Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 5.A 01/28/2019 Attachment 10-ExhibitAandErrata
I:1:1 ' • Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Safeway Fuel Center Petaluma, California September 17, 2018 Phyllis Fox, PhD, PE and Ray Kapahi, BSC, M. Eng. A-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY...........................................................................................1 2. CANCER HEALTH RISKS OF THE PROJECT ARE SIGNIFICANT......................................1 2.1. Errors and Omissions in the IS/MND Health Risk Assessment......................................4 2.1.1. Air Dispersion Model........................................................................................................4 2.1.2. Receptor Grid...................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.3. Exposure Duration: Operating Hours............................................................................. 6 2.1.4. Type of Fuel........................................................................................................................ 6 2.1.5. Exposure Duration.............................................................................................................8 2.1.6. Construction Emissions..................................................................................................... 9 2.2. Revised Health Risk Assessment Indicates Cancer Risks Are Significant ....................... 9 2.2.1. Emissions.............................................................................................................................9 2.2.2. Meteorological Data.........................................................................................................12 2.2.3. Modeling Grid..................................................................................................................13 2.2.4. Exposure Duration...........................................................................................................13 2.2.5. Revised HRA Results.......................................................................................................14 2.3. Agency Analyses Confirm Project Cancer Risks Are Significant...................................17 2.3.1. CAPCOA...........................................................................................................................17 2.3.2. CARB Gas Station HRA..................................................................................................17 2.3.3. SCAQMD Gas Station HRA...........................................................................................19 2.3.4. HRAs for Other Similar Facilities..................................................................................19 2.4. Scientific Research Confirms Health Impacts Are Significant ........................................ 20 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Volatile HAP Emissions Analyzed in Revised HRA...'.........................................................10 Table 2: Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions from Idling Customer Vehicles Analyzedin Revised HRA...................................................................................................11 Table 3: Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions from Idling Fuel Delivery Trucks Analyzedin Revised HRA...................................................................................................12 i A-2 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: 401 and 405 South McDowell Boulevard............................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Garden at North Bay Children s Center.................................................................................3 Figure 3: Wind Roses for Santa Rosa and Petaluma...........................................................................13 Figure 4: Cancer Risk Isopleth for 70 -Year Exposure from Idling Cars, Fuel Delivery Trucks, and Gasoline Dispensing......................................................................................................15 Figure 5: Cancer Risk Isopleth for 25 -Year (Worker) Exposure (includes emissions from idling cars, fuel delivery trucks, and gasoline dispensing).............................................16 Figure 6: Gasoline Dispensing Facility Health Risk for 3,600,000 gal/yr Throughput..................18 ii A-3 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Safeway proposes to develop a fuel station at 335 South McDowell Boulevard in Petaluma (Project) in the Washington Square Shopping Center. The fuel station will have 16 fuel positions (8 pumps with two fuel positions per pump) to accommodate the simultaneous fueling of SUVS, full-size pickup trucks, and passenger vehicles. The annual throughput of gasoline is asserted not to exceed 8.5 million gallons. The fuel dispensers will be served by two 20,000 -gallon underground storage tanks that will be serviced by twice-daily truck deliveries of fuel, lasting 30 to 40 minutes. The Project also includes a 697 -square foot convenience store, vehicle parking adjacent to the convenience store, landscaping, and an exit driveway.' We reviewed the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/ MND) and supporting appendices. Based on our review and analysis, the Project will result in significant cancer risks at residences along South McDowell Boulevard, at the North Bay Children's Center, 60 feet away, and in the recreational playfield. A Negative Declaration can be prepared only when there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environmentz An environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared when there is substantial evidence in the record that supports a fair argument that significant effects may occur.3 Our analysis below indicates that there is substantial evidence that the Project will result in significant cancer impacts, requiring that an EIR be prepared. 2. CANCER HEALTH RISKS OF THE PROJECT ARE SIGNIFICANT The operation of fuel dispensing stations results in emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants ("TACs") from vehicle exhaust, fuel storage tanks, refueling, and tanker truck deliveries of fuels. Of particular concern are emissions from gasoline refueling and gasoline deliveries, which result in fugitive emissions from dispensing pumps, vents, and spills. These emissions include a number of TACs, including benzene — a potent carcinogen. The California Air Resources Board ("CARB") considers benzene as one of the highest risk air pollutants it regulates, finding that near -source exposures for large gasoline dispensing facilities can be significant and exceed district health risk thresholds. The agency is particularly concerned with the emergence of very high gasoline throughput at large retail or wholesale outlets, as "these types of outlets are projected to account for an increasing market share in the next few years."4 The Project, with its eight dispensing stations, is one of these facilities. ' City of Petaluma, Safeway Fuel Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), 335 South McDowell Boulevard, March 29, 2018, pp. 5-6; available at http: / /cityofpetaluma.net/cdd/major- projects.html. 2 Public Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (c), California Code of Regulations, title 14, § 15070. 3 Public Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (d). 4 CARB, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, April 2005 (hereafter "CARB Land Use Handbook"), p. 31; available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. A-4 The Project site is bounded by commercial retail to the north and west; single-family residential to the south, across South McDowell Boulevard; and institutional and recreational uses to the east, across Maria Drive.5 Sensitive receptors are nearby. These include • 4Cs Petaluma Child Development Center, located at 401 South McDowell, 60 feet away; • North Bay Children's Center,6 405 South McDowell Boulevard, 60 feet away, located at the northeast corner of South McDowell and Maria Drive; • McDowell Elementary School, 421 South McDowell Boulevard, 60 feet away;? • an associated recreational playfield 60 feet away; and • residences along South McDowell Boulevard, 80 feet away.8 Figure 1 shows 401 and 405 South McDowell Boulevard. 9 The North Bay Children's Center provides comprehensive high-quality child care and early education programs and includes an on-site garden, as shown in Figure 2.10,11 The 4Cs Petaluma Child Development Center, located in the same building, also provides high-quality child care. The McDowell Elementary School covers kindergarten (4 years old) to sixth grade and has 255 students and 16 teachers. The campus is shared with Petaluma Adult School and the McDowell Family Resource Center, and hosts "lunchtime boys' and girls' soccer leagues." The school also provides significant outdoor activities.12 The IS/ MND did not evaluate the impact of the Project on these various ancillary activities. 5 IS/MND, p. 7. 6 htt l2s://www.nbcc.net/ 7 The MND incorrectly notes that the McDowell Elementary School is 475 feet from the proposed Project site (IS/MND, Air Quality Section 3.3(d)) and 150 feet (Hazards/Hazardous Materials Section 3.8(c)). The standard for assessing impacts to schools is to use the property line of the school and include all areas that may be available to students, staff, and faculty. Thus, the distance to McDowell Elementary School is the width of Maria Drive, or approximately 50 feet from the proposed Project as the McDowell playfield is adjacent to Maria Drive. 8 IS/MND, p. 19. 9 Google Maps, 405 S McDowell Boulevard. 10 https:/ /www.nbcc.iiet/about/. 11 McDowell Elementary School, https://www.petalumacityschools.org/Pa eg /11. See photographs at: https: / / www. google. com / search?q=photos+of+lncdowell+elementary+school&sa=X&biw=1868&bill=8 43&tbm=inch&source=iu&ictx=l&fir=YEAdlYe24aUadM°m253A%252CKuzKHQT8Y6SGgM%252C &usg =AErgEzckSbv7WnV LUnazH5m8hHxw01IQNQ&ved=2ahUKEwicvrDNn6ndAhXNwMQHHawBDC4 Q9QEwA3oECAEQCg#im�c=YEAdlYe24aUadM:. 121mages for McDowell Elementary School; available at https://www.google.com/searcli?q= photos+of+medowell+elementary+school&spell=l&sa=X&ved=OahUKEwi8ub3Ln6ndAhVgilQKHdfUB ino QBQ gmKA A &b iw=1868 &bih=843. A-5 Figure 1: 401 and 405 South McDowell Boulevard13 Figure 2: Garden at North Bay Children's Center The IS/ MND includes a health risk assessment (HRA)14 that concludes health impacts are not significant.15 We reviewed the HRA in Appendix B to the IS/MND and identified many errors and omissions, all of which underestimate health risks to nearby sensitive receptors. Thus, we prepared a revised health risk assessment from scratch, using standard methods and correcting the errors and omissions in the IS/MND's analysis. Our revised HRA indicates that 13 Google Maps, 405 S McDowell Boulevard. 14 IS/MND, Appendix B: James A. Reyff and William Popenuck, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., Safeway Fuel Center Health Risk Assessment Petaluma, California, Revised September 19, 2017; available at littp://cityofpetaluma.net/cdd/""`major-L)rojects,litnil. 15 IS/MND, Table 5 and Appendix B. 3 A-6 cancer risks are highly significant at local residences and a nearby school and playfield. We also extrapolated Project health risks from analyses published by both the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), both of which confirm significant cancer risks, consistent with our de novo analysis. Our results are also consistent with those reported in a CEQA document for another similar Safeway fueling station. Finally, our results are consistent with many peer-reviewed, scientific studies that have linked residential and school proximity to gas stations to an increased risk of adverse health outcomes,16 including cancer and, specifically, leukemia in children. The following sections first discuss the major errors in the Project's HRA analysis, followed by our de novo analysis and extrapolations from CARB and SCAQMD analyses of similar fuel stations. All of these analyses indicate that cancer impacts at nearby sensitive receptors, including at a school and residences, are highly significant. 2.1. Errors and Omissions in the IS/MND Health Risk Assessment The review and evaluation of the HRA requires the underlying modeling files. The modeling files used to estimate health impacts were not included in the IS/MND, were not in possession of the County, and were not provided in response to a Public Record Act (PRA) request and follow-up telephone calls. Thus, these comments are based on information in the IS/MND and other publicly available information. The HRA asserts that it followed OEHHA, CARB, and BAAQMD guidelines in its preparation.17 However, as discussed below, the HRA did not follow these guidelines, thus significantly underestimating health impacts. 2.1.1. Air Dispersion Model The IS/MND's HRA used the ISCST model to estimate ambient concentrations of HAPs.18 However, as of December 2006, this model was withdrawn by the EPA and the American Meteorological Society and replaced by a more accurate one.19 The OEHHA risk assessment guidelines, which the IS/ MND relied on, explain that "The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has adopted the AERMOD air dispersion model into its list of regulatory approved models, in place of the previously used ISCST3 model ... The Air Resources Board recommends AERMOD for risk assessments."20 The IS/MND relied on these OEHHA risk assessment guidelines and should have used AERMOD for the HRA. We used AERMOD in our revised analysis, presented in Comment 2.2. The OEHHA guidelines require that the output from AERMOD be entered into the HARP2 model21 to estimate health risks. The OEHHA risk assessment guidelines explain: "HARP is computer software used by the ARB, OEHHA, Districts, and facility operators to 16 J. D. Brender et al., "Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes," American Journal of Public Health 101, no. S1 (2011): S37 -S52. Exhibit 1. 17 IS/MND, Appendix B, p. 4. 18 IS/MND, Appendix B, pp. 12/13. 19 littps:/ /wwrw.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-alternative-models. 20 OEHHA, Section 2.3, p. 2-2, February 2015. 21 OEHHA, Section 1.4, p. 1-4, February 2015. 4 A-7 promote statewide consistency, efficiency, and cost-effective implementation of HRAs... "2z Thus, the HRA, which did not use either AERMOD or the HARP model (which requires the use of the AERMOD dispersion model), does not even cite the HARP model and did not follow standard HRA procedures and guidelines cited in the HRA. It also used an outdated and withdrawn air dispersion model and failed to provide any support for the risk calculations that were made. We used the HARP2 risk model in our revised analysis, presented in Comment 2.2. HARP 2 (Version 18159) incorporates the latest OEHHA Risk Guidelines as well as the AERMOD model (Version 18081). 2.1.2. Receptor Grid The HRA modeled the impacts at "existing locations of nearby sensitive receptors (residences, schools, etc.)"23 and at the "hypothetical maximum exposed individual (MEI) located at the maximum impact sensitive receptor."24 However, the HRA fails to disclose the locations(s) of nearby sensitive receptors, the points of maximum impact, or how they were identified. They appear to have been plucked out of thin air. The standard procedure to identify sensitive receptors is,to use a receptor grid designed to include the Point of Maximum Impact (PMI). Impacts at each point on the grid are determined to identify the maximum impact point. The sensitive receptor points selected in the IS/MND's HRA are arbitrary and unsupported. A receptor grid is the standard method and would far more accurately map the risk to all sensitive receptors in the surrounding area and allow the maximum impact points to be identified. The OEHHA risk assessment guidance, for example, explains:25 4.7.1 Receptor Points The modeling analysis should contain a network of receptor points with sufficient detail (in number and density) to permit the estimation of the maximum concentrations. Locations that must be identified include: • The maximum estimated off-site impactor point of maximum impact (PMt), • The maximum exposed individual at an existing residential receptor (MEIR), • The maximum exposed individual at an existing occupational worker receptor (MEM). Similarly, the BAAQMD risk assessment guidance26 requires: €1AACiMD recommends that all receptors located within a 1,000 foot radius of the project's fence line be assessed for potentially significant impacts from the incremental increase in risks or hazards from the proposed new source. A lead agency should enlarge the 1,000 -foot radius on a case-by-case basis if an unusually large source or sources of risk or hazard emissions that may affect a proposed project is beyond the recommended radius. 22 Id. 23 IS/MND, Appx. B, p., 3. 24 Id., p. 2. 25 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015, p. 4-20; available at httl2s: / /oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crm /2015guidancemanual.pdf. 26 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017, p. 577 (pdf 61); available athttp://www.baagmd.gov/-/media/`files/planning_and-research/cega/cega guidelines nr ay2017-pdf.xdf?la=en. 5 A-8 Further, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association's (CAPCOA's) HRA guidance discusses the various types of receptor grids that can be used27 and notes that "[t]he receptor grid must be designed to include the Point of Maximum Impact (PMI)."28 This guidance was prepared specifically to assist lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA.29 There is no evidence in the record that the HRA followed either guidance. Instead, the HRA selected a small number of sensitive receptors —without explaining how they were chosen or where they are located— and only calculated health risks at these points. Further, the HRA failed to display the results of its analysis on a map or identify the physical location of the sensitive receptors. It is standard practice to summarize health risks on isopleth maps (an isopleth is a line connecting points of a given value). The absence of an isopleth map deprives the public and potentially affected parties of determining if they are at risk. 2.1.3. Exposure Duration: Operating Hours The HRA assumed the fuel station would operate 19 hours per day (hr/ day), between 5:00 AM and 12:00 AM.30 However, many similar fuel stations operate 24 hr/ day. The IS/ MND does not include any enforceable conditions to ensure the fuel station operates only 19 hr/ day over its lifetime. Absent such a condition, the HRA should be based on 24 hr/ day operation. Assuming 24 hr/ day operation, the IS/MND's estimate of the increase in annual PM2.5 concentration would increase from 0.21 ug/m3 to 0.27 Ug/M3/ 31 which rounds to 0.3 Ug/M3.32 This equals the PM2.5 significance threshold of 0.3 ug/m3 and is therefore significant. Absent a practically enforceable condition requiring operation for only 19 hr/ day over its lifetime, the IS/ MND's analysis indicates that the Project would result in significant health impacts to school children from increases in PM2.5 emissions. 2.1.4. Type of Fuel Health risks depend upon the amount of each TAC that is emitted. The TAC emissions in turn depend on the relative amounts of gasoline and diesel that are pumped and the types of vehicles that are fueled. The IS/MND asserts that the fueling pumps will dispense both unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel from 8 multi -product fuel dispensers. The IS/MND then states that the annual throughput of gasoline will not exceed 8.5 million gallons but is silent on the amount of diesel that would be pumped.33 Similarly, the PTO issued by the BAAQMD 27 CAPCOA, Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, July 2009, Sections 6.1 and 6.2; available athttl2://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/201.0/05/CAPCOA HRA LU _ Guidelines 8-6-09.12df. 28 CAPCOA, p. 70. 29 Id., p.1. 30 IS/MND, Appx. B, p. 13. 31 IS/MND, Table 5. 32 Increase in PM2.5, assuming 24 hr/ day operation: (0.21)(24/19) = 0.265 = 0.3 ug/m3. 33 IS/MND, p. 6. A-9 assumes that only gasoline will be pumped.34 The emissions, and hence health risk, depend upon the relative amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel that are dispensed. The IS/MND appears to assume that only gasoline will be pumped. The text of the HRA asserts: "All vehicles using the fueling station were assumed to be light-duty autos, light- duty trucks or medium -duty trucks. The percentage breakdown was based on the Sonoma County fleet average as reported by EMFAC2014."35 However, buried in the HRA input files, the emission calculations assumed that 4% of the serviced vehicles would be diesel LS, LHDT1 (Light -Heavy -Duty Trucks: GVWR 8501-10,000 lbs), and LHDT2 (Light -Heavy -Duty Trucks: GVWR 10,001-140,000 lbs).36 This fleet mix is inaccurate if the fuel station sells diesel. The IS/MND and the PTO are silent on the amount of diesel fuel that would be sold. The vehicle idle emissions from queuing at the fuel station are a source of diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is a major source of cancer risk. The files available for review contain no support for the 4% diesel estimate. They also do not disclose the relative amounts of diesel and gasoline that will be pumped. Thus, the IS/MND fails as an informational document under CEQA. Further, the PTO issued by the BAAQMD cannot be relied on to assure that health impacts are less than significant because it fails to identify diesel as a fuel that will be delivered. We expect substantially more diesel would be supplied than 4% for the following reasons. First, surveys by the California Energy Commission (CEC) for the period 2009 to 2016 indicate that California retail sale volumes of diesel at fueling stations in California range from 8.6% to 11.2% of the total fuel sales, where fuel includes gasoline, diesel, E85, propane, and natural gas.37 These actual survey results are factors of 2 to 3 times higher than assumed in the HRA, thus significantly underestimating health risks from DPM from idling diesel vehicles. Second, the CEC data for Solano County, where the Project is located, indicate that 5.5% to 11.6 % of fuel sales are diesel, where fuel includes gasoline and diesel, consistent with statewide totals. The other fuels make up a small percentage of the fuel delivered statewide.38 Thus, the IS/ MND has significantly underestimated DPM emissions from supplying diesel. Third, the streets adjacent to the Project site —McDowell and East Washington— are designated truck haul routes.39 Official truck haul routes, especially ones so close to I-101, as here, would attract more truck customers to the Project than fueling stations in other areas. 34 IS/MND, Appx, A, Attach. 3: BAAQMD Permit Evaluation. 35 IS/MND, Appx. A, p. 11. 36 IS/MND, Appx. B, Attach. 2, pdf 36, Vehicle Idle Emissions From Queuing at Gas Station and EMFAC2017 Volume I—User's Guide, March 1, 2018 p. 76; available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/ msei / dowrdoads / emfac2017-volume-i-users-guide.pdf. 37 California Energy Commissions (CEC), California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results, 2009-2016, Retail Sales Volumes — Survey Responses (Millions of Gallons); available at https://www.energVca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gasoline/piira retail survey.html. 38 Id. and Exhibit 1. 3911 ups:/ /citeyofpetatuma, net/ 12olice/pdf/truck _ route_map.pdf. 7 A-10 Fourth, the fueling station will be located adjacent to a very large Safeway and an entrance to I-101, both of which will attract more diesel -fueled truck customers into the local area than would otherwise occur at locations that are not proximate to a freeway entrance and huge Safeway. Fift12, the presence of a new fuel station adjacent to a large Safeway and I-101 would attract more truck traffic into the area for fueling than would otherwise be present. This would increase diesel -fueled trucks on streets adjacent to sensitive receptors, increasing DPM emissions at the same sensitive receptors as the new fueling station itself, increasing health risk. Sixth, the IS/MND states that the fuel dispensers will be serviced by two 20,000 -gallon underground storage tanks and that operation of the fuel station will require twice-daily truck deliveries of fuel, lasting 30 to 40 minutes.40 The IS/ MND does not indicate that either storage tank is partitioned, to accommodate the storage of two fuels. Thus, half the fuel stored on site can be assumed to be diesel. The IS/MND also fails to disclose the volume and type of fuel delivered each day in the twice-daily truck deliveries—thus failing as an informational document under CEQA. The largest road tankers in the US can deliver just under 12,000 gallons of fuel.41 Seventh, given that the adjacent Safeway is huge and will be serviced and visited by many diesel -fueled vehicles, it is likely that the number of diesel -fueled truck visits is at the upper end of the 5.5% to 11.6% range for diesel. Finally, the CaIEEMod fleet mix used to estimate emissions is inaccurate if a gas station sells diesel.42 The HRA states: "All vehicles using the fueling station were assumed to be light- duty autos, light-duty trucks or medium -duty trucks. The percentage breakdown was based on the Sonoma County fleet average as reported by EMFAC2014." 2.1.5. Exposure Duration The IS/MND's exposure durations are too short. The HRA calculated cancer risks for residential and worker receptors based on 30- and 9 -year exposure durations, respectively. ,Section 2.2 of the BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program and HRA Guidelines requires that the cancer risk calculation for residential and worker (e.g., teachers) receptors of gasoline dispensing facilities to be based on 70- and 40 -year exposure durations, respectively.43 Further, the 9 -year exposure duration used for children is not health protective. It does not capture worst-case scenarios (e.g., a mother who drops her infant off at the North Bay 40 IS/MND, p. 6. 41 See: Quora, How Big Is a Gas Station's Fuel Storage Tank; available at https: / /www.quora.coin/How- big-is-a-gas-stations-fuel-storage-tank. 42 CalEEMod Users' Guide, September 2016; available athttp://www,aqind.gov/docs/``default- source/ caleemod /upgrades/ 2016.3 /01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-1.pdf. 43 BAAQMD, Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines, December 2016, Section 2.2.1.3,p. 8; available atllttp://www.baagmd.gov/-/media/files/plaruling-and-research/peirmit- modeling/hra guidelines 12 7 2016 clean-pdf.pdf. 8 A-11 Children's Center and whose child then attends McDowell elementary and who lives across the street). Many of the children living in the Project area attend the local schools. An 18 -year period would be more health protective. 2.1.6. Construction Emissions The same sensitive receptors will be present in the same locations during both construction and operation of the Project. The HRA failed to include exposures that would occur during the construction phase of the Project, thus underestimating health risks. 2.2. Revised Health Risk Assessment Indicates Cancer Risks Are Significant We prepared a health risk assessment from scratch due to the numerous errors and omissions in the IS/MND's analysis and the absence of supporting files. We also extrapolated Project risks from other similar projects. The resulting analyses summarized below indicate that cancer health risks at across -the -street residences and the local playfield are highly significant. A Negative Declaration can be prepared only when there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.44 An EIR must be prepared when there is substantial evidence in the record that supports a fair argument that significant effects may occur.45 When the initial study reveals a project "may" have a significant environmental effect, an EIR must be prepared; the word "may" connotes a reasonable possibility.46 The evidence presented below demonstrates the Project will result in a significant cancer risk, requiring the preparation of an EIR. 2.2.1. Emissions We estimated storage tank filling, vehicle refueling, storage tank breathing loss, and spillage TAC emissions using the CAPCOA/SJVAPCD spreadsheet mode147 based on a throughput of 7.48 million gal/yr of gasoline. This assumes that of the total of 8.5 million gallons of fuel, 12% will be diesel and 88% will be gasoline. Eighty-eight percent of 8.5 million gallons equates to 7.48 million gallons. Emissions associated with diesel fuel storage and refueling are considered to be negligible. The results of our calculations are summarized in Tables 1 through 3. (See attached Exhibit A, Table 1 Calculation of TACs from Gasoline Dispensing and Spillage.) 44 Public Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (c), California Code of Regulations, title 13, § 15070. 45 Public Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (d). 46 No Oil, hic. v. Cifij of Los Aizgeles,13 Cal. 3d 68, 74, 83 fn. 16 (1974); Su)rdstronz v. County of Mendocino, supra, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 309 (1988). 47 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), AB2588 "Hot Spots" Air Toxics Profiles, March 27, 2017; available at https: / / w�vLv.valleo air , org/bu sind / -)to / AB -2588 -Toxics -Profiles. docx. A-12 Table 1: Volatile HAP Emissions Analyzed in Revised HRA We also calculated delivery truck idling and diesel customer idling emissions using the same CAPCOA/SJVAPCD spreadsheet model and assuming that PM2.5 is equivalent to diesel particulate matter (DPM).48 These calculations are based on 984,405 customer vehicles per year visiting the facility, of which 12% would be diesel. Each vehicle is assumed to idle for 5 minutes. There would be 2 fuel deliveries per day, 365 days per year. Each delivery truck was assumed to idle for 5 minutes. The results of our calculations are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Supporting calculations are included in Exhibit B. 48 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, p. 8-8. 10 A-13 HAP Emissions (lb/yr) Ethyl Source Benzene Benzene Toluene Xylenes Tank Filling 1.88 10.05 50.27 15.08 Vehicle Refueling 9.42 50.27 251.33 75.40 Breathing Losses 0.56 2.99 14.96 4.49 Spillage 31.42 50.27 251.33 75.40 TOTAL 43.29 113.58 567.88 170.36 We also calculated delivery truck idling and diesel customer idling emissions using the same CAPCOA/SJVAPCD spreadsheet model and assuming that PM2.5 is equivalent to diesel particulate matter (DPM).48 These calculations are based on 984,405 customer vehicles per year visiting the facility, of which 12% would be diesel. Each vehicle is assumed to idle for 5 minutes. There would be 2 fuel deliveries per day, 365 days per year. Each delivery truck was assumed to idle for 5 minutes. The results of our calculations are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Supporting calculations are included in Exhibit B. 48 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, p. 8-8. 10 A-13 Table 2: Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions from Idling Customer Vehicles Analyzed in Revised HRA Idling Emissions Unit Result Annual number of vehicles vehicles/yr 984,405 of vehicles that are diesel 0.13328 12% Number of diesel vehicles per year Average for trucks 118,129 DPM emissions from idling (per vehicle): 0.0878 Composite EF (95% trucks + 5% cars) Average emission factor, @ 5 mph grams/mile 0.22152 DPM emissions per vehicle (assuming 5- grams/vehicle 0.0908 minute idle/running time per vehicle) Annual DPM Emissions grams/yr 10,726 Ib/yr 23.6 Calculation of Emission Factors (Note 1) grams/mile LDT1 0.6598 LDT2 0.0283 LH DT1 0.13328 LH DT2 0.09284 Average for trucks 0.228555 Average for diesel cars 0.0878 Composite EF (95% trucks + 5% cars) 0.22152 NOTES 1. Emission Factors and Annual Vehicle/Yr. from Safeway Fuel Center Health Risk Assessment Petaluma, CA. Revised Sept 19, 2017. Attachment 2. 2. The composite emission factor includes emissions from vehicle travel within the fuel center, vehicle start-up and idling 3. Estimate of percentage ov diesel cars (5%) based on 2016 registration in California. 11 A-14 Table 3: Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions from Idling Fuel Delivery Trucks Analyzed in Revised HRA Idling Emissions—Delivery Trucks Unit Result Trucks/day number 2 Idle time/truck min 5 Total idle time/day min 10 Idle time/yr min 3,650 hrs 60.8 PM -2.5 emission factor for vehicle idling (Note 1) (grams/ (assume PM2.5 = DPM) vehicle/hr) 0.120921 Annual DPM emissions grams/yr 7.3560 Ib/yr 0.016 Note 1. Idle emission factor from ARB compilation for statewide analysis by calendar year and by air basin. Excerpts from ARB report provided in Exhibit B. 2.2.2. Meteorological Data We ran the HARP2 model49 using the emissions summarized in Tables 1 to 3; 5 years (2013-2017) of surface meteorological data from Santa Rosa and upper air data from Oakland for the years 2013 to 2017. AIEMET (Version 18081) was used to prepare the AERMOD meteorological data. We were unable to obtain any wind data for Petaluma that was formatted for use in AERMOD but did find some historic Petaluma wind data.50 The wind roses for the two stations are shown in Figure 3. The wind patterns are very different in Petaluma and Santa Rosa, In Petaluma, the winds blow predominantly from the west/northwest, which would carry emissions directly toward the schools and residences across the street from the Project51 For Santa Rosa, the winds blow mostly from the S -W -SE, placing the school and residences upwind of the gas station. Thus, our use of Santa Rosa wind data significantly underestimates health risks at the schools and nearby residences. 49 littps://www.aib.ca.gov/toxics/`harp/hai-12.litm. So Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, NV. 51 Memo from James A. Reyff, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., to Natalie Mattei, Albertsons Companies, June 6, 2018, Attached to Memorandum from Matthew D. Francois, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, to Heather Hines, Planning Manager, City of Petaluma, Re: Safeway Fuel Center Project, June 6, 2018, pdf 10: Wind Rose for Applicant's HRA, which was based on the Petaluma Municipal Airport Data. 12 A-15 Figure 3: Wind Roses for Santa Rosa and Petaluma Scuta Rosa California I t.li fu. °IN r �» t�f_0a Izz ?i cx l3 4 it W( 11z S e2 Z. 1 r c a .. t w mi.. r :e2 i1 — t ,— a -- e Petaluma East California t 1 a Y:. t c. ttfc IiN 4 it 11z S e2 Z. 2.2.3. Modeling Grid We used a Cartesian receptor grid (1,200 meters x 1,200 meters with a grid spacing of 50 meters). Risks were evaluated at 625 individual grid points and 11 discrete receptors to denote nearby homes and the schools. Each grid point and sensitive receptor was assigned an X -Y coordinate consistent with the WGS 84 coordinate system implemented in Google Earth. Coordinates of individual receptors, rather than distances, were used in the risk calculations. See Exhibit C showing excerpts of the coordinate used for individual grid points and sensitive receptors. This grid was used to identify the Points of Maximum Impact (PMls) and to summarize the results on a standard isopleth map, presented later in these comments. 2.2.4. Exposure Duration We calculated cancer risks for three exposure durations: 9 years (for school children), 25 years (teachers and workers at nearby daycare), and 70 years (residents). The 70 -year exposure 13 A-16 duration is consistent with BAAQMD guidance. The BAAQMD Air Toxics Health Risk Assessment Guidelines indicate "the Air District will estimate cancer risk to residential receptors for gasoline dispensing facilities based on a 70 -year lifetime exposure. Although 9 - year and 25 -year exposure scenarios may be presented for information purposes, risk management decisions will be made based on 70 -year exposure duration for residential receptors."52 Similarly, the BAAQMD's CEQA guidelines specifically identify a 70 -year exposure duration,53 noting: "Emissions from a new source or emissions affecting a new receptor would be considered significant where ground -level concentrations of carcinogenic TACs from any source result in an increased cancer risk greater than 10.0 in one million, assuming a 70 -year lifetime exposure." The EPA also uses a 70 -year exposure duration to assess the significance of health impacts.54 2.2.5. Revised HRA Results Excerpts from the HARP2 model results are provided in Exhibit C. Electronic copies are available on request. The 70 -year residential risk is between 27 to 69 cancers per million at homes across the street along South McDowell Avenue. The overall spatial variation of 70 -year cancer risk is shown in Figure 4. This figure shows there are large areas surrounding the proposed refueling facility that have cancer risk above 10 in a million (blue isopleth). The spatial variation of 25 -year cancer risk is shown in Figure 5. The results indicate that cancer risk at the nearby daycare would be 12.5 for students and 8.2 for teachers at the elementary school. This figure shows that student cancer risk at the daycare would be significant, as the risk exceeds 10 in a million. The results assuming 9 -year exposure (for school children) is estimated to be 8.2 cancers per million. While not significant, this result is an underestimate as it does not include cumulative exposure from construction, increases in traffic due to location of the fueling station, and cumulative exposure from residences in adjacent housing, among other factors. 52 BAAQMD, BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines, December 2016, Section 2.2.1.1, p. 8; available at http://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/platiiiin ,-and- research/permit-modeling/hra_ guidelines 12 7 2016._clean-pdf.pdf. 53 BAAQMD, CEQA Guidelines, May 2017, Appendix D, p. D-40. 54 NESHAPS 54 Federal Register 38044, September 14,1989; CAA Section 112 ft See also BAAQMD, CEQA Guidelines, Appendix D, p. D-35. 14 A-17 Figure 4: Cancer Risk Isopleth for 70 -Year Exposure from Idling Cars, Fuel Delivery Trucks, and Gasoline Dispensing 15 A-18 Figure 5: Cancer Risk Isopleth for 25 -Year (Worker) Exposure (includes emissions from idling cars, fuel delivery trucks, and gasoline dispensing) Our revised analyses indicate that cancer risks are significant at several residences across the street from the proposed fueling station, as well as at the school playfield and for teachers at the North Bay Children s Center. Our analyses also indicate that benzene and DPM are the primary drivers for cancer risk and are consistent with similar health risk assessments prepared by both CARB and the SCAQMD, as summarized below in Comments 2.3.2 and 2.3.3. Our analyses are also consistent with extensive scientific research that demonstrates a significant association between gasoline stations and the risk of childhood leukemia.55 See referred journal articles compiled in Exhibit 1. Our HRA analysis underestimates cancer risk for the following reasons: First, the sensitive receptors (residences, schools) are upwind of the fuel station (i.e., the wind data used in our analysis show that the pollution from the fuel station is blown away from the sensitive receptors), because the HRA is based on Santa Rosa wind data. 56 Our analysis should be 55 Peter F. Infante, "Residential Proximity to Gasoline Stations and Risk of Childhood Leukemia," Antet7can Journal of Epidemiology 185, no. 1 (December 6, 2016). Exhibit 1. 56 We were unable to obtain the Petaluma wind data in the proper format for use `in the AERMOD model. 16 A-19 repeated using Petaluma wind data, which we were unable to obtain in time to prepare this study. Second, our analysis excludes the emissions from the increase in traffic on South McDowell Boulevard and other nearby streets, attracted due to the location of the Project, thus underestimating exposures to DPM and benzene.57 Third, our analysis excludes emissions from vehicles that visit the convenience store without pumping fuel. Fourth, our analysis excludes exposure from ingestion of soils during schoolyard playing, ingesting locally grown produce (Figure 2) and contamination of mother's milk from, for example, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from idling diesel vehicles (see Comment 2). Fifth, our analysis excludes several important TACs that are present in diesel and gasoline exhaust, including PAHs, formaldehyde, and acrolein. 2.3. Agency Analyses Confirm Project Cancer Risks are Significant 2.3.1. CAPCOA The CAPCOA guidance states, with respect to "gasoline dispensing facilities: "Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater)."58 The Project is a large gas station that will be located within 300 feet of sensitive land uses. Thus, this guidance is violated for the Project, indicating a significant impact. 2.3.2. CARB Gas Station HRA For gasoline dispensing facilities with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year, CARB established risk levels of about 10 cases of cancer per million exposed at a distance of 50 feet from the fenceline.59 (A risk level of 10 per million is commonly established as a threshold of significance in health risk assessments.) Consequently, CARB recommends a minimum 50 -foot distance between receptors and typical gasoline dispensing facilities —that is, facilities with an annual throughput of less than 3.6 million gallons per year.60 CARB notes that as the throughput at the gasoline dispensing facility increases, the potential risk also increases 61 and expresses concern over the "growing number of extremely large GDFs with sales over 3.6 and as high as 19 million gallons per year."62 For these facilities, CARB determined an upper end of the risk range of 120 in a million as a hypothetical worst case scenario under rural air dispersion conditions.63 Based on these findings, CARB recommends: "Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater)."64 The BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines expressly reference CARB's 57 See, for example, IS/MND, pp.'53/57 and A U. Raysoni and others, Evaluation of VOC concentrations in Indoor and Outdoor Microenvironments at Near -Road Schools, Environmental Pollution, v. 231, pp. 681-696, 2017. Exhibit 1. 58 CAPCOA 2009, Table 2. 59 CARB Land Use Handbook, p. 31. 60 Id,, Table 1-1. 61 Id., p. 31. 62 Id., Table 1-2. 63 Id., Footnote 5 to Table 1-2. 64 Id., Table 1-1. 17 A-20 recommendation for siting TAC sources such as gasoline dispensing facilities and recommend that a lead agency refer to the CARB's document for buffer distances.65 CARB used standard risk assessment procedures to estimate the cancer risk for fuel stations delivering 3.6 million gallons of gasoline per year. The results are summarized in Figure 6.66 This figure indicates that the cancer risk levels for a gasoline dispensing facility with a throughput of only 3.6 MMgal/yr is about 6.5 per million at a distance of 60 feet from the fenceline, the same distance from the Project as the boundary of the North Bay Childreris Center. Adjusting this estimate for the higher throughput of the Project, 8.5 MMgal/yr, CARB's analysis indicates that the risk at the North Bay Children's Center would be 15 per million.67 This exceeds the cancer significance threshold of 10 per million and is a significant health impact not disclosed in the IS/MND. Figure 6: Gasoline Dispensing Facility Health Risk for 3,600,000 gal/yr Throughput Distance From FeneeAine (feet) The local school district, in comments by ESA, previously cited to this report to support higher cancer risk levels than estimated in the IS/MND.68 The response to these comments asserted that the Handbook is "inapplicable and outdated."69 However, the Handbook is still posted on CARB's website, without any modifications. CARB routinely updates its guidance. See, for example, the technical advisory for high-volume roadways.70 Further, the Handbook is cited in the May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines as applicable in this specific case —the siting of fuel dispensing stations.71 The IS/ MND relied on the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. 65 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017, p. 9-7; available athttp://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/plarming--and-research/cega/cega guidelines may2017- pdf.pdf?Ia=en. 66 CARB Land Use Handbook, Figure 1-6. 67 Cancer risk at 60 feet for 8.5 MMgal/yr of gasoline: (6.5 per million)(8.5/3.6) =15 per million. 68 Memorandum from Heidi Rous and Tina Su, ESA, to Philip J. Henderson and others; Re: Peer Review of the Health Risk Assessment Impact Analysis (September 19, 2017) for the Safeway Fuel Center Project, May 7, 2018. 69 May 8, 2018 Illingworth & Rodkin Memo, p. 1. 70 CARB Land Use Handbook. 71 BAAQMD, May 2017, p. 9-7. 18 A-21 Itl. qJ qJ .19 aro O.4 Distance From FeneeAine (feet) The local school district, in comments by ESA, previously cited to this report to support higher cancer risk levels than estimated in the IS/MND.68 The response to these comments asserted that the Handbook is "inapplicable and outdated."69 However, the Handbook is still posted on CARB's website, without any modifications. CARB routinely updates its guidance. See, for example, the technical advisory for high-volume roadways.70 Further, the Handbook is cited in the May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines as applicable in this specific case —the siting of fuel dispensing stations.71 The IS/ MND relied on the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. 65 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017, p. 9-7; available athttp://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/plarming--and-research/cega/cega guidelines may2017- pdf.pdf?Ia=en. 66 CARB Land Use Handbook, Figure 1-6. 67 Cancer risk at 60 feet for 8.5 MMgal/yr of gasoline: (6.5 per million)(8.5/3.6) =15 per million. 68 Memorandum from Heidi Rous and Tina Su, ESA, to Philip J. Henderson and others; Re: Peer Review of the Health Risk Assessment Impact Analysis (September 19, 2017) for the Safeway Fuel Center Project, May 7, 2018. 69 May 8, 2018 Illingworth & Rodkin Memo, p. 1. 70 CARB Land Use Handbook. 71 BAAQMD, May 2017, p. 9-7. 18 A-21 2.3.3. SCAQMD Gas Station HRA The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) performed an industry- wide risk assessment for the 3,140 retail gas stations in the district, based solely on benzene emissions.72 As idling diesel vehicles are a major source of cancer risk, the SCAQMD analysis underestimates cancer risk from fuel stations. The residential cancer risk ranged from 2.31 to 5.77 per million at 25 meters for a gasoline throughput of 1 MMgal/yr.73 As cancer risk is directly proportional to gasoline throughput, adjusting this range to 8.5 MMgal/yr for the Project would result in a residential cancer risk at 82 feet from the source (along South McDowell Boulevard) ranging from 20 to 49 per million.74 This is consistent with our analysis, summarized in Figures 4 and 5, and CARB's analysis, discussed in Comment 2.3.2. 2.3.4. HRAs for Other Similar Facilities Our results are consistent with HRAs conducted for similar fuel dispensing stations in other CEQA analyses. The CEQA analysis for an almost identical facility to the Project, the 24-hour Cottle Safeway Fuel Station at the Hitachi Campus and Transit Village in San Jose, estimated a fuel throughput of 7 MMgal/yr from 8 dispensers (16 pumps).75 The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) identified incremental cancer risks of 33 per million at 50 feet to less than 7 per million at 300 feet.76 Because the proposed fuel station would be located more than 300 feet from the nearest residences, the document concluded that lifetime cancer risks would be less than the 10 per million significance threshold and would therefore constitute a less -than - significant impact under CEQA.77 However, as housing is just across the street from the Project (at 80 feet), based on the Cottle analysis, which is consistent with ours, the Project's cancer risk would be highly significant. Further, adjusting the Cottle results to 8.5 MMgal/yr, the incremental cancer risk would range from 40 per million at 50 feet (33x8.5/ 7=40) to 8.5 per million at 300 feet (7x8.5/ 7=8.5). In contrast, the Project's similarly -sized proposed fuel dispensing station would be located 80 feet away from residences along South McDowell Boulevard. Thus, given the location of the 72 SCAQMD, Retail Gasoline Dispensing Facilities; available at http://www.agmd.gov/home/rules- compliance / compliance / toxic -hot -spots -ab -2588 / iws-facilities / iws-gas-statioia. 73 SCAQMD,, Emission Inventory and Risk Assessment Guidelines for Gasoline Dispensing Stations, January 2007, Table 3; available at http:/ /www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/platuting/i•isk- assessment/gas station hra.pdf?sfvrsn=0. 74 Revised cancer risk for 8.5 MMgal/yr of gasoline throughput: (2.31)(8.5 =19.6 per million; (5.77)(8.5) _ 49.0 per million. 75 City of San Jose, Addendum to the Hitachi Campus and Transit Village Final FIR, SCH #2004072110, Cottle Safeway Fuel Station, File No. CP12-053, March, 2013, p. 11; littp://www.sanjoseca.crov/DocumentCenter/``View/13016. 76 Addendum to Hitachi Campus and Transit Village Final EIR, op. cit., p. 25. 77 Id. 19 A-22 Project, health risks to residents along South McDowell Boulevard can be assumed to be significant. 2.4. Scientific Research Confirms Health Impacts are Significant Confirming the results of our health risk assessment, a number of peer-reviewed, scientific studies have linked residential and school proximity to gas stations to an increased risk of adverse health outcomes78—including increased risk for cancer79 and, specifically, leukemia in children.S0 Living next to a gas station quadruples the risk of acute leukemia in children and increases the risk of developing acute non -lymphoblastic childhood leukemia by 7 times, compared with children who do not live near a gas station.81 Moreover, a significant exposure -response relationship exists between the likelihood of childhood leukemia and the number of gasoline stations per square mile.82 Thus, gas stations should not be located in areas where housing or vulnerable populations and activities exist or are proposed, including settings such as those near the Project, with residences across the street and schools within 300 feet. Studies show that living within 300 feet of a gas station damages health and that a 300 - foot minimum separation should apply to vulnerable facilities such as schools.83 A link between childhood leukemia and residence within 328 feet of a gas station has been reported by one group of researchers.84 Safe distances between gas stations and schools depend on the number of gas pumps, the amount of fuel drawn from them, and the traffic intensity. The USEPA publishes School Siting Guidelines that recommend careful evaluation for any potential school location within 1,000 feet of a LARGE gas station (defined as dispensing more than 3.6 million gal/yr).85 78 J. D. Brender et al., "Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes," Ameiican Journal of Public Health 101, no. S1 (2011): S37 -S52. Exhibit 1. 79 E. O. Talbot, "Risk of Leukemia as a Result of Community Exposure to Gasoline Vapors: A Follow -Up Study," Environmental Research 111, no. 4 (2011): 597-602. Exhibit 1. 80 P. Brosselin et al., "Acute Childhood Leukaemia and Residence Next to Petrol Stations and Automotive Repair Garages: The ESCALE Study (SFCE)," Occupational and Environmental Medicine 66, no. 9 (2009): 598-606 (Exhibit 1); P. F. Infante, "Residential Proximity to Gasoline Stations and Risk of Childhood Leukemia," Ainerican Journal of Epidemiology 185, no. 1 (2017): 1-4 (Exhibit 1); C. -Steffen et al., "Acute Childhood Leukaemia and Environmental Exposure to Potential Sources of Benzene and Other Hydrocarbons: A Case -Control Study," Occupational and Environmental Medicine 61, no. 9 (2004): 773-778 (Exhibit 1); C. Steinmaus and M. Smith, "Parental, In Utero, and Early -Life Exposure to Benzene and the Risk of Childhood Leukemia: A Meta -Analysis," American Journal of Epidemiology 183, no. 1 (2016): 1-14. Exhibit 1. 81 Brosselin et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2004. 82 H. H. Weng et al., "Childhood Leukemia and Traffic Air Pollution in Taiwan: Petrol Station Density as an Indicator," Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health A 72, no. 2 (2009): 83-87. Exhibit 1. 83 I. M. Morales Terres et al., "Assessing the Impact of Petrol Stations on Their Inmlediate Surrounding," Journal of Environmental Management 91, no. 12 (2010): 2754-2762. Exhibit 1. 84 Steffen et al., 2004. 85 U.S. EPA, School Siting Guidelines, p. 59; available at littps:/ /www.el2a.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/scl-iool_siting_guicielines-2.pcif. 20 A-23 A number of scientific studies have found that environmental exposure to gasoline and automobile exhaust are associated with significant elevations in the risk of childhood cancers (leukemia and central nervous system tumors).86.87 Childhood leukemia has been significantly associated with living near gasoline stations.88 Moreover, a significant exposure -response relationship exists between the likelihood of childhood leukemia and the number of gasoline stations per square mile.89 See additional peer-reviewed journal articles supporting these conclusions in Exhibit 1. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Table 1 Calculation of TACs from Gasoline Dispensing and Spillage Basis: 7.48 million Gallons/year Throughput Exhibit B Excerpts of Idling Emissions from Heavy Duty Trucks for the Sart Francisco Air Basin Exhibit C Excerpts of HARP2 Risk Model Exhibit D Resume of Phyllis Fox, Ph.D, PE Exhibit E Resume of Ray Kapahi, BSC, M. Eng. (Exhibits 1 and 2 via separate email to only Heather Hines and City Clerk) Exhibit 1 Peer Reviewed Journal Articles Exhibit 2 Various Guidance Materials, Technical Reports, and Other Supporting Documents 86 A. E. Janitz et al., 'Benzene and Childhood Acute Leukemia in Oklahoma," Environmental Researck 158 (2017):167-173. Exhibit 1. 87 O. Raaschou-Nielsen et al., "Ambient Benzene at the Residence and Risk for Subtypes of Childhood Leukemia, Lymphoma and CNS Tumor," International Jotinial of Cancer 143, no. 6 (2018): 1367-1373; available in Exhibit 1 and at: https:/ /onlinelibrary.wfley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/`ijc.31,421?af=R. 88 Brosselin et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2004. 89 Weng et al., 2009. 21 A-24 IMINIIIIIIINNO A-25 Table 1 Calculation of TACs from Gasoline Dispensing and Spillage Basis: 7.48 million Gallons/year Throughput --- From CAPCOA/SJVAPCD Spreadsheet--- VOC Emissions Based on 7.48 million gallons/yr lbs/yr lbs/hr Tank Filling 6.28E+02 Vehicle Re -Fueling 3.14E+03 Breathing Losses 1,87E+02 Spillage 3.14E+03 Amt of VOC (From. Gasoline Dispensing, etc.) 3.96E+03 5.13E-01 Amt of VOCs (From Gasoline Spillage) 3.14E+03 4.08E-01 TACs from Tank Filling EF (lbs/Ib VOC) Emissions (lbs/yr) Emissions (Lbs/hr) Benzene 3.00E-03 1.88E+00 Ethyl Benzene 1.60E-02 1.01E+01 Toluene 8.00E-02 5.03E+01 Xylenes 2.40E-02 1.51E+01 TACs from Vehicle Re -fuelling EF (lbs/Ib VOC) Emissions (lbs/yr) Emissions (Lbs/hr) Benzene 3.00E-03 9.42E+00 Ethyl Benzene 1.60E-02 5.03E+01 Toluene 8.00E-02 2.51E+02 Xylenes 2.40E-02 7.54E+01 TACs from Breathing Losses EF (lbs/Ib VOC) Emissions (lbs/yr) Emissions (Lbs/hr) Benzene 3.00E-03 5.61E-01 Ethyl Benzene 1.60E-02 2.99E+00 Toluene 8.00E-02 1,50E+01 Xylenes 2.40E-02 4.49E+00 TACs from Gasoline Spillage EF (lbs/Ib VOC) Emissions (lbs/yr) Emissions (Lbs/hr) Benzene 1.00E-02 3.14E+01 Ethyl Benzene 1.60E-02 5.03E+01 Toluene 8.00E-02 2.51E+02 Xylenes 2.40E-02 7.54E+01 NOTES 1. VOC emission rates from CAPCOA/SJVAPCD spreadsheet (copy attached) 2. TAC Emission Factors from CAPCCOA/SJVAPCD Speciation Profiles (copy attached) A-26 File: Petaluma Safeway Calc Sheet: UTEX Emisslons Summary 1/1 Table 2 Calculation of VOC Emissions File: Petaluma Safeway Calcs A-27 Sheet: 2Tank VOC Table 3 Calculation of DPM Emissions from Idling Assume 2 trucks/day x 365 days/year, 5 minutes idle/truck IDLING EMISSIONS - DELIVERY TRUCKS Units Trucks/day 2 Idle time/truck min 5 Total Idle time/day min 10 Idle time/yr min 3,650 hrs 60.8 PM -2.5 Emission Factor for Vehicle Idling (Note 1) (grams/veh-hr) 0.120921 Assume PM -2.5 = DPM Annual DPM emissions grams/yr 7.3560 lbs/yr 0.016 Note 1. Idle emission factor from ARB compilation for statewide analysis by calendar year and by air basin. Excerpts of ARB report shown below. A-28 File: Petaluma SafewayCalcs Sheet: Hruck Idle Emiss PM -2.5 1/1 Table 4 Calculation of DPM Emissions from Idling Diesel Cars (Assume 5 minutes Title time per vehicle) IDLING !S! in Annual # of Vehicles/year vehicles/yr. 984,405 of Vehicles that are Diesel 12% Number of Diesel Vehicles/year 118,129 DPM Emissions from Idling (per vehicle) Average EF @ 5 mph gram/mile 0.22152 DPM Emissions/hr. per vehicle (assume 5 minute grams/vehicle 0.0908 idle/running time per vehicle) nual DPM EmissionsI grams/yr. I 10,729 lbs./yr. 23.6 Calculation of Emission Factors (Note 1) LDT1 0.6598 grams/mile LDT2 0.0283 grams/mile LHDT1 0.13328 grams/mile LHDTz 0.09284 grams/mile Average for trucks 0.228555 grams/mile Average for diesel cars 0.0878 grams/mile Composite EF (95% trucks + 5% cars) 0.22152 grams/mile NOTES 1. Emission Factors and Annual Vehicle/Yr. from Safeway Fuel Center Health Risk Assessment Petaluma, CA. Revised Sept 19, 2017. Attachment 2. 2. The composite emission factor includes emissions from vehicle travel within the fuel center, 3. Estimate of percentage of diesel cars (5%) based on 2016 registration in California. File: Petaluma Safeway Caks A-29 Sheet: 4Diesel Cars Idle Emiss 1/1 A-30 Exhibit B Excerpts of Idling Emissions from Heavy Duty Trucks for the San Francisco Air Basin Source: California Air Resources Board Compilation for EMFAC 2011 Vehicle Categories CY [v EMFAC2007 Vehicle Cl .) Fuel Type F -I air basin [ I season; = l HC (g/hr-veh) [� CO (g/j� NOX ( PM10 PM2,5,� CO2( 2018 HHDT D NC w 5.605598274 49.84313 51.14514 0.223154 0.205301 6457.132 2018 HHDT D NCC a 5.257784092 37.01311 50.76323 0.154797 0.142414 7039.493'. 2018 HHDT D NCC s 4.954968026 26.89525 52.39617 0.130495 0.120055 7457.721' 2018 HHDT D NCC w 5.675958659 50.9854 48.50821 0.188358 0.173289 6461.941' 2018 HHDT D NEP a 5.388959968 38.00424 48.12444 0.148797 0.136893 7036.061: 2018 HHDT D NEP s 5.078588978 27.61545 49.6725 0.125436 0.115401 7454.085 2018 HHDT D NEP w 5.817567527 52.35067 45.98664 0.181056 0.166572 6458.79. 2018 HHDT D SC a 5.031719389 35.78542 52.0009 0.122677 0.112862 7043.596', 2018 HHDT D SC s 4.741923261 26.00316 53.67365 0.103417 0.095144 7462.067' 2018 HHDT D SC 5.431914042 49.29426 49.6909 0.149273 0.137331 6465.707 2018 HHDT D SCC a 4.936788464 34.55234 56.67876 0.168871 0.155361 7040.174' 2018 HHDT D SCC s 4.652459774 25.10715 58.502 0.142359 0,13097 7458.442 2018 HHDT D SCC w 5.329432845 47.59569 54.16097 0.205482 0.189044 6462.565 2018 HHDT D SD a 5.017691698 35.639 52.73329 0.12771 0.117493 7045.531, 2018 HHDT D SD s 4.728703479 25.89676 54.42961 0.10766 0.099047 7464.118 2018 HHDT D SD w 5.416770667 49.09256 50.39076 0.155398 0.142966 6467.483 2018 HHDT D SF' a 5.013150032 35.55969 53.03835 0.131436 0.120921` 7044.947 2018 HHDT D SF s 4.724423385 25.83914 54.74448 0.110801 0.101937 7463.498 2018 HHDT D SF w 5.411867782 48.98332 50.68227 0.159931 0.147137 6466.947 2018 HHDT D SJV a 5.275867508 37.29919 49.72021 0.142429 0.131035 7041.621, 2018 HHDT D S1V s 4.972009948 27.10313 51.31961 0.120069 0.110463 7459.975 2018 HHDT D SJV w 5.695480329 51.37947 47.51153 0.173308 0.159444 6463.894 2018 HHDT D Ss a 5.280110081 37.53706 48.54586 0.12561 0.115561 7043.819. 2018 HHDT D SS s 4.976008175 27.27598 50.10747 0.10589 0.097418 7462.304' 2018 HHDT D SS w 5.700060332 51.70714 46.38934 0.152842 0.140615 6465.911 2018 HHDT D SV a 5.199345562 36.5815 51.41951 0.154446 0.14209 7037.289' 2018 HHDT D SV s 4.899895197 26.58162 53.07357 0.130198 0.119782 7455.386' 2018 HHDT D SV w 5.612872258 50.39085 49.13534 0.18793 0.172895 6459.917 2018 MHDT D GBV a 1.605433892 20.99667 76.58593 0.334317 0.307572 7438.649 2018 MHDT D' GBV s 1.512970762 15.25705 79.04953 0.281831 0.259284 7880.591, 2018 MHDT D GBV w 1.733121072 28.92282 73.18381 0.406798 0.374254 6828.348, 2018 MHDT D LC a 2.173488309 25.00289 76.9982 0.574315 0.52837 7415.476 2018 MHDT D LC s 2.048308734 18.16813 79.47507 0.48415 0.445418 7856.042 2018 MHDT D LC w 2.346355342 34.44138 73.57777 0.698828 0.642922 6807.076' 2018 MHDT D LT a 1.460010512 21.29111 68.83254 0.208405 0.191732 7540.721'. 2018 MHDT D LT s 1.375922875 15.471 71.04673 0.175686' 0.161631' 7988.728'. 2018 MHDT D LT w 1.576131534 29.32842 65.77484 0.253587 0.2333 6922.046 2018 MHDT D MC a 1.592431268 21.92325 69.99059 0.278308 0.256043 7495.245 A-31 EXHIBIT C A-32 Exhibit C Excerpts of HARP2 Risk Model A-33 Ld HARP2 - Air Dispersion & Risk Tool (da File Tools Help ,w 70 Year (©1 OEHHA Derived Method i75 GLC Catc, Setup p Emission Inventory J_ Add Import Export Delete All Options Filter, All All PLOTFILE Ust (ion-pogLitant spi ; Background Concentratoris 2. 9 SrID StklD proll) PoIlD PolAbbrev IAAokr Arms] Erns Obs/yr) MaxHr Ems �bsJhr) MWAF Screening Adjustment Factors UcJate\krpM GLCs 4- 0 0 9901 &;IWM 1 23.612 10 1 Avg GLCs P.10lien" DISPEN... 0 0 71432 1 1 49.19athway\Spatial 1 Cont�GLCs (AERPLOT.EXE)B {129.08 Post Process If 'SPDISPEN... 0 1 111414 JBW Be nzene 1 Max 30 -Day Rop Ave for Pb DISPEN... 0 D :J: PEII Si: :7 0 10888 3 Toth,. 64532 Da4y 8 -Hr Ave GLCs for 8-1* RE Ell DISPEN 0 ISP :— 0 1330207 X)fe. 11 1 3.6 1 Refined Worker Period Ave for C o 77 JA HARP2 - Air Dispersion & Risk Toot (44W File Tools Help Ei Calculate Risk Select Pathways to Evaluate Press Calculate View Risk Results Refined Acute Analysis Spatial Averaging Risk (Optional) Project Summary Report EZ 0 1— P Select Risk Scenario Analysis Type Receptor Type kii> Cancer Risk Individual Resident Chronic Risk (Non -cancer) Population -Wide 8-HourChronic FGsk (Non -cancer) j Worker Acute Risk (Non -cancer) Cancer. Chronic, and Acute He4) me choose Heb me choose, Exposure Duration Intake Rate Percentile ,w 70 Year (©1 OEHHA Derived Method 30 Year (J 95th (High End) 25 Year ('Nortcer) 65th qAean) 9 Year Risk Management Policy (REAP) -'Inhalation Ony* User Defined (Tier 2) 14 RMP using the Derived Method Heb me choose Help me choose A-34 HARP2 - Air Dispersion & RiskTool (da "I"' File Tools Help 0- ucdate Rsk Wed Rsk Scenario Press Calcuate IL Mew Rsk Resits Refused Ante haWs Spatial Av.gbg Rsk (Optimal) Ned Sw .y Repod Pathways to Evaluate rt Mall o) Mandatory Mar ma Pathways (-) Worker Pathways C) User DeU—,d I )( I-ttalat;- (A."ar, On) El SO Ilrvestion [-j Dermal LI MAhers M& F -I Dykng Water F -1 Fish El Homegrown Produce E-1 Bed LI DahyCom 11 NS Lj Chckens El Eggs Depolaon Rate for wknhala>ion pathways o*) o 0.05 m/s (unmbow sources) 0.02 mss (cordmted sources) Other I I Advanced l Mex 2) - For rormhalaum pathways orki [jChange -x—frequency (d.ys/ye-): rr 1--'n'JIR'hat's tits day Heb — clm� Ckk to seed SCAQ M D mand -Im r *— ll A-35 HARP2 - Air Dispersion & Risk Tool (cla[0ld File Tools LHelp Ji' e Calculate Risk - Select Risk Scenario !- • Select Pathways to Evaluate 'i--• Press Calculate Rented Acute Analysis - Spatial Averaging � g Risk (Optional) 1-- Project Summary Report FA • HARP2 -Air Dispersion& Risk Tool (da File Tools Help 8 Calculate Risk Select Risk Scenario Select Pathways to Evaluate Press Calculate Refined Acute Analysis Spatial Averaging Risk (Optional) Project Summary Report Risks at Homes Along South McDowell Blvd A-37 IDA'I:IIHY1�1: A-38 Phyllis Fox, Ph.D, PE Environmental Management 745 White Pine Ave. Rockledge, FL 32955 321-626-6885 phyllisfox@gmail.com Dr. Fox has over 40 years of experience in the field of environmental engineering, including air pollution control (BACT, BART, MACT, LAER, RACT), greenhouse gas emissions and control, cost effectiveness analyses, water quality and water supply investigations, hydrology, hazardous waste investigations, environmental permitting, nuisance investigations (odor, noise), environmental impact reports, CEQA/NEPA documentation, risk assessments, and litigation support. EDUCATION Ph.D. Environmental/Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1980. M.S. Environmental/Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1975. B.S. Physics (with high honors), University of Florida, Gainesville, 1971. REGISTRATION Registered Professional Engineer: Arizona (2001-2014: #36701; retired), California (2002 - present; CH 6058), Florida (2001-2016; #57886; retired), Georgia (2002-2014; #PE027643; retired), Washington (2002-2014; #38692; retired), Wisconsin (2005-2014; #37595-006; retired) Board Certified Environmental Engineer, American Academy of Environmental Engineers, Certified in Air Pollution Control (DEE #01-20014), 2002-2014; retired) Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP), Institute of Professional Environmental Practice (QEP #02-010007, 2001-2015: retired). PROFESSIONAL HISTORY Environmental Management, Principal, 1981 -present Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Principal Investigator, 1977-1981 University of California, Berkeley, Program Manager, 1976-1977 Bechtel, Inc., Engineer, 1971-1976, 1964-1966 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Chemical Society (1981-2010) Phi Beta Kappa (1970 -present) Sigma Pi Sigma (1970 -present) Who's Who Environmental Registry, PH Publishing, Fort Collins, CO, 1992. Who's Who in the World, Marquis Who's Who, Inc., Chicago, IL, 11th Ed., p. 371, 1993 -present. A-39 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 2 Who's Who ofAmerican Women, Marquis Who's Who, Inc., Chicago, IL, 13th Ed., p. 264,1984 - present. Who's Who in Science and Engineering, Marquis Who's Who, Inc., New Providence, NJ, 5th Ed., p. 414, 1999 -present. Who's Who in America, Marquis Who's Who, Inc., 59" Ed., 2005. Guide to Specialists on Toxic Substances, World Environment Center, New York, NY, p. 80, 1980. National Research Council Committee on Irrigation -Induced Water Quality Problems (Selenium), Subcommittee on Quality Control/Quality Assurance (1985-1990). National Research Council Committee on Surface Mining and Reclamation, Subcommittee on Oil Shale (1978-80) REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Performed environmental and engineering investigations, as outlined below, for a wide range of industrial and commercial facilities including: petroleum refineries and upgrades thereto; reformulated fuels projects; refinery upgrades to process heavy sour crudes, including tar sands and light sweet crudes from the Eagle Ford and Bakken Formations; petroleum, gasoline and ethanol distribution terminals; coal, coke, and ore/mineral export terminals; LNG export, import, and storage terminals; crude -by -rail projects; shale oil plants; crude oil/condensate marine and rail terminals; coal gasification and liquefaction plants; oil and gas production, including conventional, thermally enhanced, hydraulic fi-acking, and acid stimulation techniques; underground storage tanks; pipelines; compressor stations; gasoline stations; landfills; railyards; hazardous waste treatment facilities; nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, biomass, waste, tire -derived fuel, gas, oil, coke and coal-fired power plants; transmission lines; airports; hydrogen plants; petroleum coke calcining plants; coke plants; activated carbon manufacturing facilities; asphalt plants; cement plants; incinerators; flares; manufacturing facilities (e.g., semiconductors, electronic assembly, aerospace components, printed circuit boards, amusement park rides); lanthanide processing plants; ammonia plants; nitric acid plants; urea plants; food processing plants; wineries; almond hulling facilities; composting facilities; grain processing facilities; grain elevators; ethanol production facilities; soy bean oil extraction plants; biodiesel plants; paint formulation plants; wastewater treatment plants; marine terminals and ports; gas processing plants; steel mills; iron nugget production facilities; pig iron plant, based on blast furnace technology; direct reduced iron plant; acid regeneration facilities; railcar refinishing facility; battery manufacturing plants; pesticide manufacturing and repackaging facilities; pulp and paper mills; olefin plants; methanol plants; ethylene crackers; alumina plants, desalination plants; battery storage facilities; selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems; selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) systems; halogen acid furnaces; contaminated property redevelopment projects (e.g., Mission Bay, Southern Pacific Railyards, Moscone Center expansion, San Diego Padres Ballpark); residential developments; commercial office parks, A-40 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 3 campuses, and shopping centers; server farms; transportation plans; and a wide range of mines including sand and gravel, hard rock, limestone, nacholite, coal, molybdenum, gold, zinc, and oil shale. EXPERT WITNESS/LITIGATION SUPPORT • For the California Attorney General, assist in determining compliance with probation terms in the matter of People v. Chevron USA. • For plaintiffs, assist in developing Petitioners' proof brief for National Parks Conservation Association et al v. U.S. EPA, Petition for Review of Final Administrative Action of the U.S. EPA, In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Docket No. 14-3147. For plaintiffs, expert witness in civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for historic modifications (1997-2000) at the Cemex cement plant in Lyons, Colorado. Reviewed produced documents, prepared expert and rebuttal reports on PSD applicability based on NOx emission calculations for a collection of changes considered both individually and collectively. Deposed August 2011. United States v. Cemex, Inc., In U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 09-cv-00019-MSK-MEH). Case settled June 13, 2013. For plaintiffs, in civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for historic modifications (1988 — 2000) at James De Young Units 3, 4, and 5. Reviewed produced documents, analyzed CEMS and EIA data, and prepared netting and BACT analyses for NOx, SO2, and PM10 (PSD case). Expert report February 24, 2010 and affidavit February 20, 2010. Sierra Club v. City of Holland, et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan (Civil Action 1:08-cv-1183). Case settled. Consent Decree 1/19/14. For plaintiffs, in civil action alleging failure to obtain MACT permit, expert on potential to emit hydrogen chloride (HCl) from a new coal-fired boiler. Reviewed record, estimated HC1 emissions, wrote expert report June 2010 and March 2013 (Cost to Install a Scrubber at the Lamar Repowering Project Pursuant to Case -by -Case MALT), deposed August 2010 and March 2013. Wildearth Guardian et al. v. Lamar Utilities Board, Civil Action No. 09-cv- 02974, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado. Case settled August 2013. For plaintiffs, expert witness on permitting, emission calculations, and wastewater treatment for coal -to -gasoline plant. Reviewed produced documents. Assisted in preparation of comments on draft minor source permit. Wrote two affidavits on key issues in case. Presented direct and rebuttal testimony 10/27 - 10/28/10 on permit enforceability and failure to properly calculate potential to emit, including underestimate of flaring emissions and omission of VOC and CO emissions from wastewater treatment, cooling tower, tank roof landings, and malfunctions. Sierra Club, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Coal River A-41 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 4 Mountain Watch, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. John Benedict, Director, Division ofAir Quality, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection and TransGas Development System, LLC, Appeal No. 10-01-AQB. Virginia Air Quality Board remanded the permit on March 28, 2011 ordering reconsideration of potential to emit calculations, including: (1) support for assumed flare efficiency; (2) inclusion of startup, shutdown and malfunction emissions; and (3) inclusion of wastewater treatment emissions in potential to emit calculations. For plaintiffs, expert on BACT emission limits for gas-fired combined cycle power plant. Prepared declaration in support of CBE's Opposition to the United States' Motion for Entry of Proposed Amended Consent Decree. Assisted in settlement discussions. U.S. EPA, Plaintiff,Communities for a Better Environment, Intervenor Plaintiff, v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, Case No. C-09-4503 SI. Technical expert in confidential settlement discussions with large coal-fired utility on BACT control technology and emission limits for NOx, SO2, PM, PM2.5, and CO for new natural gas fired combined cycle and simple cycle turbines with oil backup. (July 2010). Case settled. For plaintiffs, expert witness in remedy phase of civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for historic modifications (1998- 99) at Gallagher Units 1 and 3. Reviewed produced documents, prepared expert and rebuttal reports on historic and current -day BACT for SO2, control costs, and excess emissions of SO2. Deposed 11/18/09. United States et al. v. Cinergy, et al., In U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Civil Action No. IP99-1693 C -M/S. Settled 12/22/09. For plaintiffs, expert witness on MACT, BACT for NOx, and enforceability in an administrative appeal of draft state air permit issued for four 300 -MW pet -coke -fired CFBs. Reviewed produced documents and prepared prefiled testimony. Deposed 10/8/09 and 11/9/09. Testified 11/10/09. Application of Las Brisas Energy Center, LLC for State Air Quality Permit; before the State Office of Administrative Hearings, Texas. Permit remanded 3/29/10 as LBEC failed to meet burden of proof on a number of issues including MACT. Texas Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal to reinstate the permit. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Las Brisas Energy Center, LLC sought to overturn the Court of Appeals decision but moved to have their appeal dismissed in August 2013. For defense, expert witness in unlawful detainer case involving a gasoline station, minimart, and residential property with contamination from leaking underground storage tanks. Reviewed agency files and inspected site. Presented expert testimony on July 6, 2009, on causes of, nature and extent of subsurface contamination. A. Singh v. S. 4ssaedi, in Contra Costa County Superior Court, CA. Settled August 2009. A-42 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 5 For plaintiffs, expert witness on netting and enforceability for refinery being upgraded to process tar sands crude. Reviewed produced documents. Prepared expert and rebuttal reports addressing use of emission factors for baseline, omitted sources including coker, flares, tank landings and cleaning, and enforceability. Deposed. In the Matter of Objection to the Issuance of Sign icant Source Modification Permit No. 089-25484-00453 to BP Products North America Inc., Whiting Business Unit, Save the Dunes Council, Inc., Sierra Club., Inc., Hoosier Environmental Council et al., Petitioners, B. P. Products North American, Respondents/Permittee, before the Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication. Case settled. For plaintiffs, expert witness on BACT, MACT, and enforceability in appeal of Title V permit issued to 600 MW coal-fired power plant burning Powder River Basin coal. Prepared technical comments on draft air permit. Reviewed record on appeal, drafted BACT, MALT, and enforceability pre -filed testimony. Drafted MACT and enforceability pre -filed rebuttal testimony. Deposed March 24, 2009. Testified June 10, 2009. In Re: Southwestern Electric Power Company, Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission, Consolidated Docket No. 08-006-P. Recommended Decision issued December 9, 2009 upholding issued permit. Commission adopted Recommended Decision January 22, 2010. For plaintiffs, expert witness in remedy phase of civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for historic modifications (1989- 1992) at Wabash Units 2, 3 and 5. Reviewed produced documents, prepared expert and rebuttal report on historic and current -day BACT for NOx and SO2, control costs, and excess emissions of NOx, SO2, and mercury. Deposed 10/21/08. United States et al. v. Cinergy, et al., In U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Civil Action No. IP99-1693 C -MIS. Testified 2/3/09. Memorandum Opinion & Order 5-29-09 requiring shutdown of Wabash River Units 2, 3, 5 by September 30, 2009, run at baseline until shutdown, and permanently surrender SO2 emission allowances. For plaintiffs, expert witness in liability phase of civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for three historic modifications (1997-2001) at two portland cement plants involving three cement kilns. Reviewed produced documents, analyzed CEMS data covering subject period, prepared netting analysis for NOx, SO2 and CO, and prepared expert and rebuttal reports. United States v. Cemex California Cement, In U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division, Case No. ED CV 07 -00223 -GW (JCRx). Settled 1/15/09. For intervenors Clean Wisconsin and Citizens Utility Board, prepared data requests, reviewed discovery and expert report. Prepared prefiled direct, rebuttal and surrebuttal testimony on cost to extend life of existing Oak Creek Units 5-8 and cost to address future regulatory requirements to determine whether to control or shutdown one or more of the units. Oral testimony 2/5/08. Application for a Certificate of Authority to Install Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization and Selective Catalytic Reduction Facilities and Associated Equipment A-43 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 6 for Control of Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions at Oak Creek Power Plant Units 5, 6, 7 and 8, WPSC Docket No. 6630 -CE -299. For plaintiffs, expert witness on alternatives analysis and BACT for NOx, SO2, total PM 10, and sulfuric acid mist in appeal of PSD permit issued to 1200 MW coal fired power plant burning Powder River Basin and/or Central Appalachian coal (Longleaf). Assisted in drafting technical comments on NOx on draft permit. Prepared expert disclosure. Presented 8+ days of direct and rebuttal expert testimony. Attended all 21 days of evidentiary hearing from 9/5/07 — 10/30/07 assisting in all aspects of hearing. Friends of the Chatahooche and Sierra Club v. Dr. Carol Couch, Director, Environmental Protection Division of Natural Resources Department, Respondent, and Longleaf Energy Associates, Intervener. ALJ Final Decision 1/11/08 denying petition. ALJ Order vacated & remanded for further proceedings, Fulton County Superior Court, 6/30/08. Court of Appeals of GA remanded the case with directions that the ALJ's final decision be vacated to consider the evidence under the correct standard of review, July 9, 2009. The ALJ issued an opinion April 2, 2010 in favor of the applicant. Final permit issued April 2010. For plaintiffs, expert witness on diesel exhaust in inverse condemnation case in which Port expanded maritime operations into residential neighborhoods, subjecting plaintiffs to noise, light, and diesel fumes. Measured real-time diesel particulate concentrations from marine vessels and tug boats on plaintiffs' property. Reviewed documents, depositions, DVDs, and photographs provided by counsel. Deposed. Testified October 24, 2006. Ann Chargin, Richard Hackett, Carolyn Hackett, et al. v. Stockton Port District, Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin, Stockton Branch, No. CV021015. Judge ruled for plaintiffs. For plaintiffs, expert witness on NOx emissions and BACT in case alleging failure to obtain necessary permits and install controls on gas-fired combined -cycle turbines. Prepared and reviewed (applicant analyses) of NOx emissions, BACT analyses (water injection, SCR, ultra low NOx burners), and cost-effectiveness analyses based on site visit, plant operating records, stack tests, CEMS data, and turbine and catalyst vendor design information. Participated in negotiations to scope out consent order. United States v. Nevada Power. Case settled June 2007, resulting in installation of dry low NOx burners (5 ppm NOx averaged over 1 hr) on four units and a separate solar array at a local business. For plaintiffs, expert witness in appeal of PSD permit issued to 850 MW coal fired boiler burning Powder River Basin coal (Iatan Unit 2) on BACT for particulate matter, sulfuric acid mist and opacity and emission calculations for alleged historic violations of PSD. Assisted in drafting technical comments, petition for review, discovery requests, and responses to discovery requests. Reviewed produced documents. Prepared expert report on BACT,for particulate matter. Assisted with expert depositions. Deposed February 7, 8, 27, and 28, 2007. bn Re PSD Construction Permit Issued to Great Plains Energy, Kansas City Power & Light — Iatan Generating Station, Sierra Club v. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, A-44 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 7 Great Plains Energy, and Kansas City Power & Light. Case settled March 27, 2007, providing offsets for over 6 million ton/yr of CO2 and lower NOx and SO2 emission limits. For plaintiffs, expert witness in remedy phase of civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for historic modifications of coal- fired boilers and associated equipment. Reviewed produced documents, prepared expert report on cost to retrofit 24 coal-fired power plants with scrubbers designed to remove 99% of the sulfur dioxide from flue gases. Prepared supplemental and expert report on cost estimates and BACT for SO2 for these 24 complaint units. Deposed 1/30/07 and 3/14/07. United States and State of New York et al. v. Arnericdn Electric Power, In U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Consolidated Civil Action Nos. C2-99- 1182 and C2-99-1250. Settlement announced 10/9/07. For plaintiffs, expert witness on BACT, enforceability, and alternatives analysis in appeal of PSD permit issued for a 270 -MW pulverized coal fired boiler burning Powder River Basin coal (City Utilities Springfield Unit 2). Reviewed permitting file and assisted counsel draft petition and prepare and respond to interrogatories and document requests. Reviewed interrogatory responses and produced documents. Assisted with expert depositions. Deposed August 2005. Evidentiary hearings October 2005. In the Matter of Linda Chipperfield and Sierra Club v. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Missouri Supreme Court denied review of adverse lower court rulings August 2007. For plaintiffs, expert witness in civil action relating to plume touchdowns at AEP's Gavin coal-fired power plant. Assisted counsel draft interrogatories and document requests. Reviewed responses to interrogatories and produced documents. Prepared expert report "Releases of Sulfuric Acid Mist from the Gavin Power Station." The report evaluates sulfuric acid mist releases to determine if AEP complied with the requirements of CERCLA Section 103(a) and EPCRA Section 304. This report also discusses the formation, chemistry, release characteristics, and abatement of sulfuric acid mist in support of the claim that these releases present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health under Section 7002(a)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"). Citizens Against Pollution v. Ohio Power Company, In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Civil Action No. 2-04-cv-371. Case settled 12-8-06. For petitioners, expert witness in contested case hearing on BACT, enforceability, and emission estimates for an air permit issued to a 500 -MW supercritical Power River Basin coal-fired boiler (Weston Unit 4). Assisted counsel prepare comments on draft air permit and respond to and draft discovery. Reviewed produced file, deposed (7/05), and prepared expert report on BACT and enforceability. Evidentiary hearings September 2005. In the Matter of an Air Pollution Control Construction Permit Issued to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation for the Construction and Operation of a 500 MW Pulverized Coal-fired Power Plant Known as Weston Unit 4 in Marathon County, Wisconsin, Case No. IH -04-21. The A-45 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 8 Final Order, issued 2/10/06, lowered the NOx BACT limit ftom 0.07 lb/MIVIBtu to 0.06 lb/MMBtu based on a 30 -day average, added a BACT SO2 control efficiency, and required a 0.0005% high efficiency drift eliminator'as BACT for the cooling tower. The modified permit, including these provisions, was issued 3/28/07. Additional appeals in progress. For plaintiffs, adviser on technical issues related to Citizen Suit against U.S. EPA regarding failure to update New Source Performance Standards for petroleum refineries, 40 CFR 60, Subparts J, VV, and GGG. Our Children's Earth Foundation and Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA et al. Case settled July 2005. CD No. C 05-00094 CW, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California — Oakland Division. Proposed revisions to standards of performance for petroleum refineries published 72 FR 27178 (5/14/07). For interveners, reviewed proposed Consent Decree settling Clean Air Act violations due to historic modifications of boilers and associated equipment at two coal-fired power plants. In response to stay order, reviewed the record, selected one representative activity at each of seven generating units, and analyzed to identify CAA violations. Identified NSPS and NSR violations for NOx, SO2, PM/PM10, and sulfuric acid mist. Summarized results in an expert report. United States ofAmerica, and Michael A. Cox, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, ex rel. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Plaints, and Clean Wisconsin, Sierra Club, and Citizens' Utility Board, Intervenors, v. Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Defendant, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Civil Action No. 2:03 -CV -00371 -CNC. Order issued 10-1-07 denying petition. For a coalition of Nevada labor organizations (ACE), reviewed preliminary determination to issue a Class I Air Quality Operating Permit to Construct and supporting files for a 250 -MW pulverized coal-fired boiler (Newmont). Prepared about 100 pages of technical analyses and comments on BACT, MACT, emission calculations, and enforceability. Assisted counsel draft petition and reply brief appealing PSD permit to U.S. EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). Order denying review issued 12/21/05. In re Newmont Nevada Energy Investment, LLC, TS Power Plant, PSD Appeal No. 05-04 (EAB 2005). For petitioners and plaintiffs, reviewed and prepared comments on air quality and hazardous waste based on negative declaration for refinery ultra low sulfur diesel project located in SCAQMD. Reviewed responses to comments and prepared responses. Prepared declaration and presented oral testimony before SCAQMD Hearing Board on exempt sources (cooling towers) and calculation of potential to emit under NSR. Petition for writ of mandate filed March 2005. Case remanded by Court of Appeals to trial court to direct SCAQMD to re- evaluate the potential environmental significance of NOx emissions resulting from the project in accordance with court's opinion. California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate Division, on December 18, 2007, .affirmed in part (as to baseline) and denied in part. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District and ConocoPhillips and Carlos Valdez et al v. South Coast Air Quality Management District and A-46 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 9 ConocoPhillips. Certified for partial publication 1/16/08. Appellate Court opinion upheld by CA Supreme Court 3/15/10. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310. For amici seeking to amend a proposed Consent Decree to settle alleged NSR violations at Chevron refineries, reviewed proposed settlement, related files, subject modifications, and emission calculations. Prepared declaration on emission reductions, identification of NSR and NSPS violations, and BACT/LAER for FCCUs, heaters and boilers, flares, and sulfur recovery plants. U.S. et al. v. Chevron U.S.A., Northern District of California, Case No. C 03-04650. Memorandum and Order Entering Consent Decree issued June 2005. Case No. C 03-4650 CRB. For petitioners, prepared declaration on enforceability of periodic monitoring requirements, in response to EPA's revised interpretation of 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1). This revision limited additional monitoring required in Title V permits. 69 FR 3203 (Jan. 22, 2004). Environmental Integrity Project et al. v. EPA (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia). Court ruled the Act requires all Title V permits to contain monitoring requirements to assure compliance. Sierra Club v. EPA, 536 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2008). • For interveners in application for authority to construct a 500 MW supercritical coal-fired generating unit before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, prepared pre -filed written direct and rebuttal testimony with oral cross examination and rebuttal on BACT and MACT (Weston 4). Prepared written comments on BACT, MACT, and enforceability on draft air permit for same facility. • For property owners in Nevada, evaluated the environmental impacts of a 1,450 -MW coal- fired power plant proposed in a rural area adjacent to the Black Rock Desert and Granite Range, including emission calculations, air quality modeling, comments on proposed use permit to collect preconstruction monitoring data, and coordination with agencies and other interested parties. Project cancelled. For environmental organizations, reviewed draft PSD permit for a 600 -MW coal-fired power plant in West Virginia (Longview). Prepared comments on permit enforceability; coal washing; BACT for SO2 and PM10; Hg MALT; and MACT for HCl, HF, non -Hg metallic HAPs, and enforceability. Assist plaintiffs draft petition appealing air permit. Retained as expert to develop testimony on MACT, BACT, offsets, enforceability. Participate in settlement discussions. Case settled July 2004. • For petitioners, reviewed record produced in discovery and prepared affidavit on emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds during startup of GE 7FA combustion turbines to successfully establish plaintiff standing. Sierra Club et al. v. Georgia Power Company (Northern District of Georgia). • For building trades, reviewed air quality permitting action for 1500 -MW coal-fired power plant before the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (Thoroughbred). A-47 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 10 For petitioners, expert witness in administrative appeal of the PSD/Title V permit issued to a 1500 -MW coal-fired power plant. Reviewed over 60,000 pages of produced documents, prepared discovery index, identified and assembled plaintiff exhibits. Deposed. Assisted counsel in drafting discovery requests, with over 30 depositions, witness cross examination, and brief drafting. Presented over 20 days of direct testimony, rebuttal and sur -rebuttal, with cross examination on BACT for NOx, SO2, and PM/PM10; MACT for Hg and non -Hg metallic HAPS; emission estimates for purposes of Class I and II air modeling; risk assessment; and enforceability of permit limits. Evidentiary hearings from November 2003 to June 2004. Sierra Club et al. v. Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Cabinet, Division of Air Quality and Thoroughbred Generating Company et al. Hearing Officer Decision issued August 9, 2005 finding in favor of plaintiffs on counts as to risk, BACT (IGCC/CFB, NOx, SO2, Hg, Be), single source, enforceability, and errors and omissions. Assist counsel draft exceptions. Cabinet Secretary issued Order April 11, 2006 denying Hearing Offer's report, except as to NOx BACT, Hg, 99% SO2 control and certain errors and omissions. • For citizens group in Massachusetts, reviewed, commented on, and participated in permitting of pollution control retrofits of coal-fired power plant (Salem Harbor). Assisted citizens group and labor union challenge issuance of conditional use permit for a 317,000 ft2 discount store in Honolulu without any environmental review. In support of a motion for preliminary injunction, prepared 7 -page declaration addressing public health impacts of diesel exhaust from vehicles serving the Project. In preparation for trial, prepared 20 -page preliminary expert report summarizing results of diesel exhaust and noise measurements at two big box retail stores in Honolulu, estimated diesel PM10 concentrations for Project using ISCST, prepared a cancer health risk assessment based on these analyses, and evaluated noise impacts. • Assisted environmental organizations to challenge the DOE Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Baja California Power and Sempra Energy Resources Cross -Border Transmissions Lines in the U.S. and four associated power plants located in Mexico (DOE EA - 1391). Prepared 20 -page declaration in support of motion for summary judgment addressing emissions, including CO2 and NH3, offsets, BACT, cumulative air quality impacts, alternative cooling systems, and water use and water quality impacts. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment granted in part. U.S. District Court, Southern District decision concluded that the Environmental Assessment and FONSI violated NEPA and the APA due to their inadequate analysis of the potential controversy surrounding the project, water impacts, impacts from NH3 and CO2, alternatives, and cumulative impacts. Border Power Plant Working Group v. Department of Energy and Bureau of Land Management, Case No. 02-CV-513-IEG (POR) (May 2, 2003). • For Sacramento school, reviewed draft air permit issued for diesel generator located across from playfreld. Prepared comments on emission estimates, enforceability, BACT, and health impacts of diesel exhaust. Case settled. BUG trap installed on the diesel generator. A-48 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 11 Assisted unions in appeal of Title V permit issued by BAAQMD to carbon plant that manufactured coke. Reviewed District files, identified historic modifications that should have triggered PSD review, and prepared technical comments on Title V permit. Reviewed responses to comments and assisted counsel draft appeal to BAAQMD hearing board, opening brief, motion to strike, and rebuttal brief. Case settled. • Assisted California Central Coast city obtain controls on a proposed new city that would straddle the Ventura -Los Angeles County boundary. Reviewed several environmental impact reports, prepared an air quality analysis, a diesel exhaust health risk assessment, and detailed review comments. Governor intervened and State dedicated the land for conservation purposes April 2004. Assisted Central California city to obtain controls on large alluvial sand quarry and asphalt plant proposing a modernization. Prepared comments on Negative Declaration on air quality, public health, noise, and traffic. Evaluated process flow diagrams and engineering reports to determine whether proposed changes increased plant capacity or substantially modified plant operations. Prepared comments on application for categorical exemption from CEQA. Presented testimony to County Board of Supervisors. Developed controls to mitigate impacts. Assisted counsel draft Petition for Writ. Case settled June 2002. Substantial improvements in plant operations were obtained including cap on throughput, dust control measures, asphalt plant loadout enclosure, and restrictions on truck routes. • Assisted oil companies on the California Central Coast in defending class action citizen's lawsuit alleging health effects due to emissions from gas processing plant and leaking underground storage tanks. Reviewed regulatory and other files and advised counsel on merits of case. Case settled November 2001. Assisted oil company on the California Central Coast in defending property damage claims arising out of a historic oil spill. Reviewed site investigation reports, pump tests, leachability studies, and health risk assessments, participated in design of additional site characterization studies to assess health impacts, and advised counsel on merits of case. Prepare health risk assessment. Assisted unions in appeal of Initial Study/Negative Declaration ("IS/ND") for an MTBE phaseout project at a Bay Area refinery. Reviewed IS/ND and supporting agency permitting files and prepared technical comments on air quality, groundwater, and public health impacts. Reviewed responses to comments and final IS/ND and ATC permits and assisted counsel to draft petitions and briefs appealing decision to Air District Hearing Board. Presented sworn direct and rebuttal testimony with cross examination on groundwater impacts of ethanol spills on hydrocarbon contamination at refinery. Hearing Board ruled 5 tc 0 in favor of appellants, remanding ATC to district to prepare an EIR. • Assisted Florida cities in challenging the use of diesel and proposed BACT determinations in prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits issued to two 510 -MW simple cycle A-49 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 12 peaking electric generating facilities and one 1,080 -MW simple cycle/combined cycle facility. Reviewed permit applications, draft permits, and FDEP engineering evaluations, assisted counsel in drafting petitions and responding to discovery. Participated in settlement discussions. Cases settled or applications withdrawn. Assisted large California city in federal lawsuit alleging peaker power plant was violating its federal permit. Reviewed permit file and applicant's engineering and cost feasibility study to reduce emissions through retrofit controls. Advised counsel on feasible and cost-effective NOx, SOx, and PM10 controls for several 1960s diesel -fired Pratt and Whitney peaker turbines. Case settled. Assisted coalition of Georgia environmentalgroups in evaluating BACT determinations and permit conditions in PSD permits issued to several large natural gas-fired simple cycle and combined -cycle power plants. Prepared technical comments on draft PSD permits on BACT, enforceability of limits, and toxic emissions. Reviewed responses to comments, advised counsel on merits of cases, participated in settlement discussions, presented oral and written testimony in adjudicatory hearings, and provided technical assistance as required. Cases settled or won at trial. • Assisted construction unions in review of air quality permitting actions before the Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") for several natural gas-fired simple cycle peaker and combined cycle power plants. • Assisted coalition of towns and environmental groups in challenging air permits issued to 523 MW dual fuel (natural gas and distillate) combined -cycle power plant in Connecticut. Prepared technical comments on draft permits and 60 pages of written testimony addressing emission estimates, startup/shutdown issues, BACT/LAER analyses, and toxic air emissions. Presented testimony in adjudicatory administrative hearings before the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection in June 2001 and December 2001. Assisted various coalitions of unions, citizens groups, cities, public agencies, and developers in licensing and permitting of over 110 coal, gas, oil, biomass, and pet coke -fired power plants generating over 75,000 MW of electricity. These included base -load, combined cycle, simple cycle, and peaker power plants in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. Prepared analyses of and comments on applications for certification, preliminary and final staff assessments, and various air, water, wastewater, and solid waste permits issued by local agencies. Presented written and oral testimony before various administrative bodies on hazards of ammonia use and transportation, health effects of air emissions, contaminated property issues, BACT/LAER issues related to SCR and SCONOx, criteria and toxic pollutant emission estimates, MACT analyses, air quality modeling, water supply and water quality issues, and methods to reduce water use, including dry cooling, parallel dry -wet cooling, hybrid cooling, and zero liquid discharge systems. A-50 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 13 Assisted unions, cities, and neighborhood associations in challenging an EIR issued for the proposed expansion of the Oakland Airport. Reviewed two draft EIRs and prepared a health risk assessment and extensive technical comments on air quality and public health impacts. The California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, ruled in favor of appellants and plaintiffs, concluding that the EIR "2) erred in using outdated information in assessing the emission of toxic air contaminants (TACs) from jet aircraft; 3) failed to support its decision not to evaluate the health risks associated with the emission of TACs with meaningful analysis," thus accepting my technical arguments and requiring the Port to prepare a new EIR. See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Corn nittee, City of San Leandro, and City of Alaineda et al. v. Board ofPort Connnissioners (August 30, 200 1) 111 Ca1.Rptr.2d 598. • Assisted lessor of former gas station with leaking underground storage tanks and TCE contamination from adjacent property. Lessor held option to purchase, which was forfeited based on misrepresentation by remediation contractor as to nature and extent of contamination. Remediation contractor purchased property. Reviewed regulatory agency files and advised counsel on merits of case. Case not filed. • Advised counsel on merits of several pending actions, including a Proposition 65 case involving groundwater contamination at an explosives manufacturing firm and two former gas stations with leaking underground storage tanks. • Assisted defendant foundry in Oakland in a lawsuit brought by neighbors alleging property contamination, nuisance, trespass, smoke, and health effects from foundry operation. Inspected and sampled plaintiffs property. Advised counsel on merits of case. Case settled. • Assisted business owner facing eminent domain eviction. Prepared technical comments on a negative declaration for soil contamination and public health risks from air emissions from a proposed redevelopment project in San Francisco in support of a CEQA lawsuit. Case settled. • Assisted neighborhood association representing residents living downwind of a Berkeley asphalt plant in separate nuisance and CEQA lawsuits. Prepared technical comments on air quality, odor, and noise impacts, presented testimony at commission and council meetings, participated in community workshops, and participated in settlement discussions. Cases settled. Asphalt plant was upgraded to include air emission and noise controls, including vapor collection system at truck loading station, enclosures for noisy equipment, and improved housekeeping. • Assisted a Fortune 500 residential home builder in claims alleging health effects from faulty installation of gas appliances. Conducted indoor air quality study, advised counsel on merits of case, and participated in discussions with plaintiffs. Case settled. • Assisted property owners in Silicon Valley in lawsuit to recover remediation costs from insurer for large TCE plume originating from a manufacturing facility. Conducted investigations to demonstrate sudden and accidental release of TCE, including groundwater A-51 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 14 modeling, development of method to date spill, preparation of chemical inventory, investigation of historical waste disposal practices and standards, and on-site sewer and storm drainage inspections and sampling. Prepared declaration in opposition to motion for summary judgment. Case settled. • Assisted residents in east Oakland downwind of a former battery plant in class action lawsuit alleging property contamination from lead emissions. Conducted historical research and dry deposition modeling that substantiated claim. Participated in mediation at JAMS. Case settled. • Assisted property owners in West Oakland who purchased a former gas station that had leaking underground storage tanks and groundwater contamination. Reviewed agency ides and advised counsel on merits of case. Prepared declaration in opposition to summary judgment. Prepared cost estimate to remediate site. Participated in settlement discussions. Case settled. • Consultant to counsel representing plaintiffs in two Clean Water Act lawsuits involving selenium discharges into San Francisco Bay from refineries. Reviewed files and advised counsel on merits of case. Prepared interrogatory and discovery questions, assisted in deposing opposing experts, and reviewed and interpreted treatability and other technical studies. Judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs. • Assisted oil company in a complaint filed by a resident of a small California beach community alleging that discharges of tank farm rinse water into the sanitary sewer system caused hydrogen sulfide gas to infiltrate residence, sending occupants to hospital. Inspected accident site, interviewed parties to the event, and reviewed extensive agency files related to incident. Used chemical analysis, field simulations, mass balance calculations, sewer hydraulic simulations with SWMM44, atmospheric dispersion modeling with SCREEN3, odor analyses, and risk assessment calculations to demonstrate that the incident was caused by a faulty drain trap and inadequate slope of sewer lateral on resident's property. Prepared a detailed technical report summarizing these studies. Case settled. Assisted large West Coast city in suit alleging that leaking underground storage tanks on city property had damaged the waterproofing on downgradient building, causing leaks in an underground parking structure. Reviewed subsurface hydrogeologic investigations and evaluated studies conducted by others documenting leakage from underground diesel and gasoline tanks. Inspected, tested, and evaluated waterproofing on subsurface parking structure. Waterproofing was substandard. Case settled. • Assisted residents downwind of gravel mine and asphalt plant in Siskiyou County, California, in suit to obtain CEQA review of air permitting action. Prepared two declarations analyzing air quality and public health impacts. Judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs, closing mine and asphalt plant. A-52 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 15 • Assisted defendant oil company on the California Central Coast in class action lawsuit alleging property damage and health effects from subsurface petroleum contamination. Reviewed documents, prepared risk calculations, and advised counsel on merits of case. Participated in settlement discussions. Case settled. • Assisted defendant oil company in class action lawsuit alleging health impacts from remediation of petroleum contaminated site on California Central Coast. Reviewed documents, designed and conducted monitoring program, and participated in settlement discussions. Case settled. • Consultant to attorneys representing irrigation districts and municipal water districts to evaluate a potential challenge of USFWS actions under CVPIA section 3406(b)(2). Reviewed agency files and collected and analyzed hydrology, water quality, and fishery data. Advised counsel on merits of case. Case not filed. • Assisted residents downwind of a Carson refinery in class action lawsuit involving soil and. groundwater contamination, nuisance, property damage, and health effects from air emissions. Reviewed files and provided advice on contaminated soil and groundwater, toxic emissions, and health risks. Prepared declaration on refinery fugitive emissions. Prepared deposition questions and reviewed deposition transcripts on air quality, soil contamination, odors, and health impacts. Case settled. • Assisted residents downwind of a Contra Costa refinery who were affected by an accidental release of naphtha. Characterized spilled naphtha, estimated emissions, and modeled ambient concentrations of hydrocarbons and sulfur compounds. Deposed. Presented testimony in binding arbitration at JAMS. Judge found in favor of plaintiffs. • Assisted residents downwind of Contra Costa County refinery in class action lawsuit alleging property damage, nuisance, and health effects from several large accidents as well as routine operations. Reviewed files and prepared analyses of environmental impacts. Prepared declarations, deposed, and presented testimony before jury in one trial and judge in second. Case settled. • Assisted business owner claiming damages from dust, noise, and vibration during a sewer construction project in San Francisco. Reviewed agency files and PM10 monitoring data and advised counsel on merits of case. Case settled. • Assisted residents downwind of Contra Costa County refinery in class action lawsuit alleging property damage, nuisance, and health effects. Prepared declaration in opposition to summary judgment, deposed, and presented expert testimony on accidental releases, odor, and nuisance before jury. Case thrown out by judge, but reversed on appeal and not retried. • Presented testimony in small claims court on behalf of residents claiming health effects from hydrogen sulfide from flaring emissions triggered by a power outage at a Contra Costa County refinery. Analyzed meteorological and air quality data and evaluated potential health A-53 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 16 risks of exposure to low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide. Judge awarded damages to plaintiffs. Assisted construction unions in challenging PSD permit for an Indiana steel mill. Prepared technical comments on draft PSD permit, drafted 70 -page appeal of agency permit action to the Environmental Appeals Board challenging permit based on faulty BACT analysis for electric are furnace and reheat furnace and faulty permit conditions, among others, and drafted briefs responding to four parties. EPA Region V and the EPA General Counsel intervened as amici, supporting petitioners. EAB ruled in favor of petitioners, remanding permit to IDEM on three key issues, including BACT for the reheat furnace and lead emissions fiom the EAT. Drafted motion to reconsider three issues. Prepared 69 pages of technical comments on revised draft PSD permit. Drafted second EAB appeal addressing lead emissions from the EAF and BACT for reheat furnace based on European experience with SCR/SNCR. Case settled. Permit was substantially improved. See In re: Steel Dynamics, Inc., PSD Appeal Nos. 99-4 & 99-5 (EAB June 22, 2000). Assisted defendant urea manufacturer in Alaska in negotiations with USEPA to seek relief from penalties for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Reviewed and evaluated regulatory files and monitoring data, prepared technical analysis demonstrating that permit limits were not violated, and participated in negotiations with EPA to dismiss action. Fines were substantially reduced and case closed. Assisted construction unions in challenging PSD permitting action for an Indiana grain mill. Prepared technical comments on draft PSD permit and assisted counsel draft appeal of agency permit action to the Environmental Appeals Board challenging permit based on faulty BACT analyses for heaters and boilers and faulty permit conditions, among others. Case settled. • As part of a consent decree settling a CEQA lawsuit, assisted neighbors of a large west coast port in negotiations with port authority to secure mitigation for air quality impacts. Prepared technical comments on mobile source air quality impacts and mitigation and negotiated a $9 million CEQA mitigation package. Represented neighbors on technical advisory committee established by port to implement the air quality mitigation program. Program successfully implemented. • Assisted construction unions in challenging permitting action for a California hazardous waste incinerator. Prepared technical comments on draft permit, assisted counsel prepare appeal of EPA permit to the Environmental Appeals Board. Participated in settlement discussions on technical issues with applicant and EPA Region 9. Case settled. Assisted environmental group in challenging DTSC Negative Declaration on a hazardous waste treatment facility. Prepared technical comments on risk of upset, water, and health risks. Writ of mandamus issued. A-54 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 17 • Assisted several neighborhood associations and cities impacted by quarries, asphalt plants, and cement plants in Alameda, Shasta, Sonoma, and Mendocino counties in obtaining mitigations for dust, air quality, public health, traffic, and noise impacts from facility operations and proposed expansions. For over 100 industrial facilities, commercial/campus, and redevelopment projects, developed the record in preparation for CEQA and NEPA lawsuits. Prepared technical comments on hazardous materials, solid wastes, public utilities, noise, worker safety, air quality, public health, water resources, water quality, traffic, and risk of upset sections of EIRs, EISs, FONSIs, initial studies, and negative declarations. Assisted counsel in drafting petitions and briefs and prepared declarations. For several large commercial development projects and airports, assisted applicant and counsel prepare defensible CEQA documents, respond to comments, and identify and evaluate "all feasible" mitigation to avoid CEQA challenges. This work included developing mitigation programs to reduce traffic -related air quality impacts based on energy conservation programs, solar, low -emission vehicles, alternative fuels, exhaust treatments, and transportation management associations. SITE INVESTIGATION/REMEDIATION/CLOSURE Technical manager and principal engineer for characterization, remediation, and closure of waste management units at former Colorado oil shale plant. Constituents of concern included BTEX, As, 1, 1, l -TCA, and TPH. Completed groundwater monitoring programs, site assessments, work plans, and closure plans for seven process water holding ponds, a refinery sewer system, and processed shale disposal area. Managed design and construction of groundwater treatment system and removal actions and obtained clean closure. • Principal engineer for characterization, remediation, and closure of process water ponds at a former lanthanide processing plant in Colorado. Designed and implemented groundwater monitoring program and site assessments and prepared closure plan. • Advised the city of Sacramento on redevelopment of two former railyards. Reviewed work plans, site investigations, risk assessment, RAPS, Rl/FSs, and CEQA documents. Participated in the development of mitigation strategies to protect construction and utility workers and the public during remediation, redevelopment, and use of the site, including buffer zones, subslab venting, rail berm containment structure, and an environmental oversight plan. ■ Provided technical support for the investigation of a former sanitary landfill that was redeveloped as single family homes. Reviewed and/or prepared portions of numerous documents, including health risk assessments, preliminary endangerment assessments, site investigation reports, work plans, and RI/FSs. Historical research to identify historic waste A-55 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 18 disposal practices to prepare a preliminary endangerment assessment. Acquired, reviewed, and analyzed the files of 18 federal, state, and local agencies, three sets of construction field notes, analyzed 21 aerial photographs and interviewed 14 individuals associated with operation of former landfill. Assisted counsel in defending lawsuit brought by residents alleging health impacts and diminution of property value due to residual contamination. Prepared summary reports. • Technical oversight of characterization and remediation of a nitrate plume at an explosives manufacturing facility in Lincoln, CA. Provided interface between owners and consultants. Reviewed site assessments, work plans, closure plans, and RI/FSs. Consultant to owner of large western molybdenum mine proposed for NPL listing. Participated in negotiations to scope out consent order and develop scope of work. Participated in studies to determine premining groundwater background to evaluate applicability of water quality standards. Served on technical committees to develop alternatives to mitigate impacts and close the facility, including resloping and grading, various thickness and types of covers, and reclamation. This work included developing and evaluating methods to control surface runoff and erosion, mitigate impacts of acid rock drainage on surface and ground waters, and stabilize nine waste rock piles containing 328 million tons of pyrite -rich, mixed volcanic waste rock (andesites, rhyolite, tuff) Evaluated stability of waste rock piles. Represented client in hearings and meetings with state and federal oversight agencies. REGULATORY (PARTIAL LIST) • In July/August 2018, prepared 12 pages of comments on DEIR for proposed Doheny Desal Project, on GHG, criteria pollutant, and TAC emissions and public health impacts during construction and indirect emissions during operation. • In June 2018, prepared 12 pages of technical comments rebutting NDDH responses to comments on Meridian Davis Refinery. • In April 2018, prepared 26 pages of comments on greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation as proposed in the San Diego County Climate Action Plan. • In March -June 2018, prepared 37 pages of comments on the IS/MND for the 2305 Mission College Boulevard Data Center, Santa Clara, California, respond to responses to comments. • In March 2018, prepared 40 pages of comments on the IS/MND for the Diablo Energy Storage Facility in Pittsburg, California. A-56 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 19 • In March 2018, prepared 19 pages of comments on Infill Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Legacy@Livermore Project on CalEEMod emission calculations, including NOx and PM10 and construction health risk assessment. • In January 2018, prepared 28 pages of comments on draft Permit to Construct for the Davis Refinery Project, North Dakota, as a minor source of criteria pollutants and HAPS. • In December 2017, prepared 19 pages of comments on DEIR for the Rialto Bioenergy Facility, Rialto, California. • In November and December 2017, prepared 6 pages of comments on the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District's Preliminary Determination if Compliance (PDOC) for Mission Rock Energy Center. • In November 2017, prepared 11 pages of comments on control technology evaluation for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Residual Risk and Technology Review. • In September and November 2017, prepared comments on revised Negative Declaration for Delicato Winery in San Joaquin County, California. • In October and November 2017, prepared comments on North City Project Pure Water San Diego Program DEIR/DEIS to reclaim wastewater for municipal use. • In August 2017, reviewed DEIR on a new residential community in eastern San Diego County and research and wrote 60 pages of comments on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and health impacts. • In August 2017, reviewed responses to comments on Part 70 operating permit for IGP Methanol's Gulf Coast Methanol Complex, near Myrtle Grove, Louisiana, and researched and wrote comments on metallic HAP issues. • In July 2017, reviewed the FEIS for an expansion of the Port of Gulfport and researched and wrote 10 pages of comments on air quality and public health. • In June 2017, reviewed and prepared technical report on an Application for a synthetic minor source construction permit for a new Refinery in North Dakota. • In June 2017, reviewed responses to NPCA and other comments on the BP Cherry Point Refinery modifications and assisted counsel in evaluating issues to appeal, including GHG BACT, coker heater SCR cost effectiveness analysis, and SO2 BACT. • In June 2017, reviewed Part 70 Operating Permit Renewal/Modification for the Noranda Alumina LC/Gramercy Holdings I, LLC alumina processing plant, St. James, Louisiana, and prepared comments on HAP emissions from bauxite feedstock. • In May and June 2017, reviewed FEIR on Tesoro Integration Project and prepared responses to comments on the DEIR. A-57 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 20 • In May 2017, prepared comments on tank VOC and HAP emissions from Tesoro Integration Project, based on real time monitoring at the Tesoro and other refineries in the SCAQMD. • In April 2017, prepared comments on Negative Declaration for Delicato Winery in San Joaquin County, California. • In March 2017, reviewed Negative Declaration for Ellmore geothermal facility in Imperial County, California and prepared summary of issues. • In March 2017, prepared response to Phillips 66 Company's Appeal of the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission's Decision Denying the Rail Spur Extension Project Proposed for the Santa Maria Refinery. • In February 2017, prepared comments on Kalama draft Title V permit for 10,000 MT/day methanol production and marine export facility in Kalama, Washington. • In January 2017, researched and wrote 51 pages of comments on proposed Title V and PSD permits for the St. James Methanol Plant, St. James Louisiana, on BACT and enforceability of permit conditions. • In December 2016, prepared comments on draft Title V Permit for Yuhuang Chemical Inc. Methanol Plant, St. James, Louisiana, responding to EPA Order addressing enforceability issues. • In November 2016, prepared comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the AES Battery Energy Storage Facility, Long Beach, CA. • In November 2016, prepared comments on Campo Verde Battery Energy Storage System Draft Environmental Impact Report. • In October 2016, prepared comments on Title V Permit for NuStar Terminal Operations Partnership L.P, Stockton, CA. • In October 2016, prepared expert report, Technical Assessment of Achieving the 40 CFR Part 423 Zero Discharge Standard for Bottom Ash Transport Water at the Belle River Power Plant, East China, Michigan. Reported resulted in a 2 year reduction in compliance date for elimination of bottom ash transport water. 1/30/17 DEQ Letter. • In September 2016, prepared comments on Proposed Title V Permit and Environmental Assessment Statement, Yuhuang Chemical Inc. Methanol Plant, St. James, Louisiana. • In September 2016, prepared response to "Further Rebuttal in Support of Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-1, Denying Use Permit Application 12PLN-00063 and Declining to Certify Final Environmental Impact Report for the Valero Benicia Crude -by - Rail Project. • In August 2016, reviewed and prepared comments on manuscript: Hutton et al., Freshwater Flows to the San Francisco Bay -Delta Estuary over Nine Decades: Trends Evaluation. A-58 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 21 • In August/September 2016, prepared comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Chevron Long Wharf Maintenance and Efficiency Project. • In July 2016, prepared comments on the Ventura County APCD Preliminary Determination of Compliance and the California Energy Commission Revised Preliminary Staff Assessment for the Puente Power Project. • In June 2016, prepared comments on an Ordinance (1) Amending the Oakland Municipal Code to Prohibit the Storage and Handling of Coal and Coke at Bulk Material Facilities or Terminals Throughout the City of Oakland and (2) Adopting CEQA Exemption Findings and supporting technical reports. Council approved Ordinance on an 8 to 0 vote on June 27, 2016. • In May 2016, prepared comments on Draft Title V Permit and Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Tesoro Los Angeles Refinery Integration and Compliance Project. • In March 2016, prepared comments on Valero's Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Valero Crude -by -Rail Project. • In February 2016, prepared comments on Final Environmental Impact Report, Santa Maria Rail Spur Project. • In February 2016, prepared comments on Final Environmental Impact Report, Valero Benicia Crude by Rail Project. • In January 2016, prepared comments on Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. • In November 2015, prepared comments on Final Environmental Impact Report for Revisions to the Kern County Zoning Ordinance — 2015(C) (Focused on Oil and Gas Local Permitting), November 2015. • In October 2015, prepared comments on Revised Draft Environmental Report, Valero Benicia Crude by Rail Project. • In September 2015, prepared report, `Environmental, Health and Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, and presented oral testimony on September 21, 2015 before Oakland City Council on behalf of the Sierra Club. • In September 2015, prepared comments on revisions to two chapters of EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual: Docket ID No. EPA -HQ -OAR -2015-0341. • In June 2015, prepared comments on DEIR for the CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Proj ect. • In April 2015, prepared comments on proposed Title V Operating Permit Revision and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Arizona Public Service's Ocotillo Power A-59 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 22 Plant Modernization Project (5 GE LMS 100 105 -MW simple cycle turbines operated as peakers), in Tempe, Arizona; Final permit appealed to EAB. In March 2015, prepared "Comments on Proposed Title V Air Permit, Yuhuang Chemical Inc. Methanol Plant, St. James, Louisiana". Client filed petition objecting to the permit. EPA granted majority of issues. In the Matter of Yuhuang Chemical Inc. Methanol Plant, St. James Parish, Louisiana, Permit No. 2560-00295-V0, Issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Petition No. VI -2015-03, Order Responding to the Petitioners' Request for Objection to the Issuance of a Title V Operating Permit, September 1, 2016. In February 2015, prepared compilation of BACT cost effectiveness values in support of comments on draft PSD Permit for Bonanza Power Project. • In January 2015, prepared cost effectiveness analysis for SCR for a 500 -MW coal fire power plant, to address unpermitted upgrades in 2000. • In January 2015, prepared comments on Revised Final Environmental Impact Report for the Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project. Communities for a Better Environment et al. v. Contra Costa County et al. Contra Costa County (Superior Court, Contra Costa County, Case No: MSN15-0301, December 1, 2016). • In December 2014, prepared "Report on Bakersfield Crude Terminal Permits to Operate." In response, the U.S. EPA cited the Terminal for 10 violations of the Clean Air Act. The Fifth Appellate District Court upheld the finding in this report in CBE et al v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and Bakersfield Crude Terminal LLC et al, Super. Ct. No. 284013, June 23, 2017. • In December 2014, prepared comments on Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project. • In November 2014, prepared comments on Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for Phillips 66 Rail Spur Extension Project and Crude Unloading Project, Santa Maria, CA to allow the import of tar sands crudes. • In November 2014, prepared comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Phillips 66 Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Project, responding to the California Supreme Court Decision, Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310. • In November 2014, prepared comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Tesoro Avon Marine Oil Tenninal Lease Consideration. • In October 2014, prepared: "Report on Hydrogen Cyanide Emissions from Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units", pursuant to the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards, 79 FR 36880. A-60 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 23 • In October 2014, prepared technical comments on Final Environmental Impact Reports for Alon Bakersfield Crude Flexibility Project to build a rail terminal to allow the import/export of tar sands and Bakken crude oils and to upgrade an existing refinery to allow it to process a wide range of crudes. • In October 2014, prepared technical comments on the Title V Permit Renewal and three De Minimus Significant Revisions for the Tesoro Logistics Marine Terminal in the SCAQMD. • In September 2014, prepared technical comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Valero Crude by Rail Project. • In August 2014, for EPA Region 6, prepared technical report on costing methods for upgrades to existing scrubbers at coal-fired power plants. • In July 2014, prepared technical comments on Draft Final Environmental Impact Reports for Alon Bakersfield Crude Flexibility Project to build a rail terminal to allow the import/export of tar sands and Bakken crude oils and to upgrade an existing refinery to allow it to process a wide range of crudes. • In June 2014, prepared technical report on Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration for the Tesoro Logistics Storage Tank Replacement and Modification Project. • In May 2014, prepared technical comments on Intent to Approve a new refinery and petroleum transloading operation in Utah. • In March and April 2014, prepared declarations on air permits issued for two crude -by -rail terminals in California, modified to switch from importing ethanol to importing Bakken crude oils by rail and transferring to tanker cars. Permits were issued without undergoing CEQA review. One permit was upheld by the San Francisco Superior Court as statute of limitations had run. The Sacramento Air Quality Management District withdrew the second one due to failure to require BACT and conduct CEQA review. ■ In March 2014, prepared technical report on Negative Declaration for a proposed modification of the air permit for a bulk petroleum and, storage terminal to the allow the import of tar sands and Bakken crude oil by rail and its export by barge, under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). • In February 2014, prepared technical report on proposed modification of air permit for midwest refinery upgrade/expansion to process tar sands crudes. • In January 2014, prepared cost estimates to capture, transport, and use CO2 in enhanced oil recovery, from the Freeport LNG project based on both Selexol and Amine systems. • In January 2014, prepared technical report on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Phillips 66 Rail Spur Extension Project, Santa Maria, CA. Comments addressed project description (piecemealing, crude slate), risk of upset analyses, mitigation measures, alternative analyses and cumulative impacts. A-61 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 24 • In November 2013, prepared technical report on the Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project, Rodeo, CA. Comments addressed project description (piecemealing, crude slate) and air quality impacts. • In September 2013, prepared technical report on the Draft Authority to Construct Permit for the Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project Environmental Impact Report and Declaration in Support of Appeal and Petition for Stay, U.S. Department of the Interior, Board of Land Appeals, Appeal of Decision Record for the Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project. • In September 2013, prepared technical report on Effluent Limitation Guidelines for Best Available Technology Economically Available (BAT) for Bottom Ash Transport Waters from Coal -Fired Power Plants in the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category. • In July 2013, prepared technical report on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Valero Crude by Rail Project, Benicia, California, Use Permit Application 12PLN-00063. • In July 2013, prepared technical report on fugitive particulate matter emissions from coal train staging at the proposed Coyote Island Terminal, Oregon, for draft Permit No. 25 -0015 - ST -01. • In July 2013, prepared technical comments on air quality impacts of the Finger Lakes LPG Storage Facility as reported in various Environmental Impact Statements. • In July 2013, prepared technical comments on proposed Greenhouse Gas PSD Permit for the Celanese Clear Lake Plant, including cost analysis of CO2 capture, transport, and sequestration. • In June/July 2013, prepared technical comments on proposed Draft PSD Preconstruction Permit for Greenhouse Gas Emission for the ExxonMobil Chemical Company Baytown Olefins Plant, including cost analysis of CO2 capture, transport, and sequestration. • In June 2013, prepared technical report on a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a new rail terminal at the Valero Benicia Refinery to import increased amounts of "North American" crudes. Comments addressed air quality impacts of refining increased amounts of tar sands crudes. • In June 2013, prepared technical report on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the California Ethanol and Power Imperial Valley I Project. • In May 2013, prepared comments on draft PSD permit for major expansion of midwest refinery to process 100% tar sands crudes, including a complex netting analysis involving debottlenecking, piecemealing, and BACT analyses. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 25 • In April 2013, prepared technical report on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Keystone XL Pipeline on air quality impacts from refining increased amount of tar sands crudes at Refineries in PADD 3. • In October 2012, prepared technical report on the Environmental Review for the Coyote Island Terminal Dock at the Port of Morrow on fugitive particulate matter emissions. • In October 2012 -October 2014, review and evaluate Flint Hills West Application for an expansion/modification for increased (Texas, Eagle Ford Shale) crude processing and related modification, including netting and BACT analysis. Assist in settlement discussions. • In February 2012, prepared comments on BART analysis in PA Regional Haze SIP, 77 FR 3984 (Jan. 26, 2012). On Sept. 29, 2015, a federal appeals court overturned the U.S. EPA's approval of this plan, based in part on my comments, concluding "..we will vacate the 2014 Final Rule to the extent it approved Pennsylvania's source -specific BART analysis and remand to the EPA for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion." Nat'l Parks Conservation Assoc. v. EPA, 3d Cir., No. 14-3147, 9/19/15. • Prepared cost analyses and comments on New York's proposed BART determinations for NOx, SO2, and PM and EPA's proposed approval of BART determinations for Danskammer Generating Station under New York Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and Federal Implementation Plan, 77 FR 51915 (August 28, 2012). • Prepared cost analyses and comments on NOx BART determinations for Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for State of Nevada, 77 FR 23191 (April 18, 2012) and 77 FR 25660 (May 1, 2012). • Prepared analyses of and comments on New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 77 FR 22392 (April 13, 2012). • Prepared comments on CASPR-BART emission equivalency and NOx and PM BART determinations in EPA proposed approval of State Implementation Plan for Pennsylvania Regional Haze Implementation Plan, 77 FR 3984 (January 26, 2012). • Prepared comments and statistical analyses on hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emission controls, monitoring, compliance methods, and the use of surrogates for acid gases, organic HAPS, and metallic HAPS for proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil -Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, 76 FR 24976 (May 3, 2011). • Prepared cost analyses and comments on NOx BART determinations and emission reductions for proposed Federal Implementation Plan for Four Corners Power Plant, 75 FR 64221 (October 19, 2010). A-63 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 26 Prepared cost analyses and comments on NOx BART determinations for Colstrip Units 1- 4 for Montana State Implementation Plan and Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan, 77 FR 23988 (April 20, 2010). • For EPA Region 8, prepared report: Revised BART Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Tail -End Selective Catalytic Reduction at the Basin Electric Power Cooperative Leland Olds Station Unit 2 Final Report, March 2011, in support of 76 FR 58570 (Sept. 21, 2011). • For EPA Region 6, prepared report: Revised BART Cost -Effectiveness Analysis for Selective Catalytic Reduction at the Public Service Company of New Mexico San Juan Generating Station, November 2010, in support of 76 FR 52388 (Aug. 22, 2011). • For EPA Region 6, prepared report: Revised BART Cost -Effectiveness Analysis for Flue Gas Desulfurization at Coal -Fired Electric Generating Units in Oklahoma: Sooner Units 1 & 2, Muskogee Units 4 & 5, Northeastern Units 3 &4, October 2010, in support of 76 FR 16168 (March 26, 2011). My work was upheld in: State of Oklahoma v. EPA, App. Case 12-9526 (10th Cri. July 19, 2013). • Identified errors in N20 emission factors in the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, 40 CFR 98, and prepared technical analysis to support Petition for Rulemaking to Correct Emissions Factors in the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, filed with EPA on 10/28/10. • Assisted interested parties develop input for and prepare comments on the Information Collection Request for Petroleum Refinery Sector NSPS and NESHAP Residual Risk and Technology Review, 75 FR 60107 (9/29/10). • Technical reviewer of EPA's "Emission Estimation Protocol for Petroleum Refineries," posted for public comments on CHIEF on 12/23/09, prepared in response to the City of Houston's petition under the Data Quality Act (March 2010). • Prepared comments on SCR cost effectiveness for EPA's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Assessment of Anticipated Visibility Improvements at Surrounding Class I Areas and Cost Effectiveness of Best Available Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power Plant and Navajo Generating Station, 74 FR 44313 (August 28, 2009). • Prepared comments on Proposed Rule for Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation and Processing Plants, 74 FR 25304 (May 27, 2009). • Prepared comments on draft PSD permit for major expansion of midwest refinery to process up to 100% tar sands crudes. Participated in development of monitoring and controls to mitigate impacts and in negotiating a Consent Decree to settle claims in 2008. • Reviewed and assisted interested parties prepare comments on proposed Kentucky air toxic regulations at 401 KAR 64:005, 64:010, 64:020, and 64:030 (June 2007). A-64 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 27 • Prepared comments on proposed Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Small Industrial -Commercial -Industrial Steam Generating Units, 70 FR 9706 (February 28, 2005). • Prepared comments on Louisville Air Pollution Control District proposed Strategic Toxic Air Reduction regulations. • Prepared comments and analysis of BAAQMD Regulation, Rule 11, Flare Monitoring at Petroleum Refineries. • Prepared comments on Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electricity Utility Steam Generating Units (MACT standards for coal-fired power plants). • Prepared Authority to Construct Permit for remediation of a large petroleum -contaminated site on the California Central Coast. Negotiated conditions with agencies and secured permits. • Prepared Authority to Construct Permit for remediation of a former oil field on the California Central Coast. Participated in negotiations with agencies and secured permits. • Prepared and/or reviewed hundreds of environmental permits, including NPDES, UIC, Stormwater, Authority to Construct, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source Review, Title V, and RCRA, among others. • Participated in the development of the CARB document, Guidance for Power Plant Siting and Best Available Control Technology, including attending public workshops and filing technical comments. • Performed data analyses in support of adoption of emergency power restoration standards by the California Public Utilities Commission for "major" power outages, where major is an outage that simultaneously affects 10% of the customer base. • Drafted portions of the Good Neighbor Ordinance to grant Contra Costa County greater authority over safety of local industry, particularly chemical plants and refineries. • Participated in drafting BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 28, Pressure Relief Devices, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, draft rules and other technical materials, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of methods to control PRV releases, and negotiations with staff. • Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 18, Valves and Connectors, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and cost of low -leak technology, and negotiations with staff. A-65 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 28 • Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 25, Pumps and Compressors, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of low -leak and seal -less technology, and negotiations with staff. • Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 5, Storage of Organic Liquids, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of controlling tank emissions, and presentation of testimony before the Board. • Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 18, Valves and Connectors at Petroleum Refinery Complexes, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of low -leak technology, and presentation of testimony before the Board. • Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 22, Valves and Flanges at Chemical Plants, etc, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of low -leak technology, and presentation of testimony before the Board. • Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 25, Pump and Compressor Seals, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability of low -leak technology, and presentation of testimony before the Board. • Participated in the development of the BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, Toxics, including participation in public workshops, review of staff proposals, and preparation of technical comments. • Participated in the development of SCAQMD Rule 1402, Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources, and proposed amendments to Rule 1401, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants, in 1993, including review of staff proposals and preparation of technical comments on same. • Participated in the development of the Sunnyvale Ordinance to Regulate the Storage, Use and Handling of Toxic Gas, which was designed to provide engineering controls for gases that are not otherwise regulated by the Uniform Fire Code. • Participated in the drafting of the Statewide Water Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface. Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries, including participation in workshops, review of draft plans, preparation of technical comments on draft plans, and presentation of testimony before the SWRCB. A-66 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 29 • Participated in developing Se permit effluent limitations for the five Bay Area refineries, including review of staff proposals, statistical analyses of Se effluent data, review of literature on aquatic toxicity of Se, preparation of technical comments on several staff proposals, and presentation of testimony before the Bay Area RWQCB. ■ Represented the California Department of Water Resources in the 1991 Bay -Delta Hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board, presenting sworn expert testimony with cross examination and rebuttal on a striped bass model developed by the California Department of Fish and Game. • Represented the State Water Contractors in the 1987 Bay -Delta Hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board, presenting sworn expert testimony with cross examination and rebuttal on natural flows, historical salinity trends in San Francisco Bay, Delta outflow, and hydrodynamics of the South Bay. • Represented interveners in the licensing of over 20 natural -gas-fired power plants and one coal gasification plant at the California Energy Commission and elsewhere. Reviewed and prepared technical comments on applications for certification, preliminary staff assessments, final staff assessments, preliminary determinations of compliance, final determinations of compliance, and prevention of significant deterioration permits in the areas of air quality, water supply, water quality, biology, public health, worker safety, transportation, site contamination, cooling systems, and hazardous materials. Presented written and oral testimony in evidentiary hearings with cross examination and rebuttal. Participated in technical workshops. • Represented several parties in the proposed merger of San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison. Prepared independent technical analyses on health risks, air quality, and water quality. Presented written and oral testimony before the Public Utilities Commission administrative law judge with cross examination and rebuttal. • Represented a PRP in negotiations with local health and other agencies to establish impact of subsurface contamination on overlying residential properties. Reviewed health studies prepared by agency consultants and worked with agencies and their consultants to evaluate health risks. WATER QUALITY/RESOURCES Directed and participated in research on environmental impacts of energy development in the Colorado River Basin, including contamination of surface and subsurface waters and modeling of flow and chemical transport through fractured aquifers. • Played a major role in Northern California water resource planning studies since the early 1970s. Prepared portions of the Basin Plans for the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Delta basins including sections on water supply, water quality, beneficial uses, waste load A-67 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 30 allocation, and agricultural drainage. Developed water quality models for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Conducted hundreds of studies over the past 40 years on Delta water supplies and the impacts of exports from the Delta on water quality and biological resources of the Central Valley, Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta, and San Francisco Bay. Typical examples include: 1. Evaluate historical trends in salinity, temperature, and flow in San Francisco Bay and upstream rivers to determine impacts of water exports on the estuary; 2. Evaluate the role of exports and natural factors on the food web by exploring the relationship between salinity and primary productivity in San Francisco Bay, upstream rivers, and ocean; 3. Evaluate the effects of exports, other in -Delta, and upstream factors on the abundance of salmon and striped bass; 4. Review and critique agency fishery models that link water exports with the abundance of striped bass and salmon; 5. Develop a model based on GLMs to estimate the relative impact of exports, water facility operating variables, tidal phase, salinity, temperature, and other variables on the survival of salmon smolts as they migrate through the Delta; 6. Reconstruct the natural hydrology of the Central Valley using water balances, vegetation mapping, reservoir operation models to simulate flood basins, precipitation records, tree ring research, and historical research; 7. Evaluate the relationship between biological indicators of estuary health and down -estuary position of a salinity surrogate (X2); 8. Use real-time fisheries monitoring data to quantify impact of exports on fish migration; 9. Refine/develop statistical theory of autocorrelation and use to assess strength of relationships between biological and flow variables; 10. Collect, compile, and analyze water quality and toxicity data for surface waters in the Central Valley to assess the role of water quality in fishery declines; 11. Assess mitigation measures, including habitat restoration and changes in water project operation, to minimize fishery impacts; 12. Evaluate the impact of unscreened agricultural water diversions on abundance of larval fish; 13. Prepare and present testimony on the impacts of water resources development on Bay hydrodynamics, salinity, and temperature in water rights hearings; PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 31 14. Evaluate the impact of boat wakes on shallow water habitat, including interpretation of historical aerial photographs; 15. Evaluate the hydrodynamic and water quality impacts of converting Delta islands into reservoirs; 16. Use a hydrodynamic model to simulate the distribution of larval fish in a tidally influenced estuary; 17. Identify and evaluate non -export factors that may have contributed to fishery declines, including predation, shifts in oceanic conditions, aquatic toxicity from pesticides and mining wastes, salinity intrusion from channel dredging, loss of riparian and marsh habitat, sedimentation from upstream land alternations, and changes in dissolved oxygen, flow, and temperature below dams. Developed, directed, and participated in a broad-based research program on environmental issues and control technology for energy industries including petroleum, oil shale, coal mining, and coal slurry transport. Research included evaluation of air and water pollution, development of novel, low-cost technology to treat and dispose of wastes, and development and application of geohydrologic models to evaluate subsurface contamination from in-situ retorting. The program consisted of government and industry contracts and employed 45 technical and administrative personnel. • Coordinated an industry task force established to investigate the occurrence, causes, and solutions for corrosion/erosion and mechanical/engineering failures in the waterside systems (e.g., condensers, steam generation equipment) of power plants. Corrosion/erosion failures caused by water and steam contamination that were investigated included waterside corrosion caused by poor microbiological treatment of cooling water, steam -side corrosion caused by ammonia -oxygen attack of copper alloys, stress -corrosion cracking of copper alloys in the air cooling sections of condensers, tube sheet leaks, oxygen in -leakage through condensers, volatilization of silica in boilers and carry over and deposition on turbine blades, and iron corrosion on boiler tube walls. Mechanical/engineering failures investigated included: steam impingement attack on the steam side of condenser tubes, tube -to -tube -sheet joint leakage, flow -induced vibration, structural design problems, and mechanical failures due to stresses induced by shutdown, startup and cycling duty, among others. Worked with electric utility plant owners/operators, condenser and boiler vendors, and architect/engineers to collect data to document the occurrence of and causes for these problems, prepared reports summarizing the investigations, and presented the results and participated on a committee of industry experts tasked with identifying solutions to prevent condenser failures. • Evaluated the cost effectiveness and technical feasibility of using dry cooling and parallel dry -wet cooling to reduce water demands of several large natural-gas fired power plants in California and Arizona. A-69 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 32 ■ Designed and prepared cost estimates for several dry cooling systems (e.g., fin fan heat exchangers) used in chemical plants and refineries. • Designed, evaluated, and costed several zero liquid discharge systems for power plants. • Evaluated the impact of agricultural and mining practices on surface water quality of Central Valley steams. Represented municipal water agencies on several federal and state advisory committees tasked with gathering and assessing relevant technical information, developing work plans, and providing oversight of technical work to investigate toxicity issues in the watershed. AIR QUALITY/PUBLIC HEALTH • Prepared or reviewed the air quality and public health sections of hundreds of EIRs and EISs on a wide range of industrial, commercial and residential projects. • Prepared or reviewed hundreds of NSR and PSD permits for a wide range of industrial facilities. • Designed, implemented, and directed a 2 -year-long community air quality monitoring program to assure that residents downwind of a petroleum -contaminated site were not impacted during remediation of petroleum -contaminated soils. The program included real- time monitoring of particulates, diesel exhaust, and BTEX and time integrated monitoring for over 100 chemicals. • Designed, implemented, and directed a 5 -year long source, industrial hygiene, and ambient monitoring program to characterize air emissions, employee exposure, and downwind environmental impacts of a first -generation shale oil plant. The program included stack monitoring of heaters, boilers, incinerators, sulfur recovery units, rock crushers, API separator vents, and wastewater pond fugitives for arsenic, cadmium, chlorine, chromium, mercury, 15 organic indicators (e.g., quinoline, pyrrole, benzo(a)pyrene, thiophene, benzene), sulfur gases, hydrogen cyanide, and ammonia. In many cases, new methods had to be developed or existing methods modified to accommodate the complex matrices of shale plant gases. • Conducted investigations on the impact of diesel exhaust from truck traffic from a wide range of facilities including mines, large retail centers, light industrial uses, and sports facilities. Conducted traffic surveys, continuously monitored diesel exhaust using an aethalometer, and prepared health risk assessments using resulting data. • Conducted indoor air quality investigations to assess exposure to natural gas leaks, pesticides, molds and fungi, soil gas from subsurface contamination, and outgasing of carpets, drapes, furniture and construction materials. Prepared health risk assessments using collected data. A-70 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 33 • Prepared health risk assessments, emission inventories, air quality analyses, and assisted in the permitting of over 70 1 to 2 MW emergency diesel generators. • Prepare over 100 health risk assessments, endangerment assessments, and other health -based studies for a wide range of industrial facilities. • Developed methods to monitor trace elements in gas streams, including a continuous real- time monitor based on the Zeeman atomic absorption spectrometer, to continuously measure mercury and other elements. • Performed nuisance investigations (odor, noise, dust, smoke, indoor air quality, soil contamination) for businesses, industrial facilities, and residences located proximate to and downwind of pollution sources. PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS (Partial List - Representative Publications) J.P. Fox, P.H. Hutton, D.J. Howes, A.J. Draper, and L. Sears, Reconstructing the Natural Hydrology of the San Francisco Bay -Delta Watershed, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Special Issue: Predictions under Change: Water, Earth, and Biota in the Anthropocene, v. 19, pp. 4257-4274, 2015. http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/19/4257/2015/hess-19-4257-2015.pdf. See also: Estimates of Natural and Unimpaired Flows for the Central Valley of California: Water Years 1922-2014 at: https://msb.watei-.ca.gov/documents/86728/a7O2a57f-ae7a-4la3-8bff- 722el44059d6. D. Howes, P. Fox, and P. Hutton, Evapotranspiration from Natural Vegetation in the Central Valley of California: Monthly Grass Reference Based Vegetation Coefficients and the Dual Crop Coefficient Approach, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, v.20, no. 10, October 2015. Phyllis Fox and Lindsey Sears, Natural Vegetation in the Central Valley of California, June 2014, Prepared for State Water Contractors and San Luis & Delta -Mendota Water Authority, 311 pg- J.P. Fox, T.P. Rose, and T.L. Sawyer, Isotope Hydrology of a Spring -fed Waterfall in Fractured Volcanic Rock, 2007. C.E. Lambert, E.D. Winegar, and Phyllis Fox, Ambient and Human Sources of Hydrogen Sulfide: An Explosive Topic, Air & Waste Management Association, June 2000, Salt Lake City, UT. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District and San Luis Obispo County Public Health Department, Community Monitoring Program, February 8, 1999. The Bay Institute, From the Sierra to the Sea. The Ecological History of the San Francisco Bay - Delta Watershed, 1998. A-71 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 34 J. Phyllis Fox, Welllnteiference Effects of HDPP's Proposed Welfield in the Victor Valley Water District, Prepared for the California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE), October 12, 1998. J. Phyllis Fox, Air Quality bnpacts of Using CP VC Pipe in Indoor Residential Potable Water Systems, Report Prepared for California Pipe Trades Council, California Firefighters Association, and other trade associations, August 29, 1998. J. Phyllis Fox and others, Authority to Construct Avila Beach Remediation Project, Prepared for Unocal Corporation and submitted to San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, June 1998. J. Phyllis Fox and others, Authority to Construct Former Guadalupe Oil Field Remediation Project, Prepared for Unocal Corporation and submitted to San Luis Obispo Air Pollution. Control District, May 1998. J. Phyllis Fox and Robert Sears, Health Risk Assessinentfor the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport Proposed Airport Development Program, Prepared for Plumbers & Steamfitters U.A. Local 342, December 15, 1997. Levine -Fricke -Recon (Phyllis Fox and others), Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Work Plan for the Study Area Operable Unit, Former Solano County Sanitary Landfill, Benicia, California, Prepared for Granite Management Co. for submittal to DTSC, September 26, 1997. Phyllis Fox and Jeff Miller, "Fathead Minnow Mortality in the Sacramento River," IEP Newsletter, v. 9, n. 3, 1996. Jud Monroe, Phyllis Fox, Karen Levy, Robert Nuzum, Randy Bailey, Rod Fujita, and Charles Hanson, Habitat Restoration in Aquatic Ecosystems. A Review of the Scientific Literature Related to the Principles of Habitat Restoration, Part Two, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) Report, 1996. Phyllis Fox and Elaine Archibald, Aquatic Toxicity and Pesticides in Surface Waters of the Central Valley, California Urban Water Agencies (CUWA) Report, September 1997. Phyllis Fox and Alison Britton, Evaluation of the Relationship Between Biological Indicators and the Position of X2, CUWA Report, 1994. Phyllis Fox and Alison Britton, Predictive Ability of the Striped Bass Model, WRINT DWR-206, 1992. J. Phyllis Fox, An Historical Overview of Envirronmental Conditions at the North Canyon Area of the Fortner Solano County Sanitary Landfill, Report Prepared for Solano County Department of Environmental Management, 1991. J. Phyllis Fox, An Historical Overview of Enviromnental Conditions at the East Canyon Area of the Foriner Solano County Sanitary Landfill, Report Prepared for Solano County Department of Environmental Management, 1991. A-72 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 35 Phyllis Fox, Trip 2 Report, Environmental Monitoring Plan, Parachute Creek Shale Oil Program, Unocal Report, 1991. J. P. Fox and others, "Long -Term Annual and Seasonal Trends in Surface Salinity of San Francisco Bay," Journal of Hydrology, v. 122, p. 93-117, 1991. J. P. Fox and others, 'Reply to Discussion by D.R. Helsel and E.D. Andrews on Trends in Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta," Water Resources Bulletin, v. 27, no. 2, 1991. J. P. Fox and others, 'Reply to Discussion by Philip B. Williams on Trends in Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta," Water Resources Bulletin, v. 27, no. 2, 1991. J. P. Fox and others, "Trends in Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta," Water Resources Bulletin, v. 26, no. 1, 1990. J. P. Fox, "Water Development Increases Freshwater Flow to San Francisco Bay," SCWC Update, v. 4, no. 2, 1988. J. P. Fox, Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay Under Natural Conditions, State Water Contracts, Exhibit 262, 58 pp., 1987. J. P. Fox, "The Distribution of Mercury During Simulated In -Situ Oil Shale Retorting," Environmental Science and Technology, v. 19, no. 4, pp. 316-322, 1985. J. P. Fox, "El Mercurio en el Medio Ambiente: Aspectos Referentes al Peru," (Mercury in the Environment: Factors Relevant to Peru) Proceedings of Simposio Los Pesticidas y el Medio Ambiente," ONERN-CONCYTEC, Lima, Peru, April 25-27,1984. (Also presented at Instituto Tecnologico Pesquero and Instituto del Mar del Peru.) J. P. Fox, "Mercury, Fish, and the Peruvian Diet," Boletin de Investigacion, Instituto Tecnologico Pesquero, Lima, Peru, v. 2, no. 1, pp. 97-116,1984. J. P. Fox, P. Persoff, A. Newton, and R. N. Heistand, "The Mobility of Organic Compounds in a Codisposal System," Proceedings of the Seventeenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1984. P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, "Evaluation of Control Technology for Modified In -Situ Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of the Sixteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1983. J. P. Fox, Leaching of Oil Shale Solid Wastes: A Critical Review, University of Colorado Report, 245 pp., July 1983. J. P. Fox, Source Monitoring for Unregulated Pollutants from the White River Oil Shale Project, VTN Consolidated Report, June 1983. A-73 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 36 A. S. Newton, J. P. Fox, H. Villarreal, R. Raval, and W. Walker II, Organic Compounds in Coal Slurry Pipeline Waters, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-15121, 46 pp., Sept. 1982. M. Goldstein et al., High Level Nuclear Waste Standards Analysis, Regulatory Framework Comparison, Battelle Memorial Institute Report No. BPMD/82/E515-06600/3, Sept. 1982. J. P. Fox et al., Literature and Data Search of Water Resource Information of the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming Oil Shale Basins, Vols. 1-12, Bureau of Land Management, 1982. A. T. Hodgson, M. J. Pollard, G. J. Harris, D. C. Girvin, J. P. Fox, and N. J. Brown, Mercury Mass Distribution During Laboratory and Simulated In -Situ Retorting, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-12908, 39 pp., Feb. 1982. E. J. Peterson, A. V. Henicksman, J. P. Fox, J. A. O'Rourke, and P. Wagner, Assessment and Control of Water Contamination Associated with Shale Oil Extraction and Processing, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA -9084 -PR, 54 pp., April 1982. P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, Control Technology for In -Situ Oil Shale Retorts, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-14468, 118 pp., Dec. 1982. J. P. Fox, Codisposal Evaluation: Environmental Significance of Organic Compounds, Development Engineering Report, 104 pp., April 1982. J. P. Fox, A Proposed Strategy for Developing an Environmental Water Monitoring Plan for the Paraho-Ute Project, VIN Consolidated Report, Sept. 1982. J. P. Fox, D. C. Girvin, and A. T. Hodgson, "Trace Elements in Oil Shale Materials," Energy and Environmental Chemistry, Fossil Fuels, v.1, pp. 69-101, 1982. M. Mehran, T. N. Narasimhan, and J. P. Fox, "Hydrogeologic Consequences of Modified In-situ Retorting Process, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado," Proceedings of the Fourteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1981 (LBL-12063). U. S. DOE (J. P. Fox and others), Western Oil Shale Development: A Technology Assessment, v. 1-9, Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report PNL-3830, 1981. J. P. Fox (ed), "Oil Shale Research," Chapter from the Energy and Environment Division Annual Report 1980, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11989., 82 pp., 1981 (author or co- author of four articles in report). D.C. Girvin and J.P. Fox, On -Line Zeeman Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy for Mercury Analysis in Oil Shale Gases, U.S. EPA Report EPA -600/7-80-130, June 1980. J. P. Fox, The Partitioning of Major, Minor, and Trace Elements during In -Situ Oil Shale Retorting, Ph.D. Dissertation, U. of Ca., Berkeley, also Report LBL-9062; 441 pp., 1980 (Diss. Abst. Internat., v. 41, no. 7, 1981). A-74 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 37 J.P. Fox, "Elemental Composition of Simulated In Sitar Oil Shale Retort Water," Analysis of Waters Associated with Alternative Fuel Production, ASTMSTP 720, L.P. Jackson and C.C. Wright, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 101-128, 1981. J. P. Fox, P. Persoff, P. Wagner, and E. J. Peterson, "Retort Abandonment -- Issues and Research Needs," in Oil Shale: the Environmental Challenges, K. K. Petersen (ed.), p. 133, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11197). J. P. Fox and T. E. Phillips, "Wastewater Treatment in the Oil Shale Industry," in Oil Shale: the Environmental Challenges, K. K. Petersen (ed.), p. 253, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11214). R. D. Giauque, J. P. Fox, J. W. Smith, and W. A. Robb, "Geochemical Studies of Two Cores from the Green River Oil Shale Formation," Transactions, American Geophysical Union, V. 61, no. 17, 1980. J. P. Fox, "The Elemental Composition of Shale Oils," Abstracts of Papers, 179th National Meeting, ISBN 0-8412-0542-6, Abstract No. FUEL 17, 1980. J. P. Fox and P. Persoff, "Spent Shale Grouting of Abandoned In -Situ Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of Second U.S. DOEEnvironnaental Control Symposium, CONF-800334/1, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10744). P. K. Mehta, P. Persoff, and J. P. Fox, "Hydraulic Cement Preparation from Lurgi Spent Shale," Proceedings of the Thirteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11071). F. E. Brinckman, K. L. Jewett, R. H. Fish, and J. P. Fox, "Speciation of Inorganic and Organoarsenic Compounds in Oil Shale Process Waters by HPLC Coupled with Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption (GFAA) Detectors," Abstracts of Papers, Div. of Geochemistry, Paper No. 20, Second Chemical Congress of the North American Continent, August 25-28, 1980, Las Vegas (1980). J. P. Fox, D. E. Jackson, and R. H. Sakaji, "Potential Uses of Spent Shale in the Treatment of Oil Shale Retort Waters," Proceedings of the Thirteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11072). J. P. Fox, The Elemental Composition of Shale Oils, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL- 10745, 1980. R. H. Fish, J. P. Fox, F. E. Brinckman, and K. L. Jewett, Fingerprinting Inorganic and Organoarsenic Compounds in Oil Shale Process Waters Using a Liquid Chromatograph Coupled with an Atomic Absorption Detector, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL- 11476, 1980. National Academy of Sciences (J. P. Fox and others), Surface Mining of Non -Coal Minerals, Appendix IL• Mining and Processing of Oil Shale and Tar Sands, 222 pp., 1980. A-75 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 38 J. P. Fox, 'Elemental Composition of Simulated In -Situ Oil Shale Retort Water," in Analysis of Waters Associated with Alternative Fuel Production, ASTM STP 720, L. P. Jackson and C. C. Wright (eds.), American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 101-128, 1980. R. D. Giauque, J. P. Fox, and J. W. Smith, Characterization of Two Core Holes from the Naval Oil Shale Reserve Number 1, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10809, 176 pp., December 1980. B. M. Jones, R. H. Sakaji, J. P. Fox, and C. G. Daughton, 'Removal of Contaminative Constituents from Retort Water: Difficulties with Biotreatment and Potential Applicability of Raw and Processed Shales," EPA/DOE Oil Shale Wastewater Treatability Workshop, December 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-12124). J. P. Fox, Water -Related Impacts of In -Situ Oil Shale Processing, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-6300, 327 p., December 1980. M. Mehran, T. N. Narasimhan, and J. P. Fox, An Investigation of Dewatering for the Modified In -Situ Retorting Process, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11819, 105 p., October 1980. J. P. Fox (ed.) "Oil Shale Research," Chapter from the Energy and Environment Division Annual Report 1979, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10486, 1980 (author or coauthor of eight articles). E. Ossio and J. P. Fox, Anaerobic Biological Treatment of In -Situ Oil Shale Retort Water, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10481, March 1980. J. P. Fox, F. H. Pearson, M. J. Kland, and P. Persoff, Hydrologic and Water Quality Effects and Controls for Surface and Underground Coal Mining -- State of Knowledge, Issues, and Research Needs, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11775, 1980. D. C. Girvin, T. Hadeishi, and J. P. Fox, "Use of Zeeman Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy for the Measurement of Mercury in Oil Shale Offgas," Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA -600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8888). D. S. Farrier, J. P. Fox, and R. E. Poulson, "Interlaboratory, Multimethod Study of an In -Situ Produced Oil Shale Process Water," Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA -600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9002). J. P. Fox, J. C. Evans, J. S. Fruchter, and T. R. Wildeman, "Interlaboratory Study of Elemental Abundances in Raw and Spent Oil Shales," Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA -600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8901). A-76 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 39 J. P. Fox, "Retort Water Particulates," Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA -600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8829). P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, "Control Strategies for In -Situ Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of the Twelfth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9040). J. P. Fox and D. L: Jackson, "Potential Uses of Spent Shale in the Treatment of Oil Shale Retort Waters," Proceedings of the DOE Wastewater Workshop, Washington, D. C., June 14-15, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9716). J. P. Fox, K. K. Mason, and J. J. Duvall, "Partitioning of Major, Minor, and Trace Elements during Simulated In -Situ Oil Shale Retorting," Proceedings of the Twelfth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9030). P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, Control Strategies for Abandoned In -Situ Oil Shale Retorts, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8780, 106 pp., October 1979. D. C. Girvin and J. P. Fox, On -Line Zeeman Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy for Mercury Analysis in Oil Shale Gases, Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA -600/7-80-130, 95 p., August 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9702). J. P. Fox, Water Quality Effects of Leachates from an In -Situ Oil Shale Industry, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8997, 37 pp., April 1979. J. P. Fox (ed.), "Oil Shale Research," Chapter from the Energy and Environment Division Annual Report 1978, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL79857 August 1979 (author or coauthor of seven articles). J. P. Fox, P. Persoff, M. M. Moody, and C. J. Sisemore, "A Strategy for the Abandonment of Modified In -Situ Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of the First U.S. DOE Environmental Control Symposium, CONF-781109, 1978 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-6855). E. Ossio, J. P. Fox, J. F. Thomas, and R. E. Poulson, "Anaerobic Fermentation of Simulated In - Situ Oil Shale Retort Water," Division of Fuel Chemistry Preprints, v. 23, no. 2, p. 202-213, 1978 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-6855). J. P. Fox, J. J. Duvall, R. D. McLaughlin, and R. E. Poulson, "Mercury Emissions from a Simulated In -Situ Oil Shale Retort," Proceedings of the Eleventh Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1978 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-7823). J. P. Fox, R. D. McLaughlin, J. F. Thomas, and R. E. Poulson, "The Partitioning of As, Cd, Cu, Hg, Pb, and Zn during Simulated In -Situ Oil Shale Retorting," Proceedings of the Tenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1977. A-77 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 40 Bechtel, Inc., Treatment and Disposal of Toxic Wastes, Report Prepared for Santa Ana Watershed Planning Agency, 1975. Bay Valley Consultants, Water Quality Control Plan for Sacramento, Sacramento -San Joaquin and San Joaquin Basins, Parts I and 11 and Appendices A-E, 750 pp., 1974. A-78 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 41 POST GRADUATE COURSES (Partial) S -Plus Data Analysis, MathSoft, 6/94. Air Pollutant Emission Calculations, UC Berkeley Extension, 6-7/94 Assessment, Control and Remediation of LNAPL Contaminated Sites, API and USEPA, 9/94 Pesticides in the TIE Process, SETAC, 6/96 Sulfate Minerals: Geochemistry, Crystallography, and Environmental Significance, Mineralogical Society of America/Geochemical Society, 11/00. Design of Gas Turbine Combined Cycle and Cogeneration Systems, Thermoflow, 12/00 Air -Cooled Steam Condensers and Dry- and Hybrid -Cooling Towers, Power -Gen, 12/01 Combustion Turbine Power Augmentation with Inlet Cooling and Wet Compression, Power -Gen, 12/01 CEQA Update, UC Berkeley Extension, 3/02 The Health Effects of Chemicals, Drugs, and Pollutants, UC Berkeley Extension, 4-5/02 Noise Exposure Assessment: Sampling Strategy and Data Acquisition, ARIA PDC 205, 6/02 Noise Exposure Measurement Instruments and Techniques, AIHA PDC 302, 6/02 Noise Control Engineering, AIHA PDC 4323 6/02 Optimizing Generation and Air Emissions, Power -Gen, 12/02 Utility Industry Issues, Power -Gen, 12/02 Multipollutant Emission Control, Coal -Gen, 8/03 Community Noise, AIHA PDC 104, 5/04 Cutting -Edge Topics in Noise and Hearing Conservation, AIHA 5/04 Selective Catalytic Reduction: From Planning to Operation, Power -Gen, 12/05 Improving the FGD Decision Process, Power -Gen, 12/05 E -Discovery, CEB, 6/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, FGD Project Delay Factors, 8/10/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, What Mercury Technologies Are Available, 9/14/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, SCR Catalyst Choices, 10/12/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Particulate Choices for Low Sulfur Coal, 10/19/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Impact of PM2.5 on Power Plant Choices, 11/2/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Dry Scrubbers, 11/9/06 Cost Estimating and Tricks of the Trade — A Practical Approach, PDH P159, 11/19/06 Process Equipment Cost Estimating by Ratio & Proportion, PDH G127 11/19/06 Power Plant Air Quality Decisions, Power -Gen 11/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, WE Energies Hg Control Update, 1/12/07 Negotiating Permit Conditions, EEUC, 1/21/07 BACT for Utilities, EEUC, 1/21/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Chinese FGD/SCR Program & Impact on World, 2/1/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury Control Cost & Performance, 2/15/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury CEMS, 4/12/07 A-79 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 42 Coal -to -Liquids — A Timely Revival, 9th Electric Power, 4/30/07 Advances in Multi -Pollutant and CO2 Control Technologies, 9th Electric Power, 4/30/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Measurement & Control of PM2.5, 5/17/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Co -firing and Gasifying Biomass, 5/31/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury Cost and Performance, 6/14/07 Ethanol 101: Points to Consider When Building an Ethanol Plant, BBI International, 6/26/07 Low Cost Optimization of Flue Gas Desulfurization Equipment, Fluent, Inc., 7/6/07. McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, CEMS for Measurement of NH3, S03, Low NOx, 7/12/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury Removal Status & Cost, 8/9/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Filter Media Selection for Coal -Fired Boilers, 9/13/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Catalyst Performance on NOx, S03, Mercury, 10/11/07 PRB Coal Users Group, PRB 101, 12/4/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury Control Update, 10/25/07 Circulating Fluidized Bed Boilers, Their Operation, Control and Optimization, Power -Gen, 12/8/07 Renewable Energy Credits & Greenhouse Gas Offsets, Power -Gen, 12/9/07 Petroleum Engineering & Petroleum Downstream Marketing, PDH K117, 1/5/08 Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Manufacturing, PDH C191, 1/6/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, NOx Reagents, 1/17/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury Control, 1/31/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury Monitoring, 3/6/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, SCR Catalysts, 3/13/08 Argus 2008 Climate Policy Outlook, 3/26/08 Argus Pet Coke Supply and Demand 2008, 3/27/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, S03 Issues and Answers, 3/27/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury Control, 4/24/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Co -Firing Biomass, 5/1/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Coal Gasification, 6/5/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Spray Driers vs. CFBs, 7/3/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Air Pollution Control Cost Escalation, 9/25/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Greenhouse Gas Strategies for Coal Fired Power Plant Operators, 10/2/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury and Toxics Monitoring, 2/5/09 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Dry Precipitator Efficiency Improvements, 2/12/09 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Coal Selection & Impact on Emissions, 2/26/09 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, 98% Limestone Scrubber Efficiency, 7/9/09 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Carbon Management Strategies and Technologies, 6/24/10 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Gas Turbine O&M, 7/22/10 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Industrial Boiler MACT — Impact and Control Options, March 10, 2011 A-80 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 43 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Fuel Impacts on SCR Catalysts, June 30, 2011. Interest Rates, PDH P204, 3/9/12 Mechanics Liens, PDHOnline, 2/24/13. Understanding Concerns with Dry Sorbent Injection as a Coal Plant Pollution Control, Webinar #874-567-839 by Cleanenergy.Org, March 4, 2013 Webinar: Coal -to -Gas Switching: What You Need to Know to Make the Investment, sponsored by PennWell Power Engineering Magazine, March 14, 2013. Available at: https://event.webeasts.com/viewer/eventjsp?ei=l 0 13472. A-81 1 *461 owl I oil A-82 Ray Kapahi Senior Air Quality Consulting Engineer Ray.kapahi@gmail.com Office: 916.687.8352 Mobile: 916.806.8333 Office Location: Sacramento, CA Mr. Kapahi has over 30 years of experience in analyzing air quality and odor impacts, permitting of stationary sources, and preparation of envi- ronmental impact documents. He assists a broad range of clients to identi- fy and meet their regulatory obligations. The scope of his experience includes siting of new landfills, waste to ener- gy plants, obtaining conditional use permits from city and county govern- ments for new projects or expansion of existing projects. Specific experi- ence and skills include preparation of emission inventories, analysis and measurements of odors, dispersion modeling, oversight of air quality mon- itoring, preparation of health risk assessments, and appearance before city and county planning boards and commissions as an expert witness on be- half of a wide range of clients. Following approvals for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities, Mr. Kapahi continues to work with clients to ensure on-going compliance. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Air Quality Permitting Practice Areas • Air Quality Permitting • Waste -to -Energy Project (Fort Irwin, CA) • Odor Investigation and Control Responsible for securing air permits and providing CEQA support for a proposed • Health Risk Assessment 34 ton per day solid waste to synthetic gas waste conversion system. Worked co- • Computational Fluid Dynamics operatively with the Mojave Desert AQMD, and staff at US Army to ensure timely • Greenhouse Gas Analysis • Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling issuance of the Authority to Construct and Permits to Operate from the air district. News The permits were issued in 2017. Industries ery turbine generators to improve overall plant efficiency. Power would be sold to gration of Landfill gas and Odors to Nearby • Permitting and CEQA Support for Almond Processing Facility (Tur- • Solid Waste evaluation was completed along with a recommendation to the District for the • Power Generation lock, CA) • Construction and Mining Assisted a large almond growing cooperative to site and permit a 100 ton per year • Food Industries almond processing facility. Prepared the air quality section of the CEQA environ- • oil and Gas Production mental documents for approval by the Planning Board (Stanislaus County). Pre - pared the necessary applications and supporting documents to San Joaquin Valley Education and Training APCD. The project was approved in 2017 and is in operation. • BSc. Physics (1972) • MEng. Chemical Engineering (1975) • CARB Accredited Green House Gas • Biomass to Energy Project (Mariposa, CA) (GHG) Lead Verifier with Specialization Mr. Kapahi was retained by the Mariposa County Air pollution Control District to in Process Emissions and Electricity review the proposed 2.4 MW (net) community based biomass to energy project. Transactions (2009) The project would use 12,000 bone dry tons of sustainably harvested biomass News from forests to produce synthetic gas. The project would include two heat recov- • Presentation "Numerical Modeling of Mi- ery turbine generators to improve overall plant efficiency. Power would be sold to gration of Landfill gas and Odors to Nearby PG&E under the State of California's BioMAT program. A detailed engineering homes". 33` International Conference on Solid Waste Technology, March 11-14, 2018, Annap- evaluation was completed along with a recommendation to the District for the olis, MD issuance of air permits. • Presentation "Integrated Approach to Effec- tive Odor Control at Landfills and Composting Facilities" Wastecon 2016, Indianapolis, IN. A-83 News...... • Presentation"Use of Advanced Models to ANALYSIS OF ODORS AND DUST Control Fugitive odors from Composting Sites". Analysis and Control of Fugitive Dust and Odors from a Soil Blend - US Compost Council Annual Meeting, January In Facility Stockton CA) 2015, Austin, TX. g y Advanced computational fluid mechanics (CFD) models were used to pre- dict the air flow and movement of fugitive dust at a soil blending facility. "Air Emissions from Landfills and Trans- With this Information, the client was able to install appropriate mitigate to fer Stations— Do they Increase Public minimize off-site fugitive dust and odors. View the movement of dust at: Health Risks?" Presented at Quad State Envi- ronmental Conference, Pigeon Forge TN, Sept https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXEX61T-54U 2015. "Modeling Fine Particulates" in Municipal Waste Analysis of Odors from Tomato Dehydration Plant (Port of Stockton, CA) Incineration Risk Assessment, Edited by Curtis In response to odor complaints from the public, air sampling and analysis is Publications and Presentations being conducted to identify the odor causing compounds. The results of Specialized Training the measurements will be used to determine the best mitigation strategy. "Risks of Carbon Credit Invalidation Under Califor- and asphalt oil were quantified. Acute and chronic public health risks from nia's Cap -and -Trade Program", Presented at the exposure to various toxic pollutants were calculated and compared with 2014 Air and Waste Management Association An- Analysis of Public HeaIth Risks nual Conference. June 24-27, 2014. Long Beach, to support an application for air permits. CA Analysis of Public Health Risks Associated with Composting Opera - "Estimate of VOC Emissions from Sludge Drying", tions (Napa County, CA) Presented at the 1995 SWANA Conference, No- Estimate the types and amounts of toxic air contaminants (TAC) released vember 1995, Baltimore, MD, from green waste and food waste composting. An air dispersion model "Use of Biofilters to Control VOCs", Biocycle, Feb- was used with local wind data to determine the concentration of each TAC. ruary 1995. The concentration estimates were supplemented with toxicity data to "Impacts of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments", quantify public health risks from exposure to the various toxic pollutants. San Jose Business Journal, March 24, 1994. for submittal to Kern County Planning department. "Modeling Fine Particulates" in Municipal Waste Analysis of Public Health Risks from Proposed Asphalt Plant (Kern Incineration Risk Assessment, Edited by Curtis County, California) Travis, Plenum Press, 1990. Analyze emissions of any toxic air pollutants from a proposed 250 tons per Specialized Training day asphalt plant. Emissions from aggregate drying, propane combustion and asphalt oil were quantified. Acute and chronic public health risks from HARP2 (Risk Assessment Model) Training at Cali- exposure to various toxic pollutants were calculated and compared with fornia Air Resources Board. Redding, CA April 2016. regulatory thresholds of significance. The results of this analysis were used to support an application for air permits. Hearing Board Variance Training — California Air Resources Board (1995) CEQA Support Air Emissions and Odors from Wastewater — Uni- versity of Texas, Austin (1994) Drilling of Exploratory Oil and Gas Wells (Kern County, CA) Analyze air emissions from proposed drilling of exploratory crude oil and Professional Affiliations gas wells. Evaluate significance of impacts to air quality and public health. Air and Waste Management Association (Member) Prepare the air and greenhouse gas section of environmental document for submittal to Kern County Planning department. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (Mem- ber) 2 A-84 0 CLaci U °N' O M E W 3 0 ~C:U C OU N Q J U +, O to .O U (; OJ E m Y C:0 U c (a L c o ca & 3 3 U CLU OL QJ U O -0 cu U U m C7 U in I� S> CO Co U t � tL t co N 7 s °n Q c 0. 0 4– N — N Q � 4-- 4)' �'� C (6 c a j z o ai -0 t c v o (La O z N fO+ C N O' +O+ N O @ `0 u -O n3 co v U m v U +� a) N X 0 c a m 0 u N X 0- 0> N v S2 n O> a) +� t6 O d D i CS O Q to a E ++ N (a O a' (n >� 0 a-' -' (C6 U C N abAl crQ No'co c ov.3 L° OQ.3 N Q, a) N C7 o m �r +, +, � S L 0 c -i 0 ° +� a) O Y O a) O bA ° Ur Q- 0 a) c m v .L c c n c '� Q LO co E a) Ln N '�'' U U N .N 'i U ,N (b N a) 4— c. C bA O U tut •� U m .Q 'Q >? •c '�' .Q CL .Q +, .� O O .N a) Lu �' +-r N U :3 Ln _C f6 C a-+ .~ L LO OU - •0 ..0 i=+ L a) -0 CL a-+ M f0 -0 O ' (o >Z tin to E 4- c a) i .N m E µ0, +' a) a c 0 c- (a ) L X •N - L O .1-.+ L y L_ •F•� lB C L 'N o N U E E +� o o (o Q (o E m o- c O O ve- (Lo j z j +' U O.. a) (a O Q U C t 0- O_ � C C f? Q � � � a) M O vN N O O N LO L1 O f6 CL N LO OL ai CM O N} (�i) C LA d d� Q a o a o Q a m CL o D- d CL o '� Cz o .E — Q a o. C c ns U U � U U C 0Y av U U 3 (L6 U NO O O — O 0 O O O a) Q ::3 (Oo t— f— u_ Co U F- u 0 0- N N N C EN +� (U @ Q a` )) o c a u.' � Q U) �o (b o o cf c O Ln a Q a. +-, E U w 0 N +� L O > c 4-- � � Q � O Oa O (b a) L c E C L Q O - bCA tut h0 >� 1 a- v a) O (n L L (6 a a Q LO OP Q on the for the Petaluma; California September 17, 2018 Phyllis Fox, PhD, PE and Ray Kapahi, BSC, M. Eng. EXHIBIT A-1 Al -1 duration is consistent with BAAQMD guidance. The BAAQMD Air Toxics Health Risk Assessment Guidelines indicate "the Air District will estimate cancer risk to residential receptors for gasoline dispensing facilities based on a 70 -year lifetime exposure. Although 9 - year and 25 -year exposure scenarios may be presented for information purposes, risk management decisions will be made based on 70 -year exposure duration for residential receptors."52 Similarly, the BAAQMD's CEQA guidelines specifically identify a 70 -year exposure duration,53 noting: "Emissions from a new source or emissions affecting a new receptor would be considered significant where ground -level concentrations of carcinogenic TACs from any source result in an increased cancer risk greater than 10.0 in one million, assuming a 70 -year lifetime exposure." The EPA also uses a 70 -year exposure duration to assess the significance of health impacts54 2.2.5. Revised HRA Results Excerpts from the HARP2 model results are provided in Exhibit C. Electronic copies are available on request. The 70 -year residential risk is between 27 to 69 cancers per million at homes across the street along South McDowell Avenue. The overall spatial variation of 70 -year cancer risk is shown in Figure 4. This figure shows there are large areas surrounding the proposed refueling facility that have cancer risk above 10 in a million (blue isopleth). The spatial variation of 25 -year cancer risk is shown in Figure 5. The results indicate that cancer risk at the nearby daycare would be 12.5 for teachersn'�ts and 8.2 for studentsteae er-s at the elementa �This figure shows that teadiersta4enA cancer risk at the daycare would be significant, as the risk exceeds 10 in a million. The results assuming 9 - year exposure (for school children) is estimated to be 8.2 cancers per million. While not significant, this result is an underestimate as it does not account for the difference in prevailing winds between Santa Rosa and Petaluma as well as inelude cumulative exposure from construction, increases in traffic due to location of the fueling station, and cumulative exposure from residences in adjacent housing, among other factors. 52 BAAQMD, BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines, December 2016, Section 2.2.1.1, p. 8; available athttp://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning and- research/peinait-modeling/hra guidelines 12 7 2016 clean-pdf.pdf. 53 BAAQMD, CEQA Guidelines, May 2017, Appendix D, p. D-40. 54 NESHAPS 54 Federal Register 38044, September 14,1989; CAA Section 112(f). See also BAAQMD, CEQA Guidelines, Appendix D, p. D-35. 14 Al -2 Figure 5: Cancer Risk Isopleth for 25 -Year (Worker) Exposure (includes emissions from idling cars, fuel delivery trucks, and gasoline dispensing) Our revised analyses indicate that cancer risks are significant at several residences across the street from the proposed fueling station, as well as at the school playfield and for teachers at the 4Cs Petaluma Child Development Centerls;e tl Bay C—loll,+!, ,'s Ge+Aer, Our analyses also indicate that benzene and DPM are the primary drivers for cancer risk and are consistent with similar health risk assessments prepared by both CARB and the SCAQMD, as summarized below in Comments 2.3.2 and 2.3.3. Our analyses are also consistent with extensive scientific research that demonstrates a significant association between gasoline stations and the risk of childhood leukemia.55 See referred journal articles compiled in Exhibit 1. Our HRA analysis underestimates cancer risk for the following reasons: First, the sensitive receptors (residences, schools) are upwind of the fuel station (i.e., the wind data used in our analysis show that the pollution from the fuel station is blown away from the sensitive receptors), because the HRA is based on Santa Rosa wind data. 56 Our analysis should be 55 Peter F. Infante, "Residential Proximity to Gasoline Stations and Risk of Childhood Leukemia," Ancerican Joimial of Epidemiology 185, no.1 (December 6, 2016). Exhibit 1. 56 We were unable to obtain the Petaluma wind data in the proper format for use in the AERMOD model. 16 Al -3