposed rail facilities, upgrades, and modifications at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery would be developed entirely within the existing refinery property boundaries. Most of the refinery is under the jurisdiction of Kern County. Project parcels within County jurisdiction are zoned M-l PD (Light Industrial- Precise Development), M2 (Medium Industrial), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development), and M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial - Precise Development) and are designated HI (Heavy Industrial) or SI (Service Industrial) by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP). Access to the site is primarily from Rosedale Highway.

Property near the southern and southeastern boundaries is within the jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield. Land use designations on the City parcels within the refinery are HI (Heavy Industrial) or SI (Service Industrial). Zoning on parcels within the City of Bakersfield is M-3 (Heavy Industrial), M-2 (General Manufacturing), or FPS (Flood Plain Secondary). (See Figures 4.8-3 and 4.8-4).

Most of the surrounding land uses are industrial or commercial.

Table 4.8-2. Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses

Existing Land Use Existing Map Code Designations

Existing Zoning Classification

Proj

ect S

ite

Refinery, Marketing Terminal,

Maintenance Facilities,

Laboratory Facility, Vacant

Land.

HI (Heavy Industrial), SI

(Service Industrial)

County of Kern: M-l PD (Light Industrial - Precise Development), M-2 (Medium Industrial),

M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development), and M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial - Precise Development). City of Bakersfield: M-2

(General Manufacturing), M-3 (Heavy Industrial).

Nor

th

Oilfield, Commercial

Services, Retail Businesses.

SI (Service Industrial)

County of Kern: A-1 (Limited Agricultural), C-2 PD (General Commercial - Precise

Development), M-l (Light Industrial), M-l PD (Light Industrial - Precise Development), M-2

(Medium Industrial), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development). City of

Bakersfield: A (Agricultural), M-2 (General Manufacturing).

Sout

h



(Service Industrial), OS (Open Space)

City of Bakersfield: M-2 (General Manufacturing), M-3 (Heavy Industrial), FP-S

(Flood Plain - Secondary), A-FP-S (Agricultural - Flood Plain - Secondary).

Eas

t

Manufacturing, Commercial Businesses,

Industrial Services, Vacant Land.


(Service Industrial)

County of Kern: M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial - Precise Development. City of Bakersfield: M-2

(General Manufacturing), M-3 (Heavy Industrial).

Wes

t

Vacant Land, Power Plant

(closed), Commercial

Businesses, Storage Facility, Gas

Station.


(Service Industrial), GC (General Commercial

City of Bakersfield: C-2/P.C.D. (Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development),

M-2 (General Manufacturing).



Figure 4.8-3. General Plan Designations



Figure 4.8-4. Existing Zone Classifications



The land use in the surrounding area has historically been primarily industrial with the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery, the former Sunland Refinery, and the closed PG&E gas powered electrical plant and oilfield support facilities. The adjacent land uses immediately surrounding the project site are primarily industrial. Non-industrial land uses in the area include the Vista West Continuation High School located 0.17 mile north of the nearest project site fence line and 0.45 miles from the nearest process hazard (the product sales terminal), and residential areas to the west and the south, approximately one mile from the proposed rail car unloading facility. The school is located at the northern end of the area zoned as Limited Agriculture. The residential area to the south of the proposed project is located south of the Kern River. The Kern River corridor exists as an open space recreation area known as the Kern River Parkway, which includes parks and trails. The Kern River Plan Element Map indicates a hiking and riding trail along the northern side of the Kern River south of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery property.

The area without an industrial zoning that is closest to the proposed project area is located to the north of the proposed project location. This area is zoned as Limited Agriculture (A-1) and is 0.04 mile north of the project site. This zoning district allows for agricultural uses; certain residential uses; recreational, entertainment, and tourist facilities; certain commercial uses; transportation uses; utility and communication facilities; resource extraction and energy development uses; waste facilities; institutional uses; educational institutions and schools; miscellaneous uses (Sections 19.14.020 and 19.14.030) (Kern County, 2007). Zoning districts that emphasize residential uses are located approximately ½ mile to the west and south of the proposed project site. A Commercial (C-2/PCD) Zoning District is located 0.05 mile to the west of the project site.


Local

The Kern County portions of the refinery operate under the provisions of a Precise Development (PD) plan issued by Kern County. The PD plan establishes the area of the refinery (by assessor’s parcel number), the heights, ground floor area, and overall total floor area of existing and proposed buildings, the number of parking spaces, and other similar provisions. The proposed project requires a modification to the PD plan for Areas 2 and 4 to add rail facilities as a listed use in these areas, thus enabling expanded crude delivery to the refinery via unit train, which includes construction of the expanded rail facilities, unloading rack, and related equipment. Other proposed modifications are expected to remain consistent with the PD plan as they will result in the continued operation of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery within the existing refinery boundaries, no new refinery process units are proposed, and no increase in crude throughput is proposed. The PD Plans are shown in Figures 4.8-5 through 4.8-9.


The proposed project site is within the MBGP. The MBGP covers an area that includes the City of Bakersfield and unincorporated areas in Kern County adjacent to the city limits. The MBGP was jointly developed by both jurisdictions as the long-range planning guidance document that establishes the local governmental goals, policies, and development standards for the whole MBGP area. This plan was developed under the requirements of Section 65300 of California Planning and Zoning Law.



According to the Land Use Plan Map of the MBGP, the project site is within an area primarily designated as Heavy Industrial. According to the applicable policy in the Land Use Element of the MBGP, this land use designation is specified to allow for “large-scale industrial activity, which is usually land intensive and incompatible with other land uses because of potential severe environmental impacts” (City of Bakersfield, 2002a).

The MBGP contains several policies that are relevant to the proposed project. All relevant MBGP policies, along with a description of how the proposed project will be consistent with each policy, are summarized in Table 4.8-3 below.

Properties adjacent to and near the refinery project area have industrial land use designations (Service, Light, or Heavy Industrial). The nearest land use designated for residential use is approximately ½ mile to the west and south of the proposed project site. To the south of the proposed project, the area surrounding the Kern River is within the City of Bakersfield and is designated HI (Heavy Industrial) and OS (Open Space in the MBGP). The Kern River Plan Element (July 1985) guides use of the area within, and adjacent to, the Kern River and is an element of the MBGP.

Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP)

The goal of the MBHCP is to acquire, preserve, and enhance native habitats that support endangered and sensitive species, while allowing urban development to proceed as set forth in the MBGP. The study area covered by the MBHCP is under both City and County jurisdiction. The MBHCP is intended to meet the requirements of both state and federal endangered species acts. In addition, the MBHCP complies with state and federal environmental regulations set forth in NEPA and CEQA. Upon payment of required mitigation fees and receipt of project approval, a development applicant would become a subpermittee and would be allowed the “incidental take” of the covered species, such as the San Joaquin kit fox and Bakersfield cactus, in accordance with state and federal endangered species laws. The proposed project site is within the boundaries of the MBHCP.As described in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, the MBHCP exempts projects with less than 50 percent expansion from paying fees (County Ordinance §17.62.030B1).

Emergency Response Plan

The Kern County Office of Emergency Services (OES) maintains the Kern County Emergency Plan. The County uses this document in conjunction with eight additional hazards and/or site-specific contingency-type plans to design and organize its emergency response network. The refinery area is included in the County’s emergency response plans.

Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan

The Kern County Board of Supervisors adopted the Kern County Hazardous Waste Management Plan on May 13, 1991, and updated it in June 2004. This plan serves as the primary planning document for hazardous waste management in Kern County. It was developed to meet the requirements of the Tanner Bill (California Assembly Bill 2948) and has been incorporated as an element of the MBGP. It analyzes the sources of hazardous wastes in Kern County, describes siting criteria and permit requirements for hazardous waste management facilities, assesses the facilities



Figure 4.8-5. Precise Development



Figure 4.8-6. Precise Development Area 1 (North of BNSF Main Line)



Figure 4.8-7. Precise Development Area 1 (South of BNSF Main Line)



Figure 4.8-8. Precise Development Area 2 (South of BNSF Main Line)



Figure 4.8-9. Precise Development Area 2 (North of BNSF Main Line)



that are necessary to manage hazardous wastes produced in Kern County, and identifies transportation routes for commercial shipping of hazardous waste. As defined in the Hazardous Waste Management Plan, the refinery is a generator of oil field waste and refinery waste.

Kern County Zoning Ordinance Title 19

The Zoning Ordinance of Kern County is intended to implement the policies of the General Plan, and is contained within Title 19 of the Kern County Ordinance Code. The Kern County Board of Supervisors adopted the current zoning ordinance in July 2012. According to Section 19.02.020, this zoning ordinance exists to “promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare through the orderly regulation of land uses throughout the unincorporated area of the County” (Kern County, 2012). There are several chapters in the zoning code that are applicable to the proposed project:

• Chapter 19.36 Light Industrial (M-1) District

• Chapter 19.38 Medium Industrial (M-2) District

• Chapter 19.40 Heavy Industrial (M-3) District

• Chapter 19.56 Precise Development

• Chapter 19.102 Permit Procedures

According to the Kern County Zoning Maps, proposed project site parcels within jurisdiction of the County of Kern are zoned M-l PD (Light Industrial- Precise Development), M2 (Medium Industrial), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development), and M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial - Precise Development) and are designated HI (Heavy Industrial) and SI (Service Industrial) by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. As described in the Section 19.36 of the Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of the M-1zone district is “to designate areas for wholesale commercial, storage, trucking, assembly-type manufacturing, and other similar industrial uses. Processing or fabrication will be limited to activities conducted within a building that does not emit fumes, odor, dust, smoke, or gas beyond the confines of the building within which the activities occur or produce significant levels of noise or vibration.” According to Section 19.38 of the Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of the M-2 PD zoning district is “to designate areas for general manufacturing, processing, and assembly activities. Uses may not produce fumes, odor, dust, smoke, gas, or vibrations extending beyond zoning district boundaries.” According to Section 19.40 of the Zoning Ordinance, the M-3 zoning district is “to designate areas suitable for heavy manufacturing and industrial uses which have the greatest potential for producing undesirable or adverse by-products, including traffic, noise, odors, dust, and vibrations” (Kern County, 2012).

Section 19.56 of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance establishes a PD Combining District for use on a property. The PD District may be combined with any base district and regulations established by the PD District shall be in addition to the regulations of the base district with which the PD is combined. The application of the PD District may be initiated by either the property owner or the County. The purpose of the PD District is to designate areas with unique site characteristics or environmental conditions or areas surrounded by sensitive land uses to ensure that development in such areas is compatible with such constraints. The project site is situated on property that is zoned M-3, M-2, and M-1. Due to the current situation of urban growth developing around the refinery, in 2008 the County determined that the site should be subject to a the PD combining district and required to prepare the existing PD Plan that is currently in place. For the PD Plan modifications



proposed as part of this project, the Ordinance will require a public review process for the Precise Development plan including public hearing by either the Planning Director or the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the procedures set out in Chapter 19.102 of the Zoning Ordinance.

The Hearing Body uses the following determinations to decide whether to approve, to conditionally approve, or to deny the applications:

• The proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the M-3, M-2 and M-1 Zoning District

• The proposed use meets the minimum requirements of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance

• The proposed development is consistent with the designations, goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan

• “The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the health and safety of the public or to property and residents in the vicinity.” (Section 19.104.040) (Kern County, 2012)

Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance Title 17

The City of Bakersfield’s Zoning Ordinance is intended to implement the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, and is contained within Title 17 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. There zoning ordinance chapters pertain to the proposed project site include:

• Chapter 17.30 M-2 General Manufacturing Zone

• Chapter 17.31 M-3 Heavy Industrial Zone

• Chapter 17.44 FP-S Floodplain Secondary Zone

Proposed project site parcels within the jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield are zoned M-2 (General Manufacturing), M-3 (Heavy Industrial), and FP-S (Floodplain Secondary). The parcels are also designated HI (Heavy Industrial) and SI (Service Industrial) within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. According to Chapter 17.31 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of the M-3 zone is “to provide areas suitable for the development of heavy manufacturing and industrial uses, processing of animals for food or byproducts, waste recycling or disposal processing, and processing or manufacture of undesirable products.” According to Chapter 17.44, the purpose of the FP-S zone is “the protection of life and property from the hazards and damages which may result from floodwaters of the intermediate regional flood and to permit economic recovery of oil, gas and hydrocarbon substances.”


Methodology

For the purposes of this analysis, relevant documents (particularly the MBGP, and Kern County Zoning Ordinance), were consulted and a site visit was performed. A discussion of the project’s consistency with plans and policies for each environmental topic area is summarized below and is described in greater detail in the relevant environmental topic sections of Chapter 4.


The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and Kern County Environmental Checklist state that a project would have significant impacts on land use and planning if it would:

• Physically divide an existing community or contribute to the decline of an existing



community

• Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proposed project (including but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect

• Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan

The lead agency determined in the NOP/IS (see Appendix A) that the following environmental issues areas resulted in no impact or less than significant impact and were scoped out of requiring further review in this draft EIR. Please refer to Appendix A of this draft EIR for a copy of the NOP/IS and additional information regarding the following impacts:

• Physically divide an established community

Project Impacts

Impact 4.8-1: Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation of an Agency with Jurisdiction over the Project Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect

Table 4.8-3 contains an evaluation of project consistency with relevant policies from the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

Vista West Continuation High School is located approximately 2,000 feet the from the closest refinery processing area. The Kern River is located approximately 1,300 feet south of the project site, and is developed as a recreational area for local residents. Urban development with residential uses begins approximately ½ mile from the proposed project. The surrounding land uses currently include industrial, commercial, and open space.

The proposed rail facilities, upgrades, and modifications at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery would be developed entirely within the existing refinery property boundaries. The proposed activities and products produced at the facility would be the same as existing activities and products produced. No new land would be required for the proposed project.

Most of the refinery is under the jurisdiction of Kern County; however, property near the southern and southeastern boundaries is within the jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield. Land use within the refinery is primarily heavy industrial, with smaller parcels that are service industrial (SI) (Figure 4.8-7). The small portions of the refinery within the jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield are designated as heavy industrial or service industrial (see Figure 4.8-8). Most of the surrounding land uses are industrial or commercial.

Land use at the existing refinery is consistent with the Kern County and City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance land use designations. The proposed project is consistent with the heavy manufacturing zoning designation. No zoning and/or land use changes are required as part of the proposed project. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts on land use are expected.

The Kern County portions of the refinery operate under the provisions of a Precise Development (PD) pPlan issued by Kern County. The PD plan establishes the area of the refinery within the unincorporated County (by assessor’s parcel number), the heights, ground floor area, and overall



total floor area of existing and proposed buildings, the number of parking spaces, and other similar provisions. The proposed project requires a modification to the PD plan for Areas 2 and 4 to add rail facilities as a listed use in these areas, thus enabling expanded crude delivery to the refinery via unit train, which includes construction of the expanded rail facilities, unloading rack, and related equipment. Other proposed modifications are expected to remain consistent with the PD plan as they would result in the continued operation of the refinery within the existing refinery boundaries, no new refinery process units are proposed, and no increase in crude throughput is proposed. Therefore, planned upgrades and modifications are consistent with the existing PD plan and the proposed modifications to the PD Plan.

The decision-making authority may approve or conditionally approve an application for a PD plan if it finds all of the following:

A. The proposed development is consistent with the designations, goals, and policies of the applicable General or Specific Plan.

B. The proposed development will not be materially detrimental to the health and safety of the public or to property and residents in the vicinity.

With implementation of the proposed Mitigation Measures in the various sections of this EIR, the project would be consistent with the MBGP, and the Kern County Zoning Ordinance. In addition, with the implementation of the referenced Mitigation Measures, the proposed rail spur and other components of the project would not pose a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the public or the surrounding property and would, therefore, demonstrate compliance with the requisite findings for approval of the modification to the PD plan.

Mitigation Measures No specific land use mitigation is required. However, consistency is predicated on compliance with mitigation measures delineated in other sections of this EIR.

Level of Significance Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact 4.8-2: Conflict with Any Applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan

The proposed project is not expected to conflict with local habitat conservation plans, or natural community conservation plans. The only relevant plan is the MBHCP. The site of the proposed project is an existing previously developed industrial facility. The proposed project would be installed on previously disturbed land that is of limited habitat value (see Section 4.2). The proposed project has been reviewed under the terms of the MBHCP, and compliance [will/will not???] require payment of mitigation fees. Based on these considerations, no significant adverse impacts to established residential or natural communities are expected.

Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed.





Cumulative Setting The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to land use includes closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within six miles of the project site. This geographic scope of analysis is appropriate because it reflects the maximum distance land use may be affected by implementation of the project.

Impact 4.8-3: Contribute to Cumulative Land Use Impacts A cumulative land use impact might occur if the combination of cumulative projects would result in substantial inconsistencies with the MBGP, Zoning Ordinance, or other planning programs, or if it would result in physical division of communities or conflict with HCPs.

As described in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, of this DEIR, the foreseeable heavy industrial projects proposed in Bakersfield at this time are comprised solely of the proposed project. The cumulative projects section also describes the operations of the other refineries in the general area. However, it is not expected that the proposed project would have any cumulative effects when combined with these existing facilities since the impact zones for the various environmental issue areas do not overlap.

There are also several other projects that are reasonably foreseeable in the Bakersfield metropolitan area (Table 3-6). There are no new known large residential projects located within a six-mile radius of the project site. Several of the cumulative projects would result in inconsistencies with existing land use and zoning designations. However, as part of the respective project applications, each project would include appropriate MBGP Amendments or Zone Changes that would bring the projects into conformity with current land use designations at the time of their approval. Therefore, no cumulative adverse impact is expected. In addition, even if there were a cumulative adverse impact, the decision to allow the proposed project would be consistent with the land uses and designations; therefore the project would not contribute to any such cumulative impacts.

Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed.




Table 4.8-3 Project Consistency with Relevant Policies from the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan

Goals and Policies Proposed Project Consistency Land Use Element Industrial Development

Policy 31. Allow for a variety of industrial uses, including land-extensive mineral extraction and processing, heavy manufacturing, light manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, transportation-related, and research and development uses.

The modifications to the refinery and the proposed rail spur would provide for continuation of the existing refinery land use in the area and would allow for additional sources of crude to be available to the refinery. As part of the project, minor unit efficiency upgrades and modifications are planned to enhance operating flexibility required to process crude oils with different physical properties. The proposed project will occur at a currently operating petroleum refinery that is designated Heavy Industrial. All adjacent properties have industrial land use designations.

Policy 32. Protect existing industrial designations from incompatible land use intrusions.

The proposed project will ensure the existing land use would continue in this area as a petroleum refinery and will prevent incompatible land use intrusions consistent with this policy.

Policy 33. Encourage the efficient use of existing industrial land uses through consolidation of building and storage facilities.

The proposed project will occur at a current petroleum refinery and will add to the capabilities and processing efficiency of the refinery consistent with this policy.

Policy 34. Provide for the clustering of new industrial development adjacent to existing industrial uses and along major transportation corridors.

The majority of the proposed project facilities will occur at an existing industrial site providing for consolidation within the refinery use consistent with this policy.

Policy 35. Encourage upgrading of visual character of heavy manufacturing industrial areas through the use of landscaping or screening-of visually unattractive buildings and storage areas.

The new equipment will have the same visual character and scale as existing process equipment and railroad and, therefore, will not be readily discernible from existing facilities within the refinery.

Policy 36. Require that industrial uses provide design features, such as screen walls, landscaping and height, setback and lighting restrictions between the boundaries of adjacent residential land use designations so as to reduce impacts on residences due to light, noise, sound and vibration.

All properties adjacent to the refinery have industrial or commercial land use designations. The proposed project components would be located at various locations throughout the refinery. The closest residential viewpoints are located approximately 2,400 feet southwest of the refinery, near Truxtun Avenue and Coffee Road, south of the Carrier Canal. The existing views of the refinery from this location generally consist of stacks, columns and storage tanks, and are partially obstructed by vegetation along the Kern River and the Westside Parkway. The views at these residential areas are not expected to change significantly as the rail tracks, rail cars, and unloading facilities are close to the ground or obstructed by other buildings and structures.

Policy 37. Street frontages along all new industrial development shall be landscaped.

None of the proposed development at the refinery will occur near any existing street frontages.




Goals and Policies Proposed Project Consistency

Policy 38. Minimize impacts of industrial traffic on adjacent residential parcels through the use of site plan review and improvement standards.

The proposed project includes a rail spur to deliver crude directly into the refinery and could result in a reduction of truck deliveries in routes surrounding the refinery that would result in a decrease of truck traffic in the surrounding areas.

General

Policy 75. Provide adequate land area for the expansion of existing uses and development of new uses consistent with the policies of the general plan.

The existing area of the refinery includes significant areas of available space perfectly suited for the expansion of this land use consistent with this policy.

Policy 76. Provide for a mix of land uses which meets the diverse needs of residents; offers a variety of employment opportunities; capitalizes, enhances, and expands upon existing physical and economic assets; and allows for the capture of regional growth.

The proposed project consists of the addition of new process facilities and modifications to an existing refinery and installation of a new rail spur linking the refinery to an existing rail terminal, thus expanding upon existing physical and economic assets.

Policy 78. Accommodate new projects which are infill or expansion of existing urban development.

The proposed project includes new process facilities and modification of existing processing facilities and related structures within an existing petroleum refinery.

Policy 82. Preserve existing significant sound residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, and industrial areas.

The proposed project would serve to preserve an existing industrial use in an area designated for heavy industrial development consistent with this policy.

Policy 85. Encourage the revitalization of deteriorated land uses and buildings. The proposed project will update existing structures and add new facilities to an existing petroleum refinery.

Policy 104. As part of the environmental review procedure, an evaluation of the significance of paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources and the impact of proposed development on those resources shall be conducted and appropriate mitigation and monitoring included for development projects.

An evaluation of the potential effects to cultural and paleontological resources is addressed in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources, of this DEIR. The project site has been graded repeatedly in the past for refinery maintenance purposes. In the unlikely event that cultural resources were present at the ground surface at the refinery site, they have now been destroyed by past industrial activities. The refinery area is located on thick alluvial deposits of the Kern River, common throughout the Bakersfield area. These deposits do not constitute unique geologic features and do not contain unique paleontological resources.

Policy 105. Development on land containing known archaeological resources (i.e., high sensitivity areas) shall utilize methodology set forth, as described necessary by a qualified archaeologist, to locate proposed structures, paving, landscaping, and fill dirt in such a way as to preserve these resources undamaged for future generations when it is the recommendation of a qualified archaeologist that said resources be preserved in situ.

See 104 above.




Goals and Policies Proposed Project Consistency Circulation Element

Policy 33. Provide new transportation facilities as needed based on existing usage and future demand

The proposed project would upgrade existing oil transportation systems by installing a new rail spur at the refinery and enabling crude delivery via unit train and transfer of crude into the refinery for processing and into the existing pipeline network for transfer to other refineries.

Policy 34. Minimize the impacts of land use development on the circulation system. Traffic studies have been conducted to determine the effect of the construction and operation of the proposed project on nearby roadways. The effects of the proposed project to traffic are analyzed in Section 4.12, Traffic and found that there would be no impacts as a result of the proposed project.

Conservation Element –Biological Resources

Policy 1. Direct development away from "sensitive biological resource" areas, unless effective mitigation measures can be implemented

The potential for the proposed project to affect sensitive biological resources is described in Section 4.2, Biological Resources. The implementation of mitigation measures described in this section will minimize the impact of the proposed project to sensitive biological resources consistent with this policy.

Conservation Element –Water Resources

Policy 6. Protect planning area groundwater resources from further quality degradation

The potential for the proposed project to affect groundwater resources is described in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality and mitigation measures are included to prevent potential impacts. However, Section 4.7 points out that there is a potential for oil spills to occur as a result of the project, and depending on the location of the spill (i.e., whether the spill drains into sumps and onsite treatment facilities and whether the leak is above ground or below ground), and the timing and adequacy of the spill response, there may be sufficient time for surface spills to infiltrate onsite soils and further impact underlying groundwater quality.

Policy 8. Consider each proposal for water resource usage within the context of total planning area needs and priorities--major incremental water transport, groundwater recharge, flood control, recreational needs, riparian habitat preservation and conservation.

Water resource usage is analyzed in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this report. The proposed project is not expected to require the withdrawal of additional quantities of groundwater. Appropriate mitigation measures and best management practices have been described in this section, which will result in the protection of groundwater resources.

Conservation Element – Air Quality

Policy 1. Comply with and promote San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) control measures regarding Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Such measures are focused on: (a) steam driven well vents, (b) Pseudo-cyclic wells, (c) natural gas processing plant fugitives, (d) heavy oil test stations, (e) light oil production fugitives, (f) refinery pumps and compressors, and (g) vehicle

Section 4.1, Air Quality, describes the ROG control measures relevant to the proposed project. Section 4.1 and the ATC applications submitted to the SJVAPCD describe how the proposed project will comply with these measures.




Goals and Policies Proposed Project Consistency inspection and maintenance.

Policy 3. Require dust abatement measures during significant grading and construction operations

Dust suppression measures during construction have been incorporated into the design of the proposed project or as required as mitigation measures under Section 4.1 as described above.

Policy 4. Consider air pollution impacts when evaluating discretionary permits for land use proposals.

The impacts to air quality are described in Section 4.1, Air Quality. Air quality-related permits will be obtained from the SJVAPCD for the proposed project. Mobile and construction emissions were also calculated and are included in Section 4.1.

Policy 5. Consider the location of sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals, and housing developments when locating industrial uses to minimize the impact of industrial sources of air pollution.

The proposed project will occur at an existing industrial facility. Vista West Continuation High School contains the closest sensitive receptors to the proposed project area. This school is located 0.17 mile north of the project site. The effects on nearby sensitive receptors from the potential changes in air quality as a result of the proposed project are addressed in Section 4.1, Air Quality.

Policy 13. Consider establishing priority parking areas for carpoolers in projects with relatively large numbers of employees to reduce vehicle miles traveled and improve air quality.

The proposed project will not result in an increase in the number of employees.

Policy 22. Require the provision of secure, convenient bike storage racks at shopping centers, office buildings, and other places of employment in the Bakersfield Metropolitan area.

Bike racks are currently available for employees at the refinery consistent with this policy.

Policy 23. Encourage the provision of shower and locker facilities by employers, for employees who bicycle or jog to work.

Showers and locker facilities are currently available at the refinery consistent with this policy.

Noise Element

Policy 1. Identify noise-impact areas exposed to existing or projected noise levels exceeding 65 dB CNEL (exterior) or the performance standards described in Table VII-2. The noise exposure contour maps on file at the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern indicate areas where existing and projected noise exposures exceed 65 dB CNEL (exterior) for the major noise sources identified.

As described in Section 4.10, Noise, the proposed project will result in short-term, temporary noise impacts relative to construction. The proposed facilities at the refinery will be wholly contained within the refinery production area and will not result in noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The proposed project will not adversely impact the nearby residential community based upon the criteria set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. The increase in noise level due to the project (operation) are less than one decibel (1 dB). During the project construction the noise impact is actually lower than the Baseline due to the fact that the refinery will be nonoperational during construction.

Policy 3. Review discretionary industrial, commercial or other noise-generating land See above.




Goals and Policies Proposed Project Consistency use projects for compatibility with nearby noise-sensitive land uses. Safety Element – Seismic Determine the liquefaction potential at sites in areas of high groundwater prior to development and determine specific mitigation to be incorporated into the foundation design, as necessary to prevent or reduce damage from liquefaction in an earthquake.

The proposed project is not located in a designated Liquefaction Hazard Zone based on the Kern County Map. As described in Section 4.4, Geology, the proposed project is located in an area of relatively shallow groundwater and sandy soils; however, the potential for liquefaction of these soils is considered low because they are relatively dense.

Safety Element – Public Safety

Policy 2. Require discretionary projects to assess impacts on police and fire services and facilities.

All appropriate plans for the refinery would be updated to include the new facilities, and coordination with local emergency services would continue. The existing service infrastructure in Bakersfield is adequate to support both the construction and operation of the project. The Kern County Fire Department is responsible for providing fire response to this facility. The County and the City of Bakersfield have an agreement to provide reciprocal fire protection coverage in the metropolitan Bakersfield area. Both the County and the City fire departments would respond in an emergency at the refinery. The existing refinery has an emergency evacuation plan, and local responders have adopted emergency response plans. A portion of the proposed project includes a grade separation (bridge over or underpass under rail lines) to assure access to the site for emergency responders.

Policy 7. Enforce ordinances regulating the use/manufacture/sale/transport/disposal of hazardous substances, and require compliance with state and federal laws regulating such substances.

As described in Section 4.6, Hazards, all hazardous substances generated at the refinery are currently, and will continue to be, handled and shipped in accordance with USDOT and waste regulatory requirements.

Policy 13. Fugitive dust emissions will be controlled through applicable requirements (Regulation VIII) set forth by the SJVAPCD, including but not limited to irrigation, paving of construction roads, and limiting grading activities during periods of high wind. These practices would reduce potential adverse health effects resulting from the development of agricultural property.

See “Conservation Element-Air Quality,” item 3.

Policy 16. All new discretionary development projects will be subject to environmental and design review on a site-specific, project-by-project basis, including but not limited to an assessment to determine whether hazardous materials present potential health effects to human health as required by the Kern County Department of Environmental Health Services.

Pursuant to CEQA, and consistent with this policy, this DEIR outlines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, including an assessment of the potential human health effects, which are described in Section 4.6, Hazards.

Public Services and Facilities Element-General Utility Services

Policy 5. Require all new development to pay its pro rata share of the cost of necessary expansion in municipal utilities, facilities, and infrastructure for which it

The proposed project will not require modifications to existing public services.




Goals and Policies Proposed Project Consistency generates demand and upon which it is dependent. Public Services and Facilities Element-Water Distribution

Policy 3. Require that all new development proposals have an adequate water supply available

Water supply required for the new facilities will be obtained from onsite groundwater wells. Potable water is supplied to the refinery by California Water Service Company. The long term operation of the proposed project will not result in a workforce increase. Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, describes the availability of groundwater for the proposed project.

Hazardous Waste Management Plan

Policy 1. An existing Heavy Industrial facility which incorporates treatment or destruction of hazardous waste into its previous operations is permitted to operate at its existing location if such operations do not pose an increase human health or environment threat.

The proposed project will comply with all provisions of the Kern County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. In addition, Alon will update its federal and state permits related to its operation as a hazardous waste generator. Section 4.6, Hazards, presents a detailed discussion of the regulatory requirements the refinery must comply with.

Policy 2. Restrict shipping routes for hazardous wastes, develop procedures to help prevent releases of toxics during transport, and maintain emergency response capabilities for transportation accidents involving hazardous wastes.

All waste generated at the refinery is and will continue to be handled and shipped in accordance with all USDOT and waste regulatory requirements.

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN

Section 1.6.1. [T]he compatibility review process shall apply to the following types of land use development located within the airport influence areas defined in Section 1.3.1.

The project area is not located within two miles of a public or public use airport and the site is not within the sphere of influence of any airport as identified by the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Meadows Field is located approximately five miles southeast of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project.

Section 4.9 Mineral Resources


Section 4.9 Mineral Resources

4.9.1 Introduction This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses potential impacts of the Alon Bakersfield Crude Flexibility Project (project) on mineral resources, and describes the environmental and regulatory settings. California Department of Conservation and Kern County publications and maps were used in preparation of this section.

4.9.2 Environmental Setting As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project site is situated within the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery facility, which is located at 6451 Rosedale Highway, northwest of City of Bakersfield.

Regional

Petroleum Resources

Kern County is one of the richest oil-producing counties in the United States. The valley floor area of the County and the lower elevations of the surrounding mountain ranges contain numerous deposits of oil and gas resources, a major economic resource for the County. Mineral resources in Kern County include numerous mining operations that extract a variety of materials, including sand and gravel, stone, gold, dimensional stone, limestone, clay, shale, gypsum, pumice, decorative rock, silica, and specialty sand. The State Geologist has classified 2,971 square miles of land in Kern County as Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) of varying significance.

Kern County produces more oil than any other county in California, and is one of the nation’s leading petroleum-producing counties. Mineral and petroleum resources are basic to Kern County’s economy. As new recovery technologies come into use, petroleum extraction should continue in economic importance. Also, as long as new urbanization is restricted in areas having important mineral and petroleum resources, the future production of these resources remains promising. Today, 71 active fields in the County still continue to produce.

Sand and Gravel

Sand and gravel have been determined to be important resources for construction, development, and physical maintenance, from highways and bridges to swimming pools and playgrounds. The availability of sand and gravel affects construction costs, tax rates, and affordability of housing and commodities. The State of California has statutorily required the protection of sand and gravel operations. Because transportation costs are a significant portion of the cost of sand and gravel, the long-term availability of local sources of this resource is an important factor in maintaining the economic attractiveness of a community to residents, business, and industry. The major resources of sand and gravel in Kern County are in stream deposits along the eastern side of the San Joaquin Valley and in the Sierra Nevada foothills, and in alluvial fan deposits along the north flank of the San Emidio and Tehachapi Mountains at the southern end of the County. Most of the recent

County of Kern 4.11 Mineral Resources


alluvium in the San Joaquin Valley floor is composed of sand used as a source of road base material.

Local

General geologic conditions present on the project site and in the surrounding area are described in Section 4.5, “Geology and Soils.”

Site Characteristics

The project site has a Kern County Zoning Ordinance classification of M-l (Light Industrial), M-l PD (Light Industrial- Precise Development), M2 (Medium Industrial), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development), and M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial - Precise Development) and is designated HI (Heavy Industrial) by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP).

Additionally, the project site is recognized by the Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) to be located in the Fruitvale Oil Field. Within Areas 1, 2, and 4 of the refinery there are 9 active oil producing wells that plan to be maintained during and after project construction, as well as 28 abandoned wells. Areas 1, 2 and 4 have been designated as MRZ-2 by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB).

Surrounding Land Uses

The project site is bounded by the City of Bakersfield to the south, east, and west. To the north, the surrounding land has the Kern County Zone Ordinance classification of A-1 (Limited Agricultural), C-2 PD (General Commercial- Precise Development), M-l (Light Industrial), M-l PD (Light Industrial- Precise Development), M-2 (Medium Industrial), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development) and is designated HI (Heavy Industrial) and SI (Service Industrial) by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP). The surrounding area to the north, south, east, and west also have the SMGB designation of MRZ-2.


State

Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources

As a State agency, DOGGR oversees the drilling, operation, maintenance, plugging, and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells. DOGGR’s regulatory program promotes the sensitive development of oil, natural gas, and geothermal resources in California through sound engineering practices. The agency is also concerned with preventing pollution and implementing public safety programs. To enforce its regulatory program, DOGGR requires contractors to avoid building over or near plugged or abandoned oil and gas wells. It also requires the remediation of such wells to current DOGGR standards.

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 The mineral resources discussed in this section are classified under the State Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). SMARA mandated mineral land classification by the State Geologist to identify and protect mineral resources in areas within the State that are subject to urban development and other irreversible land uses that would preclude mineral extraction. The act also



mandated the designation of lands that contain mineral deposits of regional or Statewide significance. SMARA was amended (1980) to classify nonurban areas that are threatened by land uses that would make them incompatible with mining. The classification of land within California takes place according to a priority list that was established by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) in 1982 or when the SMGB is petitioned to classify a specific area. The State Geologist’s SMARA classifications are carried out under a single program for urban and nonurban areas of the State.

Mineral lands are mapped with the California Mineral Land Classification System according to jurisdictional boundaries. All mineral commodities in the area, including aggregates, common clay, and dimensional stone, are mapped at one time. Priority is given to areas where future mineral resource extraction could be precluded by incompatible land uses or mineral resources are likely to be mined during the 50-year period following their classification. Detailed mineral land classification and designation reports provided by the SMGB are on file with the City of Bakersfield and Kern County.

The SMGB established MRZs to designate lands that contain mineral deposits. Accordingly, the MRZ classification system is used to evaluate an area’s mineral resources pursuant to SMARA. A “resource” is a concentration of naturally occurring solid, liquid, or gaseous material in such form and amount that economic extraction of the commodity from the concentration is currently potentially feasible. A “reserve” is that part of the resource base that could be economically extracted or produced within the foreseeable future. For any given mineral resource, an area may be classified as MRZ-1, MRZ-2, MRZ-3, or MRZ-4, as follows:

• MRZ-1: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that no significant likelihood exists for their presence;

• MRZ-2a: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present;

• MRZ-2b: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that there is likelihood for the presence of significant mineral deposits;

• MRZ-3a: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits exist, but the significance of the deposits cannot be determined from available data;

• MRZ-3b: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits are likely to exist, but the significance of the deposits cannot be determined from available data; and

• MRZ-4: Areas where the available geologic information is inadequate for assignment into any other MRZ or where there is not enough information available to determine the presence or absence of mineral deposits.

The MRZ classifications are based on available geologic information and a geologic appraisal of the mineral resource potential of the land that relies on mapping, information regarding surface exposures, drilling records, and mine data. Classifications are also based on socioeconomic factors such as market conditions and urban development patterns.



Local


The project site is located within the MBGP. The project would be subject to applicable policies and measures of the MBGP. The Conservation Element of the MBGP includes the following policies and implementation measures related to mineral resources that would apply to the project:

Chapter 5. Conservation Element Mineral Resources Goals and Policies Goals

• Goal 1. Protect areas of significant resource potential for future use.

• Goal 2. Document areas of current mineral and energy resource extraction, as a basis for land use and conservation policies and programs.

• Goal 3. Avoid conflicts between the productive use of mineral and energy resource lands and urban growth.

• Goal 4. Protect land, water, air quality and visual resources from environmental damage resulting from mineral and energy resource development.

Policies • Policy 2. Document the location, status, and long-term viability of…petroleum drilling

sites for purposes of avoiding near- and long-term land use conflicts and provide a basis for compliance monitoring.

• Policy 4. Land use decisions shall recognize the importance of identified mineral resources and need for conservation of resources identified by the State Mining and Geology Board

• Policy 5. Protect significant areas of petroleum resource areas. • Polity 15. Require petroleum production sites in urban areas which are subject to

discretionary permits, to install peripheral landscaping to help reduce the noise, dust and visual impacts to adjacent sensitive receptors and public ways.

Implementation Measures • Implementation Measure H. The resource maps prepared by the California Division of

Mines and Geology, California Division of Oil and Gas, the U.S. Geological Survey, Bakersfield College, California State University Bakersfield, and petroleum and mineral extraction industries within and adjacent to the planning area shall be utilized in the review of discretionary permits. This data shall be maintained on an on-going basis as needed.




Methodology

California Department of Conservation publications, the Kern County General Plan map, and aerial photos were compared to identify potential conflicts of the project’s presence and operations with mineral resource extraction.


The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and Kern County Environmental Checklist state that a project would have a significant impact on mineral resources if it would:

• Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state;

• Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

Project Impacts

Impact 4.9-1: Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource that Would be of Value to the Region and the Residents of the State

Information about the project site indicates that the existing refinery facility is located within the Fruitvale Oil Field, and there are less than 30 oil producing wells located within the project boundary. These producing wells are proposed to be maintained throughout the course of operations of the proposed project.

Based on a review of California Geological Survey publications, there are no known mineral resources of statewide or regional importance located within the project boundaries. As stated above, there are no MRZs, as classified by the State Geologist, on the project site. Additionally, development on the project site would not adversely affect or eliminate existing access routes to any known mineral resources sites in the vicinity of the project that are of statewide or regional importance. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of any known statewide or regionally important mineral resources. Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measures The project would comply with the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the MBGP. No mitigation measures are proposed.


Impact 4.9-2: Result in the Loss of Availability of a Locally Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site Delineated on a Local General Plan, Specific Plan, or Other Land Use Plan

As noted above, the existing refinery facility is located within the Fruitvale Oil Field, and there are less than 30 oil producing wells located within the project boundary. These producing wells are



proposed to be maintained throughout the course of operations of the proposed project. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources as mineral extraction would continue, although expansion of production could be limited by the proposed Project.

Mitigation Measures The project would comply with the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the MBGP. No mitigation measures are required.



Cumulative Setting Cumulative impacts are two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to mineral resources includes all of Kern County. This geographic scope of analysis is appropriate because the loss of availability of mineral resources anywhere in the County would combine with mineral resource impacts of the proposed project to result in a cumulative impact on County-wide mineral resources.

Impact 4.9-3: Contribute to Cumulative Mineral Resources Impacts A cumulative impact analysis first identifies whether a cumulatively significant impact exists in the given resource area. If so, it determines whether the project will make a considerable contribution to that impact. Where a cumulative impact is severe, even a small contribution may be considerable (Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines).

With regard to the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource development, the project would not restrict access to any known Mineral and Petroleum area as designated by the MBGP; nor would it result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts of the project would not have the potential to cause a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact, in combination with impacts from past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, to result in a cumulative impact.

Mitigation Measures The project would comply with the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the MBGP. No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Section 4.10 Noise


Section 4.10 Noise

4.10.1 Introduction This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the concepts and terminology of noise, defines the existing noise levels at noise-sensitive locations nearest to the project site, and describes the regulatory settings associated with the project. This section also identifies the applicable significance thresholds for noise impacts, assesses potential impacts of the project and alternatives, recommends measures to mitigate significant adverse impacts, and discusses cumulative projects. A complete description of the proposed project can be found in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR. The information in this section is based on the February 2013 Noise Impact Assessment for the Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project prepared by Navcon Engineering Network which is included as Appendix G of this EIR and incorporated by reference herein.


Existing Noise Sources

The land use in the surrounding area has historically been primarily industrial with the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery, the former Sunland Refinery, and the closed PG&E gas powered electrical plant and oilfield support facilities. The adjacent land uses immediately surrounding the project site are primarily industrial (Figure 4.10-1). Non-industrial land uses in the area include residential areas to the west and the south, approximately one mile from the proposed rail car unloading facility. The residential area to the south of the proposed project is located south of the Kern River. The Kern River corridor exists as an open space recreation area known as the Kern River Parkway, which includes parks and trails. The Kern River Plan Element Map indicates a hiking and riding trail along the northern side of the Kern River south of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery property.

Existing operations at the project site constitute a source of noise. Other noise sources near the project site and nearby vicinity contributing to the noise environment include traffic on adjacent roads, railroad operations, and commercial and industrial operations at neighboring facilities.

An environmental noise survey was conducted by Navcon Engineering Network on February 6 – 7, 2013 to characterize the current ambient noise environment in the vicinity of the project site. Portions of the refinery were not operating at the time of the survey. The noise survey data were also used to calibrate the three dimensional analytical noise model.

The noise monitoring locations shown in Figure 4.10-2 are the nearest sensitive receivers to the project site. The noise data were collected using both a stationary noise monitoring terminal (NMT) and a roving noise monitor (RNM). The stationary noise monitor (NMT-1) was positioned at the same distance from the project site as the trailer located on Wedding Lane and collected data continuously throughout the survey period. The trailer is located in an M-1 (Light Industrial) zone. The RNM was transported in a vehicle between Location RNM-1, RNM-2, RNM-3 and RNM-4 sampling the noise in 15 to 20 minute intervals during day, evening and nighttime periods. The noise monitoring locations are the nearest sensitive receivers to the project site.

County of Kern 4.10 Noise


Figure 4.10-1 Existing Refinery and Surrounding Noise-Sensitive Land Uses

Figure 4.10-2 Noise Measurement Locations



The noise monitors were time synchronized prior to the start of each measurement session and configured to record 15 minute equivalent continuous noise levels (Leq), hourly averaged sound pressure levels, and the statistical noise level parameters (Ln).

Noise Effects

Noise is often defined as unwanted sound, which is perceived subjectively by individuals. Noise levels at various locations of an area fluctuate and change character during different periods of the day. Exposure to severe noise levels over prolonged periods can cause physiological changes, including ear damage. The acceptability of more common noise levels and types of noise varies among neighborhoods, individuals, and time of day. The following sections describe the concepts and terminology of noise and vibration and document existing noise levels at noise sensitive locations nearest to the project site.

Noise levels are reduced the farther away a receptor is from the source because of several effects, including geometry, atmosphere, ground, and barriers.

Geometric Effects

Geometric effect refers to the spreading of sound energy as a result of the expansion of the wavefronts. Geometric spreading is independent of frequency and has a major effect in almost all sound propagation situations. There are two common kinds of geometric spreading: spherical and cylindrical spreading. In the case of spherical spreading from a point source, which is due to a noise source radiating sound equally in all directions, the sound level is reduced by 6 decibels (dB) for each doubling of distance from the source. A busy highway would be a cylindrical source with equal sound power output per unit length of highway. A cylindrical source will produce cylindrical spreading, resulting in a sound-level reduction of 3 dB per doubling of distance.

Atmospheric Effects

Atmospheric effects are due to air absorption and wind and temperature gradients. Air absorption is primarily due to the “molecular relaxation effect” between air molecules, where air molecules are excited and then relaxed by the passing sound pressure wave. High frequencies are absorbed more than low frequencies. The amount of absorption depends on the temperature and humidity of the atmosphere.

Precipitation (rain, snow, or fog) has a nominal effect on sound levels, although the precipitation will affect the humidity and may also affect wind and temperature gradients. Atmospheric absorption is only an issue at higher frequencies and is a strong function of humidity and temperature. For example, at 68 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and 70% humidity, air absorption of sound at frequencies of 16,000 hertz (Hz) occurs at approximately 8 dB per 100 feet. However, at 0% humidity, the rate drops to approximately 1 dB per 100 feet.

Under normal circumstances, atmospheric absorption can be neglected except where long distances or high frequencies are involved (greater than 4,000 Hz). At less than 2,000 Hz, the rate of sound level drop, due to air absorption, is less than 0.25 dB per 100 feet (at 68°F and 70% humidity).

The speed that sound propagates in a gas depends on the temperature of the gas. Higher temperatures produce higher speeds of sound. Since the temperature of the atmosphere is not uniform, there are local variations in the sound speed. Scattering occurs when sound waves are propagating through the atmosphere and meet a region of inhomogeneity (a local variation in sound



speed or air density) and some of their energy is re-directed into many other directions. In environmental noise situations, scattering is caused by air turbulence, rough surfaces, and obstacles, such as trees. The scattering of sound by rain, snow, or fog at ordinary frequencies is insignificant.

Under conditions of a temperature inversion (temperature increasing with increasing height), the sound waves will be refracted downwards, and therefore may be heard over larger distances. This frequently occurs on clear winter days or clear nights with no cloud cover.

When a wind is blowing there will be a vertical wind gradient because the layer of air next to the ground is stationary. Vertical wind gradient results in sound waves propagating upwind being ‘bent’ upwards and those propagating downwind, being ‘bent’ downwards. This effect can cause noise levels downwind to be higher than those upwind.

Temperature and wind gradients can result in measured sound levels being very different to those predicted from geometrical spreading and atmospheric absorption considerations alone. These differences may be as great as 20 dB. These effects are particularly important where sound is propagating over distances greater than 500 feet. Temperature inversions and winds can also result in the effectiveness of a barrier being dramatically reduced.

Ground and Barrier Effects

If sound is propagating over ground, attenuation will occur due to acoustic energy losses on reflection. These losses will depend on the surface. Smooth, hard surfaces will produce little absorption; whereas thick grass may result in sound levels being reduced by up to about 10 db per 300 feet at 2000 Hz. High frequencies are generally attenuated more than low frequencies.

Reflection from the ground can result in another mechanism by which sound levels are reduced. When the source and receiver are both close to the ground, the sound wave reflected from the ground may interfere destructively with the direct wave. This effect, called the ground effect, is normally noticed over distances of several yards and more, and in the frequency range of 200 to 600 Hz.

Research on propagation through trees yields conflicting results. Dense shrubbery can produce effective noise attenuation. A band of trees several hundred feet deep is required to achieve significant attenuation.

Significant attenuation can be achieved with solid barriers. A barrier should be at least high enough to obscure the ‘line of sight’ between the noise source and receiver. A barrier is most effective for high frequencies since low frequencies are diffracted around the edge of a barrier more easily. The maximum performance of a barrier is limited to about 20-25 dBA , due to scattering by the atmosphere. A barrier is most effective when placed either very close to the source or the receiver.

Barriers not built for acoustical purposes are often found in sound propagation situations. The most common of these are hills and buildings. In urban situations, buildings can be effective barriers. It is possible for buildings to produce a different acoustical effect. In a city street with tall buildings, multiple reflections from parallel building facades can result in considerable reverberation and consequently reduced attenuation.

The propagation of sound is very complex and influenced by a large number of factors. This report only examines the attenuation of sound due to geometry, barriers specifically placed by the project, and barriers such as the terrain, as well as air absorption for the linear decibel scale analysis.



Tonal Effects

Noise in which a single frequency stands out is said to contain a ‘pure tone.’ Sources that produce pure tones are often described as being ‘tonal’ and tend to be more noticeable – and potentially annoying – to humans than sources that do not contain pure tones. In assessing the subjective impact of tonal noise, it is common practice to take this increased annoyance into account by adding a 5-dBA (A-Weighted Decibel Scale) penalty to the measured noise level. A section on Noise Terminology is provided below and describes the dBA rating scale.

Modeling Noise Impacts

Models are often used to estimate noise levels from proposed activities and to estimate noise levels under a range of meteorological conditions. In addition, modeling can estimate the effect of noise mitigation devices, such as sound walls and noise blankets. Noise models can incorporate a variety of environmental conditions, including the level of ground absorption, humidity, temperature inversions, atmospheric absorption, terrain, building reflections, and road type, as well as sources including automobiles, railroads, aircraft, and industry. Both A-weighted and octave band analysis can be performed with models. In addition, models incorporate a number of standards and methods, including International Organization for Standards (ISO) 9613 and the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM).

ISO 9613 specifies an engineering method for calculating the attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors to predict environmental noise levels at a distance from a variety of sources. ISO 9613 requires noise estimation using a downwind propagation under a mildly developed temperature inversion (both of which enhance sound propagation) and provides a case representation of potential effects during conditions that favor transmission of sound to the receptor. Since these conditions do not occur every day, model predictions using the ISO 9613 requirements are conservative.

In March 1998, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released the traffic noise model (TNM), which was developed to aid compliance with policies and procedures under FHWA regulations. The FHWA TNM addresses five different vehicle types (automobiles, medium trucks, heavy trucks, buses, and motorcycles), constant- and interrupted-flow traffic, and different pavement types, as well as the effects of graded roadways.

The primary noise models currently available that incorporate ISO 9613 and TNM are SoundPLAN and Computer Aided Noise Abatement (CadnaA). Each of these high-end computational models enables a wide range of analysis. SoundPLAN was used to model noise impacts for the proposed project. See Appendix G for more detailed information on the noise modeling assumptions used for the noise impact analysis.

For assessing rail noise, the Federal transportation Administration (FTA) has developed specific noise models to assess railroad noise (FTA 2006) based on a variety of factors including locomotive types, number of locomotives, number of cars, speed, track type and horn activity.

Noise Terminology

Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale



that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Commonly used acoustical terms are defined in Table 4.10-1.

Table 4.10-1 Definition of Acoustical Terms

Term Definition Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing

level of environmental noise at a given location. A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA)

The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)

The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.

Day/Night Noise Level (Ldn )

The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.

Decibel (dB) A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference sound pressure is 20 micro Pascals.

Equivalent Noise Level (Leq)

The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.

Frequency (Hz) The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sounds are below 20 Hz and ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz

Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, time of occurrence, and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

L01, L10, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of the time during the measurement period.

Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum noise levels during the measurement period. Loudness The amplitude of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of

the human ear. Pitch The height of depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity

(frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Sound Pressure Sound pressure or acoustic pressure is the local pressure deviation from the

ambient atmospheric pressure caused by a sound wave. Sound pressure can be measured using a microphone. The unit for sound pressure (p) is the pascal [symbol: Pa or 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter (N/m2).

Sound Pressure Level The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a



Table 4.10-1 Definition of Acoustical Terms

Term Definition reference sound pressure (e.g., 20 micro Pascals in air). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter.

Vibration Vibration means mechanical motion of the earth or ground, building, or other type of structure, induced by the operation of any mechanical device or equipment. The magnitude of vibration is stated as the acceleration if “g” units (1 g is equal to 32.2 feet/second2 or 9.3 meters/second2).

A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady background noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise are the sounds from individual local sources. These sounds can vary from an occasional aircraft flyover to virtually continuous noise from traffic on a nearby roadway. Table 4.10-2 lists representative noise levels for specific activities.

Table 4.10-2 Representative Environmental Noise Levels

Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities

—110— Rock Band Jet Fly-over at 100 feet —105— —100— Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet —95— —90— —85— Food Blender at 3 feet Diesel Truck going 50 mph at 50 feet —80— Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area during Daytime —75— Gas Lawnmower at 100 feet —70— Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area —65— Normal Speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet —60— —55— Large Business Office Quiet Urban Area during Daytime —50— Dishwasher in Next Room —45—

Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime —40— Theater, Large Conference Room (background)

Quiet Suburban Area during Nighttime —35— —30— Library Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime —25— Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) —20— —15— Broadcast/Recording Studio —10— —5— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing —0— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: FTA 2006

Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of noise on people. Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people largely depends upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day



when the noise occurs. The rating scales of Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (Leq), minimum instantaneous noise level (Lmin), and the maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) are measures of ambient noise, while the Day-Night Average Level (Ldn) and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) are measures of community noise (or noise levels with penalties for noise in the evening or nighttime). Leq is the average A-weighted sound level measured over a given time interval. Leq can be measured over any time period, but is typically measured for 1-minute, 15-minute, 1-hour, and 24-hour periods. CNEL is another A-weighted average sound level measured over a 24-hour time period. However, this noise scale is adjusted to account for some individuals’ increased sensitivity to noise levels during the evening and nighttime hours. Leq, Lmin, and Lmax, as well as Ldn and CNEL are all applicable to this analysis and defined as follows:

• Leq, the equivalent energy noise level in dBA, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.

• Ldn, the Day-Night Average Level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA ‘weighting’ or penalty added to noise the hours of 10:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. to account for peoples increased noise sensitivity during the nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn.

• CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA-24 hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL.

• Lmin is the minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time, in dBA.

• Lmax is the maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time, in dBA.

Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by average noise levels during the day or night, or over a 24-hour period, as represented by the Ldn or the CNEL. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is less than 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and high when greater than 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime noise levels are isolated, natural settings that can provide noise levels under 30 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets that can provide noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA daytime Leq) and commercial locations (typically above 60 dBA daytime Leq). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher noise levels associated with more noisy urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA) due to the expectations within the land use. For example, people might accept these noise levels when out shopping, on the freeway or visiting their mechanic, but these levels would not be acceptable when at home.



When evaluating changes in 24-hour community noise levels, a difference of 3 dBA is a barely perceptible increase to most people (Caltrans 1998). A 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable, while a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. New development within a community could potentially lead to activities that increase the 24-hour community noise levels.

Vibration

Vibration is acoustic energy transmitted as pressure waves through a solid medium, such as soil or concrete. Like noise, the rate at which pressure changes occur is the frequency of the vibration, measured in hertz (Hz). Vibration may be the form of a single pulse of acoustical energy, a series of pulses, or a continuous oscillating motion.

Ground-Borne Vibration

The extent that vibration is transmitted through the ground depends on the soil type, the presence of rock formations or man-made features and the topography between the vibration source and the receptor location. These factors vary considerably from site to site and make accurate predictions of vibration levels at receptors distant from the source extremely difficult (often impossible) in practice.

As a general rule, vibration waves tend to dissipate and reduce in magnitude with distance from the source. Also, high frequency vibrations are generally attenuated rapidly as they travel through the ground, so that the vibration received at locations distant from the source tends to be dominated by low-frequency vibration. The frequencies of ground-borne vibration most perceptible to humans are in the range from less than 1 Hz up to 100 Hz.

When a ground-borne vibration arrives at a building, there is usually an initial ground-to-foundation coupling loss. However, once the vibration energy is in the building structure it can be amplified by the resonance of the walls and floors. Occupants can perceive vibration as motion of the building elements (particularly floors) and also rattling of lightweight components, such as windows, shutters, or items on shelves. Vibrating building surfaces can also radiate noise, which is typically heard as a low-frequency rumbling, known as ground-borne noise. At very high levels, low-frequency vibration can cause damage to buildings.

Soil and subsurface conditions are known to have a strong influence on the levels of ground-borne vibration. Among the most important factors are the stiffness and internal damping of the soil and the depth to bedrock. Experience with ground-borne vibration is that vibration propagation is more efficient in stiff clay soils, and shallow rock seems to concentrate the vibration energy close to the surface and can result in ground-borne vibration problems at large distances from the track. Factors such as layering of the soil and depth to water table can have significant effects on the propagation of ground-borne vibration (FTA 2006).

Vibration Measurement

Vibration may be defined in terms of the displacement, velocity, or acceleration of the particles in the medium material. In environmental assessments, where human response is the primary concern, velocity is commonly used as the descriptor of vibration level, expressed in millimeters per second (mm/s). The amplitude of vibration can be expressed in terms of the wave peaks or as an average, called the root mean square (rms). The rms level is generally used to assess the effect of vibration



on humans. Vibration levels for typical sources of ground-borne vibration are shown in Table 4.10.3 below.

Vibration can produce several types of wave motion in solids including, compression, shear, and torsion, so the direction in which vibration is measured is significant and should generally be stated as vertical or horizontal. Human perception also depends to some extent on the direction of the vibration energy relative to the axes of the body. In whole-body vibration analysis, the direction parallel to the spine is usually denoted as the z-axis, while the axes perpendicular and parallel to the shoulders are denoted as the x- and y-axes respectively.

Table 4.10-3 Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration

Source

Typical Velocity at 50 feet

(inches/second, rms)a

Human or Building Response

Pile Driver, impact, sheetpiling 0.54 Damage to fragile buildings Blasting from construction projects 0.10 Minor cosmetic damage to fragile buildings Bulldozers and other heavy tracked construction equipment. 0.06 Workplace annoyance; difficulty with

vibration-sensitive tasks. Commuter rail, upper range 0.02 Rapid transit rail, upper range 0.010 Distinctly Perceptible

Residential annoyance for infrequent events Commuter rail, typical range 0.008 Bus or truck over bump 0.004 Barely perceptible.

Residential annoyance for frequent events Rapid transit rail, typical range 0.003 Bus or truck typical 0.002 Threshold of perception Background vibration 0.0004 None a. rms = root mean square Source: FTA 2006, FHWA 1995

Large vehicles can also increase ground vibration along streets that they travel. Vibration would be a function of the vehicle speeds and the condition of the pavement. Caltrans indicates that “vehicles traveling on a smooth roadway are rarely, if ever, the source of perceptible ground vibration” and that “vibration from vehicle operations is almost always the result of pavement discontinuities, the solution is to smooth the pavement to eliminate the discontinuities (CalTrans 2004).” Trucks traveling on area roadways could cause vibrations at nearby receptors if roadways are not maintained.




State

California Health and Safety Code, Division 28, Noise Control Act

The California Noise Control Act states that excessive noise is a serious hazard to public health and welfare and that it is the policy of the State to provide an environment for all Californians that is free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.

California Government Code Section 65302

Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code and the Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Element of the General Plan, prepared by the California Department of Health Services and included in the 1990 State of California General Plan Guidelines published by the State Office of Planning and Research, provide requirements and guidance to local agencies in the preparation of their Noise Elements. The Guidelines require that major noise sources and areas containing noise-sensitive land uses be identified and quantified by preparing generalized noise exposure contours for current and projected conditions. Contours may be prepared in terms of either the CNEL or the Ldn, which are descriptors of total noise exposure at a given location for an annual average day. The CNEL and Ldn are generally considered to be equivalent descriptors of the community noise environment within plus or minus 1.0 dB.

Local

Kern County

The proposed project is governed by the Kern County Noise Ordinance and the Noise Element in the County’s Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP). The Kern County Noise Element and Noise Ordinance ensure that residents are protected from excessive noise and prevent encroachment of incompatible land uses near known noise-producing roadways, railroads, airports, etc.

Kern County Noise Ordinance Chapter 8.36. Noise Control

8.36.010 Definitions

As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be defined and have the meaning ascribed to them as follows:

• “Person” means and includes any individual, group of individuals, club, association, partnership or corporation.

• “Loud and raucous noise” means any sound created and/or transmitted in any manner whatever which is of such volume, intensity or carrying power as to interfere with or disturb the reasonable and quiet comfortable enjoyment of life or property or which is adverse to the general public welfare in any neighborhood.

• “Public address system” or “sound equipment” means any mechanical and/or electrical device for the reproduction, amplification or broadcasting of the human voice, music, or any other sound whatsoever.



• “Permanent building” shall expressly be deemed to exclude any structure with outer walls or roof composed, in whole or in part, of canvas or similar materials, and any structure commonly described as an “open air pavilion.”

• “Broadcast” means any voice, music, or any sound whatever transmitted, amplified, reproduced or otherwise emitted from any public address system.

• “Construction” means any activity associated with a project or work for which a permit may be required under the Kern County Code of Building Regulations.

• “Construction site” is any parcel on which the construction is occurring.

• “Emergency work” means work to restore property to a safe condition following a calamity, work required to protect persons or property from exposure to danger, or work by private or public utilities to restoring utility services.

8.36.020 Prohibited sounds

It is unlawful for any person to do, or cause to be done, any of the following acts within the unincorporated areas of the county:

• Operate any public address system in any event when the sound emanating therefrom can be heard beyond the confines of any permanent building to such degree that such sound constitutes a loud and raucous noise;

• Operate upon any public street or highway any vehicle equipped with and operating any public address system when such operation constitutes a traffic hazard or interferes with the safe and orderly flow of traffic over and along any such public street or highway;

• In any manner whatever willfully make, emit or transmit any loud or raucous noise upon or from any public street or highway or upon or from any public park or any public property whatever;

• Operate any public address system when the sound emanating therefrom can be heard beyond the confines of a permanent building when such operation constitutes the promotion or advertisement of any private affair or business or commercial enterprise;

• Operate any public address system when the sound emanating therefrom can be heard beyond the confines of a permanent building when such operation is for purposes other than the promotion or advertisement of any private affair or business or commercial enterprise unless such operation shall first be declared as hereinafter provided;

• The provisions of subsection (D) of this section shall not prohibit the incidental sounding, between the hours of nine (9:00) a.m. and nine (9:00) p.m. of any day, of a musical sound apparatus consisting of bells or the sounding of a bell or horn when the sound thereof is not audible to a person of average hearing faculties or capacity at a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet, when such incidental sounding is in connection with the ordinary use and operation of a tradesman’s, peddler’s, or huckster’s cart, wagon or other vehicle; provided, however, that no such sounding in any event shall be permitted between the hours of nine (9:00) p.m. of any day and nine (9:00) a.m. of the following day;

• Operate or permit to be operated any public address system or sound equipment so as to be audible to a person of average hearing faculties or capacity at a distance of:

o One hundred fifty (150) feet from the public address system or sound equipment, if operated on a public street, sidewalk or any other public property; or



o If operated elsewhere, one hundred fifty (150) feet from the property line of the property on which the public address system or sound equipment is located; or

o Between the hours of eight (8:00) a.m. and midnight (12:00 a.m.), one thousand (1,000) feet from the public address system or sound equipment connected with either short-term events held on public property with the consent of the responsible public agency, short-term public events held historically and regularly, or short-term events authorized by any kind of permit or license issued by the county. This subsection shall not apply to acts proscribed by Section 27007 of the California Vehicle Code, as amended from time to time.

• To create noise from construction, between the hours of nine (9:00) p.m. and six (6:00) a.m. on weekdays and nine (9:00) p.m. and eight (8:00) a.m. on weekends, which is audible to a person with average hearing faculties or capacity at a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet from the construction site, if the construction site is within one thousand (1,000) feet of an occupied residential dwelling except as provided below:

o The resource management director or his designated representative may for good cause exempt some construction work for a limited time.

o Emergency work is exempt from this section.

Operating noise limits are addressed in the Noise Ordinance in Section 19.80.030, “Development and performance standards - Commercial and industrial districts”. Paragraph S establishes limits on non-mobile sources of noise produced by commercial and industrial uses in certain listed commercial and industrial zone districts and located within five hundred feet of property developed residentially and zoned for residential use. However, these limits do not apply to non-mobile sources located within the M-3 district and therefore generally do not apply to activities within the Refinery, most of which is zoned M-3.

Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) The applicable standards for noise levels that apply to the operational phase of this project are those within Chapter VII, Noise Element, of the MBGP. The following presents the goals and policies for noise in the planning area, as well as implementing programs.

Chapter VII. Noise Element

Goals • Goal 1: Ensure that residents of the Bakersfield metropolitan area are protected from

excessive noise and existing moderate levels of noise are maintained. • Goal 2: Protect the citizens of the planning area from the harmful effects of exposure to

excessive noise, and protect the economic base of the area by preventing the encroachment of incompatible land uses near known noise-producing roadways, industries, railroads, airports and other sources.

Policies • Policy 3: Review discretionary industrial, commercial, or other noise-generating land use

projects for compatibility with nearby noise-sensitive land uses. Additionally, the development of new noise-generating land uses which are not preempted from local noise



regulation will be reviewed if resulting noise levels will exceed the performance standards contained within Table VII-2 in areas containing residential or other noise-sensitive land uses.

• Policy 4: Require noise level criteria applied to land uses other than residential or other noise-sensitive uses to be consistent with the recommendations of the California Office of Noise Control (as shown in Figure VII-1 of the Noise Element).

• Policy 5: Encourage vegetation and landscaping along roadways and adjacent to other noise sources in order to increase absorption of noise.

Implementation Measures • Implementation Measure 2: Review discretionary development plans, programs and

proposals, including those initiated by both the public and private sectors, to ascertain and ensure their conformance to the policy framework outlined in this element.

• Implementation Measure 4: Require proposed commercial and industrial uses or operations to be designed or arranged so that they will not subject residential or other noise sensitive land uses to exterior noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL and interior noise levels in excess of 45 dB CNEL and so that impacts on noise sensitive uses shall not exceed the performance standards in Table VII-2 of the Noise Element (presented below in Table 4.10-4 of this EIR).

At the time of any discretionary approval, such as a request for zone change or subdivision, the developer may be required to submit an acoustical report indicating the means by which the developer proposes to comply with the noise standards. The acoustical report shall:

• Be the responsibility of the applicant.

• Be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics.

• Include representative noise level measurements with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe local conditions.

• Include estimated noise levels in terms of CNEL and the standards of Table VII-2 (if applicable) for existing and projected future (10-20 years hence) conditions, with a comparison made to the adopted policies of the Noise Element.

• Include recommendations for appropriate mitigation to achieve compliance with the adopted policies and standards of the Noise Element.

• Include estimates of noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented. If compliance with the adopted standards and policies of the Noise Element will not be achieved, a rationale for acceptance of the project must be provided.

• Implementation Measure 5: Develop implementation procedures to ensure that requirements imposed pursuant to the findings of an acoustical analysis are conducted as part of the project permitting process.

• Implementation Measure 6: Enforce the State Noise Insulation Standards (California Administrative Code, Title 24) and Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code concerning



the construction of new multiple-occupancy dwellings such as hotels, apartments, and condominiums.

For non-preempted transportation noise sources (e.g., traffic and railway noise), the Noise Element of the general plan sets a standard of 65 dB CNEL at the exterior of noise-sensitive uses. Noise-sensitive uses include residences, schools, hospitals, and recreational areas. An interior noise standard of 45 dB CNEL applies within interior living spaces.

For non-transportation noise sources (e.g., sources on commercial property), the Noise Element applies hourly noise-level performance standards at residential and other noise-sensitive uses. Table 4.10-4 summarizes the hourly standards.

Table 4.10-4. Hourly Noise-Level Performance Standards for Non-transportation Noise Sources

Maximum Acceptable Noise Level, dBA

Min./Hr. (Ln)

Day (7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.)

Night (10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.)

30 (L50) 55 50

15 (L25) 60 55

5 (L8.3) 65 60

1 (L1.7) 70 65

0 (Lmax) 75 70

Note: Ln means the percentage of time the noise level is exceeded during an hour. L50 means the level exceeded 50% of the hour, L25 is the level exceeded 25% of the hour, etc.

Source: County of Kern 2007.

The MBGP Noise Element sets standards for project noise impacts and cumulative noise impacts from mobile (transportation-related) noise sources affecting existing noise-sensitive land uses. These standards are listed below.

Standards for Project Noise Impacts from Mobile Sources A significant increase in existing ambient noise levels affecting existing noise-sensitive land uses (receptors) and requiring the adoption of practical and feasible mitigation measures is deemed to occur where a project would cause:

• an increase in the existing ambient noise level by 5 dB or more, where the existing ambient level is less than 60 dB CNEL;

• an increase in the existing ambient noise level by 3 dB or more, where the existing ambient level is 60 to 65 dB CNEL; or

• an increase in the existing ambient noise level by 1.5 dB or more, where the existing ambient level is greater than 65 dB CNEL.



Standards for Cumulative Noise Impacts from Mobile Sources The project’s contribution to increased noise would normally be considered cumulatively considerable and significant when ambient noise levels affect noise-sensitive land uses (receptors) and the following occurs:

• a project increase in the ambient (cumulative without project) noise level by 1 dB or more; and

• the cumulative with-project noise level causes the following:

o an increase in the existing ambient noise level by 5 dB or more, where the existing ambient level is less than 60 dB CNEL;

o an increase in the existing ambient noise level by 3 dB or more, where the existing ambient level is 60 to 65 dB CNEL; or

o an increase in the existing ambient noise level by 1.5 dB or more, where the existing ambient level is greater than 65 dB CNEL.


Methodology

Four three dimensional (3D) noise models were developed using the noise modeling software, SoundPLAN™. SoundPLAN™ is a standards based program with more than sixty (60) national and international noise modeling guidelines. The noise model geometries were superimposed upon aerial photos and are presented in both plan and 3D isometric views in Appendix G Figures 6-1 to 6-12. The figures show the locations of the noise sources (point, line, roads, railroads and area sources), acoustical significant buildings and sensitive receivers.

The noise model parameters were as follows:

• The ground was modeled with an absorption coefficient of 0.6. The road surfaces were modeled as hard reflective.

• The sides of the tanks, buildings, etc. were modeled as reflective surfaces and also as diffractive bodies (light blue areas with blue perimeter lines, 3D view yellow roof with grey walls).

• The refinery operating noise was modeled with area sources spread out over the processing units. The noise spectrum was derived from noise surveys conducted at other Southern California oil refineries. It was assumed that the average noise level throughout the processing plants is 85 dBA.

• The project construction noise was modeled with line (light purple) and areas sources (red hatched areas) spread out along the double rail loop, in the tank farm and in the processing units. Project non-rail construction noise model input data is presented in Appendix G, Table 6-2. The project rail construction noise model input data is presented in Appendix G, Table 6-3.

• The rail system (purple lines) was modeled based upon the algorithms published by the Federal Rail Administration & Federal Transportation Administration (FTA/FRA Manual). The noise model input data is presented in Appendix G, Table 6-4.



• The unit train offloading along the project site double rail loop was modeled as a combination of line and point sources. The two line sources (purple lines) represent the trains as they travel around the refinery loop. The point sources (purple circles) represent the locomotives at their idling locations. The noise emission was based upon a Notch 1 power setting.

• The roads (red lines) were modeled based upon the algorithms published by the Federal Highway Administration (TNM v2.5). The noise model input data is presented in Appendix G, Table 6-5. The traffic data was prepared by Iteris, June 2013 “Alon USA Bakersfield Refinery Project Traffic Impact Study” and is provided in Appendix H.

The noise predictions were made following the methods and procedure described in the following noise modeling standards.

• Federal Railroad Administration rail noise model FTA-VA-90-1003-06, “FTA Guidance Manual for Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment”, May 2006.

• U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Noise Model (Version 2.5), April 2004.

• ISO 9613, Part 2, Acoustics - Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdoors.

The acoustical noise model was validated by modeling the current arterial and rail traffic and comparing the noise levels predicted at the five (5) sensitive receiver locations (refer to Figure 4.10-2) with the measured noise data (refer to Section 5.0). The noise model verification results are summarized in Table 4.10-5. The predicted noise levels are within ±0.5 dB at three receiver locations and within ±1.9 dB at two receiver locations, which shows a good correlation of the acoustic model with the measured noise data.

Table 4.10-5 Noise Model Baseline Level Validation Results

CNEL [ dBA ]

Receiver Usage Predicted Measured Difference

NMT-1: Area 2-3 BKR Asset Office Industrial 71.7 73.6 -1.9

RNM-1: Wedding Lane Industrial/Residential* 59.6 59.5 0.1

RNM-2: 708 Partridge Ave. Residential 54.9 53.1 1.8

RNM-3: 7404 Saddleback Dr. Residential 54.3 54.8 -0.5

RNM-4: White Rock / Brimhall Rd. Residential 54.5 54.7 -0.2

* The trailer on Wedding Lane is located on an industrially zoned parcel. Average -0.1


Noise and vibration impacts are associated with operations and construction activities. Noise impacts from both activities are associated with equipment noise and traffic that impacts existing receptors. Vibration impacts would primarily be associated with the proposed project operations



and rail activities. The remainder of this section provides the significance criteria used for noise and vibration

The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and Kern County Environmental Checklist state that a project would have a significant impact on noise, if it would result in:

• Exposure of persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies;

• Exposure of persons to, or generate, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels;

Noise impacts for the project’s construction would be considered significant if ambient CNEL noise levels would be increased by three dBA or more at a noise sensitive use. For operational impacts, noise level standards from the MBGP Noise Element would be used to determine if significant impacts would occur.

• A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project;

• A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project;

• For a project located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or

• For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

Vibration impacts would be considered significant if the vibration levels generated by the project equipment exceeded a velocity of 0.01 inches/sec (0.25 mm/sec) at the property line of a neighboring use. This value corresponds with the perceptible level, and other jurisdictions, including the County of Los Angeles, define this level as a threshold for vibration impacts.

The lead agency determined in the NOP/IS (see Appendix A) that the following environmental issues areas resulted in no impact. Please refer to Appendix A of this draft EIR for a copy of the NOP/IS and additional information regarding the following impacts: • For a project located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would the

project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. • For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing

or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

Project Impacts

Impact 4.10-1: Exposure of Persons to, or Generate, Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Established in the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance or Applicable Standards of Other Agencies

Noise impacts during construction would result from construction equipment with internal combustion engines (e.g., backhoes, cranes) operating at the site for grading, earth moving and the installation of project related equipment. Results of the noise modeling analysis are shown in Table 4.10-6. The proposed project would not adversely impact the nearby residential community based upon the criteria set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. During the project construction the noise impact



is actually lower than the Baseline Situation due to the fact that the proposed project will be nonoperational during construction.

Table 4.10-6 Construction Noise Modeling Results

CNEL Significant

Receiver Location Zoning Baseline (dBA)

Construction (dBA)

Construction Baseline (∆L, dB)

Impact? ∆L > 3 dB

Trailer Wedding Lane Industrial 72.5 72.2 -0.3 No

NMT-1: Area 2-3 BKR Asset Office Industrial 72.9 71.8 -1.1 No

RNM-1: Wedding Lane Residential 61.7 59.5 -2.2 No

RNM-2: 708 Partridge Ave. Residential 56.3 55.7 -0.6 No

RNM-3: 7404 Saddleback Dr. Residential 53.6 53.2 -0.4 No

RNM-4: White Rock / Brimhall Rd. Residential 54.8 54.2 -0.6 No

Construction activities, if they were to occur outside of the allowed timeframe for construction, could produce noise inconsistent with the County Noise Ordinance. This would be a significant impact and mitigation has been included to limit the allowable hours that construction could occur.

Noise generated during operations would result from a number of different sources and activities. These would include:

• Noise from project operations,

• Noise from the unit train approaching and entering the project site along the mainline,

• Noise from the locomotive engines doing switching activities along the spur to the east of the unloading area due to positioning of full tank cars before unloading and the delivery of empty tank cars to the empty tank car track after unloading;

• Noise from locomotive engines switching and idling near the unloading area associated with movement of empty and full tank cars;

• Noise from the locomotive engines idling along the spur to the east of the unloading area due to positioning of full tank cars before unloading;

• Noise from pumps operating to unload rail cars, transformers, an HVAC system and an air compressor (to recharge the train brakes);

• Noise from locomotive engines associated with a second train entering the facility, if two trains overlap;

Non-transportation (stationary) noise sources from the refinery operation would be pre-existing during the refinery operating baseline period. Given that no new refinery process units would be constructed as part of the proposed project, the project’s implementation would not result in changes in noise environment in the project vicinity from the operation of the refinery’s process units. Therefore, no impacts to the MBGP Noise Element hourly noise level standards for non-transportation sources would occur.



In order to quantify 24-hour noise level increases in the project vicinity from mobile sources, 3D noise models were developed. As a conservative approach, refinery operating noise was included in the models as area sources spread out over the processing units.

The resulting noise levels are at each receptor are listed in Table 4.10.7. The proposed project would not adversely impact the nearby residential community based upon the CNEL standards set forth in the MBGP Noise Element. The increase in noise levels due to the project (operation) are less than one decibel (1 dB). Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

Table 4.10-7 Operational Noise Modeling Results

CNEL


Operation - (dBA)

Operation - Baseline (∆L,

dB)

MBGP Standards for Noise Increase

(dBA) Trailer Wedding Lane Industrial 72.5 73.5 1.0 N/A*

NMT-1: Area 2-3 BKR Asset Office Industrial 72.9 73.7 0.8 N/A

RNM-1: Wedding Lane Residential 61.7 61.9 0.2 3

RNM-2: 708 Partridge Ave. Residential 56.3 56.5 0.3 5

RNM-3: 7404 Saddleback Dr. Residential 53.6 53.7 0.1 5

RNM-4: White Rock / Brimhall Rd. Residential 54.8 55.1 0.3 5

* The trailer is located on an industrially zoned parcel, and Goal 2 of the Noise Element is to protect the economic base of the area by preventing the encroachment of incompatible land uses near known noise-producing sources.

Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1 The project proponent shall continuously ensure that all construction activity at the

project site is limited to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and prohibit activities on Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays. If activities outside this timeframe occur, noise monitoring shall be established to demonstrate that applicable noise codes are not exceeded. This shall be a note placed on all construction plans.


Impact 4.10-2: Exposure of Persons to, or Generate, Excessive Ground Borne Vibration or Ground Borne Noise Levels

Vibration from locomotive engines and from train car movements or from unloading operations at the project site would produce vibrations. The FTA has developed vibration criteria and vibration assessment methods in order to assess whether train activities could exceed the given criteria. Train vibrations are a function of train type, locomotive type, track arrangement and configuration and of the soil types between the train tracks and the receptor.



Although the perceptibility threshold for vibration is about 0.002 inches/sec, human response to vibration is not usually significant unless the vibration exceeds 0.003 inches/sec. Because of the heavy locomotives on diesel rail systems, the vibration levels can exceed the 0.01 inches/sec threshold defined in this EIR. The FTA has established a 0.004 inches/sec as an acceptable threshold.

The FTA screening assessment for residential locations indicates that residences should be located more than 200 feet from a railway with diesel locomotives traveling at 50 mph. For the rail spur area located within the project site, locomotive speeds would be substantially below this and distances to receptors would be substantially more than 200 feet. Therefore, vibration impacts from the rail spur operations would be less than significant.

Operation of trains on the mainline is preempted from local regulation, Even so, while the addition of a train per day along the mainline would increase the frequency of trains passing by areas, it would not increase the peak vibration levels along the railway as freight trains already pass along the mainline track. Therefore, impacts from vibration would be less than significant.



Impact 4.10-3: Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing without the Project

Noise generated during operations would results from a number of different sources and activities. These would include:

• Noise from proposed project operations,

• Noise from the unit train approaching and entering the facility along the mainline,

• Noise from the locomotive engines doing switching activities along the spur to the east of the unloading area due to positioning of full tank cars before unloading and the delivery of empty tank cars to the empty tank car track after unloading;

• Noise from locomotive engines switching and idling near the unloading area associated with movement of empty and full tank cars;

• Noise from the locomotive engines idling along the spur to the east of the unloading area due to positioning of full tank cars before unloading;

• Noise from pumps operating to unload rail cars, transformers, an HVAC system and an air compressor (to recharge the train brakes);

• Noise from locomotive engines associated with a second train entering the facility, if two trains overlap;

As shown above in Table 4.10-7, the proposed project would not adversely impact the nearby residential community based upon the criteria set forth in the MBGP Noise Element. The increase in noise levels due to the project (operation) are less than one decibel (1 dB). Therefore, impacts to the increase in ambient noise levels are considered less than significant.




Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts would less than significant.

Impact 4.10-4: Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing without the Project

Noise impacts during construction would result from construction equipment with internal combustion engines (e.g., backhoes, cranes) operating at the site for grading, earth moving and the installation of project related equipment. Results of the noise modeling analysis are shown in Table 4.10-6. The proposed project would not adversely impact the nearby residential community based upon the criteria set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. During the project construction the noise impact is actually lower than the Baseline Situation due to the fact that the proposed project will be nonoperational during construction.

Construction activities, if they were to occur outside of the allowed timeframe for construction, could produce noise inconsistent with the County Noise Ordinance. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation would include the limitation on the allowable hours that construction could occur.

Mitigation Measures Implement MM 4.10-1 as described above.



Cumulative Setting None of the proposed developments found under the cumulative projects discussed in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, would be constructed in the immediate vicinity of the project where there would be overlapping noise impacts associated with cumulative projects. All cumulative projects must comply with County noise standards. These, in concert with individual project mitigation measures, would ensure cumulative noise impacts are less than significant.

Impact 4.10-5: Contribute to Cumulative Noise Impacts

With regard to exposing persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards, the project’s construction-related and operational impacts would be less than significant and would be further reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measures.

Cumulative Construction Noise

Most of area immediately surrounding the project site is already developed, and overlapping construction noise would not likely occur. The proposed developments found under the cumulative projects discussed in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, that would be constructed in the immediate



vicinity of the project site are relatively small and would not be expected to generate a significant amount of noise. For the proposed project, limiting the hours of construction activities to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., or implementing noise monitoring to ensure codes are not exceeded, would reduce the impact of construction noise on nearby sensitive receptors.

Cumulative Operational Noise

Cumulative Overall Noise. The modeled CNEL noise levels from the operation of the proposed project and future estimated cumulative traffic volumes in the project vicinity are presented in Table 4.10.8.

Table 4.10-8 Cumulative Noise Modeling Results

CNEL


Cumulative with Project

(dBA)

Cumulative - Baseline (∆L,

dB)

MBGP Standards for Cumulative

Increase (dBA)

Trailer Wedding Lane Industrial 72.5 73.5 1.0 N/A*

NMT-1: Area 2-3 BKR Asset Office Industrial 72.9 73.7 0.8 N/A

RNM-1: Wedding Lane Residential 61.7 62.3 0.6 3

RNM-2: 708 Partridge Ave. Residential 56.3 57.5 1.3 5

RNM-3: 7404 Saddleback Dr. Residential 53.6 55.1 1.5 5

RNM-4: White Rock / Brimhall Rd. Residential 54.8 61.3 6.5 5

*The trailer is located on an industrially zoned parcel, and Goal 2 of the Noise Element is to protect the economic base of the area by preventing the encroachment of incompatible land uses near known noise-producing sources.

Of the sensitive receptors analyzed for the project, only one sensitive receptor location (RNM-4) would experience cumulative noise level increase above the standard set forth in the MBGP Noise Element. However, the significant cumulative noise level increase at receptor location RNM-4 is due to traffic from the new Westside Parkway. As shown in Chapter 4.1 (Air Quality) and Chapter 4.11 (Traffic), implementation of the proposed project would result in fewer traffic trips than during the refinery operating baseline period, and therefore contribute to a net decrease in traffic associated with the proposed project. As a result, the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative noise level increases in the project vicinity. The cumulative impacts would be considered less than significant.

Given the distance of sensitive receptors from the project site, the project is not expected to have any direct, indirect, or cumulative noise impacts at the residences potentially affected. Therefore, operation of the project, when considered cumulatively with related projects, would not result in any new significant noise-related environmental impacts.

Ground Borne Vibration. With regard to exposing persons to, or generation of, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels, the project would not result in substantial levels of ground-borne vibration at sensitive receptors. When considered cumulatively with the construction of the other projects in the surrounding area, it is not anticipated that the project would contribute to



substantial ground-borne vibration levels at sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts of the project would not be cumulatively considerable.

Ambient Noise Levels. With regard to the project resulting in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, as discussed above for Impact 4.10-1, the project’s operational impacts would be less than significant and would be further reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measures. The noise generated by the project when considered cumulatively with noise from other projects in the area would not be anticipated to result in a perceptible increase in noise levels at sensitive receptors above those determined for facility operations.

Temporary or Periodic Increase. With regard to the project resulting in a substantial temporary or periodic increase (e.g. during construction) in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, project construction impacts would remain at a less than significant level with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures, as described above. No other temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels are anticipated due to operation of the project.

Mitigation Measures Implement MM 4.10-1 as described above.


Section 4.11 Public Services


Section 4.11 Public Services

4.11.1 Introduction This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses potential impacts of the project on public services, which include fire protection, law enforcement services, schools, parks, scenic trails, medical services, and other public facilities. A complete description of the proposed project can be found in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR. This section also describes relevant environmental and regulatory settings and discusses Mitigation Measures to reduce impacts, where applicable. The project would potentially increase demand on public services. Therefore, it is the purpose of this section to ascertain if the potential increase in demand would exceed the capacity of existing public services, which may result in the need for additional personnel or require construction of new facilities.

4.11.2 Environmental Setting This section describes the existing public service agencies that provide service to the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery and the proposed project. A description of the organization, facilities, and existing services to the area is provided for the Kern County Fire Department, the City of Bakersfield Fire Department, the Kern County Sheriff’s Department, the City of Bakersfield Police Department, Rosedale Union School District, Norris School District, Fruitvale School District, and Kern High School District.

Fire Protection/Prevention and Emergency Services

Kern County Fire Department and Bakersfield Fire Department

In general, the Kern County Fire Department (KCFD) has the capacity to protect life and property within the unincorporated portions of the metropolitan Bakersfield area as well as the remainder of Kern County. As new growth and development occur, increased personnel and/or facilities will be required to meet new demands for service. The Kern County Fire Department staffs 45 full-time fire stations and one seasonal station. The fire department is broken into seven battalions for operational management; each battalion covers a large geographical area and includes seven to nine fire stations. The proposed project area is located in Battalion 6. Battalion 6 includes seven stations that cover the northern portion of unincorporated Bakersfield. All petroleum refineries in the Bakersfield metropolitan area are located in Battalion 6, within the response area of these seven stations.

KCFD currently provides fire protection and prevention services to the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery. The stations closest to the refinery are Station 66, Station 65, and Station 61. Station 66, located at 3000 Landco Drive, is approximately 1 mile from the refinery and is the primary station. Station 65 is located at 9420 Rosedale Highway, approximately 2 miles away, and Station 61is located at 6400 Fruitvale Avenue, just over 2.5 miles from the refinery. Station 66 is a single fire engine station staffed by one captain, two engineers, and two firefighters. Station 66 has a response area of 5 square miles, serving a population of approximately 2,089 people. The station responds to instances related to hazardous materials response Countywide as well as issues related to the oil industry and surrounding community.

County of Kern 4.11 Public Services


Oil production is increasing within the northwest portion of the metropolitan Bakersfield area, requiring coordination with planning, building, and fire personnel to ensure adequate protection for adjacent urban developments. All of the nine petroleum refineries in the Bakersfield metropolitan area contain specific hazardous materials and conduct hazardous operations. Each facility maintains setbacks or buffer zones dependent on type and quantity of material used. The KCFD does not consider the oil and gas fields in and around Bakersfield within the state designated wildland fire hazard areas (City of Bakersfield, 2009).

The Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD) currently operates 14 fire stations divided into two battalions for operational management. The entire service area for the city is 130 square miles, which encompasses over 300,000 citizens. The closest BFD stations to the refinery is Fire Station 11 is at 7000 Stockdale Highway, approximately 4 miles away, and Fire Station 1, located at 2101 H Street, approximately 3.5 miles away from the refinery.

The standard response time goal used by both the Kern County and the Bakersfield Fire Departments is that no more than 6 minutes should pass between the time someone calls 911 and the time the engine/personnel arrive on scene. This response goal is reasonably attainable for the proposed project area based on the fact that the KCFD has three fire stations in close proximity (less than 3 miles) to the Alon Bakersfield Refinery area, and the Bakersfield City Fire Department has two stations nearby.

A Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) has been adopted between the Kern County and City of Bakersfield Fire Departments. This JPA generally facilitates the following:

• Closest station response concept

• Dual agency training facility

• Emergency radio communication and dispatch for both agencies from one center

The JPA is based on the concept that, “the closest engine responds regardless of jurisdiction,” (City of Bakersfield, 2009) and as part of the agreement, Kern County has agreed to provide a minimum of three firefighters per fire engine. To aid in dispatch of the nearest unit, both the City and the County share a fire dispatch center. In the event that the primary responding engine is occupied or unable to respond, the next available and closest unit would be sent.

The two agencies have also adopted non-overlapping and contiguous station response boundaries within the Bakersfield metropolitan area. With the automatic aid agreement, each fire station has the primary responsibility for its individual area, and emergency services are provided without regard to City or County limits (City of Bakersfield, 2009). Though the project site is predominantly located within Kern County jurisdiction, it is relevant to discuss the City Fire facilities that would assist in providing service to the project due to its location within the Metropolitan Bakersfield Area. The City of Bakersfield’s Fire Department currently operates 13 fire stations.

Emergency Services

The Kern County Office of Emergency Services (OES) is a branch of the Kern County Fire Department. The Kern County OES operates with one full-time professional staff position, the “Emergency Services Manager.” In addition, the County Fire Chief also serves as the Director of Emergency Services.

The mission of the Kern County OES is “to implement emergency management principles and develop plans and procedures necessary to maintain a competent level of preparedness in reacting to



disasters and major emergencies” (Kern County, 2007). Its overall goal is to minimize the effects of disasters and major emergencies on the citizens of the County. The Kern County OES has an assertive program aimed at dramatically increasing the County’s level of disaster preparedness.

Kern County OES is empowered to operate through several laws, codes, and statutes. They are:

• Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950

• Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1974

• Federal Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Amendments of 1988

• California Emergency Services Act

• California Natural Disaster Assistance Act

• Kern County Code (Emergency Services Ordinance), Chapter 2.66

• Kern County Board Resolution 90-278 (April 10, 1990)

The Kern County OES operational duties, although widely varied, can be grouped into four general areas. During non-emergency times, its primary focus is on mitigation and preparedness. Its second priority is overseeing response operations for all areas of Kern County during major emergencies and disasters. The third area of responsibility is that of functioning as the lead agency for the Kern County Operational Area Organization. The final area is overseeing recovery operations.

The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department includes a system of services organized to provide rapid response to serious medical emergencies, including immediate medical care and patient transport to definitive care in an appropriate hospital setting. The EMS System involves a variety of agencies and organizations working together to accomplish the goal of providing rapid emergency medical response and treatment. While most EMS responses are day-to-day emergencies, EMS also plans and prepares for disaster medical response. In addition, EMS is incorporating preventive health care and managed care in the overall scope of its functions. EMS includes:

• Public safety dispatch

• Fire services, first response, and treatment

• Private ground and air ambulance response, treatment, and transport

• Law enforcement agencies

• Hospitals and specialty care centers

• Training institutions and programs for EMS personnel

• Managed care organizations

• Preventive health care

• Citizen and medical advisory groups

Law Enforcement

Kern County Sheriff’s Department

The Kern County Sheriff’s Department is responsible for providing law enforcement services to the unincorporated areas of the County and is also responsible for the jail system, providing bailiffs, prisoner transportation service to the courts, search and rescue, coroner services, and civil process.



The Kern County Sheriff’s Department maintains 17 substation locations and a staff of approximately 1,239 sworn, non-sworn, and civilian employees. There are 572 authorized sworn (peace officer) positions deployed as deputies in the Bakersfield Metropolitan Patrol and other support positions (Kern County Sheriff’s Department, 2013).

The Kern County Sheriff’s Department can call on the Bakersfield Police Department for supplemental support if the need arises. Accordingly, both agencies maintain a Mutual Aid Agreement that is carried out as governed by the California Master Mutual Aid Agreement Plan. The California Master Mutual Aid Agreement codified under the California Mutual Aid Act requires that all public service agencies and departments, political subdivisions, and municipal corporations be made available to each other to provide services for relief against natural disasters, fires, rescues, riots, and crime (OES, 2004).

The Kern County Sheriff’s substation that is nearest the Alon Bakersfield Refinery is the Rosedale station, located at 10814 Rosedale Highway, approximately 2.8 miles west of the refinery. This station is part of the Metropolitan Patrol Division. The Rosedale substation is staffed by one sergeant, one investigator, seven deputies, and one substation clerk. The Rosedale substation provides law enforcement services to unincorporated communities bordering the City’s northwest city limits (Kern County Sheriff’s Department, 2013).

Law enforcement calls from the general vicinity of the refinery are typically in regard to abandoned or stolen vehicles or use of dirt bikes and four-wheelers. The standard response time to the refinery is between 2 and 3 minutes. There are very few calls reported from the area, and deputies regularly patrol the refinery from the Rosedale Substation.

In unincorporated Kern County, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) is responsible for traffic accidents and violations, while the Kern County Sheriff’s Office is responsible for criminal matters.

City of Bakersfield Police Department

Seventeen patrol districts operate from the Truxtun Avenue headquarters and cover a 114-square-mile area with an estimated population of 358,597 as of 2012. Police services are not divided into precincts or sub-stations. The Chief of Police oversees the entire department, which is organized into three divisions under the Assistant Chief of Police, each managed by a captain. The Support Services Division includes training, records, the communications center, crime prevention, and reserves. The Investigations Division handles follow-up investigation of crimes, the crime lab, warrants, and property. The Operations Division encompasses patrol and traffic. Headquarters incorporates internal affairs, the business manager, and news media relations.

The Bakersfield Police Department provides law enforcement service to all areas within the City limits. The 17 patrol districts are manned on a 24-hour basis with an average response time of 11 minutes (as of 2013) for emergency priority one calls. Within the City, the Department handles both crimes and traffic accidents.

The City of Bakersfield Police Department’s West Side Substation is located at 1301 Buena Vista Road, and is approximately 6 miles away from the Alon Bakersfield Refinery. This substation opened in 2004 in conjunction with the Bakersfield Fire Department’s Station 15. The West Side Substation is staffed by one captain, two lieutenants, five patrol sergeants, 45 patrol officers, two K-9 units, five police service technicians, one records clerk, and one alarm investigator. West Side Substation personnel provide service to the City area west of Highway 99, from Snow Road to Taft Highway (City of Bakersfield Police Department, 2007).



California Highway Patrol (CHP)

The CHP is the primary agency that provides traffic law enforcement, safety, and management services within unincorporated portions of Kern County, including the proposed project area. The primary mission of the CHP is “to provide the highest level of safety, service, and security to the people of California” (CHP, 2013). As a major statewide law enforcement agency, the secondary mission of the patrol is to assist in emergencies exceeding local capabilities. The CHP also provides disaster and lifesaving assistance. The Bakersfield office of the CHP is the closest office and dispatch center, approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery, located at 4040 Buck Owens Boulevard in Bakersfield.

Environmental Health Services

The Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) was developed to consolidate the administration of six specific state hazardous materials programs under one agency. The CUPA for Kern County is the Environmental Health Services Department. The CUPA for the City of Bakersfield is the Bakersfield Fire Department. Under CUPA, site inspections of these hazardous materials programs (above ground storage tanks, underground storage tanks, hazardous waste treatment, hazardous waste generators, hazardous materials management and response plans, and the Uniform Fire Code) are consolidated and accomplished by a single inspection. These departments also provide emergency response to hazardous materials events, performing health and environmental risk assessment and substance identification.

Schools

The proposed project site is within the boundaries of the Kern High School District, the Fruitvale School District, and the Rosedale Union School District, and is within range of the Norris School District. A discussion of the individual characteristics of each district follows.

Kern High School District

The proposed project site is within the central portion of the Kern High School District (KHSD), which provides education services to high school students. It is the largest high school district in California, with more than 37,500 students and 3,500 employees. The proposed project site is located in the Bakersfield High School attendance boundary of the Kern District. Vista West Continuation High School is located at 7115 Rosedale Highway, approximately 0.15 mile north of the nearest refinery fence line and 0.47 miles from the nearest process hazard (the product sales terminal), south of Rosedale Highway and east of Patton Way. Vista West has an enrollment ranging from 150 students at the beginning of the school year up to 250 at its peak enrollment.

Bakersfield High School opened in 1893, and the total student enrollment today is approximately 2,850 (Bakersfield High School District, 2013). There are 149 certified employees, 95 classified staff members, seven administrators, and six counselors.

Since 1991, the KHSD’s Facilities Planning Department has overseen the construction of eight new comprehensive campuses. The KHSD's Facilities Planning Department has also had the responsibility of overseeing the modernization of several existing campuses in recent years including West, Shafter and Highland High Schools. Extensive modernizations for East and Arvin High Schools are in progress. Modernizations for South and North High Schools are presently in the design phase.



Fruitvale School District

The Fruitvale School District serves portions of the City of Bakersfield and unincorporated areas east of the City (Fruitvale School District, 2013). The proposed project is located within this school district. The Fruitvale School District has four elementary schools: Columbia Elementary, Discovery Elementary, Endeavour Elementary, and Quailwood Elementary; and one middle school: Fruitvale Junior High School. This district’s southeast boundary is adjacent to the Alon Bakersfield Refinery. The 2013-2014 school year had an enrollment of 3,315 students from pre-school through 8th grade.

The Fruitvale School District is bound approximately by Verdugo to the west, Hageman Road to the north, Highway 99 to east, and Stockdale to the south. The existing refinery is located within this school district. Rosedale Highway and Coffee Road are bound by five school districts; these include Rosedale to the west, Norris to the north, Beardsley to the northeast, Bakersfield city to the east, and Panama-Buena Vista to the south. No new schools are planned for this district.

Rosedale Union School District

The Rosedale Union School District provides education for kindergarten through 8th grade students within the City as well as in unincorporated areas of Kern County. The Rosedale Union School District currently operates seven elementary schools (grades K through 6) and two junior high schools (grades 7 and 8). The elementary schools are Almondale, American, Centennial, Del Rio, Independence, Patriot, and Rosedale North; and the middle schools are Rosedale and Freedom (Rosedale Union School District, 2013).

The overall district boundaries generally extend east from Weidenbach Street, Nord Avenue, and Heath Road; south from just north of 7th Standard Road and Reina Road; west from Verdugo Road; and north of Stockdale Highway. The Alon Bakersfield Refinery is located approximately 2 miles east of this district’s eastern boundary.

The Rosedale Union School District has experienced enrollment growth in recent years and is projecting an increase in enrollment as a result of residential development (specifically, the proposed Rosedale Ranch residential development a few miles northwest of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery).

Norris School District

The Norris District serves the northeastern portions of the City of Bakersfield as well as unincorporated areas east of the City, and continues to respond to housing growth within the Norris School District (Norris School District, 2013). The Norris School District area is located east of Renfro Road, south of Petrol Road, west of Fruitvale Avenue, and north of Weldon Avenue and Reina Street. This district’s southeast boundary is approximately 3 miles north of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery. The Norris School District has four elementary schools: Norris Elementary, Olive Drive Elementary, Veterans Elementary School and William B. Bimat Elementary, and one middle school, Norris Middle School.

The 2012-2013 school year ended with an enrollment of 3,744 students in grades K through 5 and Middle School (grades 6, 7, and 8) students. These numbers take into account some of the newer developments about to start construction, but it does not include areas within the Norris School District that are just beginning their planning (Norris School District, 2013).



Parks

The project site is within the boundaries of the North of the River (NOR) Recreation and Parks District. There are also numerous recreational facilities managed by the City of Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Department in the vicinity of the project site. These two districts collectively manage 47 parks for the enjoyment of area residents and visitors. One park of significance, the Kern River Parkway Park, is located south of the project site on the south side of the Westside Parkway. These facilities are heavily used for all types of recreation and include numerous amenities such as basketball courts, picnic areas, restrooms, a skate park, softball fields, soccer/rugby fields, a swimming pool, tennis courts, and volleyball courts. To augment these park facilities, NOR also utilizes several school district facilities permitted through joint use agreements. NOR currently has approximately 3 acres of park space for every 1,000 people.

4.11.3 Regulatory Setting The General Plan requires developers to account for the provision of adequate public services (as defined uniquely by each type of service) to present and future customers prior to implementing a development project. Oversight of the public service providers is provided by an assortment of boards, commissions, and other types of local and regional institutions and agencies.

Federal

No federal public service regulations are applicable to the Project Site.

Local

Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan

Chapter X. Public Services and Facilities Element.

The MBGP Public Services and Facilities Element includes the following goals and policies:

General Utility Services Policy

Goals:

• Goal 4. Develop funding principles and programs to assure that all new development will pay for the incremental costs of the public facilities and services (i.e., utilities bridges, parks, and public safety facilities) both onsite and offsite, to serve such development.

Policies:

• Policy 1. Strengthen existing procedures by which City, County, and special district staffs coordinate planning for specific individual urban services, public works projects, and programs.

• Policy 2. Seek agreement among the County, City, and special districts serving the metropolitan area regarding an appropriate lead-agency designation for municipal-type utility facilities and services planning and coordination.

• Policy 4. Develop an acceptable method of providing temporary City services outside municipal corporate boundaries based on agreements to annex, in circumstances where such agreements are of mutual benefit to the city and the served unincorporated area.

• Policy 6. Utilize financing methodologies that enable local agencies to assist in financing



area projects that are essential to development according to the MBGP and when the scope of a project is too large to permit financing by individual developments.

Chapter VIII. Safety Element The MBGP (City of Bakersfield, 2009) Safety Element includes the following goals and policies:

Public Safety

Goals:

• Goal 1. Ensure that the Bakersfield metropolitan area maintains a high level of public safety for its citizenry.

• Goal 2. Ensure that adequate police and fire services and facilities are available to meet the needs of current and future metropolitan residents through the coordination of planning and development of metropolitan police and fire facilities and services.

• Goal 3. Provide for the coordinated planning and development of service areas for police and fire protection to ensure an equitable burden of responsibility between County and City in metropolitan Bakersfield.

• Goal 4. Ensure that fire, hazardous substance regulation, and emergency medical service problems are continuously identified and addressed in a proactive way, to optimize safety and efficiency.

Policies:

• Policy 1. Identify future site locations, projected facility expansions, project site acquisition costs, construction costs, and operational costs in a manner that would maximize the efficiency of new public safety services.

• Policy 2. Require discretionary projects to assess impacts on police and fire services and facilities.

• Policy 11. Expand emergency medical services by the City and County Fire Departments and encourage the integration of ground and air and public and private resources to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of emergency medical services.

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)

The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Faced with these trends, the County has adopted a policy of “growth pays its own way” through use of a public facilities mitigation program. The primary policy objective of this program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth.

In 2008, the County adopted a CIP that identifies the best current understanding of the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate new development anticipated through 2030. The CIP further identified appropriate existing facility demand standards to be used as a basis for estimating future facility needs and level of service. The adopted CIP includes a summary of proposed service levels for the included facilities and a conceptual list of planned projects, upon which the CIP was based. The scope of services includes: parks, libraries, sheriff (public protection and investigation), fire, animal control, public health, landfill/transfer stations, and general government. Roads and sewer costs and impacts are not part of this program.



Continued growth within the County and the associated impacts resulting from that growth have increased the demands to Countywide public services and have made it difficult to not only implement and fund many of those facilities identified within the CIP, but maintain existing public service demand standards as growth occurs. In short, despite the increase in property taxes generated as a result of the proposed project and other similar projects within the County, public facility impacts are still underfunded and unable to maintain existing and adopted facility standards.

The purpose of the Public Facilities Mitigation Program is to identify impacts on public services and identify the monetary CEQA mitigation necessary to meet the facilities associated with that growth. The following categories have been identified to help determine which specific public needs are impacted by the proposed project.

• Countywide Public Protection Facilities;

• Sheriff Patrol and Investigation Facilities;

• Library Facilities;

• Animal Control Facilities;

• Park Facilities;

• Fire Facilities;

• Waste Management Facilities;

• Public Health Facilities; and

• General Government Facilities.


Methodology

Public service systems were evaluated by reviewing the most current data available from State and Kern County department websites, the MBGP, and the Kern County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.


The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and Kern County Environmental Checklist states that a project would have significant impacts on public services and public utilities if it were to:

• Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services: o Fire protection o Police protection o Schools o Parks o Other public facilities



Project Impacts

Impact 4.11-1: Increased Need for or Alter Fire Protection Services

Overview

As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project is located at the existing Alon Petroleum Refinery; which is located at 6451 Rosedale Highway in the heart of Metropolitan Bakersfield, within central Kern County. The refinery has been used as a petroleum refinery since 1932. Current refinery process units include crude distillation, delayed coking, hydrocracking, and catalytic reforming. Current products include gas oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and petroleum coke. In addition, the refinery includes a number of ancillary and support facilities including steam boilers, process heaters, cooling towers, storage tanks and interconnecting pipelines. There is also a terminal with both truck and rail loading facilities. The refinery has current environmental permits, including permits to operate from the SJVAPCD.

When proposed project operations are underway, the refinery will continue to maintain existing and improved fire response capability as provided by the Kern County Fire Department and City of Bakersfield; along with specific on-site staff that are trained in first aid emergency medical response. If the project is ultimately approved, the project proponent would consult with the appropriate agencies to ensure that all appropriate plans for the Refinery are updated to include the new facilities, and on-going coordination with local emergency services would continue.

Project Construction

Project construction would last approximately ten months. Construction of the rail and refinery improvement components would occur in parallel. The rail spur construction portion of the project can be divided into the following sequence: (1) equipment staging, (2) land clearance/drainage installation, (3) preparation of sub-grade, (4) place sub-ballast, (5) place bottom ballast, (6) install track and top ballast, (7) tamp/finish top ballast, and (8) demobilize. The refinery improvement construction portion of the project can be divided into the following sequence: (1) equipment staging, (2) demolition, (3) site preparation, (4) grading, (5) construction, (6) paving, (7) architectural coating, and (8) demobilize.

At peak construction, a maximum of 35 construction workers would be required for the project at one time. It is anticipated that the employees would utilize Rosedale Highway as the main point of ingress/egress to the project site and that, once on site, they would access various sections via the existing network of paved and dirt roads.

The MBGP states that staffing of fire departments can be addressed by the number of fire suppression personnel per 1,000 population. The KCFD has 46 fire stations throughout Kern County and is divided into seven battalions for operational management. Each battalion covers a large geographical area and includes between seven and nine fire stations. The county has a total of 546 uniformed firefighter personnel, which results in a ratio of 0.64 firefighter personnel per 1,000 people (based on the 2012 population of 856,158). Construction personnel would not result in a measurable change in this ratio. The County also uses part-time and/or volunteer persons who are not counted in their total permanent workforce numbers, therefore allowing the County to increase protection and emergency services when necessary. Based on the County’s fire suppression ratio, at the maximum construction workforce of 35 people,



additional fire suppression personnel are not needed because additional support should be met easily by the existing labor force.

While there may be a short-term increase due to construction workers coming into the area, the potential for the project to increase population, due to the construction of the project, is unlikely. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to impact the service abilities of the local fire protection or emergency services already serving the refinery during construction of the project.

Project Operation

The distance between the refinery and the closest fire station (Station 66) is less than one mile; and there are also three other fire stations within three miles of the project. Hence, there appears to be adequate staffing at any given time for fire protection for the project, and no one station would be overly burdened to supply service, because both the City of Bakersfield and Kern County would respond to an alarm at the facility. Station 66 responds to instances related to hazardous materials Countywide, along with the Kern County Environment Health Division’s Hazardous Materials Team, as well as responding to issues related to the oil and gas industry and the local community.

The proposed project will include new fire protection a for the unloading rack. The fire protection will include fire detection equipment, fire monitors, safety showers, eyewash stations, hydrants, controls and piping. The monitors with foam generators at the unloading rack will be capable of reaching all of the cars being offloaded. The system will meet or exceed the NFPA requirements for a rail unloading rack. These requirements include foam systems for all new tankage and the unloading facility. Each of the monitors will have self-educting nozzles with individual foam totes capabilities. The monitors shall be mounted at grade at a minimum of 50 feet away from unloading cars.

The new rail rack fire protection system will utilize the refinery’s existing fire water supply systems. The project area has two separate water supply systems, which can be tied together to provide a backup water supply. The water supply systems have a fire water storage capacity of almost 3,000,000 gallons and capable of delivering up to 3,500 gallons per minute of water.

In addition to the new unloading rack fire protection and safety systems, the Alon Bakersfield Refinery has the following firefighting equipment on site and will reestablish the on-site fire department, after resumption of crude refining operations. :

1. Class I Fire Fighting Foam Pumper Truck; with a water pumping capacity of 1,500 gpm at 150 psig. The truck is equipped with a 1,000 gallon foam concentrate tank and a variable foam proportion system at all outlets at zero to six percent foam injection rates. The truck carries over 1,800 feet of fire hose in various sizes and is also equipped with a four inch telescopic 300 to 2,000 gpm monitor with foam/water capability.

2. Class II Fire Fighting Truck; with a water pumping capacity of 1,000 gpm at 150 psig. The truck is equipped with a 1,000 gallon foam concentrate tank and a variable foam proportion system calibrated at zero, three, four and six percent foam injection rates. The truck carries over 2,400 feet of fire hose in various sizes and is also equipped with a three inch 500 gpm monitor with foam/water capability.

3. Quick-Attack Fire Fighting (Pickup) Truck; equipped with a 750 gpm monitor, 200 feet of hose and 100 gallons of foam.

4. Foam Trailer; equipped with 2,500 gallons of foam.



In addition to the equipment listed above, the Refinery has a rescue trailer which carries emergency supplies including extra SCBA’s.

Existing Fixed Fire Suppression Systems

In addition to the mobile fire protection assets discussed above and the new fire protection equipment that will be install as part of the proposed project, the Refinery currently has over 300 strategically placed 20 pound all-purpose (A/B/C) fire extinguishers and approximately 100 firewater monitors around the process units with approximately 120 fire hydrants provided in both the process and tank farm areas in areas 1, 2 and 4.

Sprinkler & Deluge Systems There are sprinkler/deluge systems throughout the facility. Fixed water spray systems are provided on some hot oil pumps. The main protection for the process units is provided by firewater monitors located throughout the Refinery. Cone roof tanks are generally provided with semi-fixed foam chamber systems or semi-fixed subsurface foam systems which meet applicable NFPA standards. The Refinery fire trucks supply the foam from fixed foam installations within the tank farm areas. Open top floating roof tanks are provided with foam dams for manual over the top application of foam from large volume portable monitors and the fire trucks.

Sphere and bullet vessels are protected by manually activated weir type water deluges fed from the refinery firewater system.

The existing truck and railcar loading and unloading facilities are generally protected by fixed monitors and foam carts.

Automatic sprinklers are provided in the laboratory, and warehouses.

Additionally, the project will be required to conform to the Uniform Fire Code, the Kern County Building Code, and the County Fire Code. These codes require projects to include specific design features such as ensuring sufficient water pressure to provide adequate firewater flows, ensuring appropriate emergency access, and requiring structures to be built with approved building materials, etc. Conformance with these codes will help reduce the risks associated with fire hazards. Accordingly, all construction plans will be approved by the Kern County Fire Department to ensure that all fire code requirements are incorporated to the project; and will result in less-than-significant impacts.

Conclusion

The existing service infrastructure in Bakersfield is adequate to support both the construction and operation of the project. The Kern County Fire Department is responsible for providing fire response to this facility. The County and the City of Bakersfield have an agreement to provide reciprocal fire protection coverage in the metropolitan Bakersfield area. Both the County and the City fire departments would respond in an emergency at the project site.

The project, during both construction and operation, would not substantially change the load on the fire-fighting and emergency response resources and would not be expected to create the need for additional fire protection services or resources by the Alon Bakersfield Refinery, the City of Bakersfield, or the County of Kern.

The proposed project will include a new fire protection for the unloading rack; as required by Mitigation Measure 4.10-1. The fire protection will include, fire monitors, hydrants, controls and piping. The monitors with foam generators at the unloading rack will be capable of reaching all of



the cars being offloaded. The system will meet or exceed the NFPA requirements for a rail unloading rack. The new rail rack fire protection system will utilize the refinery’s existing fire water supply systems. In addition, to the new unloading rack fire protection and safety systems, the Alon Bakersfield Refinery has the both fixed and mobile firefighting equipment on site and will reestablish the on-site fire department, after resumption of crude refining operations.

Mitigation Measures MM 4.10-1 Prior to the issuance of the first grading or building permit for the Project, or use of

any new rail facilities, whichever occurs first, the Project Proponent shall obtain approval of a Rail Rack Fire Protection System Plan per the specifications of the Kern County Fire Department. At minimum, the Plan shall include the following:

a. Demonstrate that the system will meet or exceed the NFPA requirements for a rail unloading rack; including use of foam systems for all new tankage and the unloading facility.

b. Demonstrate that the system will utilize the refinery’s existing fire water supply systems; which includes two separate water supply systems that can be tied together to provide a backup water supply. The water supply systems have a fire water storage capacity of 3,000,000 gallons and are capable of delivering up to 3,500 gallons per minute of water.

c. Demonstrate that the following will be constructed on the site: 1. Fire detection equipment, 2. Fire monitors per the following specifications: Each of the monitors will

have self-educating nozzles with individual foam totes capabilities; shall be mounted at grade at a minimum of 50 feet away from unloading cars; and shall include foam generators at the unloading rack that are capable of reaching all of the cars being offloaded.

3. Safety Showers 4. Eyewash Stations 5. Hydrants 6. Controls 7. Piping


Impact 4.11-2: Increase Need for or Alter Police/Sheriff Protection Services

The proposed project is an existing facility with a 24-hour security force to protect existing employees and property currently in place. The project site is fenced and access provided by security-controlled gates. Because the proposed project would not significantly change the existing staffing or substantially expand the existing facilities within the project site, there would not likely be a need for new or expanded police protection.

As described in Section 4.11.2, Law Enforcement, both a County Sheriff’s substation and the Bakersfield office of the CHP are less than 3 miles from the proposed project area. The Kern County Sheriff’s Department serves a population base of over 500,000 in metropolitan and rural areas. The combined population of unincorporated Bakersfield served by the Sheriff’s Department is approximately 200,000. The Sheriff’s Department uses a target staffing standard of one officer per 1,000 population. The staffing ratio for metropolitan Bakersfield is 0.68 per 1,000 population.



The Sheriff’s Department cooperates with the Bakersfield Police Department in patrolling the Bakersfield urban area, but the staffing levels are tied to the population within each jurisdiction. Sheriff’s patrol units traveling through the City will respond to observed public safety problems and call the City police for follow up.

The project is not likely to substantially increase the area’s population, so it will not affect the agencies’ ability to maintain their target staffing levels. Both the County Sheriff and City Police Department are represented near the proposed project area, and they both have the capacity to meet public safety needs. Therefore, project impacts to police and/or law enforcement services are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures None Required.


Impact 4.11-3: Increase Need for or Alter School Services

The local workforce is not expected to increase significantly during construction or operation of the proposed project. The construction workers are expected to come from the local labor pool. No increase in workers is expected due to the operation of the project. As a result, construction and operation of the proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on schools in the project area.



Impact 4.11-4: Increase Need for or Alter, Park Services

The local workforce is not expected to increase significantly during construction or operation of the proposed project. The construction workers are expected to come from the local labor pool. No increase in workers is expected due to the operation of the project. As a result, construction and operation of the proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on parks in the project area.



Impact 4.11-5: Increase Need for Other Public Facilities

The local workforce is not expected to increase significantly during construction or operation of the proposed project. The construction workers are expected to come from the local labor pool. No



increase in workers is expected due to the operation of the project. As a result, construction and operation of the proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on public services in the project area that have not been specifically addressed in Impacts 4.11-1 through 4.11-5.




Cumulative Setting The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to public services includes a six-mile radius from the project site. Analysis of cumulative impacts takes into consideration the entirety of impacts that the projects, zone changes, and general plan amendments discussed in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, would have on public services. This geographic scope of analysis is appropriate because the public services needs within this radius are expected to be similar to those in the project site.

Impact 4.11-6: Contribute to Cumulative Public Service Impacts

The proposed project is expected to have no impact on many public services, including schools, parks and medical services, and therefore will not contribute to significant cumulative adverse effects, if any, on these services. The effect of the proposed project on fire and police services is will be mitigated to the extent feasible. No other reasonably foreseeable heavy industrial projects are proposed in the cumulative impact area at this time. Other light industrial, residential, and commercial projects are reasonably foreseeable in the Bakersfield metropolitan area; however, none of these projects are located within the vicinity of the project site that would produce an overlapping demand on fire or police services. Therefore, the cumulative impacts to public services would be less than significant.



Section 4.12 Transportation and Traffic


Section 4.12 Transportation and Traffic

4.12.1 Introduction This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses potential impacts of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project (project) on transportation and traffic, and describes the environmental and regulatory settings. A complete description of the proposed project can be found in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR. Mitigation measures that would reduce impacts, where applicable, are also discussed. Information contained within this section was provided primarily by the Alon USA Bakersfield Refinery Project Traffic Impact Study (Alon TIS), dated November 6, 2013, prepared by Iteris (Iteris, 2013), and is included as Appendix H of this EIR and incorporated by reference herein.

The traffic section of the EIR provides a summary of the transportation infrastructure and traffic conditions in the proposed project vicinity, and addresses the direct construction and operating impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding transportation system. The traffic analysis considered the project in its entirety and presents the full trip generation potential of the project and ancillary components.

This section addresses potential impacts associated with traffic and transportation systems in the project area that may result from construction and operation of the project. The analysis considers the regional and local roadways, current and project-related traffic conditions, access to the project site and transportation of hazardous materials related to construction and operation of the plant.

The project study area for the transportation analysis includes the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area and the surrounding local and regional circulation system. This circulation system could be potentially affected by traffic generated by the proposed project during construction of the facility and its operation. Figure 4.12-1 shows the project study area.

4.12.2 Environmental Setting This section describes the existing conditions of the roadway circulation system within the proposed project study area. This section also presents the traffic volume and existing operating conditions of the study roadway segments and intersections.

Roadway Conditions Setting

The refinery portions of the project in Areas 2 and 4 will be constructed on the northwest corner of the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery. The project site is generally bounded by Mohawk Street to the east, Rosedale Highway to the north, Coffee Road one quarter mile to the west, and the Kern River and Westside Highway to the south. Several regionally and locally significant roadways traverse the study area. Each of the key roadway segments, as well as associated key intersections within the study area, is discussed below. Roadways and intersections within a few miles of the project site will be impacted by the project.

As discussed in the Alon TIS, baseline traffic data were obtained from the Final Traffic Operations Report: Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) Improvements Project Approval and Environmental Document

County of Kern 4.12 Transportation and Traffic




(PA&ED) (Rosedale Highway Traffic Operations Report), March 2011. The Rosedale Highway Traffic Operations Report is a comprehensive study of the baseline and future forecasted traffic conditions of the project study area including cumulative development and roadway infrastructure improvements. There are three differences between the traffic forecasts used in the Alon TIS and those in the Rosedale Highway Traffic Operations Report: 1) the treatment of site specific traffic (the Rosedale Highway Traffic Operations Report shows project site growth between baseline and 2015), 2) the extension of Mohawk Street Truxtun Avenue is present in the baseline because it has since been completed, and 3) the extension of Hageman Road is not included in the 2015 analysis of the Alon TIS due to its status as in early planning stages.

The five study intersections were chosen based on the distribution of the trips generated by the proposed project and the likely routes to and from the project site. The majority of project trips utilize the SR‐99 freeway to the east of the project site; therefore the locations analyzed in the study are between the project site and the SR‐99 freeway. The Alon TIS provides key traffic information regarding baseline traffic volumes, an analysis of impacts at study intersections, and a determination of Levels of Service (LOS) under specified scenarios. The locations of the five study intersections assessed in the traffic analysis are listed below and are shown in Figure 4.12-2.

1. Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) at Fruitvale Avenue

2. Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) at Kilmer Avenue

3. Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) at Mohawk Street

4. Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) at SR‐99 Southbound Ramps

5. Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) at Buck Owens Boulevard/SR‐99 Northbound Off Ramp

LOS is a description of traffic performance at intersections. The LOS concept is a measure of average operating conditions at intersections during an hour. Levels range from A to F with A representing excellent (free‐flow) conditions and F representing extreme congestion. Traffic operating conditions at the study intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM) delay‐based methodology with the TRAFFIX software. The HCM method for both signalized and stop‐controlled intersections calculates the average delay, in seconds, per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole during the peak hour. Table 4.12-1 describes the LOS concept and the operating conditions for signalized and stop‐controlled intersections.

Key Roadway Segments

State Highways

State Route 99. SR 99 is a major north-south route through the central valley of California extending from Interstate 5 south of Bakersfield to Sacramento. It provides a vital regional north-south link to the cities and communities in the San Joaquin Valley. Within the study area, it has three mainline lanes in each direction. The north and southbound ramp intersections at Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) are both signalized.



Table 4.12-1 Intersection Level of Service Definitions

Level of

Service Description

Signalized Intersection

Control Delay (sec/veh)

Unsignalized Intersection Delay

(sec/veh)

A Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.

0.0 – 10.0 0.0 – 10.0

B Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form.

10.1 – 20.0 10.1 – 15.0

C Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait more than 60 seconds, and back‐ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.

20.1 – 35.0 15.1 – 25.0

D Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait more than 60 seconds during short peaks. There are no long‐standing traffic queues.

35.1 – 55.0 25.1 – 35.0

E Poor operation. Some long‐standing vehicular queues develop on critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several minutes.

55.1 – 80.0 35.1 – 50.0

F

Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop and go type traffic flow.

>80.0 >50.0

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000.

Rosedale Highway (SR 58). Rosedale Highway is an east-west roadway extending from Highway 99 to Enos Lane (Highway 43) to the west. The roadway serves as a primary route through the City and provides regional connection via the I‐5 to the west and SR‐99 which runs north‐south through the City. Within the project study area, the Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) is a four‐lane facility with a posted speed limit of 50 mph between Allen Road and Mohawk Street, and 45 mph east of Mohawk Street.

Local Roads.

Fruitvale Avenue is a north‐south arterial with two to four lanes throughout the length of the street. It provides access to residential and industrial areas north and south of Rosedale Highway (SR‐58). The intersection of Fruitvale Avenue and Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) is signalized.

Kilmer Avenue is a local street which provides vehicular access from Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) to the industrial land uses to the south of the highway. The intersection of Kilmer Avenue and Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) is a one‐ way stop‐controlled T‐intersection. The northbound approach is controlled by stop sign.

Mohawk Street is a north‐south arterial. North of Rosedale Highway (SR‐58), Mohawk Street provides access to the industrial facilities as well as residential and commercial areas. Mohawk



street has six lanes between Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) and Truxtun Avenue, and five lanes from Truxtun Avenue to California Avenue. The intersection of Mohawk Street and Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) is signalized. The Mohawk Street Extension project connecting Mohawk south of Refinery Road to Truxtun Avenue is complete and present in baseline conditions.

A review of the Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) Improvements project PA&ED document and aerial photographs was conducted to obtain the baseline study intersection conditions, including geometric layout, traffic control, and lane configurations. This information is required for the subsequent traffic impact analysis. Baseline lane configurations and traffic control for the five study intersections are provided in Figure 4.12-3.

Baseline Level of Service Analysis

The A.M. and P.M. peak hour LOS analyses were conducted at the five study intersections based on the baseline traffic volumes and the methodologies described previously and in greater detail in Section 4.12-4. The LOS analysis was performed using TRAFFIX software.

According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan intersection LOS criteria, LOS C is considered the lowest acceptable LOS. Table 4.12-2 summarizes the LOS calculations for the study intersections under baseline conditions. The results indicate all five study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS during the A.M. peak hour, and four of the five study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS during the P.M. peak hour. The following study intersection operates at LOS C or worse during the P.M. peak hour:

• #4 Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) at Buck Owens Boulevard/SR‐99 Northbound Ramp – P.M. Peak Hour

Table 4.12-2 Baseline Peak Hour Intersection Conditions

Roadway Segment AM PM

LOS Delay (sec.) LOS

Delay (sec.)

1 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Fruitvale Ave C 22.2 C 20.8 2 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Kilmer Way* A 2.3 A 8.8 3 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Mohawk St A 2.5 A 3.3 4 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at SR‐99 SB Ramps B 15.2 B 17.1 5 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Buck Owens Blvd/SR‐99 NB Ramp C 31.3 F 97.4 Source: Iteris, 2013.

Study intersection #2 Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) at Kilmer Way is an unsignalized intersection and is analyzed for the average intersection delay (in seconds), as opposed to worst‐case delay (in seconds).

Figure 4.12-4 shows the baseline A.M. and P.M. peak hour volumes and LOS, respectively. The baseline peak hour turning movement volumes are provided in Appendix H, and the LOS analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix H.



Rail Conditions Setting

The rail cars serving the proposed project will be delivered via the BNSF Bakersfield subdivision rail tracks by a connection to the on-site rail track at milepost 891.2.

As shown in the Proposed Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project Appendix C: Non- Permitted Source/Activity Emissions, trains serving the proposed project would travel north to/from north of the project site to the California/Oregon border and east to/from the California/Arizona border. Within Kern County, trains would travel as far north as Garces Highway (north of Wasco) which is 33.4 miles from the proposed project site and trains would travel as far east as Boron Avenue in unincorporated Boron, which is 80.9 miles from the proposed project site. Trains to/from the north of the proposed project site would use the BNSF Bakersfield subdivision for the entirety of their trips within Kern County. Trains coming to and from the east of the proposed project site would travel along the BNSF subdivision for 5.8 miles to the Kern Junction with the Union Pacific Rail Road’s Mojave Subdivision. The trains would travel along the Union Pacific Mojave Subdivision for 61.9 miles, after which they would switch to the BNSF Mojave Subdivision at Mojave.

Within Kern County, the rail tracks utilized by trains serving the proposed project would cross several roadways. In the immediate project area, many of the crossings have been grade separated. Every road crossing between Hageman Road and Oak Street is grade separated, these crossings are:

• Hageman Road (Milepost 895.31)

• Allen Road (Milepost 895.21)

• Rosedale Highway (Milepost 893.8)

• Calloway Drive (Milepost 892.7)

• Coffee Road (Milepost 891.7)

• Mohawk Road (Milepost 890.1)

• Truxtun Avenue (Milepost 889.4)

• SR-99 (Milepost 888.7)

• Oak Road (Milepost 888.5)

North of the proposed project site, the closest at-grade crossing is Reina Road (Milepost 896.6) which is 5.4 miles from the proposed project site rail track. East of the proposed project rail connection, the closest at-grade crossing is “L” Street which is 4.0 miles from the proposed project. Within Kern County, trains serving the proposed project would traverse 28 at-grade crossings north along the BNSF Bakersfield Subdivision and 38 at-grade crossings east along the BNSF Bakersfield Subdivision, the UPRR Mojave Subdivision, and the BNSF Mojave Subdivision. Table 4.12-3 describes the Kern County at-grade crossings north of the proposed project and Table 4.12-4 lists the Kern County at-grade crossings east of the proposed project.

Between 2008 and 2013, there were 20 incidents along the at-grade crossings that would be utilized by trains serving the proposed project, seven of which involved Amtrak trains and 13 involved freight trains. The locations of these incidents are indicated in Tables 4.12-3 and 4.12-4.



Table 4.12-3. Kern County At-Grade Crossings North of the Proposed Project DOT

Number CPUC Number Street Incidents 2008-2013 Devices City Rail Line Milepost Note

028379W 002-896.60 Reina Rd 2 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 896.6 028380R 002-897.30 Kratzmeyer Road 2 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 897.3 030101T 002-901.94-C Santa Fe Way 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 901.94 Spur 028383L 002-902.30 Burbank Street 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 902.3 030102A 002-902.68-C Cherry Avenue 1 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 902.68 Spur 028384T 002-903.00 Cherry Avenue 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 903 TBD 002-903.38-CX Private (San Diego St) 0 None Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 903.38 Spur TBD 002-903.63-CX Private (Waymon Av) 0 None Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 903.63 Spur 028385A 002-903.70 Riverside Avenue 1 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 903.7 TBD 002-903.88-CX Private (Imperial St) 0 None Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 903.88 Spur 030103G 002-904.37-C Enos Lane (Sr 43) 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 904.37 Spur 028386G 002-904.40 Beech Av & Los Angeles St 0 Gates Shafter BNSF-Bakersfield 904.4 028390W 002-905.10 Lerdo Highway 0 Gates Shafter BNSF-Bakersfield 905.1 028391D 002-905.50 Central Avenue 0 Gates Shafter BNSF-Bakersfield 905.5 028392K 002-905.80 Shafter Avenue 1 Gates Shafter BNSF-Bakersfield 905.8 028393S 002-906.50 Fresno Avenue 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 906.5 028394Y 002-907.20 Poplar Av 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 907.2 028395F 002-908.00 Merced Avenue 1 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 908 028397U 002-910.40 Kimberlina Road 1 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 910.4 028300V 002-912.50 Poso Drive 0 Gates Wasco BNSF-Bakersfield 912.5 028302J 002-913.10 6th Street 0 Gates Wasco BNSF-Bakersfield 913.1 028306L 002-914.50 Mccombs Road 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 914.5 028308A 002-917.00 Taussig Avenue 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 917 028309G 002-918.00 Blankenship Avenue 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 918 028310B 002-920.50 Peterson Road 1 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 920.5 028315K 002-921.50 Pond Road 1 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 921.5 028316S 002-922.50 Schuster Road 1 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 922.5 028317Y 002-924.60 Garces Highway 2 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Bakersfield 924.6



Table 4.12-4. Kern County At-Grade Crossings East of the Proposed Project DOT


028354B 002-887.20 "L" Street 2 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 887.2 Quiet Zone 20 mph 028351F 002-887.10 "N" Street 0 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 887.1 Quiet Zone 20 mph 028289X 002-886.40 Sonora Street 0 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 886.4 Quiet Zone 20 mph 028288R 002-886.20 Tulare Street 0 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 886.2 Quiet Zone 20 mph 028285V 002-885.95 Baker Street 1 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 885.95 Quiet Zone 20 mph 028284N 002-885.77 E Truxtun Avenue 0 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 885.77 Quiet Zone 20 mph 028280L 002-885.40 Sumner/Miller Street 0 Gates Bakersfield BNSF-Bakersfield 885.4 Quiet Zone 20 mph 757413M 001B-317.50 Morning Drive (Sr 184) 1 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 317.5 Kern Jctn. to UPRR 757414U 001B-318.50 Vineland Road 1 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 318.5 757415B 001B-319.56-X Prvt. (Giumarra Vineyard Rd) 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 319.56 757416H 001B-319.90 Pepper Drive 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 319.9 757417P 001B-320.90 Private Road 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 320.9 757418W 001B-321.70 Comanche Drive 1 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 321.7 757419D 001B-322.70-X Private (Tejon Highway Ext) 0 Passive Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 322.7 757420X 001B-323.80-X Prvt. (Tower Line Patrol Rd) 0 Passive Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 323.8 757421E 001B-324.80 Neumarkel Rd-Landfill 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 324.8

757423T 001B-327.70-X Private Baker Grade Rd - Bena Corrals (Simcal Chemical)

0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 327.7

757427V 001B-335.30 Norton Street 0 Passive Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 335.3 757428C 001B-335.50 Caliente Bodfish Rd 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 335.5

757430D 001B-340.50 Bealville Road 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 340.5 End - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

757436U 001B-360.50 N Green Street 0 Gates Tehachapi UPRR-Mojave 360.5 757246R 001B-360.90 Hayes Street 0 Gates Tehachapi UPRR-Mojave 360.9 757247X 001B-361.40 Dennison Rd 0 Gates Tehachapi UPRR-Mojave 361.4 757253B 001B-364.40 Williamson Road 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 364.4 757254H 001B-364.90-D Monolith Port. Cem. 0 None Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 364.9 757255P 001B-365.20 Tehachapi Bl/Old State Hy 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 365.2 757258K 001B-369.20 Cameron Canyon Road 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 369.2 757259S 001B-377.30-X Private Xing 0 None Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 377.3 757244C 001B-379.40 Arroyo Avenue 0 Gates Unincorp. UPRR-Mojave 379.4



Table 4.12-4. Kern County At-Grade Crossings East of the Proposed Project DOT


028246E 002-797.10-X Rosamond Bl (Private) 0 Flashers Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 797.1 BNSF-Mojave Jctn. 028221J 002-789.30-C Suckow Road 0 Flashers Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 789.3 Spur 028243J 002-788.30-X Rocket Site (Air Force) 0 Flashers Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 788.3 028220C 002-788.20-C Suckow Road 0 Flashers Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 788.2 Spur 028216M 002-787.80-C Suckow Road 0 Flashers Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 787.8 Spur 028214Y 002-787.70-C Suckow Road 0 Flashers Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 787.7 Spur 028242C 002-786.38-X Del Oro Rd (Private) 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 786.38 028211D 002-784.93-C 20 Mule Team Road 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 784.93 Spur 028210W 002-783.90 Boron Av 0 Gates Unincorp. BNSF-Mojave 783.9

Based on Kern County traffic counts, the at-grade crossings outside of the cities of Bakersfield, Shafer, and Wasco are located in rural areas with low traffic volumes (typically less than 5,000 average daily trips).



Rail Service

The BNSF Bakersfield Subdivision serves as the southern portion of the San Joaquin rail corridor which is a shared track corridor that serves both freight and passenger train service.

The Amtrak California operates 12 trains per day along the BNSF subdivision adjacent to the proposed project as part of its San Joaquin Corridor intercity passenger train. The southern rail terminus of the San Joaquin route is the Bakersfield Amtrak station at 601 Truxtun Avenue at S Street. Between 2006 and 2010, passenger ridership on the San Joaquin Corridor has increased by about 170,000 riders; from 805,000 in 2006-2007 to 975,000 in 2009-2010.

An average of 24 freight trains per day utilize the track to the east of the proposed project site at “L” Street in downtown Bakersfield and 34 freight trains per day utilize the track north of the proposed project site along the BNSF Bakersfield subdivision at Reina Road (USDOT crossing inventory information 2013). Under baseline conditions, the proposed project is served by 29 unit train equivalents per year, an average of 0.08 trains per day.

Project Construction and at Full Operations Conditions

Roadway Conditions

Since several improvements to the project-area roadways will be completed by 2015, project impacts were analyzed against both baseline conditions and year 2015 “Without Project” conditions.

Future 2015 “with” and “without” project traffic volumes were forecasted and the traffic operations were evaluated for both scenarios. The 2015 Without Project intersection volumes were based on the 2015 traffic volumes from the Rosedale Highway Traffic Operations Report. The project‐related trips were then added to the Future Without Project volumes to derive the Project at Full Operation (Year 2015) traffic conditions.

The future 2015 A.M. and P.M. peak hour volumes from the Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) Improvements PA&ED were derived from the KernCOG Regional Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model, which includes the greater Bakersfield metropolitan area as well as the Cities of Mojave to the east and Wasco to the north. The land use assumptions in the KernCOG Regional TDF model were consistent with the approved developments within the Rosedale Highway Corridor and were reviewed and approved by the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, KernCOG, and Caltrans. The intersection peak hour volumes were developed using the delta methodology as recommended in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255 (Transportation Research Board, 1982). Under the delta methodology, the forecasted future intersection volumes were derived by adding the growths between the Base Year Model and the Future Year Model to the baseline turning movement counts at each study intersection.

A number of study area transportation improvements were recently completed or are underway. Descriptions of cumulative transportation improvements contained in the year 2015 analysis and their status at the time of the preparation of the traffic study are below:

• Completion of the Westside Parkway from Truxtun Avenue at the east to Stockdale Highway at the west. Construction started in early 2010 on Phase 2 and opened in summer of 2013. The California Transportation Commission authorized $26 million under the State Transportation Improvement Program for Phase 6 of the Westside Parkway. The funds will allow the City to



complete the final two miles of the Westside Parkway between Allen Road and Stockdale Highway/Heath Road. Construction would be expected to begin in early 2013, and will take approximately two years to complete.

• Completion of the 24th Street improvements between the Southbound SR‐99 / Rosedale Highway ramp terminal intersection at the west and 24th Street / M Street at the east. Construction is expected to begin in early 2014.

Under all Year 2015 scenarios, the intersection geometric conditions at the five study intersections are assumed to reflect the above improvements. The LOS analyses were conducted with the lane improvements in place. Figure 4.12-5 illustrates the intersection lane configurations for the year 2015 conditions.

Year 2015 Without Project Level of Service

Roadway Conditions

The Year 2015 Without Project traffic operating conditions were analyzed at the five study intersections for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours using the forecasted volumes from the Kern COG Regional TDF model. Figure 4.12-6 illustrates the Year 2015 Without Project A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections.

A LOS analysis was conducted to evaluate projected intersection operations. Table 4.12-5 shows the Year 2015 Without Project intersection LOS summary for the study intersections. The results indicate that all five study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hoursThe LOS analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix B to the Alon TIS.

Table 4.12-5 Year 2015 without Project Peak Hours Summary

Roadway Segment AM PM


Delay (sec.)

1 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Fruitvale Ave C 20.6 C 20.1 2 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Kilmer Way* A 4.1 B 16.6 3 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Mohawk St C 22.5 C 24.7 4 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at SR‐99 SB Ramps B 18.1 C 21.1 5 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Buck Owens Blvd/SR‐99 NB Ramp C 27.3 C 33.6 Source: Iteris, 2013.

Rail Conditions

The rail conditions of the study area are not expected to be substantially different from baseline conditions. Several planning studies have identified and proposed improvements for the rail corridors that will be utilized by trains serving the proposed project; however, many of the improvements identified in these studies will not be implemented by the year 2015. One project, Positive Train Control (Port Chicago to Bakersfield along the BNSF Bakersfield Subdivision) is planned to be implemented by 2015 according to the 2013 California State Rail Plan (Caltrans, May 2013). Positive Train control is a system of function requirements for monitoring and controlling train movements to provide increased safety.

http://californiastaterailplan.dot.ca.gov/docs/Final_Copy_2013_CSRP.pdf



BNSF Bakersfield Subdivision

A number of sources have identified capacity constraints on the San Joaquin route as a potential constraint for both freight and passenger service. This BNSF route must accommodate anticipated growth in intermodal traffic from both domestic and international cargo.

The San Joaquin Corridor Strategic Plan (Caltrans, 2008) identified many sections that will require double-tracking through the mid-term timeframe (5 to 10 years), with eventual double-tracking of the entire line in the long term. The capacity needs in this corridor are driven by both passenger and freight service expansion, and the future operation of passenger service will be strongly influenced by the high-speed rail concepts in the corridor. The purpose of the plan is to develop a program of improvements that will increase ridership, revenue, rail capacity, reliability, and safety within the Corridor.

The San Joaquin Corridor Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 2035 Vision – Initial Study (Caltrans, 2012) evaluates programmatic service concept alternatives for passenger rail in the San Joaquin Valley, including service goals, objectives, and expected outcomes. The Initial Study examines expansion from the current six daily round trip trains to eight or 11 round trips (total of 16 to 22 trains) operating at speeds up to 90 mph maximum authorized speed on the Bakersfield–Stockton rail segment. This study builds off of the BNSF capacity analysis in which BNSF prepared cost estimates for the projects deemed necessary to support increased service frequencies over the San Joaquin route.

San Joaquin Corridor Service Development Plan (Caltrans, 2013) examines how the passenger rail service can be restructured over the long term with infrastructure changes in the corridor including high speed rail (HSR) infrastructure and service conditions. The plan focuses on the improvements necessary to initiate service in 2018 on the first construction section of the initial operating segment of HSR. The subsequent service restructuring of the San Joaquin in conjunction with full HSR operations is the subject of continuing analysis and studies.

BNSF/UPRR Mojave Subdivision

For the trains serving the project site to/from the east, the freight rail track through the Tehachapi Mountains includes steep grades, extreme track curvature, and a single track through the majority of the corridor. BNSF has been concerned about capacity constraints and their impact on future freight growth. Improvements on this route have been approved to receive support under California’s Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF), and will include double-tracking, siding extensions, and signal system upgrades. The first phase of these improvements is detailed in the BNSF/UPRR Mojave Subdivision, Tehachapi Rail Improvement Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report (Caltrans, October 2013).

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/San_Joaquin_Corridor_Initial_Study.pdf

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/San_Joaquin_Corridor_Initial_Study.pdf

http://californiastaterailplan.dot.ca.gov/docs/Final_2013_San_Joaquin_SDP.pdf

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/envdocs/d6/bnsf_track_eir081713final_draft_august2012.pdf

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/envdocs/d6/bnsf_track_eir081713final_draft_august2012.pdf



4.12.3 Regulatory Setting This subsection describes the federal, state, and local regulatory requirements for traffic and transportation.

Federal

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 171-177

Governs the transportation of hazardous materials, the types of materials defined as hazardous, and the marking of the transportation vehicles. The administering agencies for the above regulation are the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

The FRA is responsible for regulating the safety of the Nation's railroad system and development of inter-city passenger rail. The FRA’s mission is to enable the safe, reliable, and efficient movement of people and goods. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RISA) directed FRA to, among other things, promulgate new safety regulations. These new regulations govern different areas related to railroad safety, such as hours of service requirements for railroad workers, positive train control implementation, standards for track inspections, certification of locomotive conductors, and safety at highway-rail grade crossings.

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA)

PRIIA reauthorized the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak, and strengthens the U.S. passenger rail network by tasking Amtrak, the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT), FRA, states, and other stakeholders in improving service, operations, and facilities. PRIIA focuses on inter-city passenger rail, including Amtrak’s long-distance routes and the Northeast Corridor (NEC), state-sponsored corridors throughout the Nation, and the development of high-speed rail corridors.

Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA)

The ICCTA created the Surface Transportation Board (STB) as the exclusive regulatory agency responsible for resolving railroad rate and service disputes and reviewing proposed railroad mergers. Under the ICCTA, the STB is given exclusive authority to regulate the construction, operation and abandonment of new and existing rail lines. The state and local regulation of trains moving outside of the project vicinity is preempted by federal law under the ICCTA.

State

California Vehicle Code, Section 353. Defines hazardous materials as any substance, material, or device posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, or property during transportation, as defined by regulations adopted pursuant to Section 2402.7. The administering agency for the above statute is the CHP.

California Vehicle Code, Sections 2500-2505. Authorizes the Commissioner of Highway Patrol to issue licenses for the transportation of hazardous materials including explosives. The administering agency for the above statutes is the CHP.



California Vehicle Code, Sections 13369, 15275, 15278. Addresses the licensing of drivers and the classification of license required for the operation of particular types of vehicles. Requires a commercial driver’s license to operate commercial vehicles. Requires an endorsement issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to drive any commercial vehicle identified in Section 15278. The administering agency for the above statutes is the DMV.

California Vehicle Code, Sections 31303-31309. Requires that the transportation of hazardous materials be on the state or interstate highway that offers the shortest overall transit time possible. The administering agency for the above statutes is the CHP.

California Vehicle Code, Sections 31600-31620. Regulates the transportation of explosive materials. The administering agency for the above statutes is the CHP.

California Vehicle Code, Sections 32000-32053. Authorizes the CHP to inspect and license motor carriers transporting hazardous materials of the type requiring placards. The administering agency for the above regulation is the CHP.

California Vehicle Code, Sections 32100-32109. Requires that shippers of inhalation hazards in bulk packaging to comply with rigorous equipment standards, inspection requirements, and route restrictions. The administering agency for the above regulation is the CHP.

California Vehicle Code, Sections 34000-34100. Establishes special requirements for vehicles having a cargo tank and for hazardous waste transport vehicles and containers, as defined in Section 25167.4 of the Health and Safety Code. The commissioner shall provide for the establishment, operation, and enforcement of random on- and off-highway inspections of cargo tanks and hazardous waste transport vehicles and containers and ensure that they are designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the regulations adopted by the commissioner pursuant to this code and Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 25100) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. The administering agency for the above regulation is the CHP.

California Vehicle Code, Section 3500. Regulates the safe operation of vehicles, including those vehicles that are used for the transportation of hazardous materials. The administering agency for the above regulation is the CHP.

California Vehicle Code, Section 35550. Imposes weight guidelines and restrictions upon vehicles traveling upon freeways and highways. The section holds that “a single axle load shall not exceed 20,000 pounds. The load on any one wheel or wheels supporting one end of an axle is limited to 10,500 pounds. The front steering axle load is limited to 12,500 pounds.” Furthermore, CVC Section 35551 defines the maximum overall gross weight as 80,000 pounds and adds that “the gross weight of each set of tandem axles shall not exceed 34,000 pounds.” The administering agency for the above statute is Caltrans.

California Vehicle Code, Section 35780. Requires a Single-Trip Transportation Permit to transport oversized or excessive loads over state highways. The permit can be acquired through the Caltrans. The administering agency for the above statute is Caltrans.

California Streets and Highways Code, Section 117. Unless otherwise specifically provided in the instrument conveying title, the acquisition by the department of any right of way over any real property for state highway purposes, includes the right of the department to issue, under Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 660), permits for the location in the right of way of any structures or fixtures necessary to telegraph, telephone, or electric power lines or of any ditches, pipes, drains, sewers, or underground structures. The administering agency for the above statute is Caltrans.



The California Streets and Highways Code, Sections 660, 670, 672, 1450, 1460, 1470, 1480 et seq. Defines highways and encroachment, requires encroachment permits for projects involving excavation in State Highways, County/City streets. This law is generally enforced at the local level. The administering agencies for the above regulation are Caltrans, Kern County Roads Department, and City of Bakersfield Public Works Department.

California Health and Safety Code, Section 25160 et seq. Addresses the safe transport of hazardous wastes, requires a manifest for hazardous waste shipments, requires a person who transports hazardous waste in a vehicle to have a valid registration issued by the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) in his or her possession while transporting the hazardous waste.

The administering agency for the above regulation is the DTSC.

The proposed project would comply with this law by requiring that shippers of hazardous wastes are properly licensed by the DTSC and hazardous waste transport vehicles are in compliance with DTSC requirements.

California Department of Transportation Traffic Manual, Section 5-1.1. Requires a temporary traffic control plan be provided for “continuity of function (movement of traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit operations), and access to property/utilities” during any time the normal function of a roadway is suspended.

The administering agencies for the above regulation are Kern County Roads Department and City of Bakersfield Public Works Department. The Applicant would file a Traffic Control Plan prior to the start of construction.

California Department of Transportation Caltrans maintains the state highway system, including State Route 99, and State Route 58, Rosedale Highway , which provide access to collector, access, and local roads in the project site expanded rail facilities area. Caltrans generally regulates maximum load limits for trucks and safety requirements for oversized vehicles for operation on highways.

The Caltrans Division of Rail (DOR) manages and coordinates statewide inter-city passenger rail service known as “Amtrak California”. Amtrak California is comprised of three passenger rail routes including the San Joaquin which operates between Oakland/Sacramento and Bakersfield.

State Government Code 14036 requires Caltrans to produce a State Rail Plan every two years that includes a passenger and freight rail component. In 2013 Caltrans issued the 2013 California State Rail Plan (CSRP) to meet the requirements of this state code. In addition, the CSRP will make the State compliant with 49 United States Code Section 22102 concerning state rail plans and state rail administration. The CSRP establishes a statewide vision and objectives, sets priorities, and develops policies and implementation strategies to enhance passenger and freight rail service in the public interest. The CSRP was developed to assist in meeting the polices of the 2025 California Transportation Plan (CTP).

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) The CPUC is the State agency charged with ensuring the safety of freight railroads, inter-city and commuter railroads, and highway-railroad crossings in the State of California. CPUC performs these railroad safety responsibilities through the Railroad Operations and Safety Branch (ROSB) of the Safety & Enforcement Division.



ROSB’s mission is to ensure that California communities and railroad employees are protected from unsafe practices on freight and passenger railroads by enforcing rail safety rules, regulations, and inspection efforts; and by carrying out proactive assessments of potential risks before they create dangerous conditions. ROSB personnel investigate rail accidents and safety related complaints, and recommend safety improvements to the Commission, railroads, and the federal government as appropriate.

The Public Utilities Code requires the CPUC to conduct focused inspections and regular inspections of all railroad and light rail transit operations in the State. The Public Utilities Code also requires the CPUC to conduct investigations of all rail accidents occurring within the State resulting in loss of life or injury to person or property. These investigations are conducted alongside the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The California Local Community Rail Security Act of 2006 requires every operator of rail facilities in the State to submit a risk assessment to the CPUC and the California Emergency Management Agency (CEMA) that identifies potential hazards and emergency response procedures. The Act also requires rail operators to develop and implement an infrastructure protection program, updated annually, to protect their rail facilities from acts of sabotage, terrorism, or other crimes (Caltrans 2013).

Local


Chapter III. Circulation Element

Streets Goals and Policies • Goal 1: Provide a safe and efficient street system that links all parts of the area for movement

of people and goods.

• Goal 2: Provide for safe and efficient motorized, non-motorized, and pedestrian traffic movement.

• Goal 3: Minimize the impact of truck traffic on circulation, and on noise sensitive land uses.

• Goal 7: Develop and maintain a circulation system that supports the land use plan shown in the general plan.

Design • Policy 6: Design and locate site access driveways to minimize traffic disruption where possible

considering items such as topography, past parcelization, and other factors.

• Policy 12: Maintain the integrity of the circulation system.

• Policy 16: Require that truck access to commercial and industrial properties be designed to minimize impacts on adjacent residential parcels.

• Policy 17: Require buildings expected to be serviced by delivery trucks to provide off-street facilities for access and parking.

• Policy 21: Route traffic around, rather than through, pedestrian oriented areas.

• Policy 36: Prevent streets and intersection from degrading below Level of Service “C” where possible due to physical constraints (as defined in a Level of Service Standard) or when the



existing Level of Service is below “C” prevent where possible further degradation due to new development or expansion of existing development with a three part mitigation program: adjacent right-of-way dedication, access improvements, and/or area-wide impact fee.

Image • Policy 16: Require that truck access to commercial and industrial properties be designed to

minimize impacts on adjacent residential parcels.

• Policy 17: Require buildings expected to be serviced by delivery trucks to provide off-street facilities for access and parking.

• Policy 22: Design transportation improvements to minimize noise impacts on adjacent uses.

General • Policy 37: Require new development and expansion of existing development to pay for

necessary access improvements, such as street extensions, widenings, turn lanes, signals, etc., as identified in the transportation impact report as may be required for a project.

• Policy 39: Require new development and expansion of existing development to pay or participate in it’s pro rata share of the costs of expansions in area-wide transportation facilities and services that it necessitates.

Transit Goals and Policies • Goal 5: Enhance rail service capacities and usage in the Planning area.

• Policy 8: Encourage businesses and government to use flexible or staggered work hours so that travel demand is spread more evenly throughout the day.

• Support efforts to promote ridesharing

Parking Policies • Policy 3: Ensure that adequate on-site parking supply and parking lot circulation is provided

in all site plans in accordance with the adopted parking standards.

Kern County General Plan Circulation Element. Key roadways in Kern County serve as vital transportation corridors within San Joaquin Valley. Passenger vehicles, motor homes, and trucks cross Kern County in route to out-of-county and interstate destinations. In addition, rail traffic and pipelines have major routes through Kern County.

Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan - Circulation Element. Kern County and the City of Bakersfield have jointly adopted a General Plan with its own Circulation Element for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Also, there are various Specific Plan areas within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan area.

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The Kern COG is the regional transportation agency that prepares the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to examine long-range transportation issues, opportunities, and needs for Kern County.

Kern County General Plan.

Circulation Element, 2.3 Highways, 2.3.3 Highway Plan, Policies. The goal of the General Plan is to provide a network of roadway systems for the County. The County requires new development to



provide for local roads in areas where the traffic model estimates little growth through and beyond year 2010.


Methodology

This Traffic Impact analysis evaluated the operation of five intersections in Kern County northwest of the City of Bakersfield to determine whether they may be significantly impacted by the proposed project. The five study intersections were evaluated based on the A.M. (7:00 A.M. to 9:00 AM) and P.M. (4:00 P.M. to 6:00 PM) peak traffic periods. The following weekday A.M. and P.M. peak period traffic scenarios were analyzed:

Baseline Conditions – The baseline conditions scenario is of the current roadway configuration and traffic levels that include operation of the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery. At the time of the preparation of the traffic study, the refinery had temporarily suspended refinery operations. In order to avoid confusing the impacts of project changes with the operation of the existing refinery, the baseline for the purposes of environmental review uses traffic counts from 2007, for which there is detailed traffic and refinery activity data available for use in the analysis.

Year 2015 Conditions – This scenario evaluates cumulative traffic conditions without the proposed project. It includes the projected future traffic growth expected from regional ambient growth and other known related development projects in the vicinity of proposed Project by Year 2015. This provides the future baseline conditions by which project impacts are evaluated.

Construction Period Conditions – Construction period traffic conditions are analyzed as the addition of construction period traffic to Year 2015 conditions.

Project Conditions (Year 2015) – This scenario evaluates cumulative traffic conditions with the proposed project operations. It includes the projected future traffic growth expected from regional ambient growth and other known related development projects in the vicinity of proposed Project by Year 2015, plus traffic anticipated from the proposed project operations. The objective of this scenario is to identify the potential impacts associated with the proposed project under future conditions.


The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and Kern County Environmental Checklist state that a project would have a significant impact on Traffic and Transportation if it would:

• Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit;

• Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways: i. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan LOS “C” ii. Kern County General Plan LOS “D”

• Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.






The lead agency determined in the NOP/IS (see Appendix A) that the following environmental issues area resulted in no impact or less than significant impact and was scoped out of requiring further review in this draft EIR. Please refer to Appendix A of this draft EIR for a copy of the NOP/IS and additional information regarding the following impact:

• Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.




The proposed project includes unit upgrades and modifications, as well as an increase in materials handled with expanded rail service, and additional tanks being added to the facility. The proposed project would not involve the delivery of materials via air cargo, so no increase in air traffic is expected. Further, since the project is located over two miles from the nearest airport, the project is located outside of the normal flight pattern and would not increase safety risk. Therefore, this issue will not be evaluated further in the EIR.

The proposed project is not expected to substantially increase traffic hazards or create incompatible uses at or adjacent to the project site. A double loop train track would be developed as part of the proposed project. To avoid the situation where train cars could block access to portions of the Refinery while a train is unloading, alternative access would be constructed as either an overpass or underpass connecting Refinery Road and the Area 2 processing areas. The alternative access would ensure that there is unimpeded access to the Area 2 processing units for emergency responders. Because of the proposed alternative access, emergency access at the Refinery would not be impacted by the proposed project and project proponent would continue to maintain the existing emergency access gates to the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery. Further, the proposed project would not introduce traffic hazards. Therefore, emergency response and traffic hazards will not be evaluated further in the EIR.

The proposed project would be constructed within the confines of an existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery and is not expected to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation modes (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).



Project Impacts

Impact 4.12-1: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.

Construction Period Analysis

Construction period analysis of the proposed Alon Bakersfield Refinery was analyzed as the peak construction traffic added to 2015 conditions.

Construction period trip generation is included in Appendix A of the Ashworth Leininger Group Report Air Quality/Global Climate Change Analysis for the Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project (Appendix B, Ashworth Leininger Report). Distribution of on‐road heavy duty trucks and construction worker commute vehicles can be determined from the Rail Construction Schedule (Table A‐6) and the Non‐Rail Construction Schedule (Table A‐10). Based on Tables A‐6 and A‐10, peak daily heavy duty truck trips will occur during weeks 1 and 43, peak construction worker commute vehicle trips will occur during weeks 9 to 18, and peak total trips will occur during weeks 2 to 3. During that period 116 trips per day are generated by construction activities at the site: 70 construction worker commute trips per day (35 inbound in the AM peak hour, 35 outbound in the PM peak hour) and 46 truck trips which are assumed to be distributed as three inbound and three outbound in the AM peak hour and three inbound and three outbound in the PM peak hour. The distribution of trips was the same as was used for the proposed project trips. As shown in Table 4.12-6, the construction period traffic is not projected to result in a significant impact at a study location.

Operational Period Analysis

The trip generation for the proposed project is derived from the total number of additional employees and contractors, as well as the truck trips that are projected to utilize the proposed project. These worker and truck trips are then converted to auto trips for traffic analysis. Trip generation estimates for the proposed project site are based on the Appendix B Ashworth Leininger Report’s Appendix B Tables C‐4, C‐10 and C‐11 which states the project characteristics. The data from the Ashworth Leininger report is in round trips and is converted to one‐way trips, which are shown in Table 4.12-7. As shown, the proposed project would generate fewer trips than under Baseline conditions.

As shown in the Appendix B Ashworth Leininger Report’s Appendix B and Appendix C (Non‐Permitted Source/Activity Emissions), Tables C‐10 and C‐11, baseline estimated refinery truck trips totaled 107,627 round trips per year, and anticipated future refinery truck trips will total 95,157 round trips per year, for a net decline of 12,470 truck round trips per year. Trips associated with some products/feedstocks are expected to increase, while trips associated with other products/feedstocks are expected to decline. Truck trips associated with the following products/feedstocks are expected to increase: • Diesel (+2,900 trips/year), • Ethanol feedstock (+1,500 trips/year), • Jet fuel (+6,100 trips/year – not previously produced by the refinery), and • Liquefied petroleum gases (+2,600 trips/year).



Table 4.12-6. 2015 Without Project Vs. 2015 With Project Construction Peak Hour Los Summary

Roadway Segment

2015 Without Project With Project Construction Period

Significance Determination

AM PM AM PM AM PM


Delay (sec.) LOS

Delay (sec.) LOS

Delay (sec.)

∆ in Delay

LOS change to D or worse

Sig Impact

∆ in Delay


Sig Impact

1 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Fruitvale Ave C 20.6 C 20.1 B 20.9 C 20.5 0.2 No No 0.4 No No 2 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Kilmer Way* A 4.1 C 16.6 A 4.8 C 18.4 0.7 No No 1.8 No No 3 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Mohawk St C 22.5 C 24.7 C 22.6 C 24.8 0.1 No No 0.1 No No 4 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at SR‐99 SB Ramps B 18.1 C 21.1 B 18.1 C 21.2 0 No No 0.1 No No 5 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Buck Owens Blvd/SR‐99 NB C 27.3 C 33.6 C 27.4 C 33.8 0.1 No No 0.2 No No Source: Iteris, 2013.

Table 4.12-7. Annual Project Site Trip Generation

Material/Type of Trip

Annual One Way Trips Daily One Way Trips

Baseline With

Project Difference Baseline With

Project Difference Truck Trips 215,254 190,314 (24,940) 861 761 (100) Employee Trips 129,000 92,500 (36,500) 516 370 (146) Contractor Trips 75,000 15,000 (60,000) 300 60 (240) Total Trips 419,254 297,814 (121,440) 1,677 1,191 (486) Source: Iteris, 2013.



Truck trips associated with the following products/feedstocks are expected to decline:

• Anhydrous ammonia product (‐100 trips/year – no longer produced), • Crude oil (‐6,300 trips/year – assuming locally produced crude feed will be 50% of baseline

levels), • Gasoline (‐3,500 trips/year), • Heavy ends products (‐9,400 trips/year), • Miscellaneous oil feeds (‐2,700 trips/year), • Naphtha/pentane products (‐1,000 trips/year), • Natural gasoline/iso‐octane feedstock (‐1,800 trips/year), and • Sulfur product (‐600 trips/year).

The total number of trips generated by the proposed project per day and in each of the A.M. and P.M. peak hours is shown in Tables 4.12-7 based on the following assumptions:

• Daily trips are annual trips divided by 250 days. The project will operate 365 days of the year, however to be conservative for traffic analysis conditions, a peak weekday condition was analyzed.

• Hourly truck trip generation is evenly spread over 12 hours of site operation

• Peak hour employee and contractor hourly trip generation is based on peak hour driveway traffic count observation during the baseline conditions contained in the Rosedale Highway Final Traffic Operations Report.

o AM Peak Hour Inbound: 65 percent of employees/contractors

o AM Peak Hour Outbound: 30 percent of employees/contractors

o PM Peak Hour Inbound: 20 percent of employees/contractors

o PM Peak Hour Outbound: 70 percent of employees/contractors

As shown in Table 4.12-8, the proposed project is projected to generate a total of 268 (172 in, 96 out) passenger car equivalent (truck trips = two trips) trips during the A.M. peak hour, 257 (75 in, 182 out) trips during the P.M. peak hour, and 1,195 (598 in, 598 out) trips daily. As compared to the project site trip generation conditions under baseline conditions, the proposed project would generate less traffic during peak periods of travel. Therefore, under the proposed project Year 2015 conditions, the Without Project scenario would present higher traffic volume adjacent to the project site than the With Project scenario.

Table 4.12-8. Peak Hour Project Site Passenger Car Equivalent Trip Generation

Peak Hour Baseline With Project Difference

In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total A.M. Peak Hour 301 158 459 172 96 268 (129) (62) (191) P.M. Peak Hour 117 321 438 75 182 257 (42) (139) (181) Daily 836 836 1,672 598 598 1,195 (238) (238) (477) Source: Iteris, 2013.



Trip distribution assumptions are used to determine the origin and destination of new vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. The proposed project trip distribution is shown in Figure 4.12-7. The directional distribution of the project trips was based on the project access points and the connectivity of the adjacent roadway networks. The new trips generated by the proposed project were then assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on the distribution patterns to estimate the project‐related peak hour traffic at each of the study intersections. Figure 4.12-8 illustrates the project trip assignment onto the future roadway network during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours.

To evaluate the potential impact of the project on future traffic conditions, it is necessary to apply a forecast of the total future traffic volumes in the study area. Net traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4.12-9. This provides a basis against which to measure the potential impact of the project. The projection of the project at Full Operation (Year 2015) traffic consists of the forecasted 2015 volumes from the Kern COG Regional (TDF) model plus the project‐generated traffic. Figure 4.12-10 illustrates the project at Full Operation (Year 2015) A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. The project at Full Operation (Year 2015) traffic operating conditions was analyzed at the five study intersections for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The LOS analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix H of this EIR.

The results indicate that four of the five study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the A.M. peak hour, and all of the five study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the P.M. peak hour. Table 4.12-9 compares the LOS and delay summary of the Baseline to 2015 With Project conditions. Table 4.12-10 shows the LOS and delay summary for the comparison of 2015 Without Project to the 2015 With Project conditions.

The peak hour LOS results show that under the With Project condition, the study intersections are projected to operate at better LOS than the Baseline at three locations. The two other locations would also continue to operate at acceptable LOS C or better. The peak hour LOS results show that under the With Project condition, the study intersections are projected to operate at better LOS than the Without Project condition. The reduction in the LOS and delay at the study intersections under the With Project scenario is due to the fact that the trips generated by the proposed project are fewer than the trips generated from the same traffic analysis zone (TAZ) in the KernCOG Regional TDF model under the Year 2015 condition. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan significance criteria, the project would not cause any additional significant traffic impact at the study intersections.

The proposed project would construct a double rail loop for crude transported to the Bakersfield Refinery via unit trains. New unloading facilities would be provided to allow offloading of crude oil from rail cars. The operating plan is to receive and unload two unit trains within a 24 hour period under the normal operational scenario on an annual average basis. The unit train would be configured with multiple Distributed Power Units (DPUs) and up to 104 tank cars. The schedule of delivery is at the discretion of the railroad company and therefore trains could arrive and depart at any time during a 24-hour period.

To reach the proposed project site, they would access the facility from a new rail connection to the BSNF Bakersfield Subdivision at to milepost 891.2. The proposed rail facilities, upgrades, and modifications at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery would be developed within the existing Refinery property boundaries.



Table 4.12-9. Baseline Vs. 2015 Project At Full Operation Peak Hour Los Summary

Roadway Segment

Baseline 2015 Project Significance Determination AM PM AM PM AM PM


Delay (sec.) LOS

Delay (sec.) LOS

Delay (sec.)

∆ in Delay


Sig Impact

∆ in Delay


Sig Impact

1 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Fruitvale Ave C 22.2 C 20.8 B 18.6 B 18.4 (3.6) No No (2.2) No No 2 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Kilmer Way* A 2.3 A 8.8 A 1.0 A 5.1 (1.3) No No (3.7) No No 3 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Mohawk St A 2.5 A 3.3 C 22.4 C 24.5 19.9 No No 21.2 No No 4 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at SR‐99 SB Ramps B 15.2 B 17.1 B 17.0 C 20.4 1.8 No No 3.3 No No 5 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Buck Owens Blvd/SR‐99 NB C 31.3 F 97.4 C 26.6 C 32.7 (4.7) No No (64.7) No No Source: Iteris, 2013.

Table 4.12-10. Year 2015 Without Project Vs. 2015 Project At Full Operation Peak Hour Los Summary

Roadway Segment

2015 Without Project 2015 Project Significance Determination AM PM AM PM AM PM


Delay (sec.) LOS

Delay (sec.) LOS

Delay (sec.)

∆ in Delay


Sig Impact

∆ in Delay


Sig Impact

1 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Fruitvale Ave C 20.6 C 20.1 B 18.6 B 18.4 (2.0) No No (1.7) No No 2 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Kilmer Way* A 4.1 B 16.6 A 1.0 A 5.1 (3.1) No No (11.5) No No 3 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Mohawk St C 22.5 C 24.7 C 22.4 C 24.5 (0.1) No No (0.2) No No 4 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at SR‐99 SB Ramps B 18.1 C 21.1 B 17.0 C 20.4 (1.1) No No (0.7) No No 5 Rosedale Hwy (SR‐58) at Buck Owens Blvd/SR‐99 NB C 27.3 C 33.6 C 26.6 C 32.7 (0.7) No No (0.9) No No Source: Iteris, 2013.



As shown in the Proposed Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project Appendix C: Non- Permitted Source/Activity Emissions, trains serving the proposed project would travel north to/from north of the project site to the California/Oregon border and east to/from the California/Arizona border. Within Kern County, trains would travel as far north as Garces Highway (north of Wasco) which is 33.4 miles from the proposed project site and trains would travel as far east as Boron Avenue in unincorporated Boron which is 80.9 miles from the proposed project site. Trains to/from the north of the proposed project site would use the BNSF Bakersfield subdivision for the entirety of their trips within Kern County. Trains coming to and from the east of the proposed project site would travel along the BNSF subdivision for 5.8 miles to the Kern Junction with the Union Pacific Rail Road’s Mojave Subdivision. The trains would travel along the Union Pacific Mojave Subdivision for 61.9 miles, after which they would switch to the BNSF Mojave Subdivision at Mojave. Because trains traveling to/from north of the proposed project would utilize the BNSF Bakersfield Subdivision, the additional rail traffic could impact the on-time performance of the San Joaquin passenger service. The unit trains servicing the proposed project would overlap the San Joaquin route between Bakersfield and Sacramento and San Francisco. However, the scheduling of trains to/from the proposed project would be controlled by the railroad and would help to limit any impact to the on-time performance of the San Joaquin passenger service. In addition, freight trains are usually not operated according to a particular schedule, and can be slotted-in between scheduled passenger trains where capacity exists so as to not impede passenger train movements. BNSF prioritizes passenger trains in the BNSF Bakersfield Subdivision, followed by United Parcel Service trains, followed by other freight and intermodal trains. The trains that would service the proposed project would be categorized under the latter and would therefore have the lowest priority in the corridor. The BNSF railroad operates a switching yard approximately three miles east of the proposed project, which could provide additional lay-over capacity of trains serving the proposed project.

No significant impacts were identified from activities proposed by the expanded rail facilities on the project site because there are no at-grade rail crossings which could impact vehicle traffic. North of the proposed project site, the closest at-grade crossing is Reina Road (Milepost 896.6) which is 5.4 miles from the proposed project site rail track. East of the proposed project rail connection, the closed at-grade crossing is “L” Street which is 4.0 miles from the proposed project.

Within Kern County trains serving the proposed project would traverse 28 at-grade crossings north along the BNSF Bakersfield Subdivision and 38 at-grade crossings east along the BNSF Bakersfield Subdivision, the UPRR Mojave Subdivision, and the BNSF Mojave Subdivision. The majority of these at-grade crossings are located in rural areas with low traffic volume. The at-grade crossings through the City of Bakersfield have several parallel grade separated routes through which the majority of north-south traffic occurs across the BNSF Bakersfield Subdivision. Therefore delays at grade crossings due to trains serving the proposed project would be minimal.

Given the ability to schedule the unit train to avoid passenger train movements and the minimal increases in delay at grade crossings, the impacts to public rail transit facility performance would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

The LOS analysis shows that the proposed project would not cause any additional significant traffic impacts at the five study intersections (see Tables 4.12-9 and 4.12-10). Therefore, mitigation measures are not required.



Trains serving the proposed project would not cause any significant impacts; therefore mitigation measures are not required.



Impact 4.12-2: Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways - Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan LOS “C”.

As discussed under Impact 4.12-1, five intersections along Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) were evaluated for potential significant impacts resulting from the construction of the proposed project. After a detailed analysis of projected operating conditions was completed for the Baseline, Year 2015 Without Project, and Project at Full Operation (Year 2015) scenarios, the following observations can be made regarding traffic related impacts:

• Baseline Conditions – The results indicate that the five study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS during the A.M. peak hour. The following study intersection currently operates at LOS D or worse during the P.M. peak hour:

o #4 Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) at Buck Owens Boulevard/SR‐99 Northbound Ramp – P.M. Peak Hour.

• Year 2015 Without Project Conditions – The results indicate that all five study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours.

• The construction period traffic is not projected to result in any significant impacts at the study locations.

• Project at Full Operation (Year 2015) Conditions – The results indicate that all five study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours.

• The LOS analysis shows that the proposed project would not cause any additional significant traffic impacts at the five study intersections, therefore, mitigation is not required.

Therefore, potential project-related traffic impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation required.





Impact 4.12-3: Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways - Kern County General Plan LOS “D”.

As discussed under Impact 4.12-1, five intersections along Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) were evaluated for potential significant impacts resulting from the construction of the proposed project. After a detailed analysis of projected operating conditions was completed for the Baseline, Year 2015 Without Project, and Project at Full Operation (Year 2015) scenarios, the following observations can be made regarding traffic related impacts:

• Baseline Conditions – The results indicate that the five study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS during the A.M. peak hour. The following study intersection currently operates at LOS D or worse during the P.M. peak hour:

o #4 Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) at Buck Owens Boulevard/SR‐99 Northbound Ramp – P.M. Peak Hour.

• Year 2015 Without Project Conditions – The results indicate that all five study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours.

• The construction period traffic is not projected to result in any significant impacts at the study locations.

• Project at Full Operation (Year 2015) Conditions – The results indicate that all five study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours.

• The LOS analysis shows that the proposed project would not cause any additional significant traffic impacts at the five study intersections, therefore, mitigation is not required.

Therefore, potential project-related traffic impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

The LOS analysis shows that the proposed project would not cause any additional significant traffic impacts at the five study intersections, therefore, mitigation measures are not required.



Cumulative Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Cumulative Setting

Cumulative Year 2015 “with” and “without” project traffic volumes were forecasted and the traffic operations were evaluated for both scenarios. The 2015 Without Project intersection volumes were based on the 2015 traffic volumes from the Final Traffic Operations Report: Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) Improvements Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED), March 2011. The project‐related trips were then added to the Future Without Project volumes to derive the Project at Full Operation (Year 2015) traffic conditions.



The future 2015 A.M. and P.M. peak hour volumes from the Rosedale Highway (SR‐58) Improvements PA&ED were derived from the KernCOG Regional Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model, which includes the greater Bakersfield metropolitan area as well as the Cities of Mojave to the east and Wasco to the north. The land use assumptions in the KernCOG Regional TDF model were consistent with the approved developments within the Rosedale Highway Corridor and were reviewed and approved by the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, KernCOG, and Caltrans. The intersection peak hour volumes were developed using the delta methodology as recommended in the NCHRP Report 255. Under the delta methodology, the forecasted future intersection volumes were derived by adding the growths between the Base Year Model and the Future Year Model to the baseline turning movement counts at each study intersection.

A number of study area transportation improvements were recently completed or are underway. Descriptions of cumulative transportation improvements contained in the year 2015 analysis and their status at the time of the preparation of the traffic study are below:

• Completion of the Westside Parkway from Truxtun Avenue at the east to Stockdale Highway at the west. Construction started in early 2010 on Phase 2 and is expected to open in 2013. The California Transportation Commission authorized $26 million under the State Transportation Improvement Program for Phase 6 of the Westside Parkway. The funds will allow the City to complete the final two miles of the Westside Parkway between Allen Road and Stockdale Highway/Heath Road. Construction would be expected to begin in early 2013, and will take approximately two years to complete.

• Completion of the 24th Street improvements between the Southbound SR‐99 / Rosedale Highway ramp terminal intersection at the west and 24th Street / M Street at the east. Construction is expected to begin in early 2014.

Under the Cumulative Year 2015 conditions, the intersection geometric conditions at the five study intersections are assumed to reflect the above improvements. The LOS analyses were conducted with the lane improvements in place. Figure 4.12-5 illustrates the intersection lane configurations for the year 2015 conditions.

Based upon the forecasted growth, Caltrans concluded that additional intercity passenger trains will be needed to serve the San Joaquin Corridor. The modeling conducted under the direction of Caltrans generated the San Joaquin Corridor passenger rail demand forecast. Based on the modeling, Caltrans identifies a demand for 8 passenger trains per day (total 16 trains) on the BNSF tracks between Merced and Bakersfield in 2020. This represents an increase in 2 round-trip trains, for a total of 16 trains using this segment compared to the current total of 12 Amtrak passenger trains. By 2035 the modeling indicates a need for 11 round trip passenger trains per day (total of 22 trains) from Bakersfield to Stockton on the BNSF tracks compared to the current total of 12 Amtrak passenger trains. The passenger trains would be expected to operate with 4 or more passenger cars to meet demand. The modeling effort is used for planning purposes over the 25-year planning period, but the actual future schedules would be developed in response to customer demand.

As described in the Draft California High-Speed Train Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement Fresno to Bakersfield Transportation Analysis Technical Report (California High-Speed Rail Authority, July 2012), the HST would be constructed to be a separate system than the existing passenger and freight rail service and would not impact its operations.



Impact 4.2-4: Contribute to Cumulative Transportation and Traffic Impacts

The evaluation of project traffic impacts was based on future estimated cumulative traffic volumes. As shown in Impact 4.12-1 and Table 4.12-8, which includes future cumulative traffic counts, potential cumulative impacts would be considered less than significant. In addition, the proposed project would result in fewer trips than during the refinery operating baseline period, thus resulting in a net decrease in traffic associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not substantially contribute to any future increase in traffic, and would not result in any future degradation of traffic conditions in the vicinity of the refinery.

The proposed project operating plan is to receive and unload two unit trains within a 24 hour period under the normal operational scenario on an annual average basis. The schedule of delivery is at the discretion of the railroad company and therefore trains could arrive and depart at any time during a 24-hour period. Given the ability to schedule the unit train to avoid passenger train movements, the impacts to public rail transit facility performance would be considered less than significant.



Section 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems


Section 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems

4.13.1 Introduction This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the project’s potential impacts on certain utilities and services: water, electricity, natural gas, solid waste and wastewater, and stormwater. This section also provides the environmental and regulatory settings and discusses mitigation measures to reduce impacts where applicable. A complete description of the proposed project can be found in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR.

4.13.2 Environmental Setting This section describes the existing utility companies that provide service to the existing Alon Bakerfield Refinery and the proposed project area. A description of the existing services to the area is provided for California Water Company, Kern River Transmission Company (areas 1, 2, and 4 for natural gas), and Pacific Gas and Electric (electrical power areas 1, 2, 3, and 4; natural gas area 3); back up natural gas is supplied by Southern California Gas Company in areas 1, 2, and 4)

Water Supply

The capacity to supply water is a function of both available sources and conveyance capacity. Available sources are controlled primarily by a public utility and not by the project proponent. Conveyance of water occurs typically in a pressurized underground pipeline system.

For water, there are usually three sources: 1) natural sources, 2) manmade sources, and 3) reclamation. Natural sources include rivers, lakes, streams, and groundwater stored in aquifers. Manmade sources include runoff water treated and stored in reservoirs and other manmade catchment structures. Reclaimed water is wastewater that has been conveyed to a treatment plant and then treated to a sufficient degree that it may again be used for certain uses (such as irrigation). However, reclaimed water is not potable (drinkable) and must be conveyed in a separate system in order to ensure that there is no possibility of direct human consumption.

The water use during 2000–2007 supported refinery operations at approximately 70 percent of the 70,000 barrels per day (BPD) historical maximum crude processing rate for the refinery of crude oil. In 2007, in addition to bottled potable water from a commercial supplier, the Alon Bakersfield Refinery received approximately 96 million gallons per year of potable water from the California Water Service Company (CWSC) Bakersfield service system. Some of the potable water delivered by CWSC was also used as process water in refinery Area 3. The majority of the refinery’s process water, approximately 533 million gallons per year, was drawn from four private, onsite wells. Combined, these two water sources supplied approximately 629 million gallons annually.

Area 1, 2, and 4 potable water is used for drinking, , washing, flushing, recreational purposes, and other domestic consumption. Water from on-site wells supplies fire protection in Areas 1, 2, and 4. Area 3 potable water is used for drinking, fire protection, washing, flushing, recreational purposes, and other domestic consumption. For the proposed project, the existing potable water supply conveyance system would be used all domestic uses, and the well water utilized for fire protection. Potable water is supplied to the Alon Bakersfield Refinery by the CWSC and in bottles brought

County of Kern 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems


onsite by a commercial supplier. (For discussion of groundwater wells, see Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality.)

Sanitary Wastewater

The sanitary facilities for the refinery offices and locker room facilities are served by an onsite septic system. The refinery is not served by a municipal sewer system. (For discussion of refinery-generated wastewater, see Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality.)

Solid Waste

During norrmal operations, the refinery generated approximately 0.75 ton per day (tpd), or 275 tons per year of solid waste, based on actual 2005 waste generation data. The Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan addresses issues pertaining to nonhazardous waste disposal and other waste facilities. The Waste Management Plan identifies issues, goals, policies, regulations, and enforcement as well as the transfer, storage, and disposal of solid waste.

Kern County is served by seven Class III landfills: Metropolitan Bakersfield (Bena), Boron, Mojave-Rosamond, Ridgecrest, Shafter-Wasco, Taft, and Tehachapi. These facilities accept nonhazardous solid waste only. The refinery’s nonhazardous solid waste is disposed of at the Bena Landfill, which is located 17 miles east of Bakersfield off Highway 58 on Tower Line Road. Trash collection service is provided by Varner Brothers.

Bena Landfill, located at 2951 Neumarkel Road, is owned and operated by the KCWMD. Bena is a Class III landfill located on approximately 2,285 total acres, with about 229 acres permitted for refuse disposal. The landfill accepts construction/demolition, industrial, and mixed municipal wastes. Bena opened in 1992 and is scheduled to close on December 31, 2038. As of June 21, 2001, Bena is authorized to receive an annual average collection of 4,500 tpd (California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2004).

In addition, the Alon Bakersfield Refinery disposes of hazardous waste at various hazardous waste treatment facilities and Class I disposal facilities throughout California and surrounding states. The Refinery typically disposes of California hazardous oil wastes at ether the Clean Harbors Buttonwillow, California facility or the US Ecology facility located in Betty, Nevada. Hazardous wastes that require thermal destruction/treatment, under the applicable state or federal regulations, are sent to one of two Clean Harbor facilities located in Aragonite, Utah or Deer Park, Texas. Spent carbon is regenerated a either California Carbon or Prominent Systems both of which are located in the Los Angeles Basin and Universal Wastes -- fluorescent lights, batteries etc. – are recycled at AERC Recycling Solutions in Hayward California.

Natural Gas

Refinery Fuel Gas. The primary fuel for the refinery is refinery fuel gas. These are the gaseous components naturally present in crude oil generated during the refining process and recovered from tank vapor recovery systems. Refinery fuel gas is similar in many respects to natural gas, although it often has different composition and the gas varies, depending on the crude and the processes it has been subjected to. The refinery also uses natural gas supplied by the utility to supplement the refinery fuel gas requirements. It also uses natural gas in certain refining units where needed to meet the emission limits imposed in the air permits; certain process requirements; and tank blanketing.



Areas 1 and 2. Areas 1 and 2 are comprised of the majority of the refinery processing equipment, located at the Rosedale Highway primary location. The primary source for natural gas for Areas 1 and 2 of the existing refinery is the Mojave Gas Pipeline. This line is supplied by the Kern River-Mojave Transmission Line owned by the Kern River Transmission Company, which carries natural gas from Wyoming to the Bakersfield area. The natural gas in this system comes from a variety of sources. Areas 1 and 2 currently require an average of 11,000 thousand British thermal units per day (MMBtu/day).

Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) currently has two meters located in Areas 1 and 2. The refinery’s natural gas supply, provided by SoCalGas, is used as a backup to the primary natural gas source. This backup source of natural gas is used when the primary source gas line (i.e., Kern River-Mojave Transmission Line) unavailable.

Area 3. Area 3 of the existing refinery uses an average of 250 MMBtu/day of natural gas supplied by PG&E.

Area 4. Area 4 is serviced by the SoCalGas supply line for back-up supply.

Electricity

The refinery (Areas 1, 2, and 3) uses 34 megavolt amperes (MVA) of electricity (equivalent to 29 megawatts [MW]), supplied by PG&E. The capacity to provide this amount of power is present in the existing electrical grid serving the refinery.


Federal

There are no applicable federal plans or policies for this issue area.

State

California Energy Commission (CEC) The CEC regulates the provision of natural gas and electricity within the State. The CEC is the State’s primary energy policy and planning agency. Created in 1974, the CEC has five major responsibilities: forecasting future energy needs and keeping historical energy data, licensing thermal power plants 50 megawatts (MW) or larger, promoting energy efficiency through appliance and building standards, developing energy technologies and supporting renewable energy, and planning for and directing the State response to energy emergencies.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Formerly California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) CalRecycle is the State agency designated to oversee, manage, and track California’s 76 million tons of waste generated each year. It is one of the six agencies under the umbrella of the California Environmental Protection Agency. CalRecycle develops regulations to control and manage waste, for which enforcement authority is typically delegated to the local government. The board works jointly with local government to implement regulations and fund programs.

The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 [Public Resources Code (PRC) 40050 et seq. or Assembly Bill (AB) 939, codified in PRC 40000], administered by CalRecycle, requires all local



and county governments to adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to identify means of reducing the amount of solid waste sent to landfills. This law set reduction targets at 25 percent by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. To assist local jurisdictions in achieving these targets, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 requires all new developments to include adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable and green waste materials.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) The primary responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and nine RWQCBs. The State Board sets statewide policy for the implementation of State and federal laws and regulations. The RWQCBs adopt and implement Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans) which recognize regional differences in natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems associated with human activities.

Regional Water Quality Control Board Order 91-102 Waste Discharge Requirements: California Water Code §13260(a) requires that any person discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of waste discharge (RWD) containing such information and data as may be required by the RWQCB. The RWQCB has a statutory obligation, pursuant to California Water Code §13263, to prescribe waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for each discharge of waste, except where a waiver of WDRs for a specific type of discharge is not against the public interest as described in California Water Code §13269.

Order 91-102, Waste Discharge Requirements for Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. Wastewater Injections Wells, Kern County and Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 91102 were approved by the RWQCB on April 26, 1991, in accordance with Division 7 of the Porter-Cologne Act. Order 91-102 authorizes the disposal of refinery wastewater in four existing deep injection wells and three proposed deep injection wells. Order 91-102 contains requirements regarding the construction and operation of the wells, as well as specific concentration limitations for seven constituents.

The injection wells at the refinery were originally designated as Class V wells by the USEPA because the water quality in the injection zone contained less than 10,000 mg/L of TDS and the fluids being injected are non-hazardous and they did not fit into any of the other four classifications. (See Section 4.7.3 Regulatory Setting Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program.) USEPA subsequently delegated permitting authority for the Class V injection wells at the refinery to the Central Valley RWQCB. Groundwater with less than 10,000 mg/L TDS is considered by USEPA to be an underground source of drinking water (USDW) unless an exemption is granted. USEPA has determined that the Etchegoin/Chanac and Santa Margarita injection zones meet the criteria outlined in 40 CFR Section 146.4 for exemption from classification as a USDW. The exemption is applicable because the receiving aquifers are not currently serving as underground sources of drinking water or an agricultural, municipal, or industrial water supply. The injection zone is not considered a future underground source of drinking water based on its stratigraphic location, water quality, and availability of higher quality water on or near the ground surface. The California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) has determined the Etchegoin/Chanac and Santa Margarita zones to be non-underground sources of drinking water suitable for the injection of produced waters (Class II).



California Department of Toxic Substances Control State (DTSC) The Hazardous Waste Control Law is administered by the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). DTSC has adopted extensive regulations governing the generation, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes. These regulations impose cradle-to-grave requirements for handling hazardous wastes in a manner that protects human health and the environment. The Hazardous Waste Control Law regulations establish requirements for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes. They prescribe management practices for hazardous wastes; establish permit requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identify hazardous wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills. Hazardous waste is tracked from the point of generation to the point of disposal or treatment using hazardous waste manifests. The manifests list a description of the waste, its intended destination, and regulatory information about the waste.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) The California DWR is a department within the California Resources Agency. The DWR is responsible for the State of California's management and regulation of water usage.

Local


The MBGP Land Use and Public Services and Utilities Elements (County of Kern and City of Bakersfield 2007) include the relevant policies listed below.

Chapter II. Land Use Element

Public Facilities Policy

• Policy 54: The developer shall be responsible for all on-site costs incurred as a result of the proposed project, in addition to a proportional share of off-site costs incurred in service extension or improvements. The availability of public or private services or resources shall be evaluated during discretionary project consideration. Availability may affect project approval or result in a reduction in size, density, or intensity otherwise indicated in the general plan’s map provisions.

Chapter X. Public Services and Facilities Element

General Utilities Policy

• Policy 5: Require all new development to pay its pro rata share of the cost of necessary expansion in municipal utilities, facilities, and infrastructure for which it generates demand and upon which it is dependent.

Water Distribution Policy

• Policy 3: Require that all new development proposals have an adequate water supply available.



Sewer Service Goal

• Goal 3: Provide trunk sewer availability to and treatment/disposal capacity for all metropolitan urban areas, to enable cessation or prevention of the use of septic tanks where such usage creates potential public health hazards or may impair groundwater quality, and to assist in the consolidation of sewerage systems. Provide sewer service for urban development regardless of jurisdiction.

Storm Drainage Goal

• Goal 1: Ensure the provision of adequate storm drainage facilities to protect Planning area residents from flooding resulting from stormwater excess.

Solid Waste Goal

• Goal 1: Ensure the provision of adequate solid waste disposal services to meet the demand for these services in the Planning area.

4.13.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential impacts related to public services and public utilities that could result from implementation of the proposed project are discussed below.

Methodology

The potential impacts associated with the proposed project are evaluated on a quantitative and qualitative basis through coordination with the service agencies described above. The discussion below lists specific impacts and measures that would be incorporated to mitigate and reduce potential impacts to the extent feasible.


The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and Kern County Environmental Checklist state that a project would have a significant impact on utilities and service systems if it would:

• Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board;

• Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;

• Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;

• Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed;

• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;

• Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs; or,



• Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Project Impacts

Impact 4.13-1: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board

The refinery is permitted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to inject wastewater into existing permitted injection wells. The ground water in the injection zones is not considered to be a source of potable water. The RWQCB has established maximum concentrations of contaminants and other requirements for wastewater injection and has established enforceable monitoring requirements for the refinery. Further, the injection wells are designed to prevent the discharge or seepage of wastewater into formations overlying the approved injection zone. Monitoring of the injection well annulus is required to detect leaks and an outer casing with cement between the casing and the formation further protects groundwater. The project proponent is required to comply with these various permit conditions and regulatory requirements relative to wastewater disposal.

The Wash Water Recycle project was designed to decrease the amount of Sour Water from the Hydrocracker. In the Wash Water Recycle project, the amount of sour water export is reduced from approximately 35 GPM to 16 GPM; or about a savings of 10 million gallons of water a year.

Process wastewater from the existing refinery is treated in existing wastewater treatment plants and disposed of via injection wells. The proposed project would allow the refinery to bring in more crude via rail but would not increase the crude throughput of the refinery. The proposed process unit upgrades and modifications would not require an increase in water use or wastewater discharged. The proposed project includes modifications to the Hydrocracker Unit that would install new piping and instrumentation to allow recycling of wash water in the Hydrocracker Unit. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to result in a decrease in water use and wastewater discharged from the refinery.

Process wastewater from the existing Refinery is treated in existing wastewater treatment plants and disposed of via injection wells. Areas 1 and 3 wastewater treatment plants use gravity separation, dissolved air flotation units, and filters to remove hydrocarbons from water. The removed hydrocarbons are returned to processing units and the treated wastewater is injected into permitted injection wells for disposal. Injection zones for process wastewater disposal are located beneath confining zones composed of relatively impermeable shale. The Refinery is permitted by the RWQCB to inject wastewater into existing permitted injection wells. The ground water in the vicinity of the Refinery is not considered to be a source of potable water. The RWQCB has established maximum concentrations of contaminants and other requirements for wastewater injection, and has established enforceable monitoring requirements for the Refinery. Further, the injection wells are designed to prevent the discharge or seepage of wastewater into formations overlying the approved injection zone. Monitoring of the injection well annulus is required to detect leaks and an outer casing with cement between the casing and the formation further protects groundwater. Alon is required to comply with these various permit conditions and regulatory requirements relative to wastewater disposal so that significant impacts to wastewater treatment requirements would not be expected.



The decrease in the amount of wastewater treatment will assure continued compliance with applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater requirements and limits established by the RWQCB.

Mitigation Measures

None required.



Impact 4.13-2: Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects

Process wastewater from the existing refinery is treated in existing wastewater treatment plants and disposed of via injection wells. The proposed project would allow the refinery to bring in more crude via rail but would not increase the crude throughput of the refinery. The proposed process unit upgrades and modifications would not require an increase in water use or wastewater discharged.

Mitigation Measures

None required.



Impact 4.13-3: Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects

The proposed project would be built within an existing refinery that is currently graded and would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Secondary containment areas associated with the tank farms and drainage from process unit areas is transported to the oily water, storm water and non-oily water systems, as applicable. Oily water and storm water are treated prior to discharge.

Mitigation Measures

None required.





Impact 4.13-4: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed

The proposed project is not expected to require the use of additional quantities of groundwater. The majority of the refinery’s process water is drawn from four private onsite wells. Water is also delivered to the Refinery from the CWSC. The existing refinery purchases about 96 million gallons of water per year based on recent operations (2007). The proposed project would allow the refinery to bring in more crude via rail but would not increase the crude throughput of the refinery. Further, the proposed process unit upgrades and modifications would not require an increase in water use or wastewater discharged. As explained above, modifications to the Hydrocracker Unit are expected to result in a decrease in water use and wastewater discharged from the unit. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial use of water or groundwater.

Mitigation Measures

None required.



Impact 4.13-5: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments

Process wastewater from the existing refinery is treated in existing wastewater treatment plants and disposed of via injection wells. The proposed project would allow the refinery to bring in more crude via rail but would not increase the crude throughput of the refinery. The proposed process unit upgrades and modifications would not require an increase in water use or wastewater discharged. The proposed project includes modifications to the Hydrocracker Unit that would install new piping and instrumentation to allow recycling of wash water in the Hydrocracker Unit. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to result in a decrease in water use and wastewater discharged from the refinery and would not result in the construction of new water wastewater treatment facilities, or require the expansion of existing facilities.

Mitigation Measures

None required.



Impact 4.13-6: Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs

Construction waste may include waste from demolition of existing buildings and from other construction activities. Demolition of existing buildings would include removal of interior divisions and materials, followed by razing the remaining structures for removal. Waste generated from



construction would generally be in the form of short sections of pipe, wastes from welding and coating, as well as boxes and crates used in the shipment of materials. Other construction wastes may include soils, asphalt, and concrete. Waste materials would typically be hauled to the local recycling centers. The demolition wastes would be recycled where possible and otherwise disposed of at an appropriate landfill. The non-hazardous wastes would be hauled to a sanitary landfill or recycled. Hazardous wastes would be sent to a permitted treatment or disposal facility.

Construction (excavation) activities may encounter soil that through testing is determined to be a hazardous waste. If hazardous waste soil is encountered it must be disposed of at a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility. In California the hazardous waste facility is Clean Harbors (formerly Safety-Kleen) in Buttonwillow (Kern County). Hazardous waste also can be transported to permitted facilities outside of California. The nearest out-of-state landfills are U.S. Ecology, Inc., located in Beatty, Nevada and USPCI, Inc., in Murray, Utah.

Operation of the proposed project is not expected to result in an increase in waste generation. Typical wastes from office activities would continue to be generated, such as cardboard and paper boxes, paper, and plastics. The proposed project is not expected to result in an increase in these types of waste as there would be no increase in the number of employees.

The Kern County Waste Management Department operates seven landfills throughout the county. Landfills are located in Bakersfield (Bena Landfill), Boron, Mojave-Rosamond, Ridgecrest, Shafter-Wasco, Taft and Tehachapi. Construction waste from the proposed project is expected to be minimal, and fall within the permitted capacities of the existing landfills. Operational wastes are not expected to increase as a result of the proposed project, and therefore would not cause an increase of waste being sent to area landfills, or require additional landfill capacity. The combined capacity of these seven landfills exceeds the anticipate amounts of non-hazardous waste that may be generated during construction of the proposed project.

No increase in crude throughput is associated with the proposed project so no increase in the generation of hazardous wastes is expected.

Mitigation Measures

None required.



Impact 4.13-7: Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste

The project would generate solid waste during construction and operations. Common construction waste may include metals, masonry, plastic pipe, rocks, dirt, cardboard, or green waste related to land development. The 1989 California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) requires Kern County to attain specific waste diversion goals. In addition, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, requires expanded or new development projects to incorporate storage areas for recycling bins into the project design. Reuse and recycling of construction debris would reduce operating expenses and save valuable landfill space. The nearby landfills have available capacity to accommodate the solid waste anticipated to be generated by the project. Therefore, the project would not be expected to significantly impact Kern County landfills.



Nevertheless, MM 4.13-1 and MM 4.13-2 are provided herein to ensure compliance with policies to reduce waste sent to landfills.

Mitigation Measures MM 4.13-1 During construction activities for the facilities of the project, the project proponent

shall reduce construction waste transported to landfills by recycling solid waste construction materials to the extent feasible, such as taking materials to recycling and reuse locations listed in the brochure on recycling construction and demolition materials available on the Kern County Waste Management Department website.

MM 4.13-2 During construction activities for the facilities of the project, the Building Inspector shall verify that the project proponent has provided a fenced storage area for recyclable materials that is clearly identified for recycling. This area shall be maintained on the site during construction and operations. A site plan showing the recycling storage area shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department and Kern County Waste Management Department prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for the site.

Mitigation Measures

None required.




Cumulative Setting

The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to public services includes a six-mile radius from the project site. Analysis of cumulative impacts takes into consideration the entirety of impacts that the projects, zone changes, and general plan amendments discussed in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, would have on utilities and service sections.

Impact 4.13-8: Cumulative Impacts to Utilities

The proposed project would result in a net reduction of water, wastewater treatment and wastewater disposal. The refinery service systems can already accommodate higher wastewater treatment and disposal volumes than those that would occur under the proposed Project. The refinery also does not require any outside services for the proposed project. As such, the proposed Project contribution to cumulative impacts would ne negligible. Therefore, the cumulative impacts to public services would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

None required.



Chapter 5 Consequences of Project Implementation


Chapter 5 Consequences of Project Implementation

5.1 Environmental Effects Found To Be Less than Significant Section 15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) “contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.”

Kern County has engaged the public in the scoping of the environmental document. Comments received during scoping have been considered in the process of identifying issue areas that should receive attention in the EIR. The contents of this EIR were established based on an Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (NOP) prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and on public and agency input received during the scoping process. Issues that were found to have no impact or less-than-significant impacts during preparation of the Initial Study/NOP do not need to be addressed further in this EIR. Based on the findings of the NOP and the results of scoping, a determination was made that the EIR must contain a comprehensive analysis of all environmental issues identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

After further study and environmental review in this EIR, direct and indirect impacts of the project (not including cumulative impacts) would be less than significant or could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with mitigation measures for the following issue areas:

• Air Quality

• Biological Resources (portion)

• Cultural Resources

• Geology and Soils

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions

• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (portion)

• Hydrology and Water Quality (portion)

• Land Use and Planning

• Mineral Resources

• Noise

• Public Services

• Transportation and Traffic

• Utilities and Service Systems

5.2 Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot Be Avoided Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to less-than-significant levels. Potential environmental effects of the proposed project and proposed mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of this EIR.

The following environmental impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable (refer to Table 5-1, Summary of Significant Impacts of the Project).

County of Kern 5.0 Consequences of Project Implementation



Resources Project Impacts Cumulative Impacts

Air Quality Construction impacts associated with the proposed project result in 10.43 tons of NOx, emissions, which exceed the 10 ton per year significance threshold adopted by the Board of Supervisors and the SJVAPCD Board. As such, project construction activities would result in a temporary significant and unavoidable impact.

Cumulative criteria pollutant emissions with respect to approved and proposed projects within one and six miles of the proposed project are presented in Section 4.1. Given the magnitude of potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with approved and proposed projects within one and six miles of the proposed project, the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department considers the project’s construction emissions and cumulative criteria pollutant emissions impacts to be significant and unavoidable.


In the unlikely event of an oil spill along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks, there may be no oil spill containment or cleanup equipment immediately available, and it may take some time for emergency response teams to mobilize adequate spill response equipment. Depending upon the location of the spill this could allow enough time for the spill to impact sensitive habitat and plants and animal species. Therefore, oil spills along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks could be significant and unavoidable, depending upon the location of the spill.

Cumulative crude oil rail transportation associated with the proposed project, BNSF Railway and UPRR mainline crude oil transportation results in an elevated risk of an oil spill and potential impacts to biological resources that would be considered significant and unavoidable.


Implementing mitigation measures 4.7-1 would reduce spill-related impacts onsite. However, depending on the location of the spill (i.e., whether the spill drains into sumps and onsite treatment facilities and whether the leak is above ground or below ground), and the timing and adequacy of the spill response, there may be sufficient time for surface spills to infiltrate onsite soils and further impact underlying groundwater quality. Therefore, depending on these variables, water quality impacts could be significant and unavoidable. In the unlikely event of an oil spill along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks, there may be no oil spill containment or cleanup equipment immediately available, and it may take some time for emergency response teams to mobilize adequate spill response equipment. Depending upon the location of the spill this could allow enough time for the spill to impact water resources. Therefore, oil spills along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks could be significant and unavoidable, depending upon the location of the spill.

The region of influence for water quality impacts would include all of the cumulative projects listed in Section 3.9, Cumulative Projects, as all of these projects overlie the same upper and lower aquifer that underlies the refinery. Potential spills from either of the three nearby refineries, as well as from any of the industrial facilities listed in Section 3.9 could contribute to existing high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the upper aquifer and potentially result in adverse impacts to drinking water supplies of the lower aquifer. Fluctuations of water levels in the wells within the Kern County Subbasin, installed at different depths, indicate that water moves not only within aquifers, but also around or through the less permeable sediments, suggesting that the lower aquifer could ultimately be affected by spills. Impacts are considered significant and unavoidable, even with incorporation of SWPPPs, BMPs, and SPCCs at each of these facilities. In addition, cumulative crude oil rail transportation associated with the Alon Refinery and BNSF Railway mainline crude oil transportation results in an elevated risk of an oil spill and potential impacts to water quality that would be considered significant and unavoidable.



5.3 Significant Irreversible Impacts Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines defines an irreversible impact as an impact that uses nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project. Irreversible impacts can also result from damage caused by environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to ensure that such consumption is justified.

Build-out of the project would commit nonrenewable resources during project construction and ongoing utility services during project operations. During project operations, oil, gas, and other nonrenewable resources would be consumed. Therefore, an irreversible commitment of nonrenewable resources would occur as a result of long-term project operations. However, assuming that those commitments occur in accordance with the adopted goals, policies, and implementation measures of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP), as a matter of public policy, those commitments have been determined to be acceptable. The MBGP ensures that any irreversible environmental changes associated with those commitments will be minimized.

5.4 Significant Cumulative Impacts According to Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, the term cumulative impacts “refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Individual effects that may contribute to a cumulative impact may be from a single project or a number of separate projects. Individually, the impacts of a project may be relatively minor, but when considered along with impacts of other closely related or nearby projects, including newly proposed projects, the effects could be cumulatively considerable.

This EIR has considered the potential cumulative effects of the proposed project. Impacts for the following have been found to be cumulatively considerable:

• Air Quality

Result in a project level considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).


Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS.

Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Any Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, Regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Federally Protected Wetlands as Defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Including, but not Limited to, Marsh, Vernal Pool, Coastal, etc.) Through Direct Removal, Filling, Hydrological interruption, or Other Means.

• Hydrology and Water Quality Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements



Each of these significant cumulative impacts is discussed in the applicable section of Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR.

5.5 Growth Inducement The KCGP, which works in tandem with the MBGP, recognizes that certain forms of growth are beneficial, both economically and socially. In accordance with Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must “discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” In addition, when discussing growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project, “it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment” (Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines) (CCR, 2005). Two issues can be considered when assessing the growth-inducing impacts of a project:

• Elimination of Obstacles to Population Growth: The extent to which additional infrastructure capacity or a change in regulatory structure will allow additional development in the County and region.

• Promotion of Economic Growth: The extent to which the proposed project can cause increased activity in the local or regional economy. Economic impacts can include direct effects, such as the direction and strategies implemented within the project area, and indirect or secondary impacts, such as increased commercial activity needed to serve the Kern Council of Governments’(COG) population growth forecasts for the project area.

The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to population growth is considered to be a growth-inducing impact. A physical obstacle to population growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways, water mains, and sewer lines, into areas that are not currently provided with these services is expected to support new development. Similarly, the elimination of change in a regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, can result in new population growth.

In the case of the proposed project, all public service infrastructures are currently available to the project site and will not require upgrades. Approval of the project would not facilitate development in the project area, and consequently, the proposed project would not result in growth-inducing impacts.

The increased crude oil import flexibility and process unit upgrades as a result of the implementation of the proposed project would not generate a secondary or indirect demand for other industrial services. Throughput of the refinery would remain at the historic maximum of 70,000 barrels per day. The only change would be an increase of crude oil imports via the upgraded rail terminal facility and unloading facilities.

Because the proposed project will not substantially alter the population projections adopted by the Kern COG, the secondary effects of increased demand for goods and services is independent of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce additional population growth in the County.

5.6 Energy Conservation In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, CEQA requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular



emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy (see Public Resources Code section 21100(b)(3)). According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy including: (1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption; (2) decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil; and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

Compliance with all applicable building codes, as well as with County policies and proposed mitigation measures identified in this EIR, would ensure that energy is conserved to the maximum extent possible.

As discussed above in Section 5.3, resources that would be consumed as a result of proposed project implementation include water, electricity, and fossil fuels during construction and operation. Additionally, construction would require the manufacture of new materials, some of which would not be recyclable at the end of the project’s lifetime, and the energy required for the production of these materials would also result in an irretrievable commitment of natural resources. The anticipated equipment, vehicles, and materials required for construction of the proposed project are detailed in Chapter 3, Project Description. However, the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in significant environmental impacts or the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources. Compliance with all applicable building codes, as well as County policies and the mitigation measures identified in this EIR would ensure that all natural resources are conserved to the maximum extent possible.

No increases in inefficiencies or unnecessary energy consumption are expected to occur as a direct or indirect consequence of the Project. No mitigation measures above those already present in this EIR would be necessary.

Chapter 6 Alternatives


Chapter 6 Alternatives

6.1 Introduction

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project site that could feasibly avoid or lessen any significant environmental impacts of the project while attaining most of the project’s basic objectives. An EIR also must compare and evaluate the environmental effects and comparative merits of the alternatives. This chapter describes alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration, including the reasons for elimination, and compares the environmental impacts of several alternatives retained with those of the project.

The following are key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6):

• The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.

• The No Project Alternative shall be evaluated, along with its impacts. The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation was published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.

• The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason;” therefore, the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.

• For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.

• An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.

The range of feasible alternatives is selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives, as described in Section 15126.6(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, and that would not achieve the basic project objectives.

County of Kern 6.0 Alternatives


The project has the potential to have significant adverse effects on

• Air Quality,

• Biological Resources, and

• Hydrology And Water Quality

Even with the Mitigation Measures described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR, impacts in these issue areas would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, per the CEQA Guidelines, this section discusses alternatives that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening effects on these resources. Significant, unavoidable impacts of the project are summarized below. Following these summaries, Section 6.2, Project Objectives, restates the project proponent’s project objectives. Section 6.3, Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration, presents alternatives to the project that were considered but eliminated for further analysis. Section 6.4, Alternatives Analyzed in This EIR, presents alternatives fully analyzed in this EIR, provides a comparison of alternatives, and makes a determination about the environmentally superior alternative.

Significant Impacts of the Project

Air Quality

Significant unavoidable air quality impact during operation of the project includes: Impact 4.1-3: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Specifically, whether implementation of the project would exceed any of the following adopted thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD): ROG: 10 tpy, NOx: 10 tpy, PM10: 15 tpy; Stationary Sources (as defined by the SJVAPCD) – Extreme Nonattainment: 10 tpy.

Construction impacts associated with the proposed project result in 10.43 tons of NOx, emissions, which exceed the 10 ton per year significance threshold adopted by the Board of Supervisors and the SJVAPCD Board. As such, project construction activities would result in a temporary significant and unavoidable impact. Emission increases associated with the other criteria air pollutants are expected to be less than significant.


Significant and unavoidable biological resources impacts of the project include: Impact 4.2-1 (Substantial Adverse Effects to Special-Status Species), Impact 4.2.2 (Substantial Adverse Effect on Any Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community), Impact 4.2.3 (Substantial Adverse Effect on Federally Protected Wetlands) and Impact 4.2-5 (Contribute to Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts).

In the unlikely event of an oil spill along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks, there would likely be no oil spill containment or cleanup equipment available, and it would likely take some time for emergency response teams to mobilize adequate spill response equipment. Depending upon the location of the spill this could allow enough time for the spill to impact sensitive habitat and plants and animal species. Therefore, oil spills along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks could be significant and unavoidable, depending upon the location of the spill. Cumulative crude oil rail transportation associated with the Alon Bakersfield Refinery, BNSF Railway and UPRR mainline



crude oil transportation results in a cumulatively high probability of an oil spill and potential impacts to biological resources that would be considered significant and unavoidable.


Significant and unavoidable hydrology and water quality impacts of the project include: Impact 4.7-1: Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements and cumulative impacts to water quality and Impact 4.7-9: Contribute to Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts). These potential impacts are associated with a potential oil spill along the railway mainline tracks. Impacts at the existing refinery site are considered to be less than significant.

Depending on the location of the spill (i.e., whether the spill drains into sumps and onsite treatment facilities and whether the leak is above ground or below ground), and the timing and adequacy of the spill response, there may be sufficient time for surface spills to infiltrate onsite soils and further impact underlying groundwater quality. Therefore, depending on these variables, water quality impacts could be significant and unavoidable.

In the unlikely event of an oil spill along the BNSF Railway mainline tracks, there would likely be no oil spill containment or cleanup equipment available, and it would likely take some time for emergency response teams to mobilize adequate spill response equipment. Depending upon the location of the spill this could allow enough time for the spill to impact water resources. Therefore, oil spills along the BNSF mainline tracks could be significant and unavoidable, depending upon the location of the spill.

Potential spills from either of the three nearby refineries, as well as from any of the industrial facilities listed in Section 3.9 could contribute to existing high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the upper aquifer and potentially result in adverse impacts to drinking water supplies of the lower aquifer. Fluctuations of water levels in the wells within the Kern County Subbasin, installed at different depths, indicate that water moves not only within aquifers, but also around or through the less permeable sediments, suggesting that the lower aquifer could ultimately be affected by spills. Impacts are considered significant and unavoidable, even with incorporation of SWPPPs, BMPs, and SPCCs at each of these facilities. In addition, cumulative crude oil rail transportation associated with the Alon Bakersfield Refinery and BNSF Railway mainline crude oil transportation results in the potential for an oil spill and subsequent impacts to water quality that would be considered significant and unavoidable.

Other Impacts of the Project

Impacts of the project on the other resources evaluated in this EIR were found to be either less than significant or less than significant after mitigation. Therefore, consideration of alternatives that would further reduce impacts on these resources is not required by CEQA. Only alternatives that reduce or substantially lessen the project’s impacts on air quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality are considered in this EIR. If one of the alternatives would cause a greater adverse impact on another resource, these impacts are disclosed in Section 6.4, Alternatives Analyzed in this EIR. Otherwise, impacts to the remaining resources evaluated in this EIR are not discussed further in this section.



6.2 Project Objectives The objectives of the project are to provide greater flexibility for the Alon Bakersfield Refinery to utilize a variety of crude oils that can be processed in order to better manage operational costs and to increase efficiency of onsite production. In addition, the project would expand the existing crude terminal operations of the facility. In order to accomplish the project objectives, facilities must be installed to enable crude delivery via unit train and transfer of crude into the refinery for processing and into the existing pipeline network for transfer to other refineries. As part of the project, minor unit efficiency upgrades and modifications are planned to enhance operating flexibility required to process crude oils with different physical properties. Specific objectives include:









CEQA requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and that would feasibly attain most of the project objectives (Title 14, Section 15126.6). Attainment of the project objectives is discussed for each retained alternative in Section 6.4.

6.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in an EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[c]). Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, also do not need to be considered (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126[f][2]). Kern County considered several alternatives to reduce impacts on air quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality. Per CEQA, the lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible and warrant further consideration and which are infeasible. The following alternatives were initially considered but were eliminated from further consideration in this EIR because they do not meet project objectives and/or were infeasible.



Truck Transportation of Crude Oil The proposed rail loop and offloading facility will have the capacity to unload approximately two unit trains per peak day with approximately 104 tank cars each. Each DOT-111 tank car has a capacity of 34,500 gallons (821 barrels). The facility could handle up to 740 unit trains per year. The facility would be able to offload an average of 150,000 BPD into tankage with an annual crude oil/product throughput of 54,750,000 barrels. Crude oil in excess of the refinery annual capacity of 25,550,000 barrels per year would be exported to other refineries via pipeline at a rate of up to 150,000 BPD.

Trucks that transport crude oil have a capacity of 8,000 gallons. The use of trucks to transport crude oil would require approximately 287,400 truck round trips per year to achieve the same capacity as the rail unloading facility. This would result in an increase in air pollutant emissions and spill risk as compared to the proposed project. This alternative would not avoid any of the significant impacts associated with the proposed project, and would result in an increase in the severity of the significant impacts. In addition, this alternative would create new significant impacts for Transportation and Traffic, Greenhouse Gases and Noise.

Alternative Rail Unloading Sites An alternative rail unloading site would not offer any benefit over the current Alon Bakersfield Refinery site. The proposed project site is well suited to accommodating the modified rail spur, the collocation at the refinery serves to minimize additional pipeline transportation hazards and takes advantage of existing refinery assets and BNSF Railway mainline rail access. An alternative rail site would not avoid or lessen any of the significant impacts identified for the proposed project, and would likely result in greater impacts in areas such as Land Use, Biological Resources and Agriculture and potentially located on a secondary or branch rail line.

No Refinery Improvements An alternative that constructs the rail spur, but does not include the proposed refinery improvements would not allow the project the flexibility to process varying grades of crude oil and would not meet the basic objectives of the project. The lack of refinery improvements would likely result in an increase in potential hazards associated with operating the refinery components that are proposed to be replaced.

6.4 Alternatives Analyzed in This EIR Alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and that would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives are analyzed below. Each alternative is discussed with respect to its relationship to the project’s objectives. Kern County has considered the following alternatives, which are also identified in Table 6-1, Comparison of Alternatives, and discussed individually below:

• Alternative A: No Project Alternative;

• Alternative B: Reduced Rail Deliveries; and

• Alternative C: Linear Rail Unloading facility.



Table 6-1 Comparison of Alternatives

Environmental Resource Project Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Air Quality: Cumulative net increase of nonattainment pollutants (construction)


Less severe Equivalent Slightly more severe

Biology: Substantial Adverse Effects to Special-Status Species and Habitat



Biological resources: Contribute to Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts



Hydrology and Water Quality: Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements (operations)

Significant / unavoidable Less severe

Less severe, but significant unavoidable

Equivalent

Hydrology and Water Quality: Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements (cumulative)

Significant / unavoidable Less severe Equivalent Equivalent

Alternative A: No Project CEQA requires that the specific alternative of the “No Project” be evaluated along with its impacts as part of the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) (1)). For projects that are other than a land use or regulatory plan, the No Project alternative is the circumstances under which the project does not proceed. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal for another project, this No Project consequence should be discussed (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B)). The State CEQA Guidelines go on to say that the Lead Agency should analyze the impacts of the No Project Alternative by projecting what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project was not approved (Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(C)).

Air Quality The proposed project was found to have potentially significant impacts associated with NOx emissions during project construction on both a project level and cumulative basis. Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no construction emissions and this impact would be avoided.

Biological Resources Potential impacts to biological resources are all the result of crude oil transportation; in the case of the proposed project during rail transportation both on a project and cumulative basis. A reduction in the number of rail deliveries to the current baseline of 40 railcars per day would serve to reduce the risk of a unit train accident and oil spill that could impact biological resources that are directly associated with the proposed project. However, the proposed project would not affect the demand for crude oil, but would only influence how crude oil is delivered to regional refineries, thus shifting potential biological impacts to unit trains associated with other rail unloading facilities, or other modes of transportation. Therefore, this alternative does not offer any substantial or measurable benefit over the proposed project in terms of impacts to biological resources along transportation corridors.



Hydrology and Water Quality Reducing the number of unit train deliveries to the current baseline of 40 railcars per day would reduce the probability of an oil spill at the rail unloading facilities and on the rail spur, but would not change the probability and severity of other types of oil spills. Therefore, potential impacts to water quality at the refinery site are only slightly reduced over the proposed project and would still be considered significant and unavoidable.



Conclusion and Relationship to Project Objectives The Applicant’s proposed project is to upgrade several refinery process units and the construction and operation of a rail unloading facility for crude oil. With the No Project Alternative, no refinery improvements would occur and no new rail unloading facility would be built or operated, and no new activity would occur at proposed site beyond the current permitted activities. The refinery currently is permitted to unload up to 40 cars a day of crude oil on 20 existing unloading spots. Crude oil would continue to be delivered to the refinery by pipeline, rail and truck.

The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.

Alternative B: Reduced Rail Deliveries With this alternative the number of train deliveries to the Alon Bakersfield Refinery would be limited to a maximum of seven per week (the proposed project would allow a maximum of 14 trains per week), with an annual total of 370 trains.

All other aspects of this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. The reader is referred to Chapter 3, Project Description, for a detailed description of the construction and operations of the rail spur.

Air Quality As a result of the Project NOx emissions within the SJVAB are expected to increase by 202 tons per year. This is because of a significant increase in the number of unit trains transporting crude oil to



the refinery, and because these trips are assumed to traverse nearly the entire north-south extent of the air basin. This is a worst-case assumption since unit trains may instead travel on an east-west route, which would result in 65 percent fewer emissions within the SJVAB. As a result, NOx emission increases associated with the proposed project are expected to have a significant adverse impact on air quality. This alternative would reduce the amount of NOx emissions associated with the proposed project’s rail transportation, but would likely shift these emissions to other rail unloading facilities or other modes of transportation. The proposed project would not affect the demand for crude oil, but would only influence how crude oil is delivered to regional refineries. Therefore, NOx emissions associated with crude oil deliveries would not likely be much different than under the current baseline. As a result, this alternative does not offer any substantial or measurable benefit over the proposed project for cumulative emissions of a nonattainment pollutant.

Biological Resources Potential impacts to biological resources are all the result of crude oil transportation; in the case of the proposed project during rail transportation both on a project and cumulative basis. A reduction in the number of rail deliveries would serve to reduce the risk of a unit train accident and oil spill that could impact biological resources that are directly associated with the proposed project. However, the proposed project would not affect the demand for crude oil, but would only influence how crude oil is delivered to regional refineries, thus shifting potential biological impacts to unit trains associated with other rail unloading facilities, or other modes of transportation. Therefore, this alternative does not offer any substantial or measurable benefit over the proposed project in terms of impacts to biological resources along transportation corridors.

Hydrology and Water Quality This alternative could potentially reduce the severity of an impact associated with an oil spill at the refinery. Depending on the location of a spill (i.e., whether the spill drains into sumps and onsite treatment facilities and whether the leak is above ground or below ground), and the timing and adequacy of the spill response, there may be sufficient time for surface spills to infiltrate onsite soils and further impact underlying groundwater quality. Therefore, depending on these variables, water quality impacts could be significant and unavoidable. Reducing the number of unit train deliveries would reduce the probability of an oil spill at the rail unloading facilities and on the rail spur, but would not change the probability and severity of other types of oil spills. Therefore, potential impacts to water quality at the refinery site are only slightly reduced over the proposed project and would still be considered significant and unavoidable.


Potential cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality result from the operations of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery and rail unloading facilities along with other large regional industrial facilities.



In addition, cumulative rail impacts associated with the proposed project and other marketing terminals would have the potential to impact water quality. This alternative does not change the magnitude of this risk, but only serves to shift the risk to unit trains associated with other facilities and other modes of crude oil transportation. Therefore, this alternative does not change the cumulative risk to water quality and potential cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Conclusion and Relationship to Project Objectives While this alternative would have the potential to reduce the level of significant impacts that have been identified for the proposed project, the impacts would still be considered significant and unavoidable.

Additionally, the reduced project would only minimally meet the project objectives, and while still providing enough crude oil to service the refinery, would significantly hinder the functionality of the marketing terminal aspect of the proposed project. In the absence of crude oil from the marketing terminal for distribution to regional refineries, these refineries will be required to obtain crude oil feedstock elsewhere. As a result, the reduced rail project only serves to shift potential impacts to other rail facilities and modes of crude oil transportation. Since the demand for crude oil is market driven, the reduced project would not change how much oil is transported throughout the region, but would only shift where crude oil is obtained and how it is transported. The proposed project offers a central distribution point for crude oil that is imported from other regions and concentrates potential environmental impacts at the existing Alon Bakersfield Refinery site that is zoned for heavy industry.

This alternative would only minimally meet the project objectives, and would limit the project’s ability to meet the objective of provide crude oil to third parties.

Alternative C: Linear Rail Unloading Configuration The proposed project would use a loop track configuration for the delivery and unloading of the crude oil unit trains. An alternative track layout would be to use a linear ladder stub track configuration.

Modification of the existing rail spur would include constructing six parallel tracks, each long enough to hold a third of a train. A line diagram of the rail tracks is shown in Figure 6-1. The existing rail spur on the eastern portion of the property currently provides rail access to the existing unloading rack and would provide a entry point for the new tracks and unloading rack. Trains arriving from the west would be required to back into the refinery. Two of the tracks would surround an unloading rack while a third track would serve as the run around track to the receiving and staging location. All three tracks, two unloading and the run around come together and then would come together to form a common track that extends to the west of the loading area to allow for the entire train to be broken into sections to be parked off of the mainline track and staged to allow switching for unloading. Six holding or staging stub end ladder tracks would extend in a north south orientation in Area 4 to allow a train to be received from the BNSF Railway. The tracks are summarized below:

• Existing Refinery Spur Track 103 – The existing refinery spur track provides access from the BNSF south mainline track to the refinery from the east. This existing track may be upgraded as part of this project.


Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project 6-10 February 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Figure 6-1. Alternative C: Linear Rail Unloading Facility

North

Track 103Track 104

Bad Order Track

BNSF

Track 10

Unloading TracksTracks 7 (so.) & Track 8 (no.)

Run Around TrackTrack 9

Receiving and Storage Tracks

Track 1Track 2Track 3Track 4Track 5Track 6

New TracksBNSFExisting Alon TracksUnloading Rack

To F

resn

oTo

Bak

ersf

ield

Key



• Tracks 8 and 9 (Rail Car Unloading Tracks) – These unloading tracks would run on either side of the unloading rack to allow for rail car unloading. These tracks join with each other at both ends of the unloading rack and merges with Track 2 after the unloading rack. The unloading rack is designed to unload 26 rail cars at a time on each track for a total of 52 cars.

• Tracks 1-6 3 (Car Holding Tracks) – These six stub ended ladder tracks run along the western portion of the refinery and would be used to receive unit trains as well as staging empty cars after unloading id complete. Due to constraints of available land the trains received would require to be broken into up to three sections per train.

Bad Order Track – This track consists of one short section (accommodating up to ten cars) running to the side of run around spur track. This existing track would be used for rail cars requiring inspection and/or repair before continued use, as needed. Air Quality

As a result of the project NOx emissions within the SJVAB are expected to increase by 202 tons per year. This is because of a significant increase in the number of unit trains transporting crude oil to the refinery, and because these trips are assumed to traverse nearly the entire north-south extent of the air basin. This is a worst-case assumption since unit trains may instead travel on an east-west route, which would result in 65 percent fewer emissions within the SJVAB. As a result, NOx emission increases associated with the proposed project are expected to have a significant adverse impact on air quality. This alternative does not offer any substantial or measurable benefit over the proposed project for cumulative emissions of a nonattainment pollutant. This alternative would have a footprint that is similar in magnitude when compared to the proposed project loop rail spur, and therefore, a slight reduction in construction emissions. However, potential impacts associated with construction of the rail spur are considered less than significant.

Biological Resources Potential impacts to biological resources are all the result of crude oil transportation; in the case of the proposed project during rail transportation both on a project and cumulative basis. This alternative would have identical impacts to the proposed project since the number of rail deliveries would remain the same.

Hydrology and Water Quality This alternative would have no effect on the severity of an impact associated with an oil spill at the refinery. Depending on the location of a spill (i.e., whether the spill drains into sumps and onsite treatment facilities and whether the leak is above ground or below ground), and the timing and adequacy of the spill response, there may be sufficient time for surface spills to infiltrate onsite soils and further impact underlying groundwater quality. Changing the rail spur configuration would not change the probability and severity of an oil spill on the rail spur or any other types of oil spills. Therefore, potential impacts to water quality at the refinery site would not change under this alternative and would still be considered significant and unavoidable.

In the unlikely event of an oil spill along the BNSF mainline tracks, there would likely be no oil spill containment or cleanup equipment available, and it would likely take some time for emergency response teams to mobilize adequate spill response equipment. Depending upon the location of the spill this could allow enough time for the spill to impact water resources. This alternative would not change this impact, which would remain significant and unavoidable.



Potential cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality result from the operations of the Alon Bakersfield Refinery and rail unloading facilities along with other large regional industrial facilities. In addition, cumulative rail impacts associated with the proposed Project and other marketing terminals would have the potential to impact water quality. This alternative does not change this risk. Therefore, this alternative does not change the cumulative risk to water quality and potential cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Conclusion and Relationship to Project Objectives The use of a rail spur linear configuration track layout instead of the proposed loop configuration does not offer any environmental benefit, and may result in slightly higher air emissions during unloading activities.

All Project-related significant and unavoidable impacts would remain the same for this alternative. Therefore, this alternative does not offer any environmental benefit over the proposed project.

Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative to the project. Alternative A: the No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the project on the basis of the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the no project alternative is found to be environmentally superior, “the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” Although Alternative A is the environmentally superior alternative, it is not capable of meeting most of the basic objectives of the project.

Though the other alternatives have a relatively similar magnitude of impacts, Alternative B offers a very slight reduction of impacts to Air Quality and Hydrology/Water Quality; and is therefore considered the environmentally superior alternative.

As described above, Alternative B would achieve most of the project’s objectives, although at a lower level of production. Alternative C would slightly reduce significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and Hydrology/Water Quality compared to the proposed project, although probably not to less than significant levels. Additionally, Alterative B would either shift potential impacts to other areas or modes of crude oil transportation, which reduces any significant environmental benefit over the proposed project.

It is also noted that the project’s refinery enhancements will serve to reduce impacts associated with the replacement of some aging equipment, and the centralization of the rail spur and marketing terminal at the existing refinery result in an efficient method for distributing crude oil in the region with the least environmental risk.

Chapter 7 Response to Comments


Chapter 7 Response to Comments

This Chapter is being reserved for, and will be included with, the Final EIR.

Chapter 8 Organizations and Persons Consulted


Chapter 8 Organizations and Persons Consulted

Federal Agencies

United States Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety Analysis

State Agencies

California Resource Agency California Air Resources Board Department of Conservation Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Water Resources Department of Fish and Game Public Utilities Commission Native American Heritage Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board / Central Valley Region

Kern County

Kern County Engineering, Survey, and Permit Services Department Kern County Parks and Recreation Kern County Planning and Community Development Department Kern County Roads Department

Chapter 9 Preparers


Chapter 9 Preparers

Lead Agency Kern County Planning and Community Development Department

Mr. Craig Murphy – Advanced Planning/Community Development Division Chief Ms. Jacquelyn Kitchen – Supervising Planner, Advanced Planning Division Mr. Ross Fehrman– Planner I, Advanced Planning Division

Technical Assistance Marine Research Specialists

Mr. Steve Radis, Project Manager Mr. Luis Perez, Senior Land Use Planner Mr. Greg Chittick, Senior Engineer Ms. Bonnie Luke, Senior Biologist Mr. Dean Dussette, Air Quality Specialists Mr. Michael Cassata, Land Use Planner Ms. Brittney Stephens, Technical Editor

Leidos Mr. Perry Russell, Senior Geologist Mr. Joel Degner, Water Resource Specialist

Chapter 10 Bibliography


Chapter 10 Bibliography

American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), 2011. Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) Values, 2011.

American Association of Railroads, 2013a. Railroad Tank Cars Fact Sheet.

______. 2013b. Moving Crude Oil by Rail.

American Industrial Hygiene Association. 2005. Emergency Response Planning Guidelines

American Petroleum Institute (API). 2004. Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methodologies for the Oil and Gas Industry, available from www.wrapair.org/ClimateChange/GHGProtocol/docs/2004-02_API_COMPENDIUM_of_GHG_Emission_Methodologies_from_O&G.pdf (accessed January 22, 2014).

Asa, D. 1984. The Truck Data Book. Washington, D.C.

Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), 2007. Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents (Final), June 29, 2007, available at ftp.water.ca.gov/DES/BDCP/Association of Environmental Professionals 2007.pdf (accessed January 22, 2014).

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, available at www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf (accessed January 22, 2014).

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf (accessed March 29, 2013).

______. 2009a. History of Hydrogen Sulfide Ambient Air Quality Standard, November 24, 2009. Available www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/h2s/h2s.htm (accessed April 16, 2013).

______. 2009b. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, 2009. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac.htm (accessed March 25, 2013).

______. 2009c. BNSF Locomotive Fleet Statistics for 2009 (as of December 31, 2009). Available at www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/loco/loco.htm (accessed January 31, 2014).

______. 2010a. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons – Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets and the Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Fleet Requirements, October 2010. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/ offroadlsi10.htm (accessed May 22, 2013).

______. 2010b. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons – Proposed Regulation to Implement the California Cap-and-Trade Program, Part I, Volume I, October 28, 2010. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/capandtrade10.htm (accessed May 6, 2013).

http://www.wrapair.org/ClimateChange/GHGProtocol/docs/2004-02_API_COMPENDIUM_of_GHG_Emission_Methodologies_from_O&G.pdf

http://www.wrapair.org/ClimateChange/GHGProtocol/docs/2004-02_API_COMPENDIUM_of_GHG_Emission_Methodologies_from_O&G.pdf

ftp://ftp.water.ca.gov/DES/BDCP/Association of Environmental Professionals 2007.pdf

ftp://ftp.water.ca.gov/DES/BDCP/Association of Environmental Professionals 2007.pdf

http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf

http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf

County of Kern 10.0 Bibliography


______. 2011. Final Statement of Reasons –California’s Cap-and-Trade Program, October 2011. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/capandtrade10.htm (accessed May 6, 2013).

______. 2012a. Air Quality Standards and Area Designations, updated December 21, 2012. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm (accessed April 2, 2013). This page presents a link to the State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards in tabular form (dated 6/7/2012). Note, however, that on December 14, 2012, the U.S. EPA lowered the primary PM2.5 standard from 15 to 12 µg/m3 (effective March 18, 2013, per the EPA rulemaking published on January 15, 2013). This change is not reflected in the CARB 6/7/2012 table.

______. 2012b. Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (version 1.4f), compiled May 4, 2012. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/harp/harpdownload.htm (accessed June 3, 2013).

______. 2012c. Knowledge Center for the Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/knowcenter.htm (accessed May 18, 2012).

______. 2013a. 2011 GHG Facility and Entity Emissions Detailed Spreadsheet, released January 11, 2013. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-rep/reported_data/ghg-reports.htm (accessed May 7, 2013).

______. 2013b. Area Pollutant Designations, 17 California Code of Regulations Section 60200 et seq. Available at www.oal.ca.gov (Accessed April 2, 2013).

______. 2013c. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2010 – by Category as Defined in the Scoping Plan, February 19, 2013. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm (accessed March 28, 2013).

______. 2013d. Documentation of California's Greenhouse Gas Inventory (5th Edition, last updated February 19, 2013). Available at www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/doc/doc_index.php (accessed April 5, 2013).

______. 2013e. EMFAC2011 Web Based Data Access, January 2013. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/msei/modeling.htm (accessed February 22, 2012).

______. 2013f. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics, Top 4 Summary and Weekly Listing for Bakersfield – California Avenue, Bakersfield – Golden State Highway, and Fresno – First Street monitoring stations. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html (accessed June 13, 2013).

______. 2013g. Quality Assurance Performance Audits, Site List. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/aaqm/qa/qa-audits/qa-audits.htm (accessed June 13, 2013).

______. 2013h. Sustainable Communities, January 2013. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm (accessed March 29, 2013).

______. 2013i. Vintage 2013 Industrial Allowance Allocation by Sector, January 8, 2013. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/allowanceallocation/allowanceallocation.htm (accessed May 7, 2013).

California Climate Change Center, 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012 – Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California: A Summary Report on the Third Assessment from the California Climate Change Center, July 2012. Available at www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/third_assessment/index.html (accessed April 17, 2013).

California Code of Regulations (CCR). 1993. Title 13 Motor Vehicles, Division 3 Air Resources Board, Chapter 9 Off-Road Vehicles and Engines Pollution Control Devices, Article 4 Off-Road



Compression-Ignition Engines And Equipment, Section 2423 Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures - Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines.

______. 1997. Title 23, Waters, Division 3, State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Chapter 15, Discharges of Hazardous Waste to Land, Article 5. Water Quality Monitoring for Classified Waste Management Units.

______. 1998. Title 19 Public Safety, Division 2 Office of Emergency Services, Chapter 4.5, California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program.

______. 2001. Title 24, California Building Standards Code (BSC).

______. 2004. Title 19, Public Safety, Division 2 Office of Emergency Services, Chapter 4.5 California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program.

______. 2005. Title 14 Natural Resources, Chapter 3 Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Amended July 27, 2007. Available: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/.

______. 2007a. Title 17 Public Health, Division 3 Air Resources, Chapter 1 Air Resources Board. Available: http://weblinks.westlaw.com/toc/.

______. 2007b. Title 19 Public Safety, Division 2 Office of Emergency Services, Chapter 4.5 California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program Detailed Analysis. Available: http://weblinks.westlaw.com/toc/.

______. 2014. Title 22 Social Security, Chapter 4.5, Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste. Available at www.oal.ca.gov/ccr.htm.

California Department of Conservation. 1998. Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). Maps of Known Active Faults Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada to be Used with the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Published by International Conference of Building Officials.

______. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, August 2000. Available at www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/hazardous_minerals/asbestos/Pages/Index.aspx (accessed March 25, 2013).

______. 2006. Division of Land Resource Protection. Williamson Act Program. Available: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/lca/index.htm.

______. 2007. California Geological Survey. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/quakes/ historical. Downloaded June 4, 2007.

______. 2013. State of California Special Studies Zones, Oildale Quadrangle, January 1, 1985. http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/OILDALE/maps/OILDALE.PDF (accessed June 28, 2013).

Caltrans. 2013. Draft State Rail Plan. February 2013.

California Department of Transportation and City of Bakersfield (Caltrans/Bakersfield), 2012, State Route 58 (Rosedale Highway) Widening Project: Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact (SCH No. 2011122028), May 2012. Available at www.bakersfieldfreeways.us/project_rosedale_highway_widening.html (accessed April 17, 2013).

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/lca/index.htm



California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). 2005. California Water Plan Update 2005 – A Framework for Action, California Department of Water Resources. December 2005

______. 2006. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Kern County Subbasin. Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region, California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/5-22.14.pdf. Site accessed December 6, 2013.

______. 2009. Chronological Reconstructed Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley Water Year Hydrologic Classification Indices. Available at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/deltaflow/docs/exhibits/ccwd/spprt_docs/ccwd_dwr_2009.pdf.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2005. California Public Resources Code, Division 13 Environmental Quality, Section 21000 et seq. Available: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.

California Natural Resources Agency, 2013. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. Available at www.oal.ca.gov/ (Accessed April 5, 2013).

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Available: http://www.oehha.org/ air/hotspots/index.html.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), 2013. California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), 2013. Available at www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/index.htm (accessed May 9, 2013).

California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). 1995. Lahontan Region, Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region North and South Basins. March 31.

______.2004. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Second Edition. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/basin_plans/tlbp.pdf. Site accessed December 6, 2013.

______. 2012. Cleanup and Abatement Order R5-2012-0701 for Alon Bakersfield Property Inc. and Equilon Enterprises, LLC Bakersfield Refinery, Kern County.

California State Fire Marshal (CSFM). 1993. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Risk Assessment Report.

Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). 1989a. Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis. New York NY: American Institute of Chemical Engineers Center for Chemical Process Safety; 1989.

______. 1989b. Guidelines for Process Equipment Reliability Data with Data Tables. New York NY: American Institute of Chemical Engineers Center for Chemical Process Safety; 1989. Provides data on process systems and equipment.

______. 1994. Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud Explosions, Flash Fires and BLEVES. American Institute of Chemical Engineers Center for Chemical Process Safety.

______. 1995. Guidelines for Chemical Transportation Risk Analysis. American Institute of Chemical Engineers Center for Chemical Process Safety.

______. 1996. Evaluating Process Plant buildings for External Explosions and Fires. Prepared by The Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. 1996. Provides data on process systems and equipment.

http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/5-22.14.pdf.

http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/5-22.14.pdf.

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/basin_plans/tlbp.pdf



______. 1996. Guidelines for Evaluating Process Plant Buildings for External Explosions and Fires. ISBN: 978-0-8169-0646-8. September.

City of Bakersfield Police Department. 2013. Available: http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/police/.

City of Bakersfield, California Department of Transportation, U.S. Federal Highway Administration (Bakersfield/Caltrans/FHA), 2006. Tier 2 Environmental Assessment/Final Environmental Impact Report: Westside Parkway, September 2006. Available at www.bakersfieldfreeways.us/project_westside_parkway.html (accessed April 17, 2013).

City of Bakersfield. 1994. 2002a. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP). Adopted 2002. Available: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/mbgp/mbgptoc.pdf.

City-data (2012) http://weatherspark.com/averages/29736/Bakersfield-California-United-States

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Title 29 Labor, Part 1910 Occupational Safety and Health Standards, Section 1910.119 Process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals.

______. Title 40 Protection of Environment, Part 51, Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.

______. Title 40 Protection of Environment, Part 60 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.

______. Title 40 Protection of Environment, Part 68 Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions.

______. Title 40 Protection of Environment, Part 144-147 Underground Injection Control Program.

______. Title 49 Transportation, Chapter I Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration - Department of Transportation, Part 195 Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline.

______. Title 50 Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Section 17.1 et seq.

ENVIRON International Corporation, 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2011.1, February 2011. Available at www.caleemod.com (accessed March 28, 2013).

EPA (1996), Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(7). Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 68, 1996.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1989. Handbook of Chemical Hazards Analysis Procedures.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), 2001. Comparative Risks of Hazardous Materials and Non-Hazardous Materials Truck Shipment Accidents/Incidents. Prepared by Battelle, March 2001.

Federal Railroad Administration(FRA), 2013a, Office of Safety Analysis data reports. http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/query/tenyr1a.aspx.

______. 2013b. FRA Emergency Order No. 28, Notice No. 1: Emergency Order Establishing Additional Requirements for Attendance and Securement of Certain Freight Trains and Vehicles on Mainline Track or Mainline Siding Outside of a Yard or Terminal, August 2, 2013, published at 78 FR 48218 (August 7, 2013).

Federal Railroad Administration and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 2013. Safety Advisory 2013-06/PMHSA-2013-0196: Lac-Mégantic Railroad Accident Discussion and DOT Safety Recommendations, August 2, 2013, published at 78 FR 48224 (August 7, 2013).



78 Federal Register 54849, PHMSA Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, September 6, 2013.

Fruitvale School District. 2013. http://www.fruitvale.k12.ca.us/pages/Fruitvale. Downloaded December 7, 2013.

HLID, Hydrocarbon Leak and Ignition Database, Report N0. 11.4/180, May 1992, E&P Forum.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis, summary for policy makers. Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report; February. Available from www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf (accessed January 22, 2014).

International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP), 2010a. Ignition Probabilities. OGP Risk Assessment Data Directory. Report No. 434 – b1, March 2010.

______. 2010b. Consequence Modelling. OGP Risk Assessment Data Directory. Report No. 434 – 7, March 2010.

Kern Council of Governments (COG). 2001. 2000 Regional Housing Allocation Plan. Adopted May 17, 2001. Bakersfield, CA.

______. 2004. Long Range Transportation Plan. Bakersfield, CA. Available at: http://www.kerncog.org/publications.php#transplan.

______. 2005. http://www.kerncog.org/. Downloaded December 2, 2005.

______. 2013. Conformity Analysis for the 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Program #9 and 2011 Regional Transportation Plan Amendment #5. October 17, 2013. Available at: www.kerncog.org/images/docs/conformity/conformity_2013_FTIP-RTP_a5.pdf (accessed January 31, 2014).

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department (KCPCDD), 2006. Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Impact Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports, December 1, 2006. Available at pcd.kerndsa.com/informational-guides (accessed March 25, 2013).

______. 2007. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (Unincorporated Planning Area), December 11, 2007. Available at pcd.kerndsa.com/planning/planning-documents/general-plans (Accessed March 28, 2013).

Kennedy Jenks. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plant for Kern County Water Agency Improvement District No. 4 and North of the River Municipal Water District. June 2011.

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department (KCPCDD), 2006. Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Impact Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports, December 1, 2006. Available at pcd.kerndsa.com/informational-guides (accessed March 25, 2013).

Kern County Sheriff’s Department. 2013. http://www.kernsheriff.com/Pages/default.aspx. Downloaded October 2013.

Kern County. Office of Emergency Services. Available: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/fire/oes/.

______. 2012. Kern County Zoning Ordinances. http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/KCZOJul12.pdf. Site accessed December 9, 2013.

______. Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports.

______. Kern County Zoning Ordinance, Title 19 of the Kern County Ordinance Code.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/KCZOJul12.pdf



Lees FP. Loss Prevention In The Process Industries. Volumes 1 - 3. Butterworths, London. 1996.

Montreal Gazette, 2014. Lac-Mégantic disaster: Where things stand today. . Retrieved April 30, 2014, http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/M%C3%A9gantic+disaster+Where+things+stand+today/9418300/story.html

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 2000. Thermal Radiation from Large Pool Fires. Fire Safety Engineering Division. Building and Fire Research Laboratory. NISTIR 6546, November.

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 2012. DOT-111 Tank Car Design. Presented by Paul L. Stancil, CHMM. Office of Railroad, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety.

______. 2004a. Letter to Cynthia L. Quarterman, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (Safety Recommendation, Ref. R-14-4 through -6), January 21, 2014.

______. 2004b. Letter to Joseph C. Szabo, Federal Railroad Administration (Safety Recommendation, Ref. R-14-1 through -3), January 23, 2014.

______. 2014. Letter to PHMSA January 23, 2014, with recommendations regarding routing of trains carrying crude oil, railroad operator preparation of oil spill response plans, and more rigorous testing and documentation of the shipping classification of crude oil.

Norris School District. 2013. http://www.norris.k12.ca.us.

OEHHA, 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines – The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, August 2003. Available at oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/HRAguidefinal.html (accessed June 3, 2013).

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2000. Hydrogen Sulfide: Evaluation of Current California Air Quality Standards with respect to Protection of Children, September 1, 2000. Available at oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/oehhah2s.pdf (accessed April 17, 2013).

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2013a. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Hazardous Materials: Rail Petitions and Recommendations to Improve the Safety of Railroad Tank Car Transportation, 78 Federal Register 54849 (September 6, 2013).

______. 2013b. California Incident and Mileage Overview. Available at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/CA_detail1.html (accessed August 8, 2013).

PHMSA, 2013. U.S. DOT, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 2013. California Incident and Mileage Overview. http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/CA_detail1.html?nocache=7365 (accessed August 8, 2013).

PHMSA, 2014. Preliminary Guidance from OPERATION CLASSIFICATION. (2014, January 2). . Retrieved April 30, 2014, from http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/1_2_14%20Rail_Safety_Alert.pdf

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2004. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Second Edition (2004 Basin Plan). January.

Roberts, A.F., 2000. Analysis of Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion (BLEVE) Events at DOE Sites. EQE International, Inc. Knoxville, TN.

Rosedale Union School District. 2013. http://www.rosedale.k12.ca.us. Downloaded November, 2013.

http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/CA_detail1.html?nocache=7365



San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), 2002. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, revised January 10, 2002. Available at www.valleyair.org/transportation/ceqa_guidance_documents.htm (accessed March 25, 2013).

______. Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review (ISR), adopted December 15, 2005. Available at www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm (accessed March 27, 2013).

______. 2007. Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling, Rev 2.0, January 2007. Available at www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/tox_resources/AirQualityMonitoring.htm#modeling_guidance (accessed June 3, 2013).

______. 2012a. Climate Change Action Plan, 2012. Available at www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/CCAP_menu.htm (accessed March 29, 2013).

______. 2012b. Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts – 2012, May 2012. Available at www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQIDRAFT-2012/GAMAQI-2012-Draft-May312012.pdf (accessed March 25, 2013).

______. 2013a. Current District Rules and Regulations (as of March 2013). Available at www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm (accessed March 27, 2013).

______. 2013b. District Rule 2410 General Modeling Requirements & Guidance (Draft – Version 1.0, PSD Modeling Guidance), March 2013. Available at www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/tox_resources/AirQualityMonitoring.htm (accessed April 11, 2013).

Soils Engineering, Inc. 2006. Geologic Hazards Study. Flying J – Clean Fuels Project. Bakersfield, CA.

______. 2007a. Geotechnical Investigation for the Temporary Bridges Friant-Kern Canal Crossing Brimhall Road Extension into Flying J Refinery in Bakersfield, California. Reprinted by permission.

______. 2007b. Additional Geotechnical Information Report.

Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 2013. Significant Earthquakes and Faults – San Andreas Fault. http://www.data.scec.org/significant/sanandreas.html (accessed June 28, 2013).

______., 2013a. Significant Earthquakes and Faults - Chronological Earthquake Index. http://www.data.scec.org/significant/chron-index.html (accessed June 28, 2013).

______., 2014a. Significant Earthquakes and Faults – Garlock Fault. http://www.data.scec.org/significant/garlock.html (accessed January 21, 2014).

______., 2014b. Significant Earthquakes and Faults – Pleito Fault. http://www.data.scec.org/significant/pleito.html (accessed January 21, 2014).

______., 2014c. Significant Earthquakes and Faults – White Wolf Fault. http://www.data.scec.org/significant/whitewolf.html (accessed January 21, 2014).

Serafini and Rose. 2009. Overview of the Isabella Dam Potential Failure Modes Workshop. http://ussdams.com/proceedings/2010Proc/1341-1354.pdf. Site accessed December 9, 2013.

Steinhaus, T., S. Welch, R. Carvel, JL. Torero, 2007. "Large-Scale pool fires", Thermal Science Journal, Vol 11 issue 3, special on fire.

SuperChems Reference and User's Manual. Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, MA, 1991.

http://ussdams.com/proceedings/2010Proc/1341-1354.pdf



TCR, 2013b. The Climate Registry's 2013 Default Emission Factors, April 2, 2013. Available at www.theclimateregistry.org/resources/protocols/general-reporting-protocol/ (accessed April 12, 2013).

Transportation Safety Board of Canada (CTSB), 2012. 2011 Rail Annual Statistics – Highlights. Available at: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/rail/prelim-2011/.

The Climate Registry (TCR), 2013a. General Reporting Protocol – Version 2.0, March 2013. Available at www.theclimateregistry.org/resources/protocols/general-reporting-protocol/ (accessed April 12, 2013).

______. 2013b. The Climate Registry's 2013 Default Emission Factors, April 2, 2013. Available at www.theclimateregistry.org/resources/protocols/general-reporting-protocol/ (accessed April 12, 2013).

U. S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). 2014a. Letter dated February 20, 2014 from Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx to the Honorable Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads.

______. 2014b. Issues Emergency Order Requiring Stricter Standards to Transport Crude Oil by Rail. (2014, February 25). . Retrieved April 30, 2014, from http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/Hot_Topics/DOT_EmergencyOrder_PressRelease.pdf

URS, 2013. Report to RWQCB on Groundwater Monitoring Well Network for the Bakersfield Refinery (accessed January 22, 2014) http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/3843326628/SL205314279.PDF

U. S. Geological Society. 1954 (Photorevised 1968). 7.5-Minute Series Oildale and Gosford, California Quadrangles.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1992. Workbook for Plume Visual Impact Screening and Analysis, October 1992. Available at www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_screening.htm (accessed April 11, 2013).

______. 1997. Regulatory Announcement: Federal Preemption of State and Local Control of Locomotives (EPA Document No. EPA420-F-97-050), December 1997. Available at www.epa.gov/otaq/locomotives.htm (accessed May 21, 2013).

______. 2009. Emission Factors for Locomotives (EPA Document No. EPA-420-F-09-025), April 2009. Available at www.epa.gov/oms/locomotives.htm (accessed March 28, 2013).

______. 2010. EPA Finalizes Regulations for the National Renewable Fuels Program for 2010 and Beyond (EPA Document No. EPA-420-F-10-007), February 2010. Available at www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/regulations.htm (accessed May 20, 2013).

______. 2011a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, EPA Document No. AP-42, Volume 1 – Stationary Point and Area Sources (EPA AP-42), updated December 28, 2011. Available at www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ (accessed March 28, 2013).

______. 2012a. AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), v12345, December 10, 2012. Available at www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#aermod (accessed June 3, 2013).

______. 2012b. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Available at www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. Accessed May 21, 2012.

______. 2012c. Proposed Rule: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 - Fact Sheet. Available at www.epa.gov/NSR/ghgdocs/Step3FactSheet.pdf. Accessed May 21, 2012.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/rail/prelim-2011/

http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/3843326628/SL205314279.PDF

http://www.epa.gov/‌climatechange/‌emissions/‌ghgrulemaking.html.%20Accessed%20May%2021

http://www.epa.gov/‌climatechange/‌emissions/‌ghgrulemaking.html.%20Accessed%20May%2021



______. 2013. Section 107 Attainment Status Designations – California, 40 Code of Federal Regulations Section 81.305, data as of March 19, 2013. Available at ecfr.gpoaccess.gov (accessed March 21, 2013).

UK Health and Safety Executive, “Development of a Method for the Determination of On-site Ignition Probabilities”, Research Report 226, Daycock and Rew, WS Atkins Consultants, Ltd., 2004

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). 2012. “Status of Ratification of the Convention”. Available at unfccc.int/essentialbackground/convention/statusofratification/items/2631.php (accessed January 22, 2014).

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007. Isabella Dam Consensus Report: External Peer Review of DSAC-1 Projects. Washington, DC. November 1.

______. 2012. Isabella Dam Safety Modification Study Review Plan, Isabella Dam, Kern River, California. http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/civil_works/Isabella/Isabella%20Review%20Plan_18July2012.pdf. Site accessed December 9, 2013.

United States Code (USC). 1972. The Clean Water Act (CWA). Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters, Chapter 26 Water Pollution Prevention and Control, Section 404.

______. 1974. The Safety Drinking Water Act (SWDA). Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 6A Public Health Service, Subchapter XII, Section 300f et seq.

______. 1990. The Oil Pollution Act. Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters, Chapter 40 Oil Pollution, Section 2702-2761.

______. 2005a. The Endangered Species Act (ESA). Title 16 Conservation, Chapter 35 Endangered Species, Section 1531. Congressional findings and declaration of purposes and policy.

______. 2005b. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Title 16, Conservation. Chapter 7--Protection of Migratory Game and Insectivorous Birds, Sec. 703-711.

Valley Fever Center for Excellence, 2010. Valley Fever in People, 2010. Available at www.vfce.arizona.edu/ValleyFeverInPeople/Default.aspx (accessed March 25, 2013).

http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/civil_works/Isabella/Isabella%20Review%20Plan_18July2012.pdf

http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/civil_works/Isabella/Isabella%20Review%20Plan_18July2012.pdf

Chapter 11 Acronyms and Abbreviations


Chapter 11 Acronyms and Abbreviations

A Exclusive Agriculture (Zoning District)

AAR American Association of Railroads

AB Assembly Bill

ABS Automatic Block Signal

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACM Asbestos Containing Material

ADT Average Daily Trips

AEP Association of Environmental Professionals

AF Acre Feet

AF/Y Acre Feet Per Year

AFB Air Force Base

AG Agricultural

AGP Agricultural Policy

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act

ALUCP AirportLand Use Compatibility Plan

AM Ante Meridian

amsl Above mean sea level

ANF Angeles National Forest

ANSI American National Standards Institute

APCD Air Pollution Control District

APE Area of Potential Effect

API American Petroleum Institute

APN Assessor Parcel Number

AQMP Air Quality Management Plan

AR Assembly Resolution

ARB Air Resources Board

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

County of Kern 11.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations


ATCM Air Toxics Control Measure

AVGWB Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin

BACT Best Available Control Technologies

BAU Business-as-Usual

bgs Below Ground Surface

BLEVE Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice

BP Before Present

BPD Barrels Per Day

BPY Barrels Per Year

BSA Biological Study Area

CA EDD California Economic Development Department

CAA (Federal) Clean Air Act

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards

CadnaA Computer Aided Noise Abatement

CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency

Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health

CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program

CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model

CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CAP Clean Air Plan

CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association

CARB California Air Resources Board

CAZ Coastal Appealable Zone

CBC CaliforniaBuilding Code

CCAA California Clean Air Act

CCCC CaliforniaClimateChangeCenter

CCPS Center for Chemical Process Safety

CCR California Code of Regulations



CDC California Department of Conservation

CDC CDCA

Center for Disease Control and Prevention California Desert Conservation Area

CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CDMG CDNPA

California Division of Mines and Geology CaliforniaDesert Native Plants Act

CDTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control

CDWR California Department of Water Resources

CEC California Energy Commission

CEMA California Emergency Management Agency

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CESA California Endangered Species Act

CFC California Fire Code

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CGS California Geological Survey

CH4 Methane

CHL California Historical Landmark

CHP California Highway Patrol

CI Coccidioidesimmitis

CIP Capital Improvement Plan

CM Coccidioidomycosis

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level

CNG Compressed Natural Gas

CNPS California Native Plant Society

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

COG Council of Governments

COSE Conservation and Open Space Element



CPUC California Public Utilities Commission

CRHR California Register of Historical Resources

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CRPR California Rare Plant Rank

CSC California Species of Special Concern

CSFM California State Fire Marshal

CSRP California State Rail Plan

CSWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board

CTC Centralized Traffic Control

CTP California Transportation Plan

CUP Conditional Use Permit

CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency

CVC California Vehicle Code

CWA Clean Water Act

dB Decibel

dBA A-Weighted Decibel Scale

DC Direct-Current

DCS Distributed Control System

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DOC Diesel Oxidation Catalyst

DOD Department of Defense

DOF Department of Finance

DOGGR (California) Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources

DOR Division of Rail

DPF Diesel Particulate Filters

DPM Diesel Particulate Matter

DPR Department of Pesticide Regulation

DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control

DWR Department of Water Resources

E Estate (Zoning District)

Ed-Data Education Data Partnership

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EMF Electromagnetic Fields

EMFAC Emission Factors



EMS Emergency Medical Services

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPS Emissions Performance Standard

ERP Emergency Response Plan

ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESA (Federal) Endangered Species Act

ESA Environmental Site Assessment

ESHA Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area

EVA Emergency Vehicle Access

EX Energy or Extractive Resource Area

EX-1 Extractive Resource Area

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAR Federal Aviation Regulations

FDC Fire Department Connections

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FESA Federal Endangered Species Act

FH Flood Hazard

FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

FP Flood Plain (Combining District)

FPP Floodplain Primary (Combining District)

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

FPS Floodplain Secondary (Combining District)

FR Federal Register

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FRA Federal Responsibility Area

FTA Fault Tree Analysis

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FTI Freight Train Interference



G/BHP HR Grams Per Brake Horsepower Hour

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIS Geographic Information System

GO General Order

GPM Gallon-Per-Minute

gpm Gallons Per Minute

GPM/FT2 Gallons Per Minute Per Square Feet

GPS Global Position System

GWP Global Warming Potential

H2O Water

H2S Hydrogen Sulfide

HA Hydrologic Area

Hazardous Waste Plan Hazardous Waste Management Plan

HC Hydrocarbons

HCD Housing and Community Development

HCP Habitat Conservation Plans

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan

HFC Hydrofluorocarbon

HHI Health Hazard Index

HMBP Hazardous Material Business Plan

HR Hydrological Region

HRA Health Risk Assessment

HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Act

HU Hydrologic Unit

HWCA Hazardous Waste Control Act

Hz Hertz

I Interstate

IESNA Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

IND Industrial

IS Initial Study

ISO International Organization for Standards

ISO Isolate

ITP Incidental Take Permit



ITS Intelligent Transportation System

IWMA Integrated Waste Management Authority

IWMB (California) Integrated Waste Management Board

KCFD KernCounty Fire Department

KCGP KernCounty General Plan

KCOG Kern Council of Governments

KCSD Kern County Sheriff Department

kHz Kilohertz

KM Kilometer

KOP Key Observation Point

KRT Kern Regional Transit

kV Kilovolt

KVA Key Viewing Areas

KVA Kilovolt-Ampere

kW Kilowatts

kW/m2 Kilowatts Per Square Meter

lbs Pounds

LCC Land Capability Classification

Ldn Day – Night Average Sound Level

Leq Equivalent Sound Level

Lmax Maximum Sound Level

Lmin Minimum Instantaneous Noise Level

Ln Percentile Noise Level

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

LOS Level of Service

LOS Level of Service

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas

LRA Local Responsibility Area

LUE Land Use Element

M/S Meters Per Second

m/s Meters Per Second

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

MCE Maximum Credible Earthquake



MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MG Million Gallons

mg/m3 Milligram Per Cubic Meter

MH Mobile Home (Zoning District)

MHMP Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan

MM Mitigation Measure

MM/S Millimeters Per Second

MMCRP Mitigation Monitoring, Compliance, and Reporting Program

MMTCE Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent

MMTCO2e Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

MOC Management of Change

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPE Maximum Probable Earthquake

MPH Miles Per Hour

mph Miles Per Hour

MRS Marine Research Specialists

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area

MSE Mechanically Stabilized Earth

MSHCP Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan

msl Mean Sea Level

MT/yr Metric Tons Per Year

MTCO2E MUSD

Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Mojave Unified School District

MW Megawatt

MWh Megawatt Hour

MW-hrs Megawatt Hours

N2O Nitrous Oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection And Repatriation Act

NAHC Native American Heritage Commission

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

NAWS Naval Air Weapons Station



NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan

NEC Northeast Corridor

NEMA National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

NGL Natural Gas Liquids

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NO Nitric Oxide

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOA Naturally Occurring Asbestos

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI Notice of Intent

NOP Notice of Preparation

NOX Nitrogen Oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPL National Priorities List

NPPA Native Plant Protection Act

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NTSA National Trails System Act of 1969

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

NWIS National Water Information System

NWS National Weather Service

O&M Operation and Maintenance

O3 Ozone

OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

OES (California) Office of Emergency Services

ºF Degrees Fahrenheit

OGP Oil & Gas Producers



OHV Off-Highway Vehicle

OHW Ordinary High Water

OPR Office of Planning and Research

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety

OS Open Space

OSG1 Open Space Goal

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OTP On-Time Performance

Pb Lead

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PCC Portland Cement Concrete

PCE Passenger Car Equivalent

PD Precise Development

PDC Power Distribution Center

PFC Perfluorocarbon

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company

PGA Peak Ground Acceleration

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PL Platted Lands

PLC Programmable Logic Controller

PM Particulate Matter

PM Post Meridian

PM 2.5 Suspended Particulate Matter (aerodynamic diameter of ≤2.5 microns)

PM10 Suspended Particulate Matter (aerodynamic diameter of ≤10 microns)

PMI Point of Maximum Impact

PMI Positive Material Identification

PPA Power Purchase Agreement

PPB Parts Per Billion

ppb Parts per billion

ppm Parts per million

PPV Peak Particle Velocity

PRC (California) Public Resources Code

PRD Parks and Recreation Department



PRIIA Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008

Project Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility Project

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PTC Permit to Construct

PTO Permit to Operate

PUC Public Utilities Commission

PV Photovoltaic

PVC Polyvinyl Chloride

Qal Quaternary Alluvium

Qc Older Quaternary Alluvium

QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment

Qs Quaternary Deposits

RACM Reasonably Available Control Measures

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

REAT Renewable Energy Action Team

REC Recreational

REC Recognized Environmental Condition

REL Reference Exposure Level

RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment

RISA Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008

RMP Risk Management Programs

RMS Root Mean Square

ROD Record of Decision

ROG Reactive Organic Gases

ROSB Railroad Operations and Safety Branch

ROW Right-of-Way

RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard

RS Residential Suburban

RTC Rail Traffic Controller

RTE Freight Trains Are Routing

RTP Regional Transportation Plan

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SAA Streambed Alteration Agreement



SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SB Senate Bill

SCADA SCAQMD

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition South Coast Air Quality Management District

SCRRA Southern California Railroad Authority

SCS Sustainable Community Strategy

SDP Service Development Plan

SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride

SHRC State Historic Resources Commission

SIP State Implementation Plan

SKUSD Southern Kern Unified School District

SLF Sacred Lands File

SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

SOHP State Office of Historic Preservation

SOX Sulfur Oxides

SP Service Population

SP Special Planning (Zoning District)

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure

SPCCP Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan

SR State Route

SRA Sensitive Resource Areas

SRA State Responsibility Area

SRV Sensitive Riparian Vegetation

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic

STC Sound Transmission Class

SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compounds

SVRA State Vehicle Recreational Area

SWMP Solid Waste Management Plan

SWMP Stormwater Management Program

SWP State Water Project

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan



SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

TAC Toxic Air Contaminant

TAZ TCCWD

Traffic Analysis Zone Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

TERPS Terminal Instrument Procedures

TH Terrestrial Habitat

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TNM Traffic Noise Model

tpy Tons Per Year

TRB Transportation Research Board

TRU Transportation Refrigeration Units

UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality

ULE Upper Level Event

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

URBEMIS Urban Emissions Model

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geologic Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

UST Underground Storage Tank

UWMP Urban Water Management Plan

V/C Volume to Capacity

v/c Volume-to-Capacity

VdB Vibration Decibels

VDT Video Display Terminal

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

Vs30 Average Shear Wave Velocity in the Upper 30 Meters

WDR Waste Discharge Requirements



WET Wetlands

WFMP Wildland Fire Management Plan

WHO World Health Organization

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center

WSA Water Supply Assessment

ZOI Zone of Influence

ZVI Zone of Visual Influence

μg/m3 Microgram Per Cubic Meter

Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume 1 for the Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility...

Documents

Transcript of Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume 1 for the Alon Bakersfield Refinery Crude Flexibility...