CHEVRON REFINERY MODERNIZATION PROJECT FINAL EIR

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CHEVRON REFINERY MODERNIZATION PROJECT FINAL EIR"

Dora Bryan
5 years ago
Views:

1 CHEVRON REFINERY MODERNIZATION PROJECT FINAL EIR VOLUME 3A: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND DRAFT EIR TEXT REVISIONS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CHANGES PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR CHAPTER 2. REVISED SUMMARY CHAPTER 3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MASTER RESPONSES STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS INDIVIDUALS PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS FORM LETTERS/PETITIONS DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CHAPTER 4. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR VOLUMES 1 AND CHAPTER 5. MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. 5-1 CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES APPENDICES Appendix 1: Tracking Index VOLUME 3B: COMMENT SUBMITTALS Appendix 2: Public Agency, Organization, Individual, and Form Letter Comment Submittals Appendix 3: Oral Testimony Comment Submittals i

2 JUNE 2014 CHEVRON REFINERY MODERNIZATION PROJECT FINAL EIR FIGURES Figure 3-1 Gas Oil Schematic Figure 3-2 Gas Oil API Gravity vs. Sulfur Figure 3-3 Particulate Matter Test Results for Richmond Fluid Catalytic Cracker (EPA Method 5B with Impinger Analysis) Figure 3-4 Daily Average Throughput for the Fluid Catalytic Cracker (BPD) Figure 3-5 Annual Average Fluid Catalytic Cracker Throughput Figure 3-6 Gas Oil Schematic Figure 3-7 Gas Oil API Gravity vs. Sulfur Figure Modernization Project Cancer Risk at 93% Utilization (Project Case) Figure 3-8 Comparison of Highest Scoring Areas in CalEnviroScreen 2.0 versus CalEnviroScreen Figure A4.3-MIT-1 Mitigated Cancer Risk at 93% Utilization (Project Case) Replacing Engines for One Tug Figure MR4-1 Modernization Project Total Chronic HI including Multi- Pathway Impact at 93% Utilization (Project Case) with PDF3-112 Figure MR4-2 Modernization Project Total Chronic HI including Multi- Pathway Impact at 93% Utilization (Max Shipping/Light Case) with PDF Figure MR4-3 Modernization Project Total Chronic HI including Multi- Pathway Impact at 100% Utilization (Project Case) with PDF3-114 Figure MR4-4 Modernization Project Total Chronic HI including Multi- Pathway Impact at 100% Utilization (Max Shipping/Light Case) with PDF Figure MR4-5 Modernization Project Total Chronic HI including Multi- Pathway Impact at 93% Utilization (Project Case) with PDF Source Contribution - Refinery Figure MR4-6 Modernization Project Total Chronic HI including Multi- Pathway Impact at 93% Utilization (Project Case) with PDF Source Contribution - Shipping Figure MR4-7 Modernization Project Total Chronic HI including Multi- Pathway Impact at 93% Utilization (Max Shipping/Light Case) with PDF Source Contribution - Refinery Figure MR4-8 Modernization Project Total Chronic HI including Multi- Pathway Impact at 93% Utilization (Max Shipping/Light Case) with PDF Source Contribution - Shipping Figure 3-9 Comparison of Highest Scoring Areas in CalEnviroScreen 2.0 versus CalEnviroScreen Figure 3-10 Comparison of Highest Scoring Areas in CalEnviroScreen 2.0 versus CalEnviroScreen Figure 3-11 Comparison of Highest Scoring Areas in CalEnviroScreen 2.0 versus CalEnviroScreen ii

3 CHEVRON REFINERY MODERNIZATION PROJECT FINAL EIR JUNE 2014 Figure 3-12 Location of Tanks iii

4 JUNE 2014 CHEVRON REFINERY MODERNIZATION PROJECT FINAL EIR TABLES Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Chevron Refinery Modernization Project Table 3-1 Disposition of Gas Oils at the Facility Table 3-2 Purchased Gas Oil Volumes and Properties Table 3-3 Impact of Changing Gas Oil Gravity Table 3-4 Fluid Catalytic Cracker Compliance Source Tests Table 3-5 Condensable, Filterable, and Total Particulate Measured in the 2009/2010 Source Tests Table 3-6 Fluid Catalytic Cracker CAP Emissions Estimates for the 19 Scenarios Analyzed in the Draft EIR (tons/year) Table 3-7 Effect of Hydrotreating on Fluid Catalytic Cracker Feed Table 3-8 Reproduced Table 2-1 from Comment B Past, Current, and Potential Throughput-Driven* Project FCC Emissions (PM 2.5 ) Table 3-9 Furnace Emissions Factors Differences between Emissions Inventory and Engineering Evaluation Table 3-10 Refinery Operations TAC Emissions and Change from Baseline (Showing Adjusted and Unadjusted Emissions Factors) Table 3-11 Total Project Chronic HI Including Multi-Pathway Impact at Maximally Exposed Individual TABLE MR4-1 Baseline Detailed Pollutant Emission Inventory for TACs that Change as Detailed in Master Response Table MR4-2 Individual Constituent (Including TAC) Emissions and Change from Baseline by Scenario for TACs that Change as Detailed in Master Response 4 Project Cases Table MR4-3 Individual Constituent (Including TAC) Emissions and Change from Baseline by Scenario Light/Max Shipping Cases for TACs that Change as Detailed in Master Response Table MR4-4 TAC Emissions by Case for TACs that Change as Detailed in Master Response 4, without Project Design Feature Tank Dome Project Cases Table MR4-5 TAC Emissions by Case for TACs that Change as a Detailed in Master Response 4, without Project Design Feature Tank Dome Light/Max Shipping Cases Table MR4-6 TAC Emissions By Case for TACs that Change as Detailed in Master Response 4, with Project Design Feature Tank Dome Project Cases Table MR4-7 TAC Emissions By Case for TACs that Change as a Detailed in Master Response 4, with Project Design Feature Tank Dome Light/Max Shipping Cases Table B Chevron Emissions Reduction Credits iv

5 CHEVRON REFINERY MODERNIZATION PROJECT FINAL EIR JUNE 2014 Table 3-12 Emissions from Flaring Table 3-13 Emissions from Fire Table 3-14 GHG Emissions Associated with Hydrogen Production Table % Utilization, 2.0% Sulfur, 50/50 Sweet/Sour Gas Oil, No Hydrogen Export vs 93% Project, No Hydrogen Export Table % Utilization, 2.25% Sulfur, 50/50 Sweet/Sour Gas Oil, No Hydrogen Export vs 93% Project, No Hydrogen Export Table % Utilization, 2.0% Sulfur, 50/50 Sweet/Sour Gas Oil, Max Hydrogen vs 93% Project, Max Hydrogen Table % Utilization, 2.25% Sulfur, 50/50 Sweet/Sour Gas Oil, Max Hydrogen vs 93% Project, Max Hydrogen Table 3-19 Summary of Required Tank Dome ROG Emissions Reductions Table A4.0-3 Other, Non-Chevron Refinery and Pipeline Projects Considered as Part of the Chevron Refinery Modernization Project EIR Cumulative Impact Analysis Table 6-22 Unmitigated Reduced Sulfur Processing/No Increased Greenhouse Gas Refinery Emissions Alternative Emissions Compared to Unmitigated Project (93% Utilization) Emissions Table 6-23 Reduced Sulfur Processing Alternative/No Increased Greenhouse Gas Refinery Emissions Alternative Emissions (Mitigated to NNI) Compared to Project Emissions (Mitigated to NNI) Table 6-24 Additional CAP and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Maximum Hydrogen Production for the Reduced Sulfur Production/No Increase in Refinery Greenhouse Gas Emissions Alternative Table 6-25 Unmitigated Reduced Sulfur Processing/No Increased Greenhouse Gas Refinery Emissions/No FCC FHT Expansion Alternative Emissions Compared to Unmitigated Project (93% Utilization) Emissions Table 6-26 Reduced Sulfur Processing/No Increased Greenhouse Gas Refinery Emissions/No FCC FHT Alternative Emissions (To Be Mitigated to NNI) Compared to Project Emissions (To Be Mitigated to NNI) Table 6-27 Additional CAP and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Maximum Hydrogen Production for the Reduced Sulfur Processing/No Increase in Refinery Greenhouse Gas Emissions/No FCC FHT Expansion Alternative Table 6-2B Summary of Comparison of Alternatives Impacts Assuming Implementation of Reliability and No Net Increase Commitment Table Facility Hazardous Waste Generation During the Baseline Period for Units Impacted by the Modernization Project v

6 JUNE 2014 CHEVRON REFINERY MODERNIZATION PROJECT FINAL EIR Table 6-2 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives Impacts Table 6-2B Summary of Comparison of Alternatives Impacts Assuming Implementation of Reliability and No Net Increase Commitment Table 6-22 Unmitigated Reduced Sulfur Processing/No Increased Greenhouse Gas Refinery Emissions Alternative Emissions Compared to Unmitigated Project (93% Utilization) Emissions Table 6-23 Reduced Sulfur Processing Alternative/No Increased Greenhouse Gas Refinery Emissions Alternative Emissions (Mitigated to NNI) Compared to Project Emissions (Mitigated to NNI) Table 6-24 Additional CAP and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Maximum Hydrogen Production for the Reduced Sulfur Production/No Increase in Refinery Greenhouse Gas Emissions Alternative Table 6-25 Unmitigated Reduced Sulfur Processing/No Increased Greenhouse Gas Refinery Emissions/No FCC FHT Expansion Alternative Emissions Compared to Unmitigated Project (93% Utilization) Emissions Table 6-26 Reduced Sulfur Processing/No Increased Greenhouse Gas Refinery Emissions/No FCC FHT Alternative Emissions (To Be Mitigated to NNI) Compared to Project Emissions (To Be Mitigated to NNI) Table 6-27 Additional CAP and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Maximum Hydrogen Production for the Reduced Sulfur Processing/No Increase in Refinery Greenhouse Gas Emissions/No FCC FHT Expansion Alternative Table A4.0-3 Other, Non-Chevron Refinery and Pipeline Projects Considered as Part of the Chevron Refinery Modernization Project EIR Cumulative Impact Analysis Table 5-1 Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 5-2 Improvement Measure Monitoring and Reporting Program 5-62 Table 5-3 Excerpts from Chevron Long Wharf Marine Terminal EIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Program vi

7 CHEVRON REFINERY MODERNIZATION PROJECT FINAL EIR JUNE 2014 vii

8 JUNE 2014 CHEVRON REFINERY MODERNIZATION PROJECT FINAL EIR viii

Middle Harbor Project: Draft EIS/EIR LA Chamber of Commerce June 26, 2008, APM Maersk HQ Pier 400

Middle Harbor Project: Draft EIS/EIR LA Chamber of Commerce June 26, 2008, APM Maersk HQ Pier 400 Richard D. Cameron Director of Environmental Planning, Port of Long Beach CEQA/NEPA Process Summary The