PG&E Richmond-to-Pittsburg Pipeline
Previous Section | Next Section

CHAPTER 5.0
Comments and Responses

5.1 INTRODUCTION

A total of 15 comment letters were received from various agencies and organizations concerning the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E) Application Numbers 00-05-035 and 00-12-008. Application 00-05-035 involves PG&E's sale of the Richmond-to-Pittsburg pipeline and Hercules Pump Station, while Application 00-12-008 involves San Pablo Bay Pipeline Company's application to own and operate these assets..

PG&E filed Application 00-05-035 with the CPUC to sell its heated Richmond-to-Pittsburg Fuel Oil Pipeline to a new owner, the San Pablo Bay Pipeline Company (SPBPC), a subsidiary of Tosco Corporation. In a separate application (No. 00-12-008) SPBPC is seeking authority to own and operate the Richmond-to-Pittsburg Fuel Oil Pipeline as a common carrier pipeline corporation. The proposed sale includes the pipeline from its point of origin in Castro Street (adjacent to General Chemical's facility) in the City of Richmond, to the Pittsburg Power Plant, formerly owned by PG&E, located in the City of Pittsburg and includes the Hercules Pump Station, located in the City of Hercules.

5.2 LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED

The comment letters received on the Draft MND have been grouped in order of their arrival. Each comment letter has been assigned a corresponding alphabet letter designation. The commenting agencies or organizations who sent letters are listed below in Table 5-1.

5.3 MASTER RESPONSES

Several substantial issues were raised repeatedly in the comment letters. Rather than address them in each of the letter, the following master responses were prepared and are referred to in the relevant response.

MASTER RESPONSE 1

A number of comments received on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) concerned the kinds of products for which the Richmond-to-Pittsburg Fuel Oil Pipeline and related assets can be used. The following response is provided:

The Pipeline was originally authorized pursuant to a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the CPUC on May 20, 1975 for a 42-mile long pipeline extending from the Chevron Richmond Refinery to the former PG&E Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants (Decision 84448). The CPCN authorized PG&E to construct the Pipeline and related assets and use them to transport oil, petroleum, and other similar products. The original purpose of the Pipeline was to provide PG&E's former Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power plants with heated, low-sulfur, residual fuel oil from the Chevron refinery. The Pipeline was used in this fashion from 1976 to 1982, when PG&E reduced its use of low-sulfur fuel oil because of its increasing expense. The Pipeline has been maintained to provide stand-by capability in case of natural gas supply interruptions or similar circumstances. The last major movement of oil through the Pipeline was in 1991, with several subsequent oil movements made to maintain the integrity of the Pipeline.

The analysis considered in the DMND found that three entitlements apply to the current approved use of the Pipeline today:

1. The original terms of the 1976 CPCN state that the current CPUC-approved use of the Pipeline is the transport of "oil, petroleum, and products thereof." These terms define a broad class of petroleum products which would be liquid, i.e., non-gaseous and be derived from oil. -
   
   
2. In August 1976, in association with the Pipeline construction and use, the City of Hercules issued a limited use permit for the Hercules Pump Station. The permit states that "[s]torage of liquids other than residual fuel oil and displacement oil as described in the project Environmental Impact Report must be approved by the City Council of the City of Hercules" (City Council Resolution, August 9, 1976).
   
   
3. In June of 1993, the City of Hercules adopted Ordinance No. 319, which states:
   
   "Granted to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, its successors and assigns, the franchise to construct, maintain, use, operate, repair, replace, renew and remove or abandon in place pipelines, pipes and appurtenances which may be used or useful in transmitting, distributing and supplying to the grantee and/or to the public, oil or products thereof including petroleum, gasoline, fuel oil, distillate petroleum products and other petroleum by products, which can be transported through a pipeline in, under, along, across or upon the public roads, streets, highways, ways, alleys and other places as the same now or may hereafter exist within the City of Hercules."

The existing CPCN will not need to be transferred to SPBPC if the sale is approved since SPBPC has applied to the CPUC for authority to own and operate the Richmond to Pittsburg Fuel Oil Pipeline and Hercules Pump Station as a regulated common carrier, as specified in PUC Sections 216 and 228. These sections state:

"216. (a) "Public utility" includes every common carrier…where the service is performed for, or the commodity is delivered to, the public or any portion thereof.

(b) Whenever any common carrier…performs a service for, or delivers a commodity to, the public or any portion thereof for which any compensation or payment whatsoever is received, that common carrier…is a public utility subject to the jurisdiction, control, and regulation of the commission and the provisions of this part…"

"228. "Pipeline corporation" includes every corporation or person owning, controlling, operating, or managing any pipeline for compensation within this state.

"Pipeline corporation" shall not include a corporation or person employing landfill gas technology and owning, controlling, operating, or managing any pipeline solely for the transmission or distribution of landfill gas or other form of energy generated or produced therefrom."

Under PUC Section 1001, companies whose operations are solely related to the transport of oil (i.e., oil pipeline companies) are not required to obtain a CPCN, but must obtain common carrier status from the CPUC prior to commencing operations. Furthermore Tosco's application (A.00-12-008) states:

"San Pablo proposes to utilize the Pipeline Assets to provide public utility pipeline transportation services to Tosco, as well as other potential shippers. The Pipeline Assets will no longer be confined to use by PG&E's electric generating plants, but will be operated by San Pablo as a common carrier, open to all potential shippers."

Of the two remaining permit conditions (i.e., excluding the CPCN, which will not be transferred), the most limiting to the content of the potential product to be transported by the Pipeline is contained in the City of Hercules limited use permit. This states that residual fuel oil and displacement oil are the only liquids that can be stored at the Hercules Pump Station unless the City of Hercules approves other liquids. These liquids (residual fuel oil and displacement oil) are the same low-sulfur oil and cutter stock referred to in the DMND. It is the CPUC's understanding (based on discussions with PG&E) that the design of the Pipeline and Pump Station are such that the Pump Station tanks, for which the City of Hercules limited use permit applies, would be routinely used with movement of product through the Pipeline1. Therefore, although SPBPC's common carrier status and Ordinance 319 would more broadly define what may be transported via the Pipeline, the City of Hercules limited use permit provides a more restrictive definition what the Pipeline may store in the tanks and thus what may be transported through the Pipeline.

For the purposes of the environmental review conducted for the proposed project described in the DMND, it was assumed that the City of Hercules limited use permit conditions, as discussed above, define what may be transported in the Pipeline and stored in the Pump Station's tanks. Furthermore, for the foreseeable future, the City of Hercules limited use permit is expected to continue in effect. Note that SPBPC has indicated that once the sale of the Pipeline has been completed, it may consider a change in service to include other petroleum products (which may include crude oil, gas oil, intermediates and refined products). Should SPBPC desire to seek changes to the permitted product, SPBPC would be required to seek modifications to the limited use permit as described above. Any such future proposed change would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, as well as to the discretionary decision-making process at the City of Hercules.

Based on the above information, the text of Section 1.6.11 is revised as follows for clarity:

"If its application is approved, SPBPC will be a common carrier pipeline corporation regulated by the CPUC. The Richmond to Pittsburg Fuel Oil Pipeline and Hercules Pump Station were constructed specifically to transport fuel oil and would require significant modification and local jurisdictional approval to be used for other purposes. Any change in use of the pipeline and Hercules Pump Station initiated by SPBPC would require CPUC City of Hercules approval. Any change in use would also require negotiation of amendments to easements and rights-of-way with numerous landowners along the entire right of way and modification to the conditional use permit from the City of Hercules for the change in product carried in the pipeline or the modification to existing improvements to the Hercules Pump Station. Tosco has one refinery in the area that could be fueled by petroleum. SPBPC has indicated that once the sale of the pipeline has been completed, it may consider a change in service to include other petroleum products (which may include crude oil, gas oil, intermediates and refined products). However the existing permits limit the type of products that can be transported in the pipeline Purchase and Sale Agreement prohibits SPBPC from seeking any change in the permitted use of the pipeline before the sale closes. With this restriction, it is reasonably foreseeable that for the immediate future following the sale, the use of the pipeline would remain as transport of petroleum products, quite possibly between any of the several Tosco other refineries (including Tosco's Rodeo refinery) and transport facilities along the route of the pipeline."

Finally, Section 1.7 of the Project Description in the Draft MND discusses long term operation and use of the pipeline and pump station, setting forth the assumptions upon which the analyses were based.

MASTER RESPONSE 2

The proposed project, which is the subject of this environmental document, is the approval of PG&E's Section 851 application, in which PG&E seeks to sell its heated Richmond-to-Pittsburg Fuel Oil Pipeline to San Pablo Bay Pipeline Company (SPBPC). The project includes establishing the market value of the Pipeline and pump station assets under Section 367(b) using the sale price of the assets as the market value. In addition, SPBPC is seeking approval under Sections 216 and 228 of the Public Utilities Code to own and operate the Richmond-to-Pittsburg Fuel Oil Pipeline and Hercules Pump Station as a common carrier pipeline corporation. Thus, it is the sale and transfer of the Pipeline for which approval is now being sought.

As was described in Sections 1.1 and 1.6.2 of the DMND, a 4,000-foot section of the Pipeline within the City of Martinez was blocked and filled in 1998 to make way for an unrelated transportation project within Martinez. At the present time, construction of the 4,000-foot replacement section is yet to be applied for, and any such replacement is not at all well defined. What is known about this potential and reasonably foreseeable 4,000-foot replacement section is provided in this Final Mitigated Negative Declaration as new figures (1-3, 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6), which shows the easements obtained by PG&E for the replacement section and what is known about the connection points to the existing pipeline.

Environmental review of the construction of the 4,000-foot replacement section was included in the DMND because such construction is a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the proposed sale. Essentially, this CEQA review considers the replacement project at a CEQA programmatic level. Given the data available and considered in the DMND, as well as subsequent information received during this response to comments stage, the mitigation measures as written do set up performance standards that will ensure that generally known impacts arising from such construction will be less than significant. To have provided more project level analysis or mitigation measures would be speculative at this point. These programmatic mitigation measures also provide an added level of security, since future environmental review will likely be conducted of the replacement pipeline before it may be constructed. Thus, the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not defer mitigation measures to later action. The DMND properly identifies program level mitigation measures consistent with the program level information that is available concerning the pipeline replacement, which has not yet been designed or formally proposed. It is expected that project level mitigation measures will also be developed and required at the appropriate project level CEQA juncture.

The analysis in this document cannot fully examine all potential replacement pipeline construction impacts, nor fully specify all necessary mitigation measures for the replacement because the replacement is not the subject of this document, and substantial details of replacement would be required for proper review of pipeline replacement. The pipeline replacement would be subject to additional permitting review, including local agency permits, a BCDC permit, EBRPD encroachment permits and / or an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit (which would evoke NEPA and Endangered Species Act consultation with both National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and a California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement. Because the actions of these agencies would trigger NEPA and / or CEQA review, specific project-related impacts would be fully assessed and mitigation measures determined as appropriate at such time as the details of the pipeline replacement are known or proposed.

5.4 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

This section contains responses to all of the substantive comments received on the Draft MND during the extended 30-day review period. Each comment letter was assigned a letter according to the system identified previously (i.e. A, B, etc.). Each comment addressed within each letter was assigned a number (i.e. A1, A2, etc). Responses are provided to each written comment number within the letter. Where a response to a similar comment has been provided in another response, the reader is referred to the previous response.

All changes to the MND are described in the response and referred by the page number on which the original text appears in the MND. Added text in underlined; deleted text is stricken.

LETTER A - ANDREA GAUT - BCDC

Response A1
Please refer to page 2-2 of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) item number 10, which lists additional agencies from which permits or approval would be required. Included in this list is the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Also see page IX-9, which indicates a number of places along the pipeline route that fall under the jurisdiction of the BCDC.

LETTER B - JAMES D. SQUERI - GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI, RIGCHIE & DAY, LLP

Response B1
Please see Master Response 1.

Response B2
As the commentor notes, the end use of the fuel oil has not been determined although as discussed in Master Response 1 the approval being sought limits the products that can be transported. The DMND addressed the issue of end use of transported product to the extent possible in Section 1.6.12:

"Identification of points of origin and points of delivery for the petroleum product along the Richmond to Pittsburg Fuel Oil Pipeline would be speculative at this point. It seems likely that tie-ins to the pipeline would need to be installed before the system would be fully operational.

The initial design of the pipeline anticipated future tie-ins by installing connection amenities for access to ship transportation at some of the refineries located along the shoreline between Richmond and Antioch. Also, the Hercules Pump Station was designed to allow movement of oil from a marine loading wharf that was once located at the former Gulf Refinery in Hercules, although no provisions were made to connect the wharf to the pipeline. There are also eight 10-inch tees on the Hercules to Pittsburg section of the pipeline, including one adjacent to Tosco's Rodeo refinery. There is also one 10-inch tap and a metering station at the Shore Terminal Tank Farm facility in Martinez.

Installation of tie-ins may require permitting and agency approval and land rights acquisition. These activities would be the responsibility of SPBPC, or the company desiring such a tie-in, once a plan for such facilities is developed."

There is no new information available about SPBPC's intended use for the Pipeline beyond that described above.

Response B3
Although the project sponsor may have a Vesting Tentative Map, as of November, 2001, a visual survey of the inland portion of the New Pacific Properties site, to which the Initial Study refers, indicated that the inland portion of the site was still undeveloped. The Vesting Tentative Map permits a project sponsor to develop a site subject to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in place at the time the Vesting Tentative Map is granted. The Vesting Tentative Map does not change the fact that the site had not yet been developed.

It is understood that SCS intends to develop this land. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) recognized the potential for the very uses raised by the commentor, and examined the potential for land use conflicts between the New Pacific Properties development and the pipeline operations. The Draft MND in fact quoted from the EIR for that project in Section IX, Land Use and Planning, which states:

The EIR for the proposed development project notes (p. 5.5-17):

"The City shall condition approval of development proposals on the New Pacific Properties site on the provision of adequate buffers between proposed sensitive receptors on the site and existing or approved industrial uses on adjacent sites. Adequate buffers shall also be provided between such uses within the site. 'Sensitive receptors' include but are not limited to residential, education and recreational uses. 'Approved' refers to specific projects that have been approved, specific uses that have been approved as part of a n overall development plan (such as a specific plan), or uses that may be developed 'by right' on a parcel without additional discretionary approvals. The width of the buffers shall be determined on the basis of information regarding the types of uses; the hazardous materials handled and wastes generated, environmental conditions (wind pattern, surface and ground water flows, soil characteristics, any reported contamination and status of remediation). The width of the buffers shall be intended to avoid significant environmental impacts."

The DMND therefore concluded that there would be no significant impact with operation of the pipeline and construction of the then-proposed development. The mere fact that the proposed development has now been approved and is being constructed in no manner affects the analysis of impacts, or the conclusions. What is happening on the ground now is precisely what was assumed to occur and considered in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Response B4
The commentor is correct, the text of the Draft MND incorrectly states that the City of Hercules is considering amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Hercules General Plan was amended on April 11, 2000; the Zoning Ordinance was amended on May 9, 2000; and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8455, discussed above in Response to Comment B3, was approved on October 24, 2000. The analysis in the DMND assumes the development described in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments. While the analysis does not specifically discuss the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, the Map permits the development permitted by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments. The conclusions of the DMND would therefore not change.

On pp. IX-6 and IX-6, the following paragraphs concerning the City of Hercules are revised as follows:

The City of Hercules General Plan governs land use designations in the City of Hercules. A segment of the project's pipeline runs through the City of Hercules and the project's pump station is also located within the City of Hercules along the east side of San Pablo Avenue. The pump station is located on land designated by the General Plan for industrial use. Industrial uses are "intended to accommodate heavy industrial uses, refineries, and storage facilities along with light manufacturing use and other light industrial uses related to evolving technologies, research & development, communications, and information processing." The General Plan also states: "The designation is to provide an opportunity for industrial uses to concentrate for the efficiency of larger industries and to allow for buffers from sensitive residential and public uses in a manner that does not expose residents to significant environmental risk" (p. 11-32).

The pipeline enters the City of Hercules from the City of Richmond in the Union Pacific right-of-way until it leaves the right-of-way, and runs underground in a southeast direction through developed and undeveloped lands, crossing Linus Pauling Drive and Alfred Nobel Drive to the pump station. The pipeline passes alongside lands designated Public-Park (San Pablo Bay Regional Park), Waterfront Commercial, General Commercial, and Planned Office - Research and Development, and Specific Plan.

The pump station is also located in the City of Hercules, in an area designated by the City of Hercules General Plan as Industrial, and is adjacent to an area designated Planned Commercial Industrial Specific Plan. From the pump station, the pipeline is located underground within the San Pablo Avenue right-of-way, passing areas on the west side of San Pablo Avenue that are designated General Commercial, Planned Office - Research and Development, and Industrial, and Specific Plan. Industrial uses are "intended to accommodate heavy industrial uses, refineries, and storage facilities along with light manufacturing use and other light industrial uses related to evolving technologies, research & development, communications, and information processing." The General Plan also states: "The designation is to provide an opportunity for industrial uses to concentrate for the efficiency of larger industries and to allow for buffers from sensitive residential and public uses in a manner that does not expose residents to significant environmental risk" (p. II-32).

The General Plan contains the following policy relevant to the pipeline and pump station:

Policy 13A: Create a transition between residential neighborhoods and commercial/industrial areas, except where such mixed uses are desirable (e.g. live/work space and other designated areas). Land uses must minimize adverse impacts, and those that would not negatively impact adjoining properties should be encouraged.

The City of Hercules has initiated a process to adopt a Specific Plan that would encompass a discrete area north of and adjacent to the pump station, and that would expand across San Pablo Avenue to San Pablo Bay. Currently designated for Planned Commercial Industrial uses, the City proposes to amend the General Plan so that the land is designated Specific Plan, with residential and institutional uses. The project site is zoned Industrial. City also proposes to amend the Zoning Regulations so that t The areas immediately adjacent to the pump station would be are within SP-R-MH Residential Medium High Density and SP-R/RF Retail/Residential Flex zoning districts. Further north, portions of the site would be adjacent lands are zoned SP-S School and SP-R-Z Residential Z-Lot.

The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance were amended specifically for the New Pacific Properties project, which anticipates construction of an estimated 763 single-family homes, 117 multi-family units, 65,000 sq. ft of residential/retail flex, an elementary school, parks, trails and roadways. The New Pacific Properties project flanks San Pablo Avenue, and consists of two subareas: the coastal subarea, located west of San Pablo Avenue, and the inland subarea located east of San Pablo Avenue. The inland subarea is located adjacent to the pumping station, and would include mixed uses, the elementary school, and the more dense single-family development areas.

Response B5

The commentor suggests that the document should include a discussion of the protests filed on A.00-12-008. The CPUC considers two interrelated processes on discretionary actions such as this. The first is the general proceeding side, which the application was filed on, and the second is the CEQA process. Both processes are considered by the CPUC for project approval. The CPUC assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will make a ruling on these protest/response filings, however, as of yet, no ruling has been made by the ALJ. While the information contained in the protests (and responses) was considered during preparation of the CEQA document, it is not necessary to provide summaries of these filings in a CEQA document. Furthermore, these filings are matters of public record.

LETTER C - CHRIS BEKIARIS - CITY OF PITTSBURG

Response C1
The last sentence of the second paragraph on page 1-4 is changed as follows:

The pipeline then continues east along the UPRR corridor through the City of Martinez, under Interstate 680 at the Benicia Bridge, across Pacheco Creek, and into extends to just north of the limits for the City of Pittsburg into Contra Costa County, where it terminates terminating just west of the Pittsburg Power Plant.

VIEW LETTER D

LETTER D - CITY OF PITTSBURG

Response D1
As is mentioned on page 1-6 of the Draft MND and elsewhere, the original purpose of the pipeline was to transport fuel oil from Richmond to PG&E's Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants. When these two power plants were sold to Southern Energy (now known as Mirant), the section of the pipeline between the Pittsburg and Contra Costa Plants was sold with the two plants. The pipeline that is now proposed to be sold terminates at the Mirant Power Plant pumping station, which was used in the past to direct fuel oil to tanks for the Mirant Pittsburg Power Plant or to the Mirant Contra Costa Power Plant. Although the Mirant plants have used oil in the past and could again in the future, present day economics and air quality concerns make it not reasonably foreseeable that this would be a potential use of the pipeline by SPBPC. Furthermore, neither PG&E nor SPBPC propose in their project to have any relationship with the Mirant Power Plants.

LETTER E - DTSC

Response E1
Master Response 2 states that the 4,000-foot replacement pipeline section is yet to be applied for, and any such replacement is not well defined. However, the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) included the results of a search of known sites in the vicinity of the area expected for a 4,000-foot replacement section and found no sites that require remediation. Such a search is traditionally the heart of a Phase I Site Assessment, although a Phase I analysis also includes matters outside the scope of CEQA, such as information developed for liability and insurance purposes. The DMND requires that a Phase I analysis of the entire length of the replacement pipeline route be prepared by SPBPC and submitted to CPUC in order to confirm the results of the data search reported in the DMND. Mitigation Measures VII.1a and b were included in the DMND as a precaution in case contamination is discovered from a Phase I analysis. If any remediation activity were to be required, significant impacts would be avoided by following the procedures and practices identified in mitigation measures 1a and 1b.

Response E2
Contaminated soils, if encountered, would be considered as hazardous waste and would be disposed of based on the criteria described in Sections 66261.20 through 66261.120 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, as enforced by DTSC and Contra Costa County. Soil would only be reused onsite if it were determined on a case by case basis not to be hazardous, if it were suitable to be used as fill, and if approval were received from DTSC. See also Master Response 2.

Response E3
The comment is noted.

Response E4
According to the record search conducted by ESA, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, as the lead agency designated on the Cortese List, determined that no remediation was necessary.

Response E5
The CPUC agrees that DTSC should be included in future meetings relevant to DTSC statutory authority.

VIEW LETTER F

LETTER F - EAST BAY REGIONAL PARKS DISTRICT

Response F1
In response to the request, an extension until December 7, 2001 was granted to the East Bay Regional Parks District by Billie Blanchard of the CPUC.

VIEW LETTER G

LETTER G -.CITY OF HERCULES EBRPD

Response G1
In response to the request, an extension until December 7, 2001 was granted to the City of Hercules by Billie Blanchard of the CPUC.

Response H1
The commentor appears to be confused about Section 15072 Notice of Intent requirements. The CPUC has correctly followed CEQA Guidelines Section 15072 by filing a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND), which included a notice of publication, service list of recipients of the DMND and followed proper noticing requirements of the DMND and notice of the duration of the public review period per 15072 and 15073 as its notice of its intent to adopt the DMND. Furthermore, as required by Section 15072, the DMND was filed with the Contra Costa County Clerk on November 6, 2001. Additionally, the CPUC also noticed all landowners along the Pipeline route of the publication of the DMND and availability of the DMND. Section 15072 has no requirement for preconsultation period however, as discussed in Section 4.0 of the DMND and Response to Comment H2, an agency outreach meeting held on March 5, 2001 with WCCUSD in attendance that provided the commentors the opportunity to provide input to the document preparation process.

Response H2
As mentioned by the commentor, CEQA Section 21151.4 states:

"§ 21151.4. Construction or alteration of facility within 1/4 mile of school; reasonable anticipation of air emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous material; approval of environmental impact report or negative declaration

No environmental impact report or negative declaration shall be approved for any project involving the construction or alteration of a facility within 1/4 of a mile of a school which might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous or acutely hazardous air emission, or which would handle acutely hazardous material or a mixture containing acutely hazardous material in a quantity equal to or greater than the quantity specified in subdivision (a) of Section 25536 of the Health and Safety Code, which may pose a health or safety hazard to persons who would attend or would be employed at the school, unless both of the following occur:

(a) The lead agency preparing the environmental impact report or negative declaration has consulted with the school district having jurisdiction regarding the potential impact of the project on the school.

(b) The school district has been given written notification of the project not less than 30 days prior to the proposed approval of the environmental impact report or negative declaration."

The initial consultation with WCCUSD concerning the Pipeline project occurred on March 5, 2001. WCCUSD staff present at a meeting included Gary Freshi, Jack Schreder, and Cate Burkhart. The following were also in attendance: Mike Sakamoto, Erwin Blancaflor, and Dennis Tagashira, City of Hercules; Jim Townsend, East Bay Regional Parks District; Jim Lopeman, New Pacific Properties; Tim Morgan, Environmental Science Associates; Billie Blanchard, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); and Deborah Fleischer, Public Affairs Management.

WCCUSD representatives also attended an agency meeting sponsored by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on November 15, 2001, in the City of Hercules Council Chambers to discuss the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Pipeline. Gary Freshi represented WCCUSD at the November meeting. Also in attendance was Caroleen Toyama, a WCCUSD consultant from IT Corp. Both asked questions and provided input that was considered in the preparation of the DMND.

WCCUSD received written notification not only of the meetings, but also received the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the supporting Initial Study when the document was circulated on October 30, 2001. As the proposed project has not yet been adopted by the CPUC, all of this consultation and noticing has occurred well in advance of the 30-day period mentioned by Section 21151.4.

During the March 5, 2001 meeting, WCCUSD asked several questions that indicated that WCCUSD had full knowledge of the proposed Pipeline project at that time. At the November 15, 2001 meeting, WCCUSD indicated that it would undertake a risk assessment for its proposed new school at the New Pacific Properties site (inland), and that it might make the results available to the CPUC. According to the California Department of Education (O'Neill, 2002), the risk assessment was completed in October 2001, after the Pipeline environmental document was circulated. Based on the risk assessment, the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) approved the Phase I report and stated that no further action was required. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was also adopted by WCCUSD for the new school in November, 2001. Subsequently, a Notice of Determination was filed by WCCUSD with the State Clearinghouse on November 21, 2001, after the Pipeline environmental document was circulated and before the WCCUSD Response to Comment was written. WCCUSD made no mention of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the school at the November 15, 2001 meeting.

The CPUC, through Environmental Science Associates (ESA), has attempted to obtain copies of the risk assessment, as well as the New Pacific Properties School Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study Checklist upon which the Mitigated Negative Declaration was based. The California Department of Education, emphasizing that these are public documents, suggested contacting WCCUSD directly and talking with Vince Kilmartin, WCCUSD Associate Superintendent, or with Tom Ventura, a consultant at WCCUSD. In January 2002, ESA spoke with or left messages for Tom Ventura, Gary Freshi, and Vince Kilmartin about obtaining copies of the risk assessment, Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. All either stated that the documents would be sent or that they would be of assistance, if needed. ESA provided Tom Ventura with ESA's Federal Express account number so that the documents could be sent by overnight mail. After the documents were not received, in a follow-up call to Mr. Kilmartin's office on January 18, 2002, an assistant informed ESA that Mr. Ventura had been advised not to release the documents "until the situation is assessed" and that ESA could discuss the request with WCCUSD counsel.

ESA also attempted to obtain a copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study from a local public library. Contra Costa County operates the nearest library in the City of Pinole, which indicated it did not have a copy (telephone inquiry, January 22, 2002). ESA also contacted the City of Hercules through an e-mail and phone calls. The City responded that it does not have a copy of the MND (email of February 13, 2002). Consequently, ESA is unable to fully assess this MND and its conclusions with respect to the DMND for the Pipeline. Regardless of the lack of availability of both the risk and MND to the analysis team, from what is known about the conclusions of these documents, it is expected that these documents would only further support conclusions reached in the DMND and not cause any change to stated impacts or mitigations.

Response H3
Five new figures are provided with this Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. 1-7 shows in much greater detail the existing Hercules Pumping Station environs and fuel oil pipeline in proximity to the New Pacific Properties development. Figures 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6 show the approximate location of the Martinez 4,000-foot replacement section and easement boundaries.

Response H4
Please see Master Response 1 and Response to Comment B2.

Response H5
The commentor recommends the review of several statements about maintenance of the pipeline and the current state of the pipeline. These statements are not connected and are accurate within their stated context. The first reference (page I-8) is made with respect to general pipeline operation measures, which could be expected to occur at anytime and anywhere on the pipeline during the normal course of operations. The second reference (page VII-2) concerns the current status of the pipeline and concludes that the pipeline is sound.

Response H6
PG&E has indicated that the Fire Marshall interacts verbally with PG&E during site visits, discussing the results of the inspection. Because there have been no significant issues identified by the Fire Marshall, PG&E has not received any recent written reports. The DMND states that the laboratory results from the Phase II study indicate low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in limited areas on the site - not significant enough to require remediation. If these measured levels are the result of any spillage onsite, then any migration offsite (to areas 1,000 feet south of the facility) would result in much lower concentrations because of dispersion and dilution.

Response H7
There are no changes in operating parameters expected from those that were considered in the WCCUSD risk analysis (see Master Response 1). Consequently, the conclusion reached that the pipeline and storage tanks do not pose a substantially great risk (based on the description of the risk analysis provided by the commentor). The MND states that, although the pipeline has not been used on a regular basis since 1982, the pipeline was maintained to operate on a stand-by basis, and quantities of oil were occasionally moved through the pipeline to verify its integrity until the 4,000 foot section of the pipeline in Martinez was removed in 1998. Since that time, maintenance activities have been carried out regularly. A series of steps to ensure pipeline integrity are identified in the MND, including the use of a smart pig to detect any pipeline deterioration. The MND states that, based upon the results of the most recent smart pig test, the integrity of the pipeline is sound and can be reactivated without the need for repair or modification.

The pipeline has been kept filled with an inert gas during inactive periods to eliminate corrosion, and before it is reactivated, the line will be pressurized with water and leak tested. This will ensure that the pipeline will operate safely when reactivated

Response H8
The WCCUSD has correctly followed CCR Title 5 regulations by conducting a risk assessment for the proposed school in the New Pacific Development. WCCUSD notes in its comment (3) that the risk assessment found that the pipeline and pump station, at the present allowable limits, did not pose a "substantially great risk." This study has not been provided to the CPUC. This DMND assumes that the allowable limits of the pipeline will not change. Therefore, the pipeline will continue to not pose a substantially great risk. If SPBPC desires to change the operating limits of the pipeline, then a new application that assesses the new risks would have to be prepared. The comment does not indicate when the four existing schools were constructed. Furthermore, as the pipeline has been in existence since 1975, and it is very likely that these same schools have coexisted with the pipeline for some period of time, it is unclear why a risk assessment would need to be performed at this time. The risk from the pipeline has remained constant over the past 27 years. Finally, there is no evidence of any real physical environmental impact and thus there are no direct economic consequences from the proposed project.

Response H9
Please see Master Response 1. Some of these entitlements were in place in 1976. Furthermore, they all must be considered as part of the existing environment. The comment does not indicate when the existing schools were constructed. However, please see the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) at Section 1.0, Description of the Proposed Project, pages 1-4 through 1-6. As stated, the Pipeline (which consists of the pipeline and the Pumping Station) was constructed in 1975 and actively used from 1976 to 1982 (19 to 25 years ago). Since 1982, the Pipeline has been maintained for potential use. The last major movement of product through the pipeline was in 1991 (10 years ago). Following 1991, product has moved through the line to maintain its integrity.

Existing schools are considered in this analysis to be operating schools and the Pipeline is considered in this analysis to be an existing Pipeline not currently in active use, but maintained in an operable condition, with entitlements that allow its use to continue. As a result, easements for the Pipeline continue to exist, product continues to occasionally move through the Pipeline for maintenance purposes, and the Pipeline can be used more actively at any time within it approved limits and uses.

This pipeline was known to WCCUSD, and the New Pacific Properties Specific Plan EIR includes mitigation measures from the Redevelopment Plan EIR that require adequate setbacks commensurate with "the types of uses, the hazardous materials handled and wastes generated, environmental conditions (wind patterns, surface and ground water flows, soils characteristics, any reported contamination and status of remediation). The width of the buffer shall be intended to avoid significant environmental impacts" (DEIR, p. 5.5-17). The New Pacific Properties Specific Plan EIR also refers to the Redevelopment EIR's requirement for "buffers, setbacks, and design features of the type currently incorporated into the Specific Plan. These features would provide an adequate buffer between proposed sensitive receptors on the project area and existing or approved adjacent industrial uses" (DEIR, p.5.5-18).

The comments of those attending the November 15, 2001 public meeting are part of the record for this document. Please also see Response to Comment B4, for the applicable general plan policy that addresses the development of residential areas near industrial uses.

Response H10
According to the State Department of Education (O'Neill, 2002), the WCCUSD is required to comply with various state regulations for siting a new school. Among those requirements is Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, Division, Chapter 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter 1, Section 14010 (h), which states: The site shall not be located near an above-ground water or fuel storage tank or within 1500 feet of the easement of an above ground or underground pipeline that can pose a safety hazard as determined by a risk analysis study, conducted by a competent professional, which may include certification from a local public utility commission.

The required risk analysis study has been completed by WCCUSD and, according to the California Department of Education (CDE), the study determined that the risk was minimal (O'Neill, 2002). In addition, CDE requires a "one-quarter mile determination" to assess the risk of exposure to hazardous materials in the air, as well as other site related information (O'Neill, 2002).

In addition, WCCUSD is required to comply with the applicable mitigation measures identified in the New Pacific Properties EIR, which incorporates Redevelopment Plan EIR Mitigation Measure (F1(b)) (DEIR, p. 5.5-17), as follows:

10. The City shall condition approval of development proposals on the new Pacific Properties site on the provision of adequate buffers between proposed sensitive receptors on the site and existing or approved industrial uses on adjacent sites. Adequate buffers shall also be provided between such uses within the site. "Sensitive receptors" include but are not limited to residential, education and recreational uses. "Approved" refers to specific projects that have been approved as part of an overall development plan (such as a specific plan) or uses that may be developed "by right" on a parcel without additional discretionary approvals. The width of the buffers shall be determined on the basis of information regarding the type of uses, the hazardous materials handled and wastes generated, environmental conditions (wind patterns, surface and ground water flows, soils characteristics, any reported contamination and status of remediation). The width of the buffers shall be intended to avoid significant environmental impacts.

The New Pacific Properties EIR also incorporates (DEIR, p. 5.5-18) Redevelopment Plan EIR Mitigation Measure (F2(e)), which applies to the school site and which states:

13. The project would have buffers, setbacks and design features of the type currently incorporated into the Specific Plan. These features would provide an adequate buffer between proposed sensitive receptors on the project area and existing or approved adjacent industrial uses.

Response H11
Within the vicinity of the Hercules Pump Station, San Pablo Avenue is a four-lane divided arterial with bike lanes. Access into the Hercules Pump Station facility off San Pablo Avenue is right-turn in/out only. There are no apparent sight deficiencies at this entrance. Existing daily volumes on San Pablo Avenue in the project vicinity are approximately 7,000 vehicles per day.

As discussed in the DMND, operation of the proposed project would not change existing transportation facilities. Operation of the Hercules Pump Station would require between one to two workers daily to operate the facility. In addition, a maintenance crew of five to ten workers would be required to perform occasional maintenance at the Hercules Pump Station. These operational and maintenance activities would not result in a substantial increase in background daily or peak-hour traffic on San Pablo Avenue nor would they significantly increase the potential for conflicts on San Pablo Avenue.

The area nearest the pump station is proposed for multi-family and retail uses, while a potential school site has been identified toward the center of the Specific Plan area, accessible from San Pablo Avenue. These future uses could generate increases in vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic in the project area. However, future developments would be required to provide off-site transportation improvements as appropriate to ensure that potential increases in vehicular and pedestrian traffic from those developments would not result in a significant impact. Nevertheless, project-generated traffic from the Hercules Pump Station would not be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to traffic on San Pablo Avenue, or to pedestrian safety issues.

Response H12
The commentor seeks to have consultation with the WCCUSD included in mitigation measures presented sections of the DMND. It is not necessary to specify this consultation into the mitigation measures for this proposed project. With respect to this proposed project, the CPUC has followed appropriate consultation with the WCCUSD and other agencies as required by CEQA and CPUC policies. This process is discussed in Response to Comment H2. For any future project, SPBPC may be required by CEQA and/or other laws to consult with WCCUSD, because it is assumed that SPBPC, and regulating agencies would comply with all pertinent noticing and consultations requirements, it is not necessary to further specify this as a mitigation measure for future projects.

Response H13
Please see Response to Comment H9.

VIEW LETTER I

LETTER I - DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

Response I1
Please see Master Response 2.

Response I2
The measures included in the DMND address the temporary impacts potentially caused by the 4,000-foot replacement project as discussed in Master Response 2. There are no permanent project impacts that require mitigation measures pertinent to the commentor's concerns (i.e., biological and cultural resource impacts).

Response I3
The 4,000-foot replacement section could, as noted in the document, affect wetland and stream habitat. Approval of the proposed project would allow the proposal for such structures as rip-rap for erosion protection. Approval of such structures would be the subject of further approvals in line with what is discussed in Master Response 2.

Response I4
The Regulatory Setting section of the DMND states on page IV-5 that:

"The portion of the pipeline route that would require relocation, with a stream crossing and a new pipeline installation at Martinez, may require a permit from the COE in accordance with this regulation because the pipeline replacement may fill wetlands adjacent to Alhambra Creek."

VIEW LETTER J

LETTER J - MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP

Response J0 The comment is noted.

Response J1
Please see Master Response 1.

Response J2
In Section 1.6.11, the following sentence is revised to read:

Tosco has one refinery in the area that could process be fueled by petroleum.

Response J3
Please see Master Response 1.

Response J4
The last paragraph of Section 1.7.1 is changed to read:

"Currently, when the station is in stand-by mode, only one part-time operator is required to inspect the plant. When the station is in pumping mode, one operator is operators are needed at the station to begin pumping. One operator remains in the control building on-site, while another performs duties around the station system controls may be monitored by an operator off-site. Pump station valves can be operated from the control building.

Response J5
The CPUC agrees with the commentor that Mitigation Measures III.1, IV.1, VII.1 and VII.1b should be implemented prior to the start of construction. The text, as written, for Mitigation Measures III.1 and IV.1 appropriately tie the implementation of the measure to the commencement of construction, not to the transfer of the pipeline. The text for Mitigation Measures VII.1 and VII.1b is revised as follows:

From p.VII-9

Response J6
Mitigation Measure I.1 was developed to address concerns of both the City of Martinez and the East Bay Regional Parks District expressed to CPUC Staff during the agency outreach portion of the environmental analysis process. The primary concern voiced a lack of information concerning what will actually be done in the replacement section corridor. Given the lack of detailed plans at this stage, an aesthetic resources plan ensures that the affected jurisdictions will have an opportunity for input once details are available. See also Master Response 2.

VIEW LETTER K

LETTER K - GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI, RIGCHIE & DAY, LLP

Response K1
Please see Master Response 1.

Response K2
Please see Response to Comment B2.

Response K3
Please see Responses to Comment B3 and B4.

Response K4
Please see Response to Comment B4.

Response K5
Please see Response to Comment B5.

Response K6
The commentor asserts that the DMND ignores the fact that the Pipeline has remained idle for many years. Actually, the DMND acknowledges this very fact on page 1-2 and explains the baseline used for the project:

"In conducting its CEQA analysis, the CPUC must set the environmental baseline, which is used to compare with the predicted effects that approval of the applications would have. Because there have been significant advancements in the design and construction techniques of oil pipelines since the Richmond to Pittsburg Pipeline was built, this Initial Study assumes that the baseline for conducting all the following potential environment impact analysis is the present day condition and status of the pipeline and pump station system (i.e., a system that has not been used for regularly scheduled fuel oil shipments for 19 years, and has not moved any products for 10 years). This document analyzes the potential changes that would occur as a result of approval of the PG&E and SPBPC applications, compared to the above baseline."

Please also see Master Response 1 and Response to Comment H9.

Response K7
The comment is noted.

VIEW LETTER L

LETTER L - CALTRANS

Response L1
The CPUC agrees that encroachment permits from CalTrans will need to be sought by SPBPC where needed. As is stated in the DMND:

VIEW LETTER M

LETTER M -City of Hercules

Response M1
PG&E worked with the City of Martinez and the East Bay Regional Park District to obtain replacement easements for a new route to replace the portion of the easements and the pipeline, that were abandoned at the request of the City of Martinez and the Union Pacific Railroad in connection with the development of the Martinez Intermodal Project.

PG&E provided the following easements to ESA in December 2001:

• City of Martinez, LD 2402-03-0723, Doc-2001-0182873-00, recorded June 27, 2001 in the Contra Costa County Recorder's office.

• East Bay Regional Park District, a California special district, LD 2402-03-0724, recorded February 8, 2001 in the Contra Costa County Recorder's office.

Response M2
Please see Response to Comment H3.

Response M3
The commentor requests that under Mitigation Measure V.1a and V.1b, an investigation of historic documents for cultural resources should be conducted now and the results made part of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND). For clarification, the CPUC believes that the commentor has misunderstood these referenced mitigation measures. As provided on pages V-1 and V-2, site records and literature searches were performed at the Northwest Information Center (Sonoma State University) to establish the existing environmental condition (baseline). These searches included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listings, the State of California Historic Landmarks registers, and county and city registers for historic sites. Results of the listed historic and prehistoric archaeological sites as provided by the CPUC's Archaeological Consultant (Basin Research Associates) are indicated on pages V-2 through V-6. The intent of Mitigation Measure V.1a is to ensure that a CPUC approved cultural resource monitor is available at least 15 days prior to the commencement of any project-related construction activities although the analysis conducted for the MND failed to identify any significant known cultural resource sites. The cultural resource monitor presence will insure that if or when potential undiscovered resources are uncovered, appropriate action will be taken to assess and address these potential discoveries.

The last sentence of the comment states that the CPUC and the Native American Heritage Commission should review the Resource Specific Data Recovery Plan at least 30 days prior to the start of project-related construction activities. Again, the CPUC believes that the commentor misunderstood the intent of Mitigation Measure V.1b. This measure was drafted in accordance with Section 15126.4 (b)(3)(C), which states that when data recovery is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan providing for adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information about the historic resource shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be filed with the California Historical Resource Regional Information Center (California State University at Sonoma), and as such must conform to their standards. Archaeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code (refer to Mitigation Measure V.3). As discussed in Master Response 2, the proposed project approval is really about transfer of ownership and operation not approval of the replacement section, it is premature to require a Resource Specific Data Recovery Plan at this stage.

Response M4
The comment states that the evaluation of tectonic creep, as required by Mitigation Measure VI.1, should be conducted now rather than "prior to operation of the pipeline."

It is not necessary to conduct this evaluation prior to completion of the environmental documentation because it is understood that, although impacts related to fault creep are potentially significant, they can be mitigated to a less than significant level through necessary repairs if determined appropriate by an initial engineering evaluation. The mitigation measure, as stated, is adequate because it requires that a specific action needs to be taken to ensure that no impact would occur and requires that such an action be completed prior to operation of the pipeline.

Response M5
Please see Response to Comment E1.

Response M6
The proposed San Francisco Bay Trail currently follows a route that includes the use of easements that are also occupied by the Pipeline. This is the case in the City of Hercules, as well as in other jurisdictions. There is limited potential for Pipeline maintenance to be required at different points along the route, including points that may cross the San Francisco Bay Trail. Therefore, the following text change is made to Mitigation Measure IX.2:

The Association of Bay Area Governments indicates that the final San Francisco Bay Trail alignment through Hercules has not yet been determined (Thompson, 2002). However, any anticipated future maintenance activities along the Pipeline would be temporary and would not require permanent changes to the San Francisco Bay Trail. Therefore, no amendment to the Hercules General Plan should be required by a temporary alternative route due to maintenance activities.

Response M7
It would not be appropriate to develop a traffic control plan until the final design of the project is completed. As discussed in the DMND, the construction contractor shall prepare a traffic control plan in accordance with professional engineering standards prior to commencing construction activities. This traffic control plan would be submitted to applicable jurisdictions for review and approval prior to implementation. As appropriate, the traffic control plan would include the requirements to develop and implement access plans for highly sensitive land uses such as police and fire stations, transit stations, hospitals and schools. The access plans would be developed with the facility owner or administrator. To minimize disruption of emergency vehicle access, affected jurisdictions shall be asked to identify detours for emergency vehicles, which will then be posted by the contractor. The facility owner or operator would be notified in advance of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities and the locations of detours and lane closures.

Response M8
While the connection to the Mirant Pittsburg Power Plant (located in Pittsburg) still exists, the Pittsburg Power Plant has no foreseeable relationship to the proposed project. Please also see Response to Comments C1 and D1.

Response M9
Please see Master Response 1.

Response M10
As these maps large size drawings and are voluminous in number, one copy of the requested maps will be provided to the City under separate cover. However, several new figures have been prepared, as discussed in response H3.

Response M11
Please see Master Response 1.

Response M12
Please see Response to Comments H3 and M10.

Response M13
The comment is noted.

Response M14
While the pipeline is a "generation-related asset," the pipeline does not generate, and never has generated, electricity except in the past to provided fuel oil to PG&E's former Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants which today are operated by Mirant and use natural gas as fuel. However, this issue will be determined in the context of the CPUC Application proceeding process.

Response M15
Transporting fuel oil through the pipeline requires heating the oil due to its viscosity. The fuel oil is thick and would not be movable without being heated. No. 6 low sulfur fuel oil has a pour point of approximately 110 degrees Fahrenheit.

As described on page 1-7 of the DMND, Section 1.5 "Project Components," the pipeline is comprised of two sections. The Richmond to Hercules section of the pipeline is an insulated, 12-inch diameter fuel oil pipeline, approximately 10 miles in length. The Hercules to Pittsburg section is an insulated, 16-inch diameter fuel oil pipeline, approximately 25 miles in length.

Response M16
See attached map, Figure 1-7. The control building is 30 feet wide, 60 feet long and 13.5 feet high. The fire water tank is a 1,000,000 gallon tank which is approximately 50 feet high and 58 feet in diameter, and the fire tank building is 30 feet wide, 59 feet long, and 13.5 feet high. The size of the equipment pad with pumps and heating units is 54 feet wide, 240 feet long, and 25 feet high (height of pipes, except stacks). The heater equipment area at the south end of the pad is 54 feet wide, 65 feet long and 60 feet high, including the stacks. The valving station behind the pumping pad is 25 feet wide, 95 feet long, and 25 feet high (reflecting the pipes). The three large tanks (250,000 bbl) are 193 feet in diameter and 50 feet high. The cutter stock tank is 120 feet in diameter and 50 feet high. These tanks are all painted green.

As shown on Figure 1-7, the storm and oily water drainage system feeds into the impounding basin and the water holding pond is located on the south-eastern corner of the site.

Response M17
This inert gas is mostly air, with possibly a small amount of nitrogen. There are no odors associated with these inert gases.

M18 The "oily water" is a product of the pipe cleaning process. It is created when water used to clean the pipe mixes with residual cutter stock oil in the pipeline. However, there are no odors associated with this oily water. The oily water is stored/collected in tanks and transported off-site to a nearby treatment facility.

Response M19
Please see Master Response 1 and Response to Comment B2.

Response M20
Please see Master Response 1 and Response to Comment B2.

Response M21
In response to this comment, PG&E (Personal communication with Mr. Paul Holton of PG&E, Mr. Tim Morgan of ESA and Billie Blanchard of the CPUC, January 10, 2002) has provided the following information:

"The Hercules Pump Station was originally designed to accommodate movement of fuel oil from the wharf as an alternative to moving oil from the Chevron Facility in Richmond. No provisions for a connection to the wharf were made because the need to implement this alternative never materialized."

Response M22
The roof of each oil storage tank floats to the tops as the level of oil rises, and conversely floats down as the oil level drops. There are little or no odors associated with heavy oil.

Cutter stock is light cycle oil with properties similar to fuel oil. It is used to assist with cleaning out the Pipeline prior to use of the smart pig (used for leak detection).

Heavy oil is a non-viscous fuel oil that is nearly solid in characteristic. In order to be transported, heavy oil needs to be heated and reduced to a more liquid state.

The pipeline system was designed for heavy fuel oil or "residual fuel oil" with a range of the following characteristics²:

API gravity at 60º Fahrenheit 17.5

Specific gravity at 60º Fahrenheit 0.95

Specific heat (btu/lbm-º Fahrenheit) 0.475

Pour point 20º Fahrenheit- 125º Fahrenheit

Flash point 150º Fahrenheit - 125º Fahrenheit

In the 1980s, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District limited fuel oil to 0.5% sulfur content or less, thus changing some of the fuel characteristics slightly.

Tosco's Santa Fe Springs is located in southern California, as the commentor suggests. However, it is not uncommon at all to have such a central control facility for such operations. With leak detection system telemetry and the presence of local maintenance personnel to respond, there should be no concerns about Tosco's ability to control pipeline operations remotely.

Response M23
With regard to odors from the tanks at the pump station, SPBPC is required to maintain the tanks in accordance with applicable air permits, as issued by the BAAQMD. Tank seals must be kept in good condition as required by the applicable permits, thus resulting in little or no odors associated with any oil stored at the Hercules Pump Station.

Response M24
The DMND states on page 1-6 that the State Fire Marshall has the responsibility for safety oversight of the pipeline and pump station and the responsibility for inspections. The Fire Marshall is the enforcing agency in the state as designated by the Federal Office of Pipeline Safety. The US Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety sets guidelines, which must be followed. There is no conflict in the text.

Response M25
Please see Response to Comments B3 and B4.

Response M26
The first paragraph on page I-5 is revised as follows:

For the existing underground pipeline, located primarily within railroad or public street right-of-ways, the sale and subsequent operation of the pipeline would have little to no effect on aesthetic resources along the pipeline route, with the possible exception of temporary disruption of views if and when SPBPC replaces or adds components of the pipeline. The pump station, located on 44.2 acres of land in the City of Hercules, is generally somewhat shielded from view, but still visible from the North Shore Business Park, the New Pacific Properties Specific Plan planned residential neighborhoods west of San Pablo Avenue, the Foxboro residential neighborhood across Interstate 80 on the westerly side of the City of Hercules, and the hillside residences in the community of Rodeo. from all directions, and its The pump station's construction, however, preceded that of the development around it, and is considered part of the baseline setting. Therefore, the project's only likely potential impact on aesthetics resources would be along the 4,000-foot replacement section in the City of Martinez. SPBPC has not yet announced its plans for the underground construction of the missing section. However, as mitigation for construction activity that SPBPC might conduct, PG&E stated in its Proponent's Environmental Assessment that "landscape features and recreational equipment would be restored to pre-construction conditions," and that "construction activities affecting parklands and trail systems would be coordinated with the East Bay Regional Park District and the City of Martinez." SPBPC would be required to implement these mitigation measures as part of the sales agreement for the Pipeline, but are also formalized below. Therefore, with these mitigation measures, the impact of construction on aesthetics resources would be less than significant.

Response M27
Please see Response to Comment N1 below.

Response M28
The 4,000-foot pipeline replacement section would be constructed underground. After construction, the pipeline section would not affect the area visually because the pipeline would be buried and below ground. Because of this, a photo simulation would serve no discernable purpose.

Response M29
SPBPC will operate and maintain floating roof storage tanks at the Hercules Pump Station in accordance with applicable air permits issued by BAAQMD. A floating roof tank consists of a roof that floats on the liquid surface. The roof moves up and down as the tank is filled and emptied. Seals, which are attached to the roof, contact the tank wall at the annular space between the roof and the wall. The seals remove any residue oil from the tank walls as product is withdrawn from the tank and as the roof drops. Studies have shown that properly maintained seals will reduce emissions from a floating roof tank by 95% to 99%³. Tank seals at this facility will be kept in good condition in order to maintain maximum control of vapor emissions, since they are subject to inspection by the Air District. As a result, there would be little or no product remaining on the exposed tank walls that could evaporate and cause odors.

Response M30
Please refer to response to comment M16.

Response M31
The comment requests that more detailed, larger scale maps, shown as Figure 3 Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zones, be provided because those provided in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration are faded and unreadable. The maps provided as Figure 3, renamed as Figure VI-1, have been revised with darker lines that enhance the location of the Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones. The scale of these maps is adequate to identify a sufficient level of detail.

Response M32
Cutter stock is an oil similar to product that has been used before in the pipeline. Neither the product to be shipped nor the cutter stock has sufficient vapor pressure to result in odors occurring from evaporation. In addition, there have been no odor complaints from the tank farm and pump station registered with the BAAQMD.

Response M33
Please see to Response to Comment H9.

Response M34
Please see Master Response 1.

Response M35
Please see Response to Comments B3 and B4.

Response M36
Please see the text revisions made to pp. IX-6 and IX-6 for Response to Comment B4.

VIEW LETTER N

LETTER N - EAST BAY REGIONAL PARKS DISTRICT

Response N1
PG&E and the East Bay Regional Park District entered into the Agreement Modifying an Easement executed by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on November 29, 2000, and recorded in the Official Records of Contra Costa County on February 8, 2001 (the "Agreement"). On page 3 of the Agreement, it provides as follows: "This agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto."

PG&E owned an existing easement for the pipeline over a portion of the East Bay Regional Park District property. Pursuant to the Agreement, the location of that easement was changed. In the Agreement, PG&E relinquished its rights to use the original easement location, and in consideration for such relinquishment, the East Bay Regional Park District granted to PG&E an easement for the pipeline in a new location. The easement in the new location would accommodate a portion of the 4,000-foot replacement section of the pipeline, as described in the DMND. New Figures 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6 show in better detail these easements.

Response N2
As the commentor suggests, Section 1.6.2 is revised as follows:

"Transport of product through the entire length of the pipeline is currently not possible due to the severed 4,000-foot section of pipeline in Martinez. In order for the new owner (SPBPC) to use the entire pipeline, this 4,000-foot section will need to be reinstalled. PG&E has obtained a 20-foot wide permanent easement (as shown in Figure 2) from the City of Martinez, and also has an easement from the East Bay Regional Park District to allow for the construction of the replacement section. SPBPC will be responsible, at its own expense, for the construction and reconnection of the new section of pipeline, and for obtaining any additional temporary easements or encroachment permits from the City of Martinez or the East Bay Regional Park District required for construction."

Response N3
None of the parklands and facilities listed by the commentor would be affected by the replacement pipeline. Please see the new figures described in Response to Comment H3 for new detailed maps of the replacement pipeline area. In addition, a full set of the aerial photos of the entire pipeline alignment have been sent to the District.

Response N4
As discussed in Master Response 2, the 4,000-foot replacement section is not adequately defined and mitigation measures are at a programmatic level. The commentor presents five goals for their Martinez Regional Shoreline which, because of the agreed to lack of detail in the DMND they conclude that the replacement project could have an adverse impact on these goals. Even though, as discussed in Master Response 2, approval of the 4,000-foot replacement section is not the purpose of this document, since the replacement section Pipeline would be underground it would not have any impact on at least 4 of the 5 goals presented by the commentor. Potential impacts would only occur during pipeline construction, which would be the subject of further permitting as discussed in Master Response 2. The remaining goal - restoring Alhambra Creek - remains a potential impact until SPBPC specifies how the Pipeline will cross the creek.

Response N5
Please see Master Response 2.

Response N6
Mitigation Measure I.1 is changed to read:

Mitigation Measure I.1: Prior to commencing construction activities, the new owner (SPBPC) of the Richmond to Pittsburg Fuel Oil Pipeline and Hercules Pump Station shall coordinate construction activities affecting parklands and trail systems with the East Bay Regional Park District and the City of Martinez. This shall include submittal of an aesthetic resources plan to the City and the Parks District that addresses the potential for construction activities to have impacts on aesthetics resources, including specific measures that will be taken to restore such resources to pre-construction conditions or to make improvements to these resources in cooperation with the City and the Parks District. The plan shall also include: details of the methods of shielding and placement of new aboveground components, such as valve stations, that would be viewable where no such components currently exist. The plan shall include a discussion of actions taken such that final pipeline alignment and construction activities associated with this project shall not interfere with the implementation of the Martinez Intermodal Project (which includes the new bridge over Alhambra Creek) and the Martinez drainage project. Above ground facilities, such as valve stations, shall not be constructed within EBRPD parkland or within the viewshed of sensitive receptors within EBRPD park or trail corridors. SPBPC shall not commence construction activities along the replacement segment in Martinez until the aesthetics resource plan is reviewed and approved by the East Bay Regional Parks District, the City of Martinez, and the CPUC mitigation monitor. The CPUC's mitigation monitor shall verify compliance with the aesthetics plan during construction of the replacement section.

Response N7
While the exact route of the 4,000-foot replacement section is not known, it does not appear that construction within the EBRPD easement as presented in Figures 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6 and as verified by site visits would remove or harm any trees as the pipeline would be installed in the existing roadways.

Response N8
The analysis presented in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) determined that if the 4,000-foot replacement occurs, significant impacts to listed species, as well as conflict with goals for the District's marsh enhancement project, could occur without mitigation (see checklist, page IV-1, and Impact IV.2 page IV-10 in the DMND). Although the DMND notes the potential for these impacts, and provides provisions for future CPUC review should the sale result in a pipeline replacement, the analysis in this document cannot fully examine potential impacts, nor require specific mitigation measures for the replacement because the replacement is not the subject of this document, and substantial details of replacement will be required for full environmental analysis of pipeline replacement. As Mitigation Measure IV-1 states, these activities would also be reviewed by a CPUC monitor at the time of that future review. Furthermore, the specific area of the commentor's concern along Alhambra Creek appears to be avoided with the easement granted by the City and the EBRPD (see Figure 1-3 and 1-4). See also Master Response 2.

Response N9
Details of the 4,000-foot pipeline replacement are not yet determined sufficiently to fully assess the need for or nature of potential streambank protection measures. While the placement of a buried pipeline under Alhambra Creek might require some bank protection to prevent erosion following installation, the materials and nature of installation of any bank protection cannot be determined until that project is planned. At this time, pipeline replacement is only a foreseeable action that will be subject to appropriate regulatory and design criteria when the action is planned. The requirements of these, as well as CPUC administered monitoring as noted in Mitigation Measure IV-1, would determine the need for and nature of bank stabilization for a pipeline replacement project. See also Master Response 2.

Response N10
Please see Master Response 2. Field surveys and literature reviews were conducted by both PG&E and CPUC biologists familiar with the biological resources of the project area. These studies were sufficient to support analyses of the issues identified for Biological Resources (i.e., see questions a - f, DMND, pg. IV-1 -- endangered species, riparian habitat, wetlands, wildlife movement and reproduction, or conflicts with other plans or provisions regarding biological resources). These studies were conducted at a level of detail to determine whether there were potentially significant impacts to each of the biological resources. It was not necessary to review planning documents or conduct studies in greater detail related to the potential pipeline placement at this time because sufficient information was available to make the necessary conclusions of potential significance of impacts to biological resources. The document states on page IV-6, "Pipeline replacement in Martinez may significantly impact special status animal species protected by State and Federal Endangered Species Act. Several species could be impacted by habitat alteration or direct displacement along the pipeline replacement corridor." Impacts to other biological resources (i.e., riparian, wetlands, and wildlife habitat) were determined to be less than significant. Relevant documents, including those available, or yet to be produced, from EBRPD, Caltrans, and the City of Martinez, would continue to be reviewed for details of relevant biological resources when, and if, the project is planned in more detail (see Master Response 2).

Response N11
Please see Master Response 2 and Response to Comment N2. The analysis of biological resources in the DMND reveals reasonably foreseeable impacts to biological resources. This analysis included coordination with Jim Townsend, of the East Bay Regional Parks District, which provided information concerning the timeline and other information related to marsh restoration plans adjacent to the potential pipeline corridor. This information, in concert with known information of biological resources on and around the project site, allowed the following conclusions as stated in the DMND on pages IV-10 and 11:

"Impact IV.2: Pipeline replacement in Martinez may include impacts that conflict with marsh restoration activities planned at the potential construction site, and adjacent marshlands within Martinez Shoreline Park, by East Bay Regional Parks District," and Impact IV.3: "Pipeline replacement in Martinez may conflict with habitat conservation plans administered by the East Bay Regional Parks District for the Martinez Shoreline Park adjacent to the proposed construction corridor."

The proposed mitigation should mitigate the potentially significant conflicts to a less than significant level. The proposed mitigation does not assume that all impacts can be resolved by adjusting the timing of construction activities - construction timing was noted as an example of potential measures to avoid conflicts that might be significant. Finally SPBPC will, as discussed in Response to Comment N2 above, have to obtain encroachment permits from the EBRPD prior to construction and can approve or disapprove of the replacement project based on detailed SPBPC plans submitted at that time.

Response N12
Please see Master Response 2. The existing pipeline has been subject to frequent maintenance and inspection. This includes using a smart pig every five years to detect and measure pipe-wall deterioration, and to hydro-statically test the line for possible leaks. The most recent test using a smart pig, as well as the latest hydrostatic test, indicated that the pipeline is sound and can be re-activated without the need for repair or modification. The evidence thus indicates that the pipeline is safe to operate.

To minimize any impacts of a possible pipeline leak, a leak detection system was incorporated into the system design. As indicated in the DMND, a possible leak would be detected through a loss in pressure, and remotely controlled isolation valves would respond rapidly to minimize oil loss. The isolation valves are inspected every six months to insure proper function. Therefore, there is an extremely low probability for a spill to occur that could cause significant effects on biological resources.

The nearest valves to Martinez are at Crockett approximately 0.5 mile east of the sugar plant along the railway and at the Shore Terminal station approximately 1.0 mile east of the Shell Refinery. This is considerably closer than the 10-mile distance mentioned in the comment.

Response N13
This proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration provides the environmental analysis required for the sale of the Pipeline, and it addresses replacement of the 4,000-foot segment in Martinez as a foreseeable consequence of the sale of the Pipeline (see Master Response 2).

The East Bay Regional Park District's 1997 Master Plan addresses very broad issues, and, in general, does not address, either generally or specifically, lands owned by railroads that pass through parklands, nor does it specifically address easements. The Pipeline project would not, on the basis of 1997 Master Plan policies, nor the Martinez Waterfront Land Use-Development Plan Environmental Impact Report, appear to conflict with the Master Plan. As stated in the DMND, the Pipeline is located underground, and is adjacent to or passes through parklands almost entirely within existing and actively used railroad right-of-ways. As stated in the Master Plan (p. 3): Public service is the District's primary function. To this end, the Master Plan provides policies and guidelines for achieving the highest standards of service in resource conservation, management, interpretation, public access, and recreation. These policies seek to guide the stewardship and development of the parks in such a way as to maintain a careful balance between the need to protect and conserve resources and the recreational use of parklands for all to enjoy now and in the future.

The following policies referred to by the commentor are listed below. However, because the Pipeline is mostly within railroad right of way areas, these policies may not be applicable to the Project:

The District will identify, evaluate, conserve, enhance, and restore rare, threatened, endangered, or locally important species of plants and animals and their habitats, using scientific research, field experience, and other proven methodologies. Populations of listed species will be monitored through periodic observations of their condition, size, habitat, reproduction, and distribution. Conservation of rare, threatened, and endangered species of plants and animals and their supporting habitats will take precedence over other activities, if the District determines that other uses and activities will have a significant adverse effect on these natural resources.

The District will maintain a current map and written inventory of all cultural features and sites found on park land, and will preserve and protect these cultural features and site "in situ," in accordance with Board policy. The District will evaluate significant cultural and historic sites to determine if they should be nominated for State Historic Landmark status or for the National Register of Historic Places; may acquire cultural and historic resource sites when they are within lands that meet parkland acquisition criteria; and will maintain an active archive of its institutional history and the history of its parklands and trails.

Transportation Accessibility (p. 22):

The District will provide access to parklands and trails to suit the level of expected use. Where feasible, the District will provide alternatives to parking on or use of neighborhood streets. The District will continue to advocate and support service to the regional park system by public transit.

Open Space Protection (p. 34):

The District will participate in efforts to protect scenic or cultural resources, develop larger, multi-agency open space preserves, provide recreational opportunities, protect agricultural use, avoid hazards, and plan for appropriate urban growth boundaries. The District will work with other jurisdictions to develop open space preservation plans and policies that recognize the District's public interests in open space preservation and that are consistent with Board policy.

Liaison with Other Jurisdictions (p. 35):

The District will work actively with cities, counties, districts, and other governmental agencies to assure that they understand and consider District interests. The District will protect its interests when other jurisdictions plan or approve projects that affect the District and will work with them to develop and articulate mutual goals. The District will seek to understand the perspectives of other governmental agencies and to resolve conflicts in mutually satisfactory ways.

Regional Shoreline (p. 44):

A Regional Shoreline (one area or a group of smaller shoreline areas that are connected by trail or water access) must contain a variety of natural environments and manageable units of tidal, near-shore wetland, and upland areas that can be used for scientific, interpretative, or environmental purposes; and/or contain sufficient land and water to provide a variety of recreational activities, such as swimming, fishing, boating, or viewing. The Recreation/Staging Unit providing for public access and services may comprise no more than 30 percent of a Regional Shoreline.

Development Proposals (p. 59):

The District will follow established procedures and guidelines consistent with the Master Plan in considering proposals from individuals and groups who wish to develop or use facilities within the parks. It may be necessary to prepare an amended or focused planning or project document before the project can be approved. Fees may be charged to the individual or group proposing the project to cover permit, environmental, and planning costs. (Please refer to the Concession and Special Use Policy, Appendix, page 72).

Environmental Compliance (p. 59):

The District will fully comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the development of new facilities. Evidence of CEQA compliance will be provided in the planning document or separately as a project-specific CEQA document. The District will also comply, when appropriate, with [sic] National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Undergrounding of Utilities (p. 59):

New utility lines will be placed underground on land owned, operated, or managed by the District to retain the optimal visual qualities of the area. Rights-of-way and easements for utilities will not be granted without undergrounding. The District will work in cooperation with the utility companies to place existing overhead utilities underground (unless so doing conflicts with applicable codes) as soon as practical and will work with other agencies and neighbors to reduce visual impacts on adjacent lands. The District will seek to avoid the construction of high voltage power lines within the parklands, particularly in areas of sensitive or aesthetically important resources and in preserve areas.

Other policies address potential impacts to parkland from pollutants, but the focus appears to be the potential for storm water pollutants.

In addition, the 1997 Master Plan includes Planning and Management Guidelines that are listed below for public information purposes:

• The District will provide access and staging opportunities for fire prevention, police, maintenance, and public use... (p. 53-54);
  
  
• The District will strive to expand public shoreline access to a Regional Shoreline. Landing or launching spots for small boats will be incorporated when feasible. Except for facilities that must be on the shoreline or over the water surface, the Director will confine all staging and recreational facilities, where possible, to uplands that are a minimum of 100 feet from the actual shoreline. Facilities such as parking that do not depend on water will be located in areas that are screened from view, when practical (p. 56-57).

  It should be noted that a Martinez Waterfront Land Use-Development Plan and Environmental Impact Report were adopted in October 5, 1976. Little mention is made of refinery activities in the vicinity, including underground pipelines, other than "[i]mmediately to the east of the site are oil refineries. These refineries and the county administrative center constitute the major economic base of the city" (p. 7). The railroad tracks are acknowledged and the EIR states that the "[t]he on-grade railroad crossing will remain" (p. 10).

  Response N14
  It would not be appropriate to develop a traffic control plan until the final design of the project is completed. As discussed in the Initial Study, the construction contractor shall prepare a traffic control plan in accordance with professional engineering standards prior to commencing construction activities. This traffic control plan would be submitted to applicable jurisdictions for review and approval prior to implementation. Please see Master Response 2.

  Response N15
  Please see Master Response 2. Please also see Figures 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6, which show the proposed 4,000-foot replacement route. The route would not intersect the new bridge, nor would it intersect the approximately 1,000-foot segment of the Bay Trail referred to by the commentor.

  Response N16
  The project would intermittently and temporarily disrupt use of recreational facilities at the Martinez Regional Shoreline Park for the duration of project construction. However, given the linear nature of the construction route, the duration of noise impacts to the park users would be relatively brief. This means that any disruption of recreational facilities would be limited to a matter of days or weeks. Therefore, this would be a short-term impact on recreational uses. In addition, construction contractors would be required to limit noisy construction activity to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No construction would be allowed weekends and holidays to avoid impacts on park users during peak use hours of the park. Mitigation Measure XI.1 is now changed to read as follow:

  "Mitigation Measure XI.1: During construction of the 4,000-foot replacement section in Martinez, the new owner (SPBPC) will implement the following measures:

  • Require construction contractors to limit noisy construction activity to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday Saturday, or more restrictive hours required by permits and ordinances as specified by the City of Martinez.

  Given compliance with this and other measures described under Mitigation Measure XI.1, the impact on park users would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Restrictions to reduce impacts (including noise) of project construction on migratory birds, fisheries and special-status species have been discussed under Responses to Comments N10 and N11.

  Response N17
  The comment is noted.

  Response N18
  Please refer to Response to Comment N2.

  Response N19
  The comment is noted.

  ---

  VIEW LETTER O

  LETTER O - California State Lands Commission

  Response O1
  Please see Response to Comment H3. In addition, detailed maps have been sent to CSLC for a more definite determination of CSLC jurisdiction and if a CSLC lease will be required for pipeline construction.

  Response O2
  Please see Master Response 2.

  Response O3
  Please see Master Response 2.

  Response O4
  Please see Master Response 2. The analysis of biological resources in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) reveals reasonably foreseeable impacts to biological resources - the document states definitively on page IV-6:

  "Pipeline replacement in Martinez may significantly impact special status animal species protected by State and Federal ESA. Several species could be impacted by habitat alteration or direct displacement along the pipeline replacement corridor."

  Response O5
  Please see Master Response 2.

  Response O6
  Please see Master Response 2.

  Footnotes

  1. In response to a question as to whether the pipeline could be used without the storage tanks, PG&E has indicated that only for short periods of time could the pipeline pumps bypass the storage tanks at the Hercules Pump Station. Thus, the tanks are integral to normal pipeline operations. [back]
  2. Section 3.3: Fluid Characteristics, Definitive Design Manual, Fuel Oil Pipeline. September 1974, revised 1976. [back]
  3. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Liquid Storage Tanks-Background Information, USEPA, EPA-450/3-81-003a. [back]