5 - port of oakland permit aprvd report full.pdfmitigation measure air-6b: odor controls on other...
TRANSCRIPT
East
Bay
Mun
icip
al U
tility
Dis
tric
tM
ain
Was
tew
ater
Tre
atm
ent P
lant
Lan
d U
se M
aste
r Pla
n EI
RM
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Prog
ram
DR
AFT
Febr
uary
201
1
E-1
EAST
BAY
MUN
ICIP
AL U
TILI
TYDI
STRI
CT L
AND
USE
MAST
ER P
LAN
ENVI
RONM
ENTA
L IM
PACT
REP
ORT
MITI
GATI
ON M
ONIT
ORIN
G AN
D RE
PORT
ING
PROG
RAM
Impa
ct
No.
Impa
ct S
umm
ary
Mitig
atio
n No
.Mi
tigat
ion
Meas
ure
(Exa
ct T
ext)
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng P
rogr
am
Impl
emen
tatio
nan
d Re
porti
ng
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng A
ctio
ns
Impl
emen
tatio
n Sc
hedu
le- D
esig
n (D
)- P
re-C
onst
ruct
ion
(PC)
- Dur
ing
Cons
truct
ion
(C)
- O
pera
tiona
l (O)
Re
spon
sible
Party
Revie
wing
&
Appr
oval
Party
3.2
AES
THET
ICS
AES
-2
Alte
r Exi
stin
g V
isua
l Cha
ract
er a
nd
Vie
ws i
nth
e St
udy
Are
aA
ES-2
aM
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
AE
S-2a
: Mai
nten
ance
of C
onst
ruct
ion
Wor
ksite
Thro
ugho
ut th
e pe
riod
of d
emol
ition
and
con
stru
ctio
n, E
BM
UD
will
requ
ire th
at th
e co
nstru
ctio
nco
ntra
ctor
kee
p th
e w
orks
ite fr
ee a
nd c
lean
of a
ll ru
bbis
h an
d de
bris
and
pro
mpt
ly re
mov
e fr
om
the
site
or f
rom
pro
perty
adj
acen
t to
the
site
of t
he w
ork,
all
unus
ed a
nd re
ject
ed m
ater
ials,
surp
lus
earth
, con
cret
e, p
last
er, a
nd d
ebris
.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
re is
in th
e co
nstru
ctio
n sp
ecifi
catio
ns fo
r the
pro
ject
.
2.V
erify
that
wor
ksite
is k
ept f
ree
and
clea
n of
all
rubb
ish
and
debr
is.
1.D
2.C
AES
-2b
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re A
ES-
2b: D
esig
n of
Fac
ilitie
s to
Be
Aes
thet
ical
ly C
onsi
sten
t with
Exi
stin
g V
isua
l Cha
ract
er
EBM
UD
wou
ld re
quire
all
new
faci
litie
s be,
at a
min
imum
,des
igne
d to
be
aest
hetic
ally
con
sist
ent
with
exi
stin
g vi
sual
cha
ract
er a
nd su
rrou
ndin
g w
aste
wat
er tr
eatm
ent b
uild
ings
. D
esig
n, e
xter
ior
finis
hes,
and
colo
r wou
ld b
lend
with
the
surr
ound
ing
faci
litie
s.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at d
esig
n is
con
sist
ent w
ith
mea
sure
.1.
D
AES
-3
New
Sou
rce
of S
ubst
antia
l lig
ht o
r Gla
reA
ES-3
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
AE
S-3:
Lig
htin
g D
esig
n an
d L
ow R
efle
ctiv
e Pa
int
EBM
UD
wou
ld re
quire
that
ligh
ting
be c
onsi
sten
t with
exi
stin
g lig
htin
g in
term
s of h
eigh
t, sp
acin
g an
d de
sign
. N
ew li
ghtin
g w
ould
be
shie
lded
and
dire
cted
to th
e in
terio
r of t
he p
roje
ct si
te.
New
st
ruct
ures
and
bui
ldin
gs w
ould
be
pain
ted
in lo
w re
flect
ive
pain
t con
sist
ent w
ith e
xist
ing
stru
ctur
es
at th
e M
WW
TP.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
re is
inco
rpor
ated
in
spec
ifica
tions
for t
he p
roje
ct
2.C
onfir
m th
at li
ghtin
g is
inst
alle
d as
re
quire
d by
spec
ifica
tions
1.D
2.C
.
3.3
AIR
QU
ALI
TYA
IR-1
C
onst
ruct
ion
Emis
sion
s of C
riter
ia
Pollu
tant
s and
Pre
curs
ors
AIR
-1
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re A
IR-1
: Cri
teri
a A
ir P
ollu
tant
and
Pre
curs
or R
educ
tion
Mea
sure
s
To li
mit
dust
, crit
eria
pol
luta
nt, a
nd p
recu
rsor
em
issi
ons
asso
ciat
ed w
ith c
onst
ruct
ion
of a
ll La
nd
Use
Mas
ter P
lan
proj
ects
, EB
MU
D s
hall
incl
ude
the
follo
win
g m
easu
res,
as a
pplic
able
, in
cont
ract
sp
ecifi
catio
ns:
a.A
ll ex
pose
d su
rfac
es (
e.g.
, pa
rkin
g ar
eas,
stag
ing
area
s, so
il pi
les,
grad
ed a
reas
, an
d un
pave
d ac
cess
road
s) sh
all b
e w
ater
ed tw
o tim
es p
er d
ay.
b.A
ll ha
ul tr
ucks
tran
spor
ting
soil,
sand
, or o
ther
loos
e m
ater
ial o
ff si
te sh
all b
e co
vere
d.
c.A
ll vi
sibl
e m
ud o
r di
rt tra
ck-o
ut o
nto
adja
cent
pub
lic r
oads
sha
ll be
rem
oved
usi
ng w
et
pow
er v
acuu
mst
reet
sw
eepe
rs a
t lea
st o
nce
per
day.
The
use
of
dry
pow
er s
wee
ping
is
proh
ibite
d.
d.A
ll ve
hicl
e sp
eeds
on
unpa
ved
area
s sha
ll be
lim
ited
to 1
5 m
iles p
er h
our.
e.A
ll ro
adw
ays,
driv
eway
s, an
d si
dew
alks
to
be p
aved
sha
ll be
com
plet
ed a
s so
on a
s po
ssib
le. B
uild
ing
pads
sha
ll be
laid
as
soon
as
poss
ible
afte
r gr
adin
g un
less
see
ding
or
soil
bind
ers a
re u
sed.
f.Id
ling
times
sha
ll be
min
imiz
ed e
ither
by
shut
ting
equi
pmen
t of
f w
hen
not
in u
se o
r re
duci
ng t
he m
axim
um i
dlin
g tim
e to
5 m
inut
es (
as r
equi
red
by t
he C
alifo
rnia
airb
orne
to
xics
con
trol m
easu
re T
itle
13, S
ectio
n 24
85 o
f Cal
iforn
ia C
ode
of R
egul
atio
ns [C
CR
]).
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
reis
inth
e co
nstru
ctio
n sp
ecifi
catio
ns fo
r the
pro
ject
.
2.EB
MU
D in
spec
tort
o ve
rify
that
dus
t co
ntro
l mea
sure
s are
impl
emen
ted
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n
1.D
2.C
East
Bay
Mun
icip
al U
tility
Dis
tric
tM
ain
Was
tew
ater
Tre
atm
ent P
lant
Lan
d U
se M
aste
r Pla
n EI
RM
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Prog
ram
DR
AFT
Febr
uary
201
1
E-2
EAST
BAY
MUN
ICIP
AL U
TILI
TYDI
STRI
CT L
AND
USE
MAST
ER P
LAN
ENVI
RONM
ENTA
L IM
PACT
REP
ORT
MITI
GATI
ON M
ONIT
ORIN
G AN
D RE
PORT
ING
PROG
RAM
Impa
ct
No.
Impa
ct S
umm
ary
Mitig
atio
n No
.Mi
tigat
ion
Meas
ure
(Exa
ct T
ext)
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng P
rogr
am
Impl
emen
tatio
nan
d Re
porti
ng
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng A
ctio
ns
Impl
emen
tatio
n Sc
hedu
le- D
esig
n (D
)- P
re-C
onst
ruct
ion
(PC)
- Dur
ing
Cons
truct
ion
(C)
- O
pera
tiona
l (O)
Re
spon
sible
Party
Revie
wing
&
Appr
oval
Party
Cle
ar s
igna
ge sh
all b
e pr
ovid
ed fo
r con
stru
ctio
n w
orke
rs a
t all
acce
ss p
oint
s.
g.A
ll co
nstru
ctio
n eq
uipm
ent
shal
l be
mai
ntai
ned
and
prop
erly
tun
ed i
n ac
cord
ance
with
m
anuf
actu
rer’
s spe
cific
atio
ns. A
ll eq
uipm
ent s
hall
be c
heck
ed b
y a
certi
fied
mec
hani
c an
d de
term
ined
to b
e ru
nnin
g in
pro
per c
ondi
tion
prio
r to
oper
atio
n.
h.A
pub
licly
vis
ible
sig
n w
ith t
he t
elep
hone
num
ber
and
pers
on t
o co
ntac
t at
the
Lea
d A
genc
y re
gard
ing
com
plai
nts
rela
ted
to e
xces
sive
dus
t or v
ehic
le id
ling
shal
l be
post
ed a
t th
e M
WW
TP e
ntra
nce.
Thi
s pe
rson
sha
ll re
spon
d an
d ta
ke c
orre
ctiv
e ac
tion
with
in 4
8 ho
urs.
AIR
-5
Loca
l Com
mun
ity R
isks
and
Haz
ards
D
urin
g Pr
ojec
t Ope
ratio
n A
IR-5
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
AIR
-5: D
iese
l Par
ticul
ate
Red
uctio
n M
easu
res
Die
sel-p
ower
ed o
n-si
te ro
lling
sto
ck (2
load
ers,
exca
vato
r, an
d 2
end
dum
p tru
cks)
ass
ocia
ted
with
th
e fo
od w
aste
pre
proc
essi
ng f
acili
ty a
nd a
ny o
ther
die
sel
equi
pmen
t or
tru
cks
oper
atin
g so
lely
w
ithin
the
MW
WTP
and
Wes
t End
pro
perty
und
er th
e co
ntro
l of
EBM
UD
sha
ll in
stal
l a C
AR
B-
verif
ied
Leve
l 3
Die
sel
Parti
cula
te F
ilter
to
redu
ce P
M2.
5 em
issi
ons
to a
chie
ve a
min
imum
re
duct
ion
of 5
0 pe
rcen
t (su
ffic
ient
to r
educ
e co
mbi
ned
emis
sion
s to
bel
ow th
e B
AA
QM
D C
EQA
ex
cess
can
cer r
isk
thre
shol
d of
10
in a
mill
ion)
. Alte
rnat
ive
optio
ns fo
r ach
ievi
ng th
is re
duct
ion
can
also
be
impl
emen
ted,
inc
ludi
ng t
he u
se o
f la
te m
odel
eng
ines
, lo
w-e
mis
sion
die
sel
prod
ucts
, al
tern
ativ
e fu
els,
engi
ne r
etro
fit te
chno
logy
, afte
r-tre
atm
ent p
rodu
cts,
and/
or o
ther
opt
ions
as
such
be
com
e av
aila
ble.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
reis
in th
e pl
ans f
or
the
proj
ect.
2.EB
MU
D to
ver
ify fo
od w
aste
pr
epro
cess
ing
dies
el e
quip
men
t use
s die
sel
parti
cula
te fi
lters
or o
ther
app
ropr
iate
m
easu
res t
o re
duce
DPM
em
issi
ons
1.D
2.O
AIR
-6
Odo
r Em
issi
ons D
urin
g Pr
ojec
t O
pera
tion
AIR
-6a
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re A
IR-6
a: O
dor
Con
trol
s in
Food
Was
te P
repr
oces
sing
Faci
lity
EBM
UD
shal
l inc
lude
the
follo
win
g m
easu
res i
n co
ntra
ct sp
ecifi
catio
ns:
Roo
f ven
ts o
n th
e pr
opos
ed b
uild
ing
or p
oint
sou
rces
sho
uld
be d
esig
ned
to a
ccom
mod
ate
odor
con
trols
in
the
even
t th
at o
dor
prob
lem
s oc
cur
in t
he f
utur
e an
d co
ntro
ls a
re
ultim
atel
y ne
eded
.A
ll fo
od w
aste
sha
ll be
pro
cess
ed w
ithin
48
hour
s of
rec
eipt
or p
roto
cols
sha
ll be
im
plem
ente
d to
min
imiz
e nu
isan
ce o
dor p
robl
ems
and
ensu
re c
ompl
ianc
e w
ith a
pplic
able
B
AA
QM
D a
ir pe
rmit
requ
irem
ents
.
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)EB
MU
D1.
Con
firm
that
mea
sure
is in
the
plan
s for
th
e pr
ojec
t.
2.EB
MU
D to
ver
ify fo
od w
aste
pr
epro
cess
ing
min
imiz
es n
uisa
nce
odor
pr
oble
ms.
1.D
2.O
AIR
-6b
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re A
IR-6
b: O
dor
Con
trol
s on
Oth
er L
and
Use
Mas
ter
Plan
Ele
men
ts
All
shor
t- an
d lo
ng-te
rm L
and
Use
Mas
ter P
lan
proj
ects
shal
l be
revi
ewed
for o
dor p
oten
tial d
urin
g th
e de
sign
pha
se.
Ope
ratio
nal
and
desi
gn o
dor
cont
rol
mea
sure
s sh
all
be i
ncor
pora
ted
into
the
pr
ojec
t to
min
imiz
e of
f-si
te o
dor
impa
cts
and
ensu
re c
ompl
ianc
e w
ith B
AA
QM
D a
ir pe
rmit
fenc
elin
e m
onito
ring
limits
.O
dor c
ontro
ls th
at c
ould
be
impl
emen
ted
whe
re a
ppro
pria
te in
clud
e:
activ
ated
car
bon
filte
r/car
bon
adso
rptio
n, b
iofil
tratio
n/bi
o tri
cklin
g fil
ters
, fin
e bu
bble
aer
ator
, ho
oded
enc
losu
res,
wet
and
dry
scr
ubbe
rs, c
aust
ic a
nd h
ypoc
hlor
ite c
hem
ical
scr
ubbe
rs, a
mm
onia
sc
rubb
er,
ener
gy e
ffic
ient
blo
wer
sys
tem
, th
erm
al o
xidi
zer,
capp
ing/
cove
ring
stor
age
basi
ns a
nd
anae
robi
c po
nds,
mix
ed f
low
exh
aust
, was
tew
ater
circ
ulat
ion
tech
nolo
gy, a
nd e
xhau
st s
tack
and
ve
nt lo
catio
n w
ith re
spec
t to
rece
ptor
s.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
reis
in th
e de
sign
pl
ans f
or th
e pr
ojec
t. 1.
D
East
Bay
Mun
icip
al U
tility
Dis
tric
tM
ain
Was
tew
ater
Tre
atm
ent P
lant
Lan
d U
se M
aste
r Pla
n EI
RM
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Prog
ram
DR
AFT
Febr
uary
201
1
E-3
EAST
BAY
MUN
ICIP
AL U
TILI
TYDI
STRI
CT L
AND
USE
MAST
ER P
LAN
ENVI
RONM
ENTA
L IM
PACT
REP
ORT
MITI
GATI
ON M
ONIT
ORIN
G AN
D RE
PORT
ING
PROG
RAM
Impa
ct
No.
Impa
ct S
umm
ary
Mitig
atio
n No
.Mi
tigat
ion
Meas
ure
(Exa
ct T
ext)
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng P
rogr
am
Impl
emen
tatio
nan
d Re
porti
ng
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng A
ctio
ns
Impl
emen
tatio
n Sc
hedu
le- D
esig
n (D
)- P
re-C
onst
ruct
ion
(PC)
- Dur
ing
Cons
truct
ion
(C)
- O
pera
tiona
l (O)
Re
spon
sible
Party
Revie
wing
&
Appr
oval
Party
3.4
BIO
LOG
ICA
L R
ESO
UR
CES
BIO
-1
Pote
ntia
l to
Inte
rfer
e w
ith W
ildlif
e M
ovem
ent o
r Im
pede
the
Use
of N
ativ
e W
ildlif
e N
urse
ry S
ites
BIO
-1M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
BIO
-1: P
rote
ctio
n of
Nes
ting
Bir
ds
To th
e ex
tent
pra
ctic
able
, pro
ject
con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es in
clud
ing
tree
rem
oval
/pru
ning
and
de
mol
ition
will
occ
ur o
utsi
de o
f the
gen
eral
ly a
ccep
ted
nest
ing
seas
on (F
ebru
ary
1 to
Aug
ust 3
1).
If tr
ee re
mov
al c
anno
t be
com
plet
ed b
etw
een
Sept
embe
r 1 a
nd Ja
nuar
y 31
, and
it is
not
feas
ible
to
avoi
d st
artin
g co
nstru
ctio
n du
ring
the
nest
ing
seas
on, t
hen
the
follo
win
g m
easu
res w
ill b
e ta
ken:
a)N
o m
ore
than
two
wee
ks b
efor
e th
e in
itiat
ion
of c
onst
ruct
ion/
dem
oliti
on a
ctiv
ities
that
w
ould
com
men
ce b
etw
een
Febr
uary
1 a
nd A
ugus
t 31,
a n
estin
g bi
rd su
rvey
will
be
cond
ucte
d w
ithin
250
feet
of t
he p
roje
ct si
te b
y a
qual
ified
bio
logi
st. I
f act
ive
nest
s are
ob
serv
ed, b
uffe
r zon
es w
ill b
e es
tabl
ishe
d ar
ound
the
nest
s, w
ith a
size
acc
epta
ble
to th
e C
alifo
rnia
Dep
artm
ent o
f Fis
h an
d G
ame.
Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es w
ill n
ot o
ccur
with
in
buff
er z
ones
unt
il yo
ung
have
fled
ged
or th
e ne
st is
oth
erw
ise
aban
done
d.
b)If
con
stru
ctio
n/de
mol
ition
is h
alte
d fo
r mor
e th
an tw
o w
eeks
dur
ing
the
nest
ing
seas
on,
then
add
ition
al s
urve
ys w
ill b
e co
nduc
ted
as a
bove
.
c)N
ests
that
are
est
ablis
hed
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n/de
mol
ition
will
be
prot
ecte
d fr
om d
irect
pr
ojec
t im
pact
(e.g
., tre
es o
r a b
uffe
r are
a ar
ound
the
nest
s sha
ll be
flag
ged
and
avoi
ded)
.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
reis
in th
e co
nstru
ctio
n sp
ecifi
catio
ns fo
r the
pro
ject
.
2.C
onfir
m th
at tr
ees a
re re
mov
ed o
r sur
veys
pe
rfor
med
bef
ore
nest
ing
seas
on.
3.C
onfir
m b
ird p
rote
ctio
n is
impl
emen
ted
as
need
ed d
urin
g co
nstru
ctio
n
1.D
2.PC
3.C
BIO
-2
Pote
ntia
l for
Con
flict
with
Loc
al P
olic
ies
or O
rdin
ance
s Pro
tect
ing
Bio
logi
cal
Res
ourc
es, S
uch
as T
ree
Pres
erva
tion
Polic
y or
Ord
inan
ce
BIO
2M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
BIO
-2: R
epla
cem
ent o
f Pro
tect
ed T
rees
EBM
UD
will
repl
ace
each
tree
that
is re
mov
ed fo
r thi
s pro
ject
and
that
is c
onsi
dere
d a
“pro
tect
ed
tree”
und
er th
e C
ity o
f Oak
land
Tre
e Pr
eser
vatio
n an
d R
emov
al O
rdin
ance
. The
repl
acem
ent t
ree
(e.g
., 5-
gallo
n si
ze) w
ill b
e pl
ante
d on
site
in a
suita
ble
loca
tion
at th
e M
WW
TP/W
est E
nd
prop
erty
.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
reis
in th
e co
nstru
ctio
n sp
ecifi
catio
ns fo
r the
pro
ject
.
2.C
onfir
m th
at tr
ees h
ave
been
repl
aced
1.D
2.D
C
East
Bay
Mun
icip
al U
tility
Dis
tric
tM
ain
Was
tew
ater
Tre
atm
ent P
lant
Lan
d U
se M
aste
r Pla
n EI
RM
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Prog
ram
DR
AFT
Febr
uary
201
1
E-4
EAST
BAY
MUN
ICIP
AL U
TILI
TYDI
STRI
CT L
AND
USE
MAST
ER P
LAN
ENVI
RONM
ENTA
L IM
PACT
REP
ORT
MITI
GATI
ON M
ONIT
ORIN
G AN
D RE
PORT
ING
PROG
RAM
Impa
ct
No.
Impa
ct S
umm
ary
Mitig
atio
n No
.Mi
tigat
ion
Meas
ure
(Exa
ct T
ext)
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng P
rogr
am
Impl
emen
tatio
nan
d Re
porti
ng
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng A
ctio
ns
Impl
emen
tatio
n Sc
hedu
le- D
esig
n (D
)- P
re-C
onst
ruct
ion
(PC)
- Dur
ing
Cons
truct
ion
(C)
- O
pera
tiona
l (O)
Re
spon
sible
Party
Revie
wing
&
Appr
oval
Party
3.5
CU
LTU
RA
L R
ESO
UR
CES
CU
L-1
Pote
ntia
l to
Cau
se a
Sub
stan
tial A
dver
se
Cha
nge
inth
e Si
gnifi
canc
e of
a U
niqu
e A
rcha
eolo
gica
l Res
ourc
e
CU
L-1
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re C
UL
-1: R
ecov
ery
of B
urie
d C
ultu
ral R
esou
rces
If p
revi
ousl
y un
iden
tifie
d cu
ltura
l mat
eria
ls ar
e un
earth
ed d
urin
g co
nstru
ctio
n, E
BM
UD
will
hal
t w
ork
in th
at a
rea
until
a q
ualif
ied
arch
aeol
ogis
t can
ass
ess
the
sign
ifica
nce
of th
e fin
d. P
rehi
stor
ic
mat
eria
ls m
ight
inc
lude
obs
idia
n an
d ch
ert
flake
d-st
one
tool
s (e
.g.,
proj
ectil
e po
ints
, kn
ives
, sc
rape
rs) o
r too
lmak
ing
debr
is; c
ultu
rally
dar
kene
d so
il (“
mid
den”
) con
tain
ing
heat
-aff
ecte
d ro
cks,
ar
tifac
ts, o
r sh
ellfi
sh r
emai
ns;
ston
e m
illin
g eq
uipm
ent
(e.g
., m
orta
rs,
pest
les,
hand
ston
es,
or
mill
ing
slab
s); b
atte
red
ston
e to
ols,
such
as
ham
mer
ston
es a
nd p
itted
sto
nes.
His
toric
-era
mat
eria
ls
mig
ht in
clud
e st
one,
con
cret
e, o
r ado
be f
ootin
gs a
nd w
alls
; fill
ed w
ells
or p
rivie
s; a
nd d
epos
its o
f m
etal
, gla
ss, a
nd/o
r ce
ram
ic r
efus
e. I
f an
y fin
d is
det
erm
ined
to b
e si
gnifi
cant
, EB
MU
D a
nd th
e ar
chae
olog
ist w
ill d
eter
min
e th
e ap
prop
riate
avo
idan
ce m
easu
res
or o
ther
app
ropr
iate
miti
gatio
n.
All
sign
ifica
nt c
ultu
ral
mat
eria
ls re
cove
red
will
be,
as
nece
ssar
y an
d at
the
dis
cret
ion
of t
he
cons
ultin
g ar
chae
olog
ist,
subj
ect
to
scie
ntifi
c an
alys
is,
prof
essi
onal
m
useu
m
cura
tion,
an
d do
cum
enta
tion
acco
rdin
g to
cur
rent
pro
fess
iona
l sta
ndar
ds. I
n co
nsid
erin
g an
y su
gges
ted
mea
sure
s pr
opos
ed b
y th
e co
nsul
ting
arch
aeol
ogis
t in
ord
er t
o m
itiga
te i
mpa
cts
to h
isto
rical
res
ourc
es o
r un
ique
arc
haeo
logi
cal
reso
urce
s, EB
MU
D w
ill d
eter
min
e w
heth
er a
void
ance
is
nece
ssar
y an
d fe
asib
le i
n lig
ht o
f fa
ctor
s su
ch a
s th
e na
ture
of
the
find,
pro
ject
des
ign,
cos
ts,
and
othe
r co
nsid
erat
ions
.
If a
void
ance
is in
feas
ible
, oth
er a
ppro
pria
te m
easu
res
(e.g
., da
ta re
cove
ry) w
ill b
e in
stitu
ted.
Wor
k m
ay p
roce
ed o
n ot
her
parts
of
the
proj
ect
whi
le m
itiga
tion
for
hist
oric
al r
esou
rces
or
uniq
ue
arch
aeol
ogic
al re
sour
ces i
s bei
ng c
arrie
d ou
t.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
reis
in th
e co
nstru
ctio
n sp
ecifi
catio
ns fo
r the
pro
ject
.
2.C
onfir
m th
at a
ny c
ultu
ral r
esou
rces
un
cove
red
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n ar
e tre
ated
in
acc
orda
nce
with
reco
mm
enda
tion
from
a
cons
ultin
g ar
chae
olog
ist
1.D
2.C
CU
L-2
Pote
ntia
l to
Cau
se a
Sub
stan
tial A
dver
se
Cha
nge
inth
e Si
gnifi
canc
e of
a Pa
leon
tolo
gica
l Res
ourc
e
CU
L-2
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re C
UL
-2: R
ecov
ery
of B
urie
d Pa
leon
tolo
gica
l Res
ourc
es
In t
he e
vent
tha
t pa
leon
tolo
gica
l re
sour
ces
are
disc
over
ed,
EBM
UD
will
not
ify a
qua
lifie
d pa
leon
tolo
gist
. The
pal
eont
olog
ist
will
doc
umen
t th
e di
scov
ery
as n
eede
d, e
valu
ate
the
pote
ntia
l re
sour
ce, a
nd a
sses
s th
e si
gnifi
canc
e of
the
find
unde
r th
e cr
iteria
set
for
th in
CEQ
A G
uide
lines
§
1506
4.5.
If a
bre
as1
If E
BM
UD
det
erm
ines
that
avo
idan
ce is
not
feas
ible
, the
pal
eont
olog
ist w
ill p
repa
re a
n ex
cava
tion
plan
for
miti
gatin
g th
e ef
fect
of
the
proj
ect o
n th
e qu
aliti
es th
at m
ake
the
reso
urce
impo
rtant
. The
pl
an w
ill b
e su
bmitt
ed to
EB
MU
D fo
r rev
iew
and
app
rova
l prio
r to
impl
emen
tatio
n.
or o
ther
foss
il is
disc
over
ed d
urin
g co
nstru
ctio
n, e
xcav
atio
ns w
ithin
50
feet
of
the
find
will
be
tem
pora
rily
halte
d or
div
erte
d un
til t
he d
iscov
ery
is ex
amin
ed b
y a
qual
ified
pa
leon
tolo
gist
. Th
e pa
leon
tolo
gist
sha
ll no
tify
the
appr
opria
te a
genc
ies
to d
eter
min
e pr
oced
ures
th
at w
ould
be
follo
wed
bef
ore
cons
truct
ion
is al
low
ed to
resu
me
at th
e lo
catio
n of
the
find.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
reis
in th
e co
nstru
ctio
n sp
ecifi
catio
ns fo
r the
pro
ject
.
2.C
onfir
m th
at a
nypa
leon
tolo
gica
lre
sour
ces u
ncov
ered
dur
ing
cons
truct
ion
are
treat
ed in
acc
orda
nce
with
re
com
men
datio
n fr
om a
con
sulti
ng
pale
onto
logi
st
1.D
2.C
1A
seep
of n
atur
al p
etro
leum
that
has
trap
ped
extin
ct a
nim
als,
thus
pre
serv
ing
and
foss
ilizi
ng th
eir r
emai
ns.
East
Bay
Mun
icip
al U
tility
Dis
tric
tM
ain
Was
tew
ater
Tre
atm
ent P
lant
Lan
d U
se M
aste
r Pla
n EI
RM
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Prog
ram
DR
AFT
Febr
uary
201
1
E-5
EAST
BAY
MUN
ICIP
AL U
TILI
TYDI
STRI
CT L
AND
USE
MAST
ER P
LAN
ENVI
RONM
ENTA
L IM
PACT
REP
ORT
MITI
GATI
ON M
ONIT
ORIN
G AN
D RE
PORT
ING
PROG
RAM
Impa
ct
No.
Impa
ct S
umm
ary
Mitig
atio
n No
.Mi
tigat
ion
Meas
ure
(Exa
ct T
ext)
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng P
rogr
am
Impl
emen
tatio
nan
d Re
porti
ng
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng A
ctio
ns
Impl
emen
tatio
n Sc
hedu
le- D
esig
n (D
)- P
re-C
onst
ruct
ion
(PC)
- Dur
ing
Cons
truct
ion
(C)
- O
pera
tiona
l (O)
Re
spon
sible
Party
Revie
wing
&
Appr
oval
Party
CU
L-3
Pote
ntia
l to
Dis
turb
Hum
an R
emai
ns
CU
L-3
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re C
UL
-3: R
ecov
ery
of D
isco
vere
d H
uman
Rem
ains
In th
e ev
ent h
uman
bur
ials
are
enc
ount
ered
, EB
MU
D w
ill h
alt w
ork
in th
e vi
cini
ty a
nd n
otify
the
Ala
med
a C
ount
y C
oron
er a
nd c
onta
ct a
n ar
chae
olog
ist t
o ev
alua
te th
e fin
d. If
hum
an r
emai
ns a
re
of N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
orig
in,
the
Cor
oner
will
not
ify t
he N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
Her
itage
Com
mis
sion
(N
AH
C) w
ithin
24
hour
s of
this
iden
tific
atio
n. T
he N
AH
C w
ill th
en id
entif
y th
e pe
rson
(s) t
houg
ht
to b
e th
e M
ost
Like
ly D
esce
nden
t of
the
dec
ease
d N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
, w
ho w
ould
the
n he
lp
dete
rmin
e w
hat c
ours
e of
act
ion
shou
ld b
e ta
ken
in d
ealin
g w
ith th
e re
mai
ns.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
reis
in th
e co
nstru
ctio
n sp
ecifi
catio
ns fo
r the
pro
ject
.
2.C
onfir
m th
at a
ny b
uria
lsun
cove
red
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n ar
e tre
ated
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith
reco
mm
enda
tion
from
a c
onsu
lting
ar
chae
olog
istw
ith a
ppro
pria
te
notif
icat
ions
1.D
2.C
3.7
GEO
LOG
YG
EO-1
Fa
cilit
y D
amag
e an
d Ex
posu
re o
fPeo
ple
toH
azar
ds F
rom
Stro
ng S
eism
ic
Gro
unds
haki
ng
GEO
-1
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re G
EO
-1: P
erfo
rm D
esig
n-L
evel
Geo
tech
nica
l Eva
luat
ions
for
Seis
mic
H
azar
ds
Dur
ing
the
desi
gn p
hase
for a
ll ot
her L
and
Use
Mas
ter P
lan
elem
ents
that
requ
ire g
roun
d-br
eaki
ng
activ
ities
, EB
MU
D w
ill p
erfo
rm s
ite-s
peci
fic,
desi
gn-le
vel
geot
echn
ical
eva
luat
ions
to
iden
tify
pote
ntia
l se
cond
ary
grou
nd f
ailu
re h
azar
ds (
i.e.,
seis
mic
ally
-indu
ced
settl
emen
t) as
soci
ated
with
th
e ex
pect
ed l
evel
of
seis
mic
gro
und
shak
ing.
For
spe
cific
Lan
d U
se M
aste
r Pl
an e
lem
ent
site
s w
ithin
the
MW
WTP
tha
t ha
ve p
revi
ousl
y be
en s
ubje
ct t
o a
geot
echn
ical
inv
estig
atio
n, a
ge
otec
hnic
al m
emor
andu
m sh
all b
e pr
epar
ed to
upd
ate
the
prev
ious
inve
stig
atio
n.
The
geot
echn
ical
ana
lysi
s w
ill p
rovi
de r
ecom
men
datio
ns t
o m
itiga
te t
hose
haz
ards
in
the
final
de
sign
and
, if
nece
ssar
y, d
urin
g co
nstru
ctio
n Th
e de
sign
-leve
l geo
tech
nica
l eva
luat
ions
, bas
ed o
n th
e si
te c
ondi
tions
,loc
atio
n, a
nd p
rofe
ssio
nal o
pini
on o
f th
e ge
otec
hnic
al e
ngin
eer,
may
inc
lude
su
bsur
face
dril
ling,
soi
l tes
ting,
and
ana
lysi
s of
site
sei
smic
resp
onse
as
need
ed. T
he g
eote
chni
cal
engi
neer
will
revi
ew th
e se
ism
ic d
esig
n cr
iteria
of f
acili
ties
to e
nsur
e th
atfa
cilit
ies
are
desi
gned
to
with
stan
d th
e hi
ghes
t ex
pect
ed
peak
ac
cele
ratio
n,
set
forth
by
th
e C
BC
fo
r ea
ch
site
. R
ecom
men
datio
ns r
esul
ting
from
fin
ding
s of
the
geot
echn
ical
stu
dy w
ill b
e in
corp
orat
ed in
to th
e de
sign
and
con
stru
ctio
n of
pro
pose
d fa
cilit
ies.
Des
ign
and
cons
truct
ion
for
build
ings
will
be
perf
orm
ed i
n ac
cord
ance
with
EB
MU
D’s
sei
smic
des
ign
stan
dard
s, w
hich
mee
t an
d/or
exc
eed
appl
icab
le d
esig
n st
anda
rds o
f the
Inte
rnat
iona
l Bui
ldin
g C
ode.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.
Con
firm
that
geo
tech
nica
l stu
dies
hav
e be
en c
ondu
cted
as n
eede
d.
2.C
onfir
m th
at a
ny re
com
men
datio
ns fr
om
geot
echn
ical
stud
y ar
e in
clud
ed in
pla
ns
and
spec
ifica
tions
.
3.C
onfir
m th
at c
onst
ruct
ion
is co
nduc
ted
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith sp
ecifi
catio
ns.
1.D
2.D
3.C
GEO
-2
Faci
lity
Dam
age
and
Expo
sure
ofP
eopl
e to
Haz
ards
from
Liq
uefa
ctio
n an
dLa
tera
l Sp
read
ing
GEO
-2
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re G
EO
-2: P
erfo
rm D
esig
n-L
evel
Geo
tech
nica
l Eva
luat
ions
for
Liq
uefa
ctio
n an
d O
ther
Geo
logi
c H
azar
ds
Dur
ing
the
desi
gn p
hase
for a
ll ot
her L
and
Use
Mas
ter P
lan
elem
ents
that
requ
ire g
roun
d-br
eaki
ng
activ
ities
, EB
MU
D w
ill p
erfo
rm si
te-s
peci
fic d
esig
n-le
vel g
eote
chni
cal e
valu
atio
ns to
iden
tify
geol
ogic
haz
ards
and
pro
vide
reco
mm
enda
tions
to m
itiga
te th
ose
haza
rds i
n th
e fin
al d
esig
n an
d du
ring
cons
truct
ion.
For
spec
ific
Land
Use
Mas
ter P
lan
elem
ent s
ites w
ithin
the
MW
WTP
that
ha
ve p
revi
ousl
y be
en su
bjec
t to
a ge
otec
hnic
al in
vest
igat
ion,
a g
eote
chni
cal m
emor
andu
m sh
all b
e pr
epar
ed to
upd
ate
the
prev
ious
inve
stig
atio
n.
The
desi
gn-le
vel g
eote
chni
cal e
valu
atio
ns w
ill in
clud
e th
e co
llect
ion
of su
bsur
face
dat
a fo
r de
term
inin
g liq
uefa
ctio
n po
tent
ial,
and
appr
opria
te fe
asib
le m
easu
res w
ill b
e de
velo
ped
and
inco
rpor
ated
into
the
proj
ect d
esig
n. T
he p
erfo
rman
ce st
anda
rd to
be
used
in th
e ge
otec
hnic
al
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at g
eote
chni
cal s
tudi
es h
ave
been
con
duct
ed a
s nee
ded.
2.C
onfir
m th
at a
ny re
com
men
datio
ns fr
om
geot
echn
ical
stud
y ar
e in
clud
ed in
pla
ns
and
spec
ifica
tions
.
3.C
onfir
m th
at c
onst
ruct
ion
isco
nduc
ted
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith sp
ecifi
catio
ns.
1.D
2.D
3.C
East
Bay
Mun
icip
al U
tility
Dis
tric
tM
ain
Was
tew
ater
Tre
atm
ent P
lant
Lan
d U
se M
aste
r Pla
n EI
RM
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Prog
ram
DR
AFT
Febr
uary
201
1
E-6
EAST
BAY
MUN
ICIP
AL U
TILI
TYDI
STRI
CT L
AND
USE
MAST
ER P
LAN
ENVI
RONM
ENTA
L IM
PACT
REP
ORT
MITI
GATI
ON M
ONIT
ORIN
G AN
D RE
PORT
ING
PROG
RAM
Impa
ct
No.
Impa
ct S
umm
ary
Mitig
atio
n No
.Mi
tigat
ion
Meas
ure
(Exa
ct T
ext)
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng P
rogr
am
Impl
emen
tatio
nan
d Re
porti
ng
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng A
ctio
ns
Impl
emen
tatio
n Sc
hedu
le- D
esig
n (D
)- P
re-C
onst
ruct
ion
(PC)
- Dur
ing
Cons
truct
ion
(C)
- O
pera
tiona
l (O)
Re
spon
sible
Party
Revie
wing
&
Appr
oval
Party
eval
uatio
ns fo
r miti
gatin
g liq
uefa
ctio
n ha
zard
s will
be
min
imiz
atio
n of
the
haza
rds.
Mea
sure
s to
m
inim
ize
sign
ifica
nt li
quef
actio
n ha
zard
s cou
ld in
clud
e th
e fo
llow
ing,
unl
ess t
he si
te-s
peci
fic so
ils
anal
yses
dic
tate
oth
erw
ise:
Den
sific
atio
n or
dew
ater
ing
of su
rfac
eor
subs
urfa
ce so
ils;
Con
stru
ctio
n of
pile
or p
ier f
ound
atio
ns to
supp
ort p
ipel
ines
and
/or b
uild
ings
; and
Rem
oval
of m
ater
ial t
hat c
ould
und
ergo
liqu
efac
tion
in th
e ev
ent o
f an
earth
quak
e, a
nd
repl
acem
ent w
ith st
able
mat
eria
l.
If so
il ne
eds t
o be
impo
rted,
EBM
UD
wou
ld re
quire
that
the
cont
ract
or e
nsur
e th
at su
ch
impo
rted
soil
com
plie
s with
spec
ifica
tions
that
def
ine
the
min
imum
geo
tech
nica
l pr
oper
ties a
nd a
naly
tical
qua
lity
char
acte
ristic
s tha
t mus
t be
met
for u
se o
f fill
mat
eria
l fr
om o
ff-s
ite b
orro
w so
urce
s.
3.8
GR
EEN
HO
USE
GA
S EM
ISSS
ION
SG
HG
-1
Gre
enho
use
Gas
Con
stru
ctio
n Em
issi
ons
GH
G-1
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
GH
G-1
: GH
G R
educ
tion
Mea
sure
s
EBM
UD
sha
ll im
plem
ent B
AA
QM
D-r
ecom
men
ded
Bes
t Man
agem
ent P
ract
ices
(BM
Ps) f
or G
HG
em
issi
ons w
here
feas
ible
, whi
ch in
clud
e th
e fo
llow
ing:
At
leas
t 15
per
cent
of
the
fleet
sho
uld
be a
ltern
ativ
e-fu
eled
(e.
g.,
biod
iese
l, el
ectri
c)
cons
truct
ion
vehi
cles
/equ
ipm
ent.
At l
east
10
perc
ent o
f bui
ldin
g m
ater
ials
shou
ld b
e fr
om lo
cal s
ourc
es.
At l
east
50
perc
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n w
aste
or
dem
oliti
on m
ater
ials
sho
uld
be r
ecyc
led
or
reus
ed.
See
also
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re A
IR-1
: Cri
teri
a A
ir P
ollu
tant
and
Pre
curs
or R
educ
tion
Mea
sure
sabo
ve.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
reis
in th
e co
nstru
ctio
n sp
ecifi
catio
ns fo
r the
pro
ject
.
2.C
onst
ruct
ion
cont
ract
or to
ver
ifyth
at B
MPs
ar
e im
plem
ente
d.
1.D
2.C
GH
G-2
G
reen
hous
e G
as O
pera
tiona
l Em
issi
ons
GH
G-2
a M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
GH
G-2
a: E
nerg
y E
ffic
ienc
y M
easu
res
Mea
sure
s G
HG
2a
and
2b a
pply
to
the
othe
r La
nd U
se M
aste
r Pl
an e
lem
ents
, as
appl
icab
le,
to
redu
ce o
vera
ll G
HG
em
issi
ons.
Dire
ct a
nd in
dire
ct G
HG
em
issi
ons s
hall
be e
stim
ated
bas
ed o
n th
e fin
al p
roje
ct d
esig
n, a
nd e
nerg
y ef
ficie
ncy
mea
sure
s sha
ll be
inco
rpor
ated
into
the
proj
ect a
s nec
essa
ry to
mee
t the
BA
AQ
MD
G
HG
sig
nific
ance
thre
shol
d in
eff
ect a
t the
tim
e of
pro
ject
impl
emen
tatio
n.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at e
mis
sion
s are
est
imat
ed a
nd
effic
ienc
y m
easu
res a
re in
corp
orat
ed.
1.D
GH
G-2
b M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
GH
G-2
b: W
ater
Con
serv
atio
n M
easu
res f
or L
and
Use
Mas
ter
Plan
Pr
ojec
ts
Non
-pot
able
wat
er sh
all b
e us
ed w
here
ver f
easi
ble
for e
quip
men
t and
are
a w
ash
dow
n to
min
imiz
e G
HG
em
issi
ons a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith in
crea
sed
wat
er d
eman
d.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at n
on-p
otab
le w
ater
is u
sed
whe
reve
r fea
sibl
e.1.
O
East
Bay
Mun
icip
al U
tility
Dis
tric
tM
ain
Was
tew
ater
Tre
atm
ent P
lant
Lan
d U
se M
aste
r Pla
n EI
RM
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Prog
ram
DR
AFT
Febr
uary
201
1
E-7
EAST
BAY
MUN
ICIP
AL U
TILI
TYDI
STRI
CT L
AND
USE
MAST
ER P
LAN
ENVI
RONM
ENTA
L IM
PACT
REP
ORT
MITI
GATI
ON M
ONIT
ORIN
G AN
D RE
PORT
ING
PROG
RAM
Impa
ct
No.
Impa
ct S
umm
ary
Mitig
atio
n No
.Mi
tigat
ion
Meas
ure
(Exa
ct T
ext)
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng P
rogr
am
Impl
emen
tatio
nan
d Re
porti
ng
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng A
ctio
ns
Impl
emen
tatio
n Sc
hedu
le- D
esig
n (D
)- P
re-C
onst
ruct
ion
(PC)
- Dur
ing
Cons
truct
ion
(C)
- O
pera
tiona
l (O)
Re
spon
sible
Party
Revie
wing
&
Appr
oval
Party
3.9
HA
ZAR
DS
AN
D H
AZA
RD
OU
S M
ATE
RIA
LSH
AZ-
3 H
azar
ds to
Pub
lic H
ealth
and
the
Envi
ronm
ent d
ue to
a R
elea
se o
f H
azar
dous
Bui
ldin
g M
ater
ials
Pre
sent
in
the
Bui
ldin
gs th
at W
ould
be
Dem
olis
hed
HA
Z-3
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re H
AZ-
3: H
azar
dous
Bui
ldin
g M
ater
ials
Sur
veys
and
Aba
tem
ent
For a
ny b
uild
ing
not a
lread
y su
rvey
ed fo
r lea
d, a
regi
ster
ed e
nviro
nmen
tal a
sses
sor o
r a re
gist
ered
en
gine
er w
ould
per
form
a l
ead-
base
d pa
int s
urve
y fo
r th
e st
ruct
ure
prio
r to
reu
se o
r de
mol
ition
. A
dequ
ate
abat
emen
t pra
ctic
es f
or le
ad-c
onta
inin
g m
ater
ials
, suc
h as
con
tain
men
t and
/or
rem
oval
, w
ould
be
impl
emen
ted
prio
r to
reus
e or
dem
oliti
on o
f ea
ch s
truct
ure
that
incl
udes
lead
-con
tain
ing
mat
eria
ls or
lea
d-ba
sed
pain
t. F
or d
emol
ition
, an
y PC
B-
or D
EHP-
cont
aini
ng e
quip
men
t or
flu
ores
cent
ligh
ts c
onta
inin
g m
ercu
ry v
apor
s wou
ld a
lso
be re
mov
ed a
nd d
ispo
sed
of p
rope
rly.
If r
emov
al o
f a
trans
form
er i
s re
quire
d, E
BM
UD
or
the
owne
r/ope
rato
rw
ould
ret
ain
a qu
alifi
ed
prof
essi
onal
to d
eter
min
e th
e PC
B co
nten
t of t
he tr
ansf
orm
er o
il. F
or re
mov
al, t
he tr
ansf
orm
er o
il w
ould
be
pum
ped
out w
ith a
pum
p tru
ck a
nd a
ppro
pria
tely
rec
ycle
d or
dis
pose
d of
off
site
. Th
e dr
aine
d tra
nsfo
rmer
wou
ld b
e re
used
or d
ispo
sed
of in
acc
orda
nce
with
app
licab
le re
gula
tions
.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at h
azar
dous
mat
eria
ls su
rvey
s ha
ve b
een
cond
ucte
d as
nee
ded.
2.C
onfir
m th
at a
ny re
com
men
datio
ns fr
om
surv
ey a
re in
clud
ed in
pla
ns a
nd
spec
ifica
tions
.
3.C
onfir
m th
at m
ater
ials
are
disp
osed
of
appr
opria
tely
1.D
2.D
3.C
3.10
HY
DR
OLO
GY
- W
ATE
R Q
UA
LITY
HY
D-3
A
ltera
tion
of th
e Ex
istin
g D
rain
age
Patte
rn in
a M
anne
r Whi
ch W
ould
Res
ult
in F
lood
ing
HY
D-3
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re H
YD
-3: P
repa
re a
nd Im
plem
ent a
Com
preh
ensi
ve D
rain
age
Plan
Prio
r to
exp
andi
ng th
e st
orm
wat
er c
olle
ctio
n sy
stem
to tr
eat r
unof
f fr
om th
e W
est E
nd p
rope
rty,
EBM
UD
sha
ll pr
epar
e an
d im
plem
ent a
Com
preh
ensi
ve D
rain
age
Plan
for
the
Land
Use
Mas
ter
Plan
that
inco
rpor
ates
mea
sure
s to
ens
ure
that
the
stor
m d
rain
sys
tem
and
trea
tmen
t cap
acity
are
no
t ex
ceed
ed d
urin
g pe
ak c
ondi
tions
. T
he d
rain
age
plan
sha
ll de
fine
oper
atio
nal
cont
rols
ne
cess
ary
to p
reve
nt fl
oodi
ng o
f the
MW
WTP
hea
dwor
ks a
nd/o
r rel
ease
of s
urfa
ce ru
noff
off
site
.
EBM
UD
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at C
ompr
ehen
sive
Dra
inag
e Pl
an h
as b
een
prep
ared
.
2.C
onfir
m th
at a
ny re
com
men
datio
ns fr
om
plan
are
incl
uded
in p
lans
and
sp
ecifi
catio
ns.
3.C
onfir
m th
at n
eces
sary
impr
ovem
ents
are
co
nstru
cted
1.D
2.D
3.C
HY
D-5
In
unda
tion
Due
to a
Cat
astro
phic
Ts
unam
i or S
eich
eH
YD
-5M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
HY
D-5
: Pre
pare
and
Impl
emen
t a T
suna
mi R
espo
nse
Plan
EBM
UD
sha
ll pr
epar
e an
d im
plem
ent a
Tsu
nam
i Res
pons
e Pl
an fo
r the
MW
WTP
site
that
def
ines
em
erge
ncy
resp
onse
and
coo
rdin
atio
n pr
oced
ures
. Th
e Ts
unam
i R
espo
nse
Plan
sha
ll co
ntai
n in
form
atio
n sp
ecifi
c to
act
ions
tha
t m
ay b
e ne
cess
ary
rela
ted
to r
ecei
pt o
f a
tsun
ami
wat
ch,
war
ning
, or
as
a re
sult
of a
n ac
tual
tsu
nam
i al
ong
the
San
Fran
cisc
o B
ay.
The
first
prio
rity
of
emer
genc
y m
anag
emen
t res
pons
e sh
all b
e th
e pr
otec
tion
of li
fe a
nd p
rope
rty.
EBM
UD
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
atTs
unam
i Res
pons
e Pl
an fo
r th
e M
WW
TP s
ite h
as b
een
prep
ared
and
im
plem
ente
d
1.O
East
Bay
Mun
icip
al U
tility
Dis
tric
tM
ain
Was
tew
ater
Tre
atm
ent P
lant
Lan
d U
se M
aste
r Pla
n EI
RM
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Prog
ram
DR
AFT
Febr
uary
201
1
E-8
EAST
BAY
MUN
ICIP
AL U
TILI
TYDI
STRI
CT L
AND
USE
MAST
ER P
LAN
ENVI
RONM
ENTA
L IM
PACT
REP
ORT
MITI
GATI
ON M
ONIT
ORIN
G AN
D RE
PORT
ING
PROG
RAM
Impa
ct
No.
Impa
ct S
umm
ary
Mitig
atio
n No
.Mi
tigat
ion
Meas
ure
(Exa
ct T
ext)
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng P
rogr
am
Impl
emen
tatio
nan
d Re
porti
ng
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng A
ctio
ns
Impl
emen
tatio
n Sc
hedu
le- D
esig
n (D
)- P
re-C
onst
ruct
ion
(PC)
- Dur
ing
Cons
truct
ion
(C)
- O
pera
tiona
l (O)
Re
spon
sible
Party
Revie
wing
&
Appr
oval
Party
3.12
NO
ISE
NO
I-1
Dis
turb
ance
from
Tem
pora
ry,
Con
stru
ctio
n-R
elat
ed N
oise
Incr
ease
s in
Exce
ss o
f Noi
se O
rdin
ance
NO
I-1
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re N
OI-
1: Im
plem
ent N
oise
Con
trol
s
EBM
UD
’s
Con
stru
ctio
n Sp
ecifi
catio
ns
(013
544-
3.4)
re
quire
co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith
loca
l no
ise
ordi
nanc
es,
and
mea
sure
s th
at s
hall
be e
mpl
oyed
to
mee
t ap
plic
able
City
of
Oak
land
Noi
se
Ord
inan
ce n
oise
lim
its in
clud
e th
e fo
llow
ing:
Pile
driv
ing
activ
ities
and
ope
ratio
n of
oth
er t
ypes
of
impa
ct e
quip
men
t su
ch a
s ja
ckha
mm
ers s
houl
d be
lim
ited
to th
e da
ytim
e ho
urs (
7 a.
m. t
o 7
p.m
. on
wee
kday
s);
If im
pact
pile
driv
ers
mus
t be
used
nea
r th
e ea
ster
n M
WW
TP b
ound
ary,
they
sho
uld
not
be o
pera
ted
for
long
er th
an 1
0 da
ys to
the
exte
nt f
easi
ble.
If
pile
driv
ing
mus
t occ
ur f
or
long
er th
an 1
0 da
ys n
ear
this
bou
ndar
y, s
onic
or
vibr
ator
y pi
le d
river
s sh
ould
be
used
if
feas
ible
; “Q
uiet
” pi
le d
rivin
g te
chno
logy
(su
ch a
s pr
e-dr
illin
g of
pile
s, th
e us
e of
mor
e th
an o
ne
pile
driv
er to
sho
rten
the
tota
l pile
driv
ing
dura
tion)
sho
uld
be e
mpl
oyed
whe
re f
easi
ble
(whe
re g
eote
chni
cal a
nd s
truct
ural
requ
irem
ents
allo
w);
Pi
le d
rivin
g ac
tiviti
es w
ith a
ll co
nstru
ctio
n pr
ojec
ts at
the
MW
WTP
sho
uld
be c
oord
inat
ed
to e
nsur
e th
at th
ese
activ
ities
do
not o
verla
p;
Bes
t ava
ilabl
e no
ise
cont
rol t
echn
ique
s (in
clud
ing
muf
flers
, int
ake
sile
ncer
s, du
cts,
engi
ne
encl
osur
es, a
nd a
cous
tical
ly a
ttenu
atin
g sh
ield
s or
shr
ouds
) will
be
used
for a
ll eq
uipm
ent
and
truck
s as n
eces
sary
; and
If a
ny c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
mus
t occ
ur d
urin
g th
e ni
ghtti
me
hour
s (7
p.m
. to
7 a.
m. o
n w
eekd
ays,
8 p.
m. t
o 9
a.m
. on
wee
kend
s), o
pera
tion
of n
oisi
er ty
pes
of e
quip
men
t sho
uld
be p
rohi
bite
d as
nec
essa
ry to
mee
t ord
inan
ce n
oise
lim
its.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
atm
easu
reis
in th
e co
nstru
ctio
n sp
ecifi
catio
ns fo
r the
pro
ject
.
2.C
onst
ruct
ion
cont
ract
or to
ver
ify th
at
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
com
ply
with
sp
ecifi
catio
ns.
1.D
2.C
NO
I-2
Tem
pora
ry D
istu
rban
ce d
ue to
C
onst
ruct
ion-
Rel
ated
Vib
ratio
nN
OI-
2 M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
NO
I-2:
Impl
emen
t Vib
ratio
n C
ontr
ols
To e
nsur
e th
at a
djac
ent f
reew
ay s
truct
ures
and
fut
ure
com
mer
cial
stru
ctur
es t
o th
e so
uth
are
not
subj
ect t
o co
smet
ic d
amag
e, E
BM
UD
sha
ll en
sure
that
any
futu
re p
ile d
rivin
g ac
tiviti
es a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith M
aste
r Pla
n pr
ojec
ts d
o no
t exc
eed
the
0.2
in/s
ec P
PV th
resh
old
at th
ese
stru
ctur
es. M
easu
res
that
cou
ld b
e em
ploy
ed t
o m
eet
this
perf
orm
ance
sta
ndar
d in
clud
e us
ing
soni
c or
vib
rato
ry p
ile
driv
ers w
here
feas
ible
or p
re-d
rillin
g pi
le h
oles
.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
reis
in th
e co
nstru
ctio
n sp
ecifi
catio
ns fo
rpro
ject
s.
2.C
onst
ruct
ion
cont
ract
or to
ver
ify th
at
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
com
ply
with
sp
ecifi
catio
ns.
1.D
2.C
NO
I-3
Incr
ease
s in
Am
bien
t Noi
se L
evel
s due
to
Ope
ratio
nal N
oise
and
Vib
ratio
nN
OI-
3 M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
NO
I-3:
Em
ploy
Noi
se C
ontr
ols f
or S
tatio
nary
Equ
ipm
ent
EBM
UD
sha
ll us
e be
st a
vaila
ble
nois
e co
ntro
l te
chni
ques
(in
clud
ing
muf
flers
, in
take
sile
ncer
s,
duct
s, en
gine
enc
losu
res,
and
acou
stic
ally
atte
nuat
ing
shie
lds o
r shr
ouds
) as n
eces
sary
on
stat
iona
ry
equi
pmen
t as
soci
ated
with
all
Mas
ter
Plan
pro
ject
s in
ord
er t
o co
mpl
y w
ith a
pplic
able
City
of
Oak
land
Noi
se O
rdin
ance
noi
se li
mits
, adj
uste
d to
refle
ct a
mbi
ent n
oise
leve
ls o
ccur
ring
at th
e tim
e of
pro
ject
im
plem
enta
tion
(und
er 2
010
cond
ition
s, th
e ni
ghtti
me
nois
e lim
it is
54 d
BA [
Leq]
at
rece
ivin
g re
side
ntia
l use
s to
the
east
and
73
dBA
[Le
q] a
t fut
ure
rece
ivin
g co
mm
erci
al u
ses
to th
e so
uth)
.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
reis
in th
e de
sign
pl
ansf
or p
roje
cts.
2.C
onfir
m b
est a
vaila
ble
nois
e co
ntro
l te
chni
ques
are
use
d on
stat
iona
ry
equi
pmen
t.
1.D
2.C
East
Bay
Mun
icip
al U
tility
Dis
tric
tM
ain
Was
tew
ater
Tre
atm
ent P
lant
Lan
d U
se M
aste
r Pla
n EI
RM
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Prog
ram
DR
AFT
Febr
uary
201
1
E-9
EAST
BAY
MUN
ICIP
AL U
TILI
TYDI
STRI
CT L
AND
USE
MAST
ER P
LAN
ENVI
RONM
ENTA
L IM
PACT
REP
ORT
MITI
GATI
ON M
ONIT
ORIN
G AN
D RE
PORT
ING
PROG
RAM
Impa
ct
No.
Impa
ct S
umm
ary
Mitig
atio
n No
.Mi
tigat
ion
Meas
ure
(Exa
ct T
ext)
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng P
rogr
am
Impl
emen
tatio
nan
d Re
porti
ng
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng A
ctio
ns
Impl
emen
tatio
n Sc
hedu
le- D
esig
n (D
)- P
re-C
onst
ruct
ion
(PC)
- Dur
ing
Cons
truct
ion
(C)
- O
pera
tiona
l (O)
Re
spon
sible
Party
Revie
wing
&
Appr
oval
Party
3.14
TRA
NSP
OR
TATI
ON
TRA
-1
Tem
pora
ry C
onst
ruct
ion-
Rel
ated
In
crea
se in
Tra
ffic
TRA
-1
Mea
sure
TR
A-1
: Con
stru
ctio
n T
raff
ic M
anag
emen
t Pla
n
EBM
UD
wou
ld i
mpl
emen
t th
e fo
llow
ing
mea
sure
s du
ring
proj
ect
cons
truct
ion
at t
he l
ocal
in
ters
ectio
ns o
utsi
de th
e M
WW
TP p
rope
rty:
EBM
UD
and
the
cons
truct
ion
cont
ract
or w
ould
coo
rdin
ate
with
the
appr
opria
te C
ity o
f O
akla
nd
agen
cies
to
dete
rmin
e tra
ffic
man
agem
ent
stra
tegi
es t
o re
duce
, to
the
max
imum
ext
ent
feas
ible
, tra
ffic
con
gest
ion
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n of
thi
s pr
ojec
t an
d ot
her
near
by p
roje
cts
that
cou
ld b
e sim
ulta
neou
sly u
nder
con
struc
tion.
EBM
UD
wou
ld d
evel
op a
con
stru
ctio
n m
anag
emen
t pl
an f
or
subm
ittal
to
th
e Pl
anni
ng
and
Zoni
ng
Div
ision
, th
e Bu
ildin
g Se
rvic
es
Div
ision
, an
d th
e Tr
ansp
orta
tion
Serv
ices
Div
isio
n. T
he p
lan
wou
ld i
nclu
de a
t le
ast
the
follo
win
g ite
ms
and
requ
irem
ents
:
a.A
set
of
com
preh
ensi
ve tr
affic
con
trol m
easu
res,
incl
udin
g sc
hedu
ling
of m
ajor
truc
k tri
ps
and
deliv
erie
s to
avoi
d pe
ak tr
affic
hou
rs a
nd d
esig
nate
d co
nstru
ctio
n ac
cess
rout
es;
b.N
otifi
catio
n pr
oced
ures
for a
djac
ent p
rope
rty o
wne
rs a
nd p
ublic
saf
ety
pers
onne
l reg
ardi
ng
whe
n m
ajor
del
iver
ies w
ould
occ
ur; a
ndc.
A p
roce
ss f
or r
espo
ndin
g to
, and
tra
ckin
g, c
ompl
aint
s pe
rtain
ing
to c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ity,
incl
udin
g id
entif
icat
ion
of a
n on
-site
com
plai
nt m
anag
er. T
he m
anag
er s
hall
dete
rmin
e th
e ca
use
of th
e co
mpl
aint
s and
shal
l tak
e pr
ompt
act
ion
to c
orre
ct th
e pr
oble
m.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
reis
in th
e co
nstru
ctio
n sp
ecifi
catio
nsfo
r the
pro
ject
.
2.C
onst
ruct
ion
cont
ract
or to
ver
ify
com
plia
nce
with
com
preh
ensi
ve tr
affic
co
ntro
l mea
sure
s.
1.D
2.C
TRA
-7
Safe
ty H
azar
ds D
ue to
Con
flict
s with
R
ail T
rans
port
TRA
-7a
Mea
sure
TR
A-7
a: R
ailr
oad
Cro
ssin
g Sa
fety
for
New
Rai
l Spu
r
EBM
UD
sha
ll in
stal
l pav
emen
t mar
king
s an
d w
arni
ng s
igns
alo
ng E
ngin
eers
Roa
d w
here
the
new
ra
il sp
ur w
ould
cro
ss to
ent
er th
e in
tern
al d
rivew
ayfo
r the
bio
dies
el p
rodu
ctio
n fa
cilit
y. P
avem
ent
mar
king
s an
d w
arni
ng s
igns
sha
ll co
nfor
m t
o st
anda
rds
set
forth
in
the
Cal
iforn
iaM
anua
l on
U
nifo
rm T
rans
port
atio
n D
evic
es(C
altra
ns 2
010)
.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
reis
in th
e co
nstru
ctio
n sp
ecifi
catio
nsfo
r the
pro
ject
.
2.C
onfir
m th
at m
arki
ngs a
nd s
igns
hav
e be
en in
stal
led.
1.D
2.C
TRA
-7b
Mea
sure
TR
A-7
b: C
oord
inat
ion
with
Bur
lingt
on N
orth
ern
Sant
a Fe
(BN
SF)
EBM
UD
and
its
rai
l co
ntra
ctor
(s)
shal
l w
ork
with
BN
SF d
urin
g th
e de
sign
pha
se t
o ob
tain
the
ne
cess
ary
perm
its a
nd c
onst
ruct
ion
appr
oval
sfo
rth
e ra
il sp
ur a
nd c
onne
ctio
n w
ith t
he e
xist
ing
BN
SF ra
il lin
e.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
1.
Con
firm
pro
per B
SNF
perm
its a
nd
cons
truct
ion
appr
oval
s are
obt
aine
d.
1.D
3.15
UTI
LITI
ESU
TIL-
1 Ex
ceed
Was
tew
ater
Tre
atm
ent
Req
uire
men
ts o
f the
San
Fra
ncis
co B
ay
Reg
iona
l Wat
er Q
ualit
y C
ontro
l Boa
rd
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re H
YD
-3:P
repa
re a
nd Im
plem
ent a
Com
preh
ensi
ve D
rain
age
Plan
abov
e.
UTI
L-3
Req
uire
Con
stru
ctio
n of
New
St
orm
wat
er D
rain
age
Faci
litie
s or
Expa
nsio
n of
Exi
stin
g Fa
cilit
ies
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re H
YD
-3:P
repa
re a
nd Im
plem
ent a
Com
preh
ensi
ve D
rain
age
Plan
ab
ove.
East
Bay
Mun
icip
al U
tility
Dis
tric
tM
ain
Was
tew
ater
Tre
atm
ent P
lant
Lan
d U
se M
aste
r Pla
n EI
RM
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Prog
ram
DR
AFT
Febr
uary
201
1
E-10
EAST
BAY
MUN
ICIP
AL U
TILI
TYDI
STRI
CT L
AND
USE
MAST
ER P
LAN
ENVI
RONM
ENTA
L IM
PACT
REP
ORT
MITI
GATI
ON M
ONIT
ORIN
G AN
D RE
PORT
ING
PROG
RAM
Impa
ct
No.
Impa
ct S
umm
ary
Mitig
atio
n No
.Mi
tigat
ion
Meas
ure
(Exa
ct T
ext)
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng P
rogr
am
Impl
emen
tatio
nan
d Re
porti
ng
Moni
torin
g an
d Re
porti
ng A
ctio
ns
Impl
emen
tatio
n Sc
hedu
le- D
esig
n (D
)- P
re-C
onst
ruct
ion
(PC)
- Dur
ing
Cons
truct
ion
(C)
- O
pera
tiona
l (O)
Re
spon
sible
Party
Revie
wing
&
Appr
oval
Party
UTI
L-6
Tem
pora
ry D
isru
ptio
n of
Util
ities
or
Serv
ices
Due
to C
onst
ruct
ion-
Rel
ated
A
ctiv
ities
UTI
L-6
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re U
TIL
-6 C
oord
inat
e R
eloc
atio
n an
d In
terr
uptio
ns o
f Ser
vice
with
Util
ity
Prov
ider
s Dur
ing
Con
stru
ctio
nTh
e co
nstru
ctio
n co
ntra
ctor
will
be
requ
ired
to v
erify
the
nat
ure
and
loca
tion
of u
nder
grou
nd
utili
ties
befo
re th
e st
art o
f any
con
stru
ctio
n th
at w
ould
requ
ire e
xcav
atio
n. T
he c
ontra
ctor
will
be
requ
ired
to n
otify
and
coo
rdin
ate
with
pub
lic a
nd p
rivat
e ut
ility
pro
vide
rs a
t lea
st 4
8 ho
urs
befo
re
the
com
men
cem
ent o
f w
ork
adja
cent
to a
ny u
tility
. Th
e co
ntra
ctor
will
be
requ
ired
to n
otify
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
in a
dvan
ce o
f ser
vice
inte
rrup
tions
to a
llow
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
suf
ficie
nt ti
me
to
notif
y cu
stom
ers.
The
cont
ract
or w
ill b
e re
quire
d to
coo
rdin
ate
timin
g of
int
erru
ptio
ns w
ith t
he
serv
ice
prov
ider
s to
min
imiz
e th
e fr
eque
ncy
and
dura
tion
of in
terr
uptio
ns.
EBM
UD
(MP)
EBM
UD
/BD
O
wne
r (B
D)
EBM
UD
/FW
O
wne
r (FW
)
EBM
UD
1.C
onfir
m th
at m
easu
reis
in th
e co
nstru
ctio
n sp
ecifi
catio
nsfo
r the
pro
ject
.
2.C
onst
ruct
ion
cont
ract
or to
ver
ify
coor
dina
tion
with
pub
lic a
nd p
rivat
e ut
ility
pr
ovid
ers t
o lo
cate
and
iden
tify
unde
rgro
und
utili
ties.
3.C
onst
ruct
ion
cont
ract
or to
ver
ify
coor
dina
tion
with
pub
lic a
nd p
rivat
e ut
ility
pr
ovid
ers a
t lea
st 4
8 ho
urs b
efor
e th
e co
mm
ence
men
t of w
ork
adja
cent
to a
ny
utili
ty.
1.D
2.PC
3.C
Not
es: M
P –
Lan
d U
se M
aste
r Pla
n, F
W –
Foo
d W
aste
Pre
proc
essi
ng F
acilit
y, B
D –
Bio
dies
el F
acilit
y
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE MAIN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
LAND USE MASTER PLAN
SCH No. 2009112073
For Modified Biodiesel Project
Prepared by: East Bay Municipal Utility District
with
September 2017
2
Table of Contents 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1.1 Addendum Overview .............................................................................................................. 3 1.1.2 Background/Need for Project .................................................................................................. 3 1.1.3 Purpose of Project .................................................................................................................. 7 1.1.4 Change in Production Capacity .............................................................................................. 8 1.1.5 Construction – Rail Spur Earthwork Changes ........................................................................ 9 1.1.6 Construction - Demolition Changes ........................................................................................ 9 1.1.7 Biodiesel Production Process ............................................................................................... 11 1.1.8 Operational Air Emissions from Stationary Sources ............................................................. 12 1.1.9 Permits/Approvals Required ................................................................................................. 14 1.1.10 CEQA Process/Addendum Requirements ............................................................................ 14
2. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ..................................................................................................................... 17
2.1.1. Environmental Determination................................................................................................ 37
3. REPORT PREPARATION ................................................................................................................................ 38
3.1. Report Authors ...................................................................................................................... 38 3.1.1. East Bay Municipal Utility District .......................................................................................... 38 3.1.2. RMC Water and Environment ............................................................................................... 38 3.2. References ........................................................................................................................... 38
List of Tables Table 1: Comparison of Modified Project to Original Project ................................................................................. 8 Table 2: Off-Site Construction Air Emissions Changes, 2011 EIR versus Modified Biodiesel Project ............. 9 Table 3: Operational Air Emissions Changes, 2011 EIR versus Modified Biodiesel Project ........................... 13 Table 4: Permits and Approvals .............................................................................................................................. 14 List of Figures Figure 1 – Modified Biodiesel Project Site Layout ................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 – Original Project Site Layout (2011 EIR) ................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3 – Comparison of 2011 EIR Project Area and Modified Biodiesel Project ............................................. 7 Figure 4 – Pre- and Post-Demolition Aerial View of the Project Site .................................................................. 10 Figure 5 – Biodiesel Production Process Flow Diagram ...................................................................................... 11 List of Appendices Appendix A - Applicable Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Measures from 2011 EIR ……………………..39
3
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Overview
The East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) is leasing land to a private company to develop a biodiesel production facility at the Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP) in Oakland, California. This project is a minor modification to the biodiesel production facility described in the MWWTP Land Use Master Plan Environmental Impact Report.
Purpose and Need for Project
1.1.1 Addendum Overview
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”) and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Title 14, chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”), this Addendum to the MWWTP Land Use Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, certified by the EBMUD on June 28, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “2011 EIR”), has been prepared to address implementation of a modified biodiesel production project (Modified Biodiesel Project) to be located at the same location as the planned biodiesel production facility evaluated at a project level in the 2011 EIR.
1.1.2 Background/Need for Project
On June 28, 2011, EBMUD, acting as Lead Agency under CEQA, certified the 2011 EIR, which describes and evaluates the overall MWWTP Land Use Master Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Master Plan”), and evaluates two near-term projects at a project level: a biodiesel production facility and a food waste preprocessing facility. As described in the 2011 EIR, the Land Use Master Plan evaluated the development of a biodiesel production facility, implemented by leasing unused land at the MWWTP to a private biodiesel company. The private company will design, construct, and operate the facility and manage the sale of the biodiesel product. The original concept for the biodiesel production facility involved demolition of buildings on the existing land, construction of a process building to house the production equipment, and construction of several storage tanks for storing feedstocks, process chemicals, wastewater, and finished product. The Modified Biodiesel Project uses a similar biodiesel production process, but utilizes several modular, truck-mounted process equipment and storage skids that can be installed onsite with less construction activity than would be required for the permanent buildings and tanks. The process will use the same proposed feedstocks and produce the same finished product. The glycerin byproduct will no longer be transported exclusively to EBMUD for digestion and conversion to biogas at the MWWTP. The private company will instead sell the glycerin byproduct to be upgraded for other uses. All facilities developed as part of the Modified Biodiesel Project would fall within the geographic area analyzed in the 2011 EIR. The proposed site layout for the Modified Biodiesel Project is shown in Figure 1, and is similar to the project site designated in the 2011 EIR (Figure 2), with some modifications to the specific area set aside for the biodiesel production facilities. The additional area in the Modified Biodiesel Project in comparison to the 2011 EIR will allow for additional truck access within the site, and the rail spur on the south side of the project site.
4
The two project areas are shown in Figure 3, with the latest Modified Biodiesel Project area overlaid on the original 2011 EIR site project area. Two buildings on the project site have been demolished since the 2011 EIR and one building (Building 1070) that had been slated for demolition in the 2011 EIR will now remain and be converted to office space for the biodiesel production facility.
5
Figure 1 – Modified Biodiesel Project Site Layout
6
Figure 2 – Original Project Site Layout (2011 EIR)
7
Figure 3 – Comparison of 2011 EIR Project Area and Modified Biodiesel Project
1.1.3 Purpose of Project
The purpose of the biodiesel production facility is the same as in the 2011 EIR: the facility addresses EBMUD’s objective to enhance revenues in order to maintain reasonable rates by growing its successful resource recovery program through an increase in renewable energy production and land leases of unused land.
Description of Modified Project
The Modified Biodiesel Project includes equipment and facilities to produce biodiesel from feedstocks delivered to the site via truck and rail. The key differences between the 2011 EIR project and the current Modified Biodiesel Project are shown in Table 1 below.
8
Table 1: Comparison of Modified Project to Original Project
Item Original Project Modified Biodiesel Project
Purpose
Enhance EBMUD revenues in order to maintain reasonable rates by increasing renewable energy production and leasing unused land.
No change.
Facilities
One 140-ft by 110-ft building housing process equipment, one 40-ft by 100-ft administration/office building, 26 storage tanks (total quantity 403,000 gallons), truck loading and unloading stations, and rail spur for train loading and unloading.
Three 110-ft by 65-ft 5 mgy biodiesel production units, 322-ft by 46-ft storage tank array (34 portable storage tanks, total quantity 367,000 gallons), methanol staging area, truck unloading rack and weight scale and rail spur for train loading and unloading.
Administration and offices will be contained within existing buildings.
Demolition Demolish all three buildings on the site of the biodiesel facility.
Two buildings have now been demolished, and one will remain (Building 1070).
Biodiesel Production Process
Transesterification of triglycerides in fats and oils with methanol, using a base catalyst. A single 12 million British thermal unit per hour (MMBtu/hr) will be utilized for process heating.
Enzyme-based transesterification process, with the base catalyst method used as a back-up when the enzyme process doesn’t meet production targets. Three 5 MMBtu/hr boilers will be utilized, one per process skid, for a total of 15 MMBtu/hr.
Production Capacity Ultimate capacity of 20 million gallons per year (mgy) of biodiesel Capacity of 15 mgy
Feedstock Virgin oil (soy or other vegetable oil), yellow grease (waste cooking oil), or animal fats.
Same, with emphasis on obtaining commercial yellow greases and brown grease.
Feedstock/ Product Delivery and Offtake
By truck or by rail (if possible) No change; rail spur is included in the project.
Waste Glycerin Production 14,400 gallons per day (GPD)
14,400 gallons per day maximum, although projected to be lower, 1,200 to 6,100 gpd, due to enzymatic process as primary production method
Waste Glycerin Use Delivery to EBMUD digesters for conversion to biogas. Sell excess glycerin on the open market.
Project Site Area 2.7 acres
4.0 acres. The additional 1.3 acres was originally slated for parking and potential long term projects that will be reconfigured within the MWWTP boundary to accommodate the Modified Biodiesel Project
1.1.4 Change in Production Capacity
The Modified Biodiesel Project includes a reduction in capacity from the previously described 20 MGY production capacity, to 15 MGY. The developer of the facility has concluded that the 15 MGY facility would have to show consistent positive cash flow before consideration of an
9
expansion of the capacity to 20 MGY. It is not known if and when an expansion may occur, therefore it is not possible to know the technology and impacts of the expansion as the industry is likely to evolve considerably. The expansion is also subject to unrelated activities including other business priorities and various market forces. Because of this uncertainty and question on timing, the expansion of the facility from 15 to 20 MGY would be speculative, and an accurate description of those expanded facilities is not possible. If the facility were to consider an expansion, additional environmental analysis would be required in the future. This Modified Biodiesel Project description is based on a maximum capacity of 15 MGY for the purposes of this analysis.
1.1.5 Construction – Rail Spur Earthwork Changes
The Modified Biodiesel Project includes construction of a rail spur, which was also part of the 2011 EIR Project. Construction of the rail spur for the Modified Biodiesel Project would require removal of 5,800 cubic yard (cy) of soil and placement of 5,800 cy of stone/base rock to replace the removed soil. The 2011 EIR assumed removal of 1,500 cy of material. The overall emissions associated with on-site construction work are not expected to increase because the installation of modular facilities for the Modified Diesel Project requires less equipment than the 2011 EIR Project. There would no longer be a need for pile driving, gravel placement or cement laying. There would, however, be additional hauling required which would potentially change the off-site construction emissions. To assess whether emissions would increase substantially, the emissions from haul trucks associated with the Modified Biodiesel Project were calculated using CalEEMod emissions estimator model (Version 2016.3.1). As shown in Table 2, even though additional hauling would be required, because haul truck emissions would be spread out over a longer time period and diesel truck emissions have been reduced since 2011 , the daily emissions would actually be reduced with the Modified Biodiesel Project. The Modified Biodiesel Project would not result in a new significant impact associated with construction emissions, and the severity of the impact would not increase. Table 2: Off-Site Construction Air Emissions Changes, 2011 EIR versus Modified Biodiesel Project
Modified Biodiesel Project Calculated Emissions Levels
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day) Stationary Sources
0.04 1.22 0.20 0 0.08 0.04
Average Daily Emissions from 2011 EIR
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2011 EIR 20-MGY Plant Average Daily Emissions (ppd) Stationary
0.17 2.71 0.88 0 0.23 0.19
Criteria – 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Significance Thresholds
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day) Stationary Sources
54 54 - - 82 54
1.1.6 Construction - Demolition Changes
The 2011 EIR assumed that construction of the biodiesel production facility would require demolition of three buildings and several smaller structures prior to construction. Since the 2011
10
EIR, two of those buildings have been demolished to clear space for a future biodiesel production facility. Also, the third building (Building 1070) that previously was identified as needing demolition will now remain and be used for administration and office space for the Modified Biodiesel Project. Figure 3 illustrates the location of the demolished buildings and Building 1070.
Figure 4 – Pre- and Post-Demolition Aerial View of the Project Site
Because the buildings have already been demolished and Building 1070 will remain, the peak construction phase air quality emissions will change, such that only emissions associated with earthwork, as described in the previous section will occur during the construction of the Modified Biodiesel project. Those emissions are estimated in Section 1.3.2.
11
1.1.7 Biodiesel Production Process
The process for producing biodiesel in the 2011 EIR was described as a transesterification of glycerides with methanol, in the presence of a base catalyst. This process will remain an option for the Modified Biodiesel Project, and the chemicals required to facilitate this process will be stored on site for that purpose. That process is illustrated in Figure 4 below.
Figure 5 – Biodiesel Production Process Flow Diagram
Feedstocks can include brown grease, yellow grease (from waste cooking oil), animal fats, or virgin oil from plants (such as soy). Note that Viridis plans to use predominately brown grease, yellow grease and possibly inedible tallow. The primary reaction products are biodiesel and glycerin (also referred to as glycerol).
The difference between the 2011 EIR and the Modified Biodiesel Project is that the updated facility features an enzymatic transesterification process. This enzymatic process uses feedstocks that have not traditionally been used for biodiesel production. Employing enzymatic technology efficiently converts feedstocks to biodiesel with no acids, sodium/potassium methylate or sulfuric acid. All other systems deployed at the facility are standard in the industry and the same as described in the 2011 EIR.
The advantage of the enzymatic process is that it has no chemical discharge and waste water, due to the fact that there is no need for water washing. The process simultaneously performs esterification and transesterification for free fatty acids (FFA) and triglyceride, respectively.
The biodiesel production process includes waste oil pretreatment (filtration), transesterification, biodiesel separation and purification, and recovery of glycerin and methanol. The process facilities and tank farm for feedstock and product storage would be constructed by the biodiesel facility owner/operator.
The enzymatic transesterification process consists of two reactors: a primary reactor and a trim reactor. The alcohol reactant (methanol), oil and inert solvent are mixed well before being fed into the primary reactor. The reactor outlet is connected to an evaporator, where the unreacted alcohol, inert solvent, and water are evaporated. The residual unreacted oil, biodiesel and glycerol are then separated into two liquid layers. The upper layer is crude biodiesel and the lower layer is crude glycerol, which contains a trace amount of methanol.
12
Potential waste streams include water, which would be evaporated as distilled vapor, and small amounts of polishing resins used to remove impurities from biodiesel, which would be sent to a Subtitle D municipal landfill at the end of useful life.
The steps of the biodiesel production process for the Modified Biodiesel Project are summarized below:
• Waste Oil Pretreatment may be required to remove moisture and other impurities if certain waste oils are used as a feedstock. Processes may include filtration, heating, centrifugation and decanting.
• Feedstock and methanol is premixed and put into enzymatic reactor. Transesterification and esterification occur in one step.
- Acid Esterification/Transesterification converts the free fatty acids to biodiesel through the use of enzymatic dosing.
• Following enzymatic conversion, material sent to centrifuge to split into two layers. - Crude biodiesel, minor amounts of unreacted glycerides and FFA - Crude glycerin
• Glycerin sent to storage tank • Biodiesel is run through esterification unit to remove any metals/cations • Methanol and water recovered from flash evaporation, separated in a distillation column
and then sent to their respective storage. - Methanol is recovered and recycled back into the process, leading to savings on
chemical costs and eliminating disposal requirements. • Biodiesel run through a polishing resins unit to reduce any remaining FFA. • Transesterified oil and esterified FFAs are PH balanced • Biodiesel distilled to purify product and remove any residual metals or sulfur. • Finished product is moved to storage tank
1.1.8 Operational Air Emissions from Stationary Sources
The operational air emissions from the updated Modified Biodiesel Project facility were estimated based on the proposed facility and process. The original project description assumed a 12 MMBtu/hr boiler for heating demand for a 20-mgy biodiesel facility, while the current estimated heating demand is 15 MMBtu/hr for the 15-mgy facility. As a result of the increase in heat demand, the related operational air emissions have changed. Table 3 shows a comparison of the calculated air emissions from stationary sources in the 2011 EIR versus the Modified Biodiesel Project.
13
Table 3: Operational Air Emissions Changes, 2011 EIR versus Modified Biodiesel Project
Modified Biodiesel Project Calculated Emissions Levels
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day) Stationary Sources
43.0 4.9 12.2 11.6 29.5 29.5
Maximum Annual Emissions (tons per year) Stationary Sources
7.8
0.9 2.2 2.1 5.4 5.4
Average Daily Emissions from 2011 EIR
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2011 EIR 20-MGY Plant Average Daily Emissions (ppd) Stationary
33 4 11 10 26 26
Maximum Annual Emissions (tons per year) Stationary Sources
6.0
0.7 1.8 1.7 4.3 4.3
Criteria – 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Significance Thresholds
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day) Stationary Sources
54 54 - - 82 54
Maximum Annual Emissions (tons per year) Stationary Sources
10
10 - - 15 10
The estimated operational air emissions from stationary sources have somewhat increased for all criteria pollutants, however in all cases, the estimated emissions are still below the 2010 BAAQMD significance thresholds that were used in the 2011 EIR. Therefore, this project would not result in significant air impacts.
14
1.1.9 Permits/Approvals Required
Table 4 summarizes the potential permits and approvals necessary to implement the Modified Biodiesel Project.
Table 4: Permits and Approvals
Agency Type of Approval
STATE Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Permit for Hazardous Waste Storage (Flammable Wastes) Approval for placement of any soils from the West End property outside of the property boundary Approval for excavation or disturbance of any soil on the West End property deeper than 5 feet below ground surface
LOCAL Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
Authority to Construct Permit to Operate Clearance for Asbestos Removal
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial Permit for Stormwater Waste Discharge Requirements (for reuse of treated wastewater)
City of Oakland Building Permit Electrical Permit(s) Plumbing Permit(s) Mechanical Permit(s)
Oakland Fire Department Hazardous Materials Business Plan Port of Oakland Development Permit Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF)
Railroad Encroachment Permit
East Bay Municipal Utility District Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit
1.1.10 CEQA Process/Addendum Requirements
This Addendum to the MWWTP Land Use Master Plan EIR has been prepared to evaluate the potential effects of implementing the Modified Biodiesel Project. This Addendum is in the format of an environmental checklist, considering whether the Modified Biodiesel Project meets any of the triggers for subsequent or supplemental review contained in Public Resources Code 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
15
Pursuant to Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines: “A lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.”
The conditions in Section 15162 include the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.
This Addendum provides a focused review of the potential environmental impacts of the Modified Biodiesel Project. This Addendum has been prepared because it has been determined (1) that the Modified Biodiesel Project would not create any new or more significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the 2011 EIR, and (2) that the Modified Biodiesel Project would not require any new mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Specifically,
Implementation of the Modified Biodiesel Project does not constitute a substantial change as compared to the 20-mgy biodiesel production facility evaluated in the 2011 EIR. The Modified Biodiesel Project does not require major revisions to the 2011 EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Environmental effects of the Project are discussed in Section 2.1, Environmental Analysis Checklist for the Project. Impacts in each issue area were characterized and compared to the impacts of the 20-mgy project, and there are no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts. There have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the 2011 EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The City of Oakland has realigned Wake Avenue and work is expected to be completed in fall 2017. The Wake Avenue realignment would not worsen any of the environmental effects of the Modified Biodiesel Project, as compared with impacts of the biodiesel production facility. No new information of substantial importance became apparent as a result of the proposal to implement the Modified Biodiesel Project. The Project will not have significant effects not discussed in the 2011 EIR nor will it result in significant effects that were previously examined but would be substantially more severe than those identified in the 2011 EIR.
16
Please refer to the discussion of each issue in the checklist in Section 2.1, which documents that there are no new or substantially more severe impacts. The Modified Biodiesel Project does not increase the feasibility of mitigation measures previously found to be infeasible, and there are no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that EBMUD has declined to adopt. In approving the Master Plan, EBMUD adopted all of the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR, and did not find any of the recommended measures to be infeasible. Thus, there are no mitigation measures that were previously found to be infeasible. Project alternatives evaluated in the 2011 EIR all involved different configurations of the biodiesel facility. Implementation of the Modified Biodiesel Project would not affect the feasibility of the various options for implementation of the biodiesel facility.
Because the criteria in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 (a) do not apply here, an addendum to the 2011 EIR has been prepared, and will be considered, along with the 2011 EIR, prior to EBMUD making any further approvals of the Modified Biodiesel Project.
17
2. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title: Biodiesel Production Facility (Modified Biodiesel Project)
2. Project Sponsor’s Name & Address: East Bay Municipal Utility District 375 Eleventh Street, MS702 Oakland, CA 94607-4240 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Alicia Chakrabarti
(510) 287-2059 4. Project Location: Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP)
site located at 2020 Wake Avenue, in Oakland, CA. 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial/Transportation 6. Zoning: General Industrial 7. Description of Project: EBMUD has leased land on its property for a private company to
develop a biodiesel production facility. The private company will construct the facility, consisting of modular truck-mounted equipment and storage skids, with an ultimate capacity of 15 mgy. The private company will also construct an associated rail spur to facilitate deliveries of feedstock and chemicals, and transportation of the finished product and waste products.
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The MWWTP is located in an industrial area that is
separated from nearby land uses by freeway ramps/approaches to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to the north, west, and east, and by vacant land, rail lines and warehouse structures associated with the former Oakland Army Base to the east and south. San Francisco Bay is north of the Bay Bridge approach. The nearest residential land uses are to the east of Interstate 880 (I-880), about ¼ mile from the eastern boundary of the MWWTP and more than ½ mile from the proposed site for the Modified Project.
9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement): The Modified Biodiesel Project would require a permit for storage of hazardous waste (flammable wastes), notification to and approval from DTSC prior to breaking ground on any construction, an Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate from the BAAQMD, clearance for asbestos removal from the BAAQMD (if necessary), Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) from the City of Oakland Fire Department, a NPDES Industrial Permit for Stormwater and Waste Discharge Requirement permit from the San Francisco RWQCB, and industrial wastewater discharge permit from EBMUD, a Development Permit from the Port of Oakland, and relevant City of Oakland Building Permits (including building permit, electrical permits, plumbing permits, and mechanical permits).
18
Environmental Analysis Checklist for Modified Project
The following Environmental Analysis Checklist (Checklist) has been prepared to determine if the Final EIR for the EBMUD MWWTP Land Use Master Plan (2011 EIR) adequately addresses impacts of the Modified Biodiesel Project. The Checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier evaluation contained in the 2011 EIR pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
1. Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 3.2-4 No No No N/A b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway?
3.2-4 No No No N/A
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 3.2-5 No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measures
AES-2a and AES-2b d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 3.2-7 No No No N/A
Discussion: The Modified Biodiesel Project would be in the same general location as the biodiesel facility evaluated in the 2011 EIR, and similar in scale. In order to accommodate better truck access, the Modified Biodiesel Project would occupy a somewhat larger site (4.0 acres versus 2.7 acres) within EBMUD’s MWWTP property. Process equipment will be on modular, truck-mounted skids and will be located on outdoor asphalt, rather than inside a building, as described in the 2011 EIR. Storage tanks will also be truck-mounted storage tanks. The facility will include a 60-ft high distillation column and a 54-ft high methanol/water flash evaporation column, which are somewhat taller than facilities described for the biodiesel production facility in the 2011 EIR, but similar in height to other structures described in the 2011 EIR and the subsequent June 2015 Addendum for the Modified Food Waste Project, and similar in height to existing structures at the MWWTP. The site is not a visually sensitive area, and as noted on page 3.2-2 of the 2011 EIR, the site is only visible briefly to passing motorists, primarily on local freeways. The MWWTP and other properties in the project vicinity already use nighttime security lighting, and the general area is substantially lighted at night. The elements of the Modified Biodiesel Project would be similar to those evaluated in the 2011 EIR, including process equipment, truck and rail deliveries, storage tanks, piping, and other auxiliary structures. In addition, the Modified Biodiesel Project would be subject to Mitigation Measure AES-2b: Design of Facilities to be Aesthetically Consistent with Existing Visual Character, which would ensure that the facility would blend with surrounding facilities. Any lighting used for the Modified Project would be subject to
19
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
Mitigation Measure AES-3: Lighting Design and Low Reflective Paint, which would ensure that new lighting is shielded and directed to the interior of the project site. Visual impacts would thus be expected to be the same or less than those evaluated in the 2011 EIR. 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
3.1-2 No No No N/A
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 3.1-2 No No No N/A
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g))?
NA No No No N/A
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? NA No No No N/A
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
3.1-2 No No No N/A
Discussion: The Modified Biodiesel Project is located in an urban area that contains no agricultural or forest lands. The Notice of Preparation for the 2011 EIR was issued in 2009, before the CEQA Guidelines were revised to add criteria for impacts to forest lands to the CEQA Checklist. Forest lands were thus not addressed in the 2011 EIR, but facilities at the MWWTP would have no impact on forest lands.
20
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
3. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan? 3.3-37 No No No N/A
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
3.3-11 et seq. & 3.3-18 et seq.
No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure AIR-1
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
4-14 No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure AIR-5
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 3.3-14 et seq. & 3.3-30 et seq.
No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure AIR-5
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 3.3-35 et seq. No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measures
AIR-6a and AIR-6b Discussion: Emissions. Updated modeling of emissions of criteria pollutants associated with use of haul trucks during construction was conducted for the Modified Biodiesel Project and it was determined that daily emissions would be somewhat less than those identified in the 2011 EIR. Updated estimates of soil offhaul and delivery of replacement base rock show that more truck trips are needed to complete construction for the rail spur of the Modified Biodiesel Project, but daily emissions would actually be reduced because number of daily truck trips would be similar and because of diesel engine improvements, truck emissions are less than they were in 2011. Mitigation Measures for construction would be applicable to the Modified Biodiesel Project, which would ensure that construction would not generate substantial emissions, and would not result in a cumulative impact when combined with other potential construction projects in the area, which would also be required to implement BAAQMD mitigation measures (BAAQMD 1999). Short-term construction emissions would be considered cumulatively less than significant given that projects in the area would implement measures to minimize construction emissions (City of Oakland 2012).
21
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
Operational mobile source emissions from vehicle traffic would be slightly less than those estimated in the 2011 EIR, due to change in facility capacity from 20 mgy to 15 mgy. The lower capacity facility will have fewer associated feedstock and product deliveries than the original project, and therefore 25% fewer truck or train deliveries will occur—a reduction on the order of 4 fewer total truck trips per day. In addition, improvements in truck engine technology over the last six years, emissions factors are expected to be lower and therefore the criteria pollutant emissions would be the same or possibly lower due to the small number of truck trips. Glycerin produced at the facility will no longer necessarily be hauled to the MWWTP, and therefore the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by those haul trucks could potentially be greater on a per trip basis for glycerin hauling. However, that change is not likely to result in greater overall VMT for mobile operations because the Modified Biodiesel Project is now estimated to produce less volume of glycerin even for the same capacity facility (20 mgy) based on updated engineering estimates for the enzymatic process--14,400 gpd in the 2011 EIR versus current estimates of 1,200 to 6,100 gpd for a 20 mgy facility. In addition to that, the actual capacity will now be 15 mgy, further reducing the volume of glycerin produced. The glyercin is now anticipated to be sold on the open market, and the buyers’ locations will not be known, and could change over time. Regardless, the number of overall truck trips and resulting VMT is expected to be smaller due to the reduction in facility capacity from 20 mgy to 15 mgy and the change to an enzymatic biodiesel production process. Operational stationary source emissions will be somewhat more than estimated as part of the 2011 EIR, as a result of utilizing higher total capacity of boilers (15 MMBTU/hr versus 12 MMBTU/hr) than the 2011 EIR (Viridis 2017). Operational criteria pollutant emissions are higher than those analyzed in the 2011 EIR; however, they are below the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Significance thresholds and therefore do not create a new significant impact. Odors. As described in the 2011 EIR, no odor emissions are anticipated from the biodiesel production facility. The Modified Biodiesel Project is not expected to have odor impacts substantially different from those anticipated for the original Project. 4. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
3.4-15 No No No N/A
22
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
3.4-15 No No No N/A
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
3.4-15 No No No N/A
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
3.4-15 et seq. No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure
BIO-1
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
3.4-17 et seq. No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure
BIO-2 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
3.4-15 No No No N/A
Discussion: As explained in the 2011 EIR, there is no suitable habitat for special status species, sensitive natural communities, or federally protected wetlands at the project site. See 2011 EIR at 3.4-15. The 2011 EIR noted that the biodiesel production facility could potentially cause impacts to nesting birds if construction overlapped with the nesting bird season, but concluded that implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. It also concluded that compliance with mitigation measure BIO-2 would ensure that impacts resulting from tree removal would be less than significant. Impacts to biological resources would be the same as, or less than those addressed in the 2011 EIR. This is because the Modified Project would be located in the same general area as the biodiesel facility analyzed in the 2011 EIR, and all impacts of the Master Plan that are related to the footprint of project facilities would not be changed by implementation of the Modified Project. The 2011 EIR essentially assumed that all of the land area of the MWWTP, including the West End property, could eventually be disturbed by construction of a facility. The Modified Project site remains a heavily disturbed industrial area that provides no suitable habitat for sensitive species, and no sensitive species have been discovered in the vicinity during the ongoing operations of the MWWTP or construction on the West End property. The Modified Project would thus not result in any new impacts to biological resources.
23
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
5. Cultural Resources Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 3.5-9 No No No N/A
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? 3.5-10 No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure
CUL-1 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature? 3.5-11 No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure CUL--2
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 3.5-11 No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure
CUL--3 Discussion: Impacts to cultural resources would be the same as, or less than those addressed in the 2011 EIR. All impacts of the Master Plan that are related to the footprint of project facilities would not be changed by implementation of the Modified Biodiesel Project. The 2011 EIR essentially assumed that all of the land area of the MWWTP, including the West End property, could eventually be disturbed by construction of a facility. Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2 and CUL-3 would ensure that any impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Biodiesel Project would thus not result in any new impacts to cultural resources. 6. Energy Resources Would the project:
a) Result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuels or other energy resources, especially fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil. 3.6-7 No No No N/A
Discussion: Impacts of the Modified Project associated with energy resources would be similar to those described in the 2011 EIR. The original biodiesel production facility was estimated to demand 1,300 kW of electricity, and the Modified Biodiesel Project is estimated to demand approximately 1,020 kW. The 2011 EIR found that while facilities require energy for operation, the use of this energy would not be either wasteful or unnecessary because the facility would contribute to the production of renewable biofuels. Because the Modified Biodiesel Project would similarly contribute to production of renewable biofuels, use of energy for operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.
24
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
7. Geology and Seismicity Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
3.7-11 No No No N/A
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 3.7-12 No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure GEO-1
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 3.7-13 No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure GEO-2
iv) Landslides? 3.7-11 No No No N/A b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 3.7-14 No No No N/A c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
3.7-13 No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure GEO-2
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
3.7-12 No No No N/A
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
3.7-12 No No No N/A
25
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
Discussion: Impacts associated with potential geotechnical hazards would be the same for the Modified Biodiesel Project as those described in the 2011 EIR, which assumed that all of the land area of the MWWTP, including the West End property, could be disturbed by construction of a facility. The 2011 EIR concluded that impacts to people or structures due to strong seismic ground shaking or seismic related ground failure (e.g., liquefaction) would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of design-level geotechnical studies as required by Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2. The Modified Project would include performing design-level geotechnical studies and would not result in any new geotechnical impacts. 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
3.8-4 et seq. No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measures
GHG-2a and GHD-2b b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 3.8-12 et
seq. No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measures GHG-2a and GHD-2b
Discussion: Construction activity for the Modified Biodiesel Project would be similar to that described for the biodiesel production facility in the 2011 EIR, and modeling of emissions during construction shows that construction emissions would be similar for the Modified Biodiesel Project. This result, despite the increase in soil offhaul and base rock delivery to the site, is in part because improvements in engines over the last four years have reduced emissions from construction vehicles and equipment, and the latest emissions factors for construction equipment are thus lower than those assumed in the 2011 EIR analysis. In addition, the demolition activities that were assumed to be concurrent with earthwork activities in the 2011 EIR have already been completed, resulting in lower peak emissions. GHG emissions during construction would also be expected to be the similar to those estimated in 2011 EIR. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requires implementation of BMPs for GHG emissions where feasible, and would further minimize emissions during construction. Similarly, operational GHG emissions for the Modified Biodiesel Project would be the similar to those for the biodiesel production facility. As with construction activities, Mitigation Measures GHG-2a and GHG-2b would minimize GHG emissions during operation. For these reasons, GHG-related impacts would be similar to or less than those associated with the originally proposed project. 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
3.9-24 et seq. No No No N/A
26
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
3.9-28 et seq. No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure
HAZ-3
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
3.9-23 No No No N/A
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
3.9-28 No No No N/A
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
3.9-23 No No No N/A
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
3.9-23 No No No N/A
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 3.9-23 No No No N/A
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
3.9-23 No No No N/A
27
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
Discussion: The Modified Project would have hazards and hazardous materials impacts the same as or less than the biodiesel production facility evaluated in the 2011 EIR. Because an existing building would be reused for administrative and office space , Mitigation Measure HAZ-3, Hazardous Building Materials Survey and Abatement, would be implemented to ensure containment or removal of any lead-containing materials within the building before the structure is reused. No portion of the MWWTP is identified on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (EBMUD 2009). The same types and volumes of hazardous materials listed in Table 3.9-4 of the 2011 EIR will be stored on site, with the exception of sodium methoxide, for which the volume is now estimated to be 21,000 gallons versus 8,000 gallons in the 2011 EIR. This change will not result in a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts, as the original estimated minimum reportable quantity of 8,000 gallons already exceeded the reportable quantities established under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq.), and therefore no mitigation measures would be required as long as the Fire Code is followed and the requirements Process Safety Management regulations are followed (see page 3.9-25 of the 2011 EIR). These legal requirements are the same as those described in the 2011 EIR regardless of whether 8,000 gallons or 21,000 gallons of sodium methoxide are stored on site. By complying with these legal requirements, impacts related to the routine use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials associated with the biodiesel production facility would still be less than significant. The Modified Biodiesel Project would be subject to the same requirements that are discussed on page 3.9-25 of the 2011 EIR, including filing a Hazardous Materials Business Plan with the Oakland Fire Department, Office of Emergency Services. The Modified Biodiesel Project would also be subject to the requirements of the DTSC approved O&M Plan for all excavation activities on the West End property and EBMUD contract specifications related to project safety, waste disposal and water control and disposal for excavation on both the West End property and the MWWTP as discussed on page 3.9-29 of the 2011 EIR. 10. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 3.10-8 et seq. No No No N/A
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?
3.10-9 et seq. No No No N/A
28
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
3.10-11 No No No N/A
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
3.10-10 No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure HYD-3
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
3.10-10 No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure HYD-3
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 3.10-8 et seq. No No No N/A
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
3.10-7 No No No N/A
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 3.10-7 No No No N/A
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
3.10-7 No No No N/A
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 3.10-11 No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure HYD-5
29
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
Discussion: The Modified Biodiesel Project would comply with mitigation measures identified in the 2011 EIR, and facilities would be constructed within the same area as that analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Impacts would be the same or less than those previously identified because the Modified Biodiesel Project is located within the area that was evaluated in the 2011 EIR. Because the 2011 EIR assumed construction of facilities covering essentially the entire West End property, stormwater impacts attributable to the Modified Project would be no greater than analyzed in the 2011 EIR. The 2011 EIR noted the need for expansion of the stormwater collection system if the stormwater runoff from the West End property would be conveyed to the MWWTP; however, stormwater from the Modified Biodiesel Project will be either treated onsite or conveyed to the existing stormwater collection system as it is now.. Because the Modified Biodiesel Project would not change the amount of impervious surface area at the project site, it thus would not increase the amount of runoff into existing storm drains. Wastewater would be pretreated on-site and/or conveyed to the MWWTP, and would be contained to prevent runoff to storm drains. This is similar to the design of the biodiesel production facility project evaluated in the 2011 EIR, and would prevent pollutants from contaminating stormwater discharges. 11. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 3.11-6 No No No N/A b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
3.11-6 et seq. No No No N/A
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? 3.4-15 No No No N/A
Discussion: The Modified Biodiesel Project would be constructed entirely within the MWWTP and would be consistent with existing land use at the MWWTP. The zoning and land use designations for the MWWTP site have not changed since preparation of the 2011 EIR (City of Oakland 2015). Impacts would be the same as those identified in the 2011 EIR. 12. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 3.1-3 No No No N/A
30
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
3.1-3 No No No N/A
Discussion: The 2011 EIR documents that there are no mineral resources at the MWWTP. 13. Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
3.12-17 et seq. No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure
NOI-3
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
3.12-14 et seq. No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure
NOI-2 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 3.12-21 et
seq. No No No N/A
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
3.12-10 et seq. No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure
NOI-1 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
3.12-10 No No No N/A
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
3.12-10 No No No N/A
Discussion: As explained in the 2011 EIR, construction of all elements of the Master Plan could cause temporary increases in noise levels in the area due to the use of heavy equipment (see 2011 EIR at 3.12-12). Construction impacts for the Modified Project are expected to be similar to those anticipated in the 2011 EIR. Construction activities would be subject to Mitigation Measures NOI-1, Implement Noise Controls, which limits use of impact equipment to weekdays from 7 am to 7 pm. As noted on page 3.12-14 of the 2011 EIR, any pile driving activities near the eastern boundary of the MWWTP would need to be controlled so as to not affect residential receptors, which are within 1,200 feet of the eastern boundary. However, the Modified Biodiesel Project would not require any pile driving during construction. Additionally, the site is located about 4,000 feet from the nearest receptor and noise levels from construction equipment would be attenuated
31
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
to 65 dBA or less at the nearest receptor, which is within the City of Oakland Noise Ordinance Daytime Weekday Limit.
Estimated operational noise from the biodiesel facility is presented in Table 3.12-7 of the 2011 EIR, which compares noise levels to noise ordinance limits. Noise levels from operation of the original facility were estimated to be 92 dBA (Leq), 34 dBA (Leq) at the eastern MWWTP boundary, and 31 dBA (Leq) at the closest residential receptors. The combined noise levels from equipment in all three individual skids proposed for the updated Modified Biodiesel project would be 89.1 dBA. Each 5 mgy unit will have an enclosure that will attenuate the noise similarly to the corrugated metal building in the original project. Smaller housing units will reduce the reflective noise. Background noise at the nearest sensitive receptor is 55 dBA at night and 63 dBA during the day (see page 3.12-6 of the 2011 EIR). When added to this observed background noise, the noise from the Modified Biodiesel Project is insignificant relative to the existing background noise that the total noise level would not change (i.e., the background noise would be loud enough that the noise from the Modified Biodiesel Project would be inaudible). At all times of day, Modified Biodiesel Project noise would be imperceptible at the location of the nearest residential receptors. Therefore, the Modified Biodiesel Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of previously identified impacts. The Modified Biodiesel Project would also produce noise from trucks and rail cars, but would be no different than that evaluated in the 2011 EIR. 14. Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
3.1-3 No No No N/A
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3.1-3 No No No N/A
c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3.1-3 No No No N/A
Discussion: The 2011 EIR documents that the Master Plan would not displace housing or people, or contribute to population growth. Implementation of the Modified Biodiesel Project would not alter this determination.
15. Public Services
32
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? 3.13-4 No No No N/A Police Protection? 3.13-4 No No No N/A Schools? 3.13-4 No No No N/A Parks? 3.13-4 No No No N/A Other public facilities? 3.13-4 No No No N/A
Discussion: The 2011 EIR documents that the Master Plan would not generate population growth and would thus not generate need for new or altered government facilities. Implementation of the Modified Biodiesel Project would not alter this determination. 16. Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
3.11-7 No No No N/A
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
3.11-7 No No No N/A
Discussion: The 2011 EIR documents that the Master Plan would not increase demand for recreational facilities or affect existing or planned facilities. Implementation of the Modified Biodiesel Project would not alter this determination. 17. Transportation/Traffic
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of a circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersection, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
3.14-14 et seq. &
3.14-17 et seq.
No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure TRA-1
33
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of services standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
3.14-16 et seq. No No No N/A
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locations that results in substantial safety risks?
3.14-14 No No No N/A
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
3.14-19 No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measures TRA-7a and TRA-7b
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 3.14-18 No No No N/A f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
3.14-18 et seq. No No No N/A
Discussion: The 2011 EIR documents that the Master Plan would not generate operational traffic that would result in significant impacts on traffic The Modified Biodiesel Project would generate the same number of passenger vehicle trips because the same number of employees would be required as described in the 2011 EIR. The Modified Biodiesel Project would also require a reduced number of truck trips for materials delivery and product offhaul compared to the 2011 EIR as a result of the reduction in total capacity from 20 mgy to 15 mgy.
Construction traffic for the Modified Project has been estimated and would be similar to that described in the 2011 EIR. The Modified Project would require additional haul truck trips, but these would be spread out over several weeks and would thus result in a similar number of daily haul truck trips.
Since preparation of the 2011 EIR, the City of Oakland has moved forward with the realignment of Wake Avenue north of West Grand Avenue; the existing Wake Avenue has been realigned as an extension of Maritime Street and widened from two to four lanes. To maintain safe access to the MWWTP, Engineers Road has been widened and a new intersection has been put in on EBMUD property. EBMUD has considered the proposed realignment and has determined that the proposed change of roadway configuration would not change the conclusions of the 2011 EIR.
Because the Modified Biodiesel Project would not increase operational traffic as compared to the original Project, cumulative operational impacts would not be substantively different from those evaluated in the 2011 EIR, which assumed that the City of Oakland would move
34
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
forward with redevelopment of the Oakland Army Base. In 2011, the City’s Auto Mall project was on hold, but the City had selected a master developer for the Gateway Area of the Oakland Army Base. It was thus assumed that some type of development would take place, and that the development could include realignment of roads in the vicinity of the MWWTP. The cumulative traffic analysis in the 2011 EIR cites the OAB Auto Mall Draft Supplemental EIR Traffic Analysis (City of Oakland 2006), which concludes that under cumulative conditions the West Grand Avenue/Maritime Street intersection and the West Grand Avenue/Frontage Road intersection would operate at Level of Service (LOS) F, either with or without the Auto Mall Project. The 2011 EIR concluded that traffic from the combined Master Plan projects would not cause the average delay at those intersections to increase by two or more seconds, and the projects contribution to traffic impacts would therefore not be cumulatively considerable. The Modified Biodiesel Project would generate the same or less average daily traffic and would thus not result in a significant cumulative impact. The change in roadway configuration is not expected to result in a change in this conclusion because the realignment of Wake Avenue is not expected to adversely affect traffic conditions. 18. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
3.15-7 et seq. No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure
HYD-3 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
3.15-7 et seq. No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure
HYD-3
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
3.15-9 et seq. No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure
HYD-3
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
3.15-8 et seq. No No No N/A
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
3.15-7 et seq. No No No Yes, see Mitigation Measure
HYD-3
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
3.15-10 et seq. No No No N/A
35
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
3.15-11 et seq. No No No N/A
Discussion: The 2011 EIR documents that the biodiesel production facility would generate wastewater and with implementation of the originally proposed project, stormwater from the West End property, if it is to be conveyed to the internal plant drain, has the potential to exceed wet weather plant capacity. That stormwater for the Modified Project would be conveyed to the existing storm drains and therefore would not impact wet weather capacity at the MWWTP. The Modified Biodiesel Project is designed such that process wastewater would be contained, treated on site, and some flows will be conveyed to the MWWTP headworks for treatment, which would prevent pollutants from contaminating stormwater discharges. Some wastewater may also be reused on site for landscape irrigation. Because no additional impervious surfaces would be added, the Modified Project would not increase impacts on stormwater drainage, water supply or solid waste. Stormwater from the West End property would either continue to be directed to the City of Oakland storm drains or be directed to the MWWTP drain system following implementation of a comprehensive Drainage Plan as described in Mitigation Measure HYD-3. 19. Mandatory Findings
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
4-24 No No No Yes
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
4-13 et seq. No No No Yes
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
4-24 No No No Yes
36
Issues and Supporting Data Sources:
Location of where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in
prior environmental
Document.
Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Circumstances Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More Severe
Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address
Impact?
Discussion: The 2011 EIR determined that the project would have a significant unavoidable cumulative air quality impact on community risks and hazards. However, the significant impact was based on BAAQMD cumulative impact methodology and thresholds of significance that were adopted in June 2010 (BAAQMD 2010); BAAQMD withdrew those significance thresholds in May 2012, after certification of the 2011 EIR. The cumulative impact, as discussed in the 2011 EIR, was found to be significant because of background emissions, primarily from freeways that surround the MWWTP site. The Modified Biodiesel Project would not increase this cumulative air quality impact, and would not worsen any other cumulative impacts. Consistent with the 1999 BAAQMD Guidelines, the Modified Biodiesel Project would not be considered to have cumulatively significant air quality impacts because it does not individually result in significant impacts and it does not conflict with the local and regional air quality plans (BAAQMD 1999). Although not applicable to this analysis, the Modified Biodiesel Project would also not be considered to have cumulatively significant air quality impacts during construction when compared to the 2010 BAAQMD criteria pollutant thresholds of significance (ENVIRON 2015). The 2011 EIR concluded that traffic from the combined Master Plan projects would not cause the average delay at those intersections to increase by two or more seconds, and the projects contribution to traffic impacts would therefore not be cumulatively considerable. As documented in the checklist above, there would be no increased impacts to biological or cultural resources, and there would be no increase in impacts, either direct or indirect, to human beings. Thus, the mitigation measures set forth in the 2011 EIR are fully sufficient to address the environmental impacts of the Modified Biodiesel Project.
38
3. REPORT PREPARATION
3.1. Report Authors
3.1.1. East Bay Municipal Utility District
• Alicia Chakrabarti, P.E., Supervisor of Wastewater Planning
• Matt Hoeft, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer
3.1.2. RMC Water and Environment • Robin Cort, Ph.D., environmental analysis
3.2. References BAAQMD 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans December 1999.
BAAQMD 2010. California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines. June 2010.
DTSC 2007. Covenant to Restrict Use of Property, Environmental Restriction, Heroic War Dead, United States Army Reserve Center, Oakland, California.
EBMUD 2011, Environmental Impact Report, Main Wastewater Treatment Plant Land Use Master Plan, certified June 28, 2011.
ENVIRON 2015. Criteria Air Pollutant and Toxic Air Emissions from Harvest Project Construction.
Viridis 2017. “Mobile Facility Fugitive Emissions Calculations, BAAQMD Approved – CAPCOA Marketing Terminal Method.” File name “Mobile Fugitive Emissions (CAPCOA Method).xls”.
39
APPENDIX A – APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM 2011 EIR
1. Environmental Commitments from 2011 EIR and Other Requirements Applicable to the Modified Biodiesel Project
The 2011 EIR included a number of environmental commitments drawn from standard EBMUD construction specifications, which contain safety and environmental requirements that are implemented during all construction projects. Facilities at the West End property are also subject to a Covenant to Restrict Use of Property, Environmental Restriction imposed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); the DTSC restrictions would be applicable to the Modified Biodiesel Project. Environmental commitments and other requirements that would be applicable to the Modified Biodiesel Project would be incorporated into any contracts for the design, construction, and operation of the facilities described in the Addendum and are listed below:
Aesthetics
Construction Site Management
Throughout the period of demolition and construction, the construction contractor would be required to keep the work site free and clear of all rubbish and debris, and to promptly remove from the site, or from property adjacent to the site of the work, all unused and rejected materials, surplus earth, concrete, plaster, and debris. The construction specifications require that when construction is completed excess materials or debris shall be removed from the work area (Section 013544-1.1 (B)).
Air Quality
Dust Control and Monitoring Plan
EBMUD’s Construction Specifications require development of a Dust Control and Monitoring Plan in order to control construction-related dust (Section 013544-1.3(E)). The plan shall detail the means and methods for controlling and monitoring dust generated by construction activities, as well as measures for the control of paint overspray generated during the painting of exterior surfaces.
Equipment and Vehicle Idling
Section 2485, Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR) requires limiting the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds, both California- and non-California-based trucks) to five minutes at any location.
Hazardous Materials / Hydrology and Water Quality
Notification of Hazardous Materials
EBMUD’s Construction Specifications General Conditions, Article 7.6.1, requires that “Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 7104, the Contractor shall promptly, and before such conditions are disturbed, notify the Engineer in writing of: (1) Material that the Contractor believes may be hazardous waste, as defined in Section 25117 of the Health and Safety Code, that is not indicated
40
in the Contract Documents and that is required by law to be removed to a Class I, Class II, or Class III disposal site; (2) Subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing materially from those indicated in this contract; or (3) Unknown physical conditions at the site, of an unusual nature, differing materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in this contract.”
Project Safety and Health Plan
EBMUD’s Construction Specifications require a Project Safety and Health Plan (013524-1.3(B)) if actual, potential, or anticipated hazards include: a) hazardous substances; b) fall protection issues; c) confined spaces; d) trenches or excavations; or, e) lockout/tagout. The Plan shall detail measures to be taken to alleviate the identified risks, identify appropriate health and safety requirements, and designate a contractor’s project safety and health representative.
Construction and Demolition Waste Disposal Plan
EBMUD’s Construction Specifications require a Construction and Demolition Waste Disposal Plan (013544-1.3(C)) specifying how the contractor will remove, handle, transport and dispose of all material to be disposed of in a safe, appropriate, and lawful manner. The Plan must identify each type of waste material to be reused, recycled, or disposed of; list reuse facilities, recycling facilities, processing facilities, or landfills that will be receiving the materials; and include the sampling and analytical program for characterization of any waste material for disclosure to EBMUD.
Spill Prevention and Response Plan
EBMUD’s Construction Specifications require a Spill Prevention and Response Plan (013544-1.3(D)) detailing the hazardous materials (including petroleum products) proposed for use or generated at the job site and describing the means and methods for controlling spills, monitoring hazardous materials, and providing immediate response to spills. Spill response measures would address notification of EBMUD, safety issues regarding construction personnel and public health, and methods for spill response and cleanup.
Controls on Site Activities
EBMUD’s Construction Specifications require controls on site activities and describe measures that shall be implemented to prevent the discharge of contaminated storm water runoff from the site. Erosion control measures in the specifications include:
• No debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, asphalt, rubbish, paint, oil, cement or concrete or washings thereof, oil or petroleum products, or other organic or earthen materials from construction activities shall be allowed to enter into or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff outside the construction limits. (013544-1.1(B)(1))
• Divert or otherwise control surface water and waters flowing from existing projects, structures, or surrounding areas from coming onto the work areas. The method of diversions or control shall be adequate to ensure the safety of stored materials and of personnel using these areas. Following completion of work, ditches, dikes, or other ground alterations made by the Contractor shall be removed and the ground surfaces shall
41
be returned to their former condition, or as near as practicable, in the Engineer's opinion. (013544-1.1(B)(6))
• Maintain construction sites to ensure that drainage from these sites will minimize erosion of stockpiled or stored materials and the adjacent native soil material. (013544-1.1(B)(7))
Water Control and Disposal Plan
EBMUD’s Construction Specifications require a Water Control and Disposal Plan (013544-1.3(B)) describing measures for containment, handling, and disposal of groundwater (if encountered), runoff of water used for dust control, storm water runoff, wash water, and construction water or other liquid that has come into contact with any interior surface of a reservoir or inlet/outlet pipeline. The discharge must comply with regulations of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), County Flood Control Districts, and any other regulatory agency having jurisdiction, whichever is most stringent.
Excavation and Trenching
EBMUD’s Construction Specifications require an Excavation Safety Plan (013524-1.3(C)) for worker protection and control of ground movement for the Engineer's review prior to any excavation work at the jobsite. The Plan shall include drawings and details of system or systems to be used, area in which each type of system will be used, de-watering, means of access and egress, storage of materials, and equipment restrictions. Section 013524-3.2(B) of the Construction Specifications establishes requirements for excavations under hazardous conditions. As required in Section 6705 of the Labor Code, excavation of any trench five feet or more in depth shall not begin until the Contractor has received notification of EBMUD’s acceptance of the Contractor’s detailed plan for worker protection from the hazards of caving ground during the excavation.
• Such plan shall show the details of the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection during such excavation.
• No such plan shall allow the use of shoring, sloping or a protective system less effective than that required by the Construction Safety Orders, Title 8, CCR, and if such plan varies from the shoring system standards established by the Construction Safety Orders, the plan shall be prepared and signed by an engineer who is registered as a Civil or Structural Engineer in the State of California. California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) Permit: Title 8, CCR Section 341(a)(1) 31 requires excavators to obtain a permit PRIOR to digging trenches or excavations which are 5 feet or deeper and into which a person is required to descend.
In the event of any violation of Article 6 of the Construction Safety Orders or deviation from the submitted plan for worker protection and control of ground movement, EBMUD may suspend work, or notify Cal/OSHA, or both.
42
Noise
Compliance with Noise Ordinance
EBMUD’s Construction Specifications require compliance with local noise ordinances (013544-3.4). The Contractor is responsible for taking appropriate measures, including muffling of equipment, selecting quieter equipment, erecting noise barriers, modifying work operations, and other mitigations as needed to bring construction noise into compliance.
Operation and Maintenance Plan Required by DTSC Environmental Restrictions
Because the West End property has not been remediated to levels that are suitable for unrestricted land use, DTSC and U.S. Army recorded a Covenant to Restrict Use of Property, Environmental Restriction (deed restriction) with the Alameda County Assessor’s Office on June 29, 2007 (DTSC 2007). The deed restriction specifies soil and risk management procedures (environmental restrictions) that must be implemented to ensure safe management of soil and groundwater remaining at the site and to ensure that human health and the environment are protected during future activities at the site. The environmental restrictions of the deed restriction apply to successive owners of the property, and were assigned to EBMUD in a consent agreement entered into by DTSC and EBMUD in 2009 (DTSC 2009). An Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) describing the inspection, soil management, groundwater monitoring, annual reporting, and five-year review requirements for the site, to be implemented in accordance with the deed restriction, has been prepared by EBMUD (Geologica 2008). The plan has been approved by DTSC, and also specifies regulatory coordination that must occur when soil or groundwater is disturbed. The O&M Plan was originally approved in 2008 and updated in 2012 (Geologica 2012). For the entire West End property, the O&M Plan specifies that:
• Placement of any property soil outside of the property boundary is permitted only with written approval from DTSC.
• Excavation or disturbance of any soil deeper than 5 feet below ground surface is permitted only with the written approval of DTSC. However, in emergency situations, EBMUD may excavate or disturb soil without prior DTSC approval, provided that the soil management and risk management procedures of the operations and maintenance plan are followed, and that EBMUD notifies DTSC by phone or email of the soil excavation or disturbance within 24 hours of the onset or discovery of the emergency.
• Excavated soil must be appropriately characterized to determine if it is suitable for onsite reuse, or if it must be disposed of at an appropriately licensed off-site disposal facility. At a minimum, the soil must be analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, diesel, and motor oil; volatile organic compounds; and Title 22 metals (including analysis of soluble metals concentrations using the Waste Extraction Test [WET] or Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure [TCLP] method, as appropriate). Typically, one composite soil sample would be required for each 1,000 cy of soil excavated. However, individual disposal facilities may require additional samples and/or analyses.
• Onsite reuse of excavated soil is only permitted if the sample results indicate that the material is not a hazardous waste and is suitable for reuse at the site. Soil characterization for reuse can be completed prior to removal (in situ, which involves the installation of soil borings for collection of soil samples) or after excavation as described above,
43
provided that a suitable controlled location is available for stockpiling that anticipated volume of soil. For onsite reuse, the soil should not contain constituents at concentrations greater than federal and state hazardous waste criteria, industrial Preliminary Remediation Goals, or commercial/industrial Environmental Screening Levels (petroleum hydrocarbons only), whichever is most conservative. To characterize the soil for onsite reuse, 1 sample per 250 cy of excavated soil is required for the first 1,000 cy of soils excavated, and 1 additional sample is required for each additional 500 cy of excavated soil.
• Soil that is unsuitable for onsite reuse and which will not be directly hauled to an off-site disposal facility at the time of excavation must be stockpiled in a manner that limits the potential for generation of dust and/or sediment-laden runoff. Soil shall be stockpiled on a minimum 6-mil plastic sheet of sufficient size to contain the entire stockpile and the entire stockpile shall be covered with a minimum 6-mil plastic sheet secured with sandbags at the close of each workday and at all times during inclement weather. All stockpiled soil shall be properly disposed of within 90 days of generation.
• Workers engaged in activities that will disturb or expose subsurface soil must be appropriately trained in and must follow the standard health and safety procedures described in Appendix A of the O&M Plan. Site and action-specific health and safety plans are required for all activities involving soil removal and/or disturbance.
• Appropriate measures shall be taken to minimize the generation of fugitive dust during soil excavation or disturbance activities in general accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) “Basic” and “Optional” PM10 (fugitive dust) control measures (see Section 3.3, Air Quality, for a description of the BAAQMD dust control measures).
For groundwater and accumulated liquids, the O&M Plan specifies that: • Dewatering activities for any future construction are subject to all applicable local and
state requirements, including those of the RWQCB, for disposing of liquids from dewatering activities.
• Groundwater and accumulated liquids produced during construction activities must be characterized in-situ prior to disposal or retained on site until characterized for appropriate disposal. Testing to characterize the groundwater or accumulated liquids must include analysis for total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, diesel, and motor oil; volatile organic compounds; and Title 22 metals. Under no circumstances may site groundwater or accumulated liquid be discharged to a storm drainage system, ground surface, or any pathway (e.g. a drainage ditch) that might reasonably be expected to convey site groundwater and accumulated water off the property or to San Francisco Bay. Depending on the analytical results, and subject to approval from the EBMUD Resource Recovery Program, the groundwater or accumulated liquids may be transported to the MWWTP for disposal, although additional testing (e.g. chemical oxygen demand) may be required, depending on the volume of liquid requiring disposal. Groundwater and accumulated liquids found to contain metals or other analytes at concentrations greater than the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) or TCLP values must be treated and/or disposed of at a facility licensed to accept hazardous waste and the transport and disposal of this liquid must be conducted in accordance with all applicable state, federal, and local regulations.
44
2. Mitigation Measures from 2011 EIR Applicable to the Modified Project
As Lead Agency for preparation of the MWWTP Land Use Master Plan EIR, EBMUD has adopted mitigation measures as part of its Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the 2011 EIR. The following mitigation measures would be applicable to the Modified Biodiesel Project. EBMUD will require that the private company procuring the construction contractor for the Modified Biodiesel Project contractually require compliance with all applicable mitigation measures in the design, construction and operation of the facilities described in this Addendum.
Aesthetic Measures
Mitigation Measure AES-2a: Maintenance of Construction Worksite. Throughout the period of demolition and construction, EBMUD will require that the construction contractor keep the worksite free and clean of all rubbish and debris and promptly remove from the site or from property adjacent to the site of the work, all unused and rejected materials, surplus earth, concrete, plaster, and debris. Mitigation Measure AES-2b: Design of Facilities to Be Aesthetically Consistent with Existing Visual Character. EBMUD would require all new facilities be, at a minimum, designed to be aesthetically consistent with existing visual character and surrounding wastewater treatment buildings. Design, exterior finishes, and color would blend with the surrounding facilities. Mitigation Measure AES-3: Lighting Design and Low Reflective Paint. EBMUD would require that lighting be consistent with existing lighting in terms of height, spacing and design. New lighting would be shielded and directed to the interior of the project site. New structures and buildings would be painted in low reflective paint consistent with existing structures at the MWWTP.
Air Quality Measures
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Reduction Measures. To limit dust, criteria pollutant, and precursor emissions associated with construction of all Master Plan projects, EBMUD shall include the following measures, as applicable, in contract specifications:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved areas shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
45
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding complaints related to excessive dust or vehicle idling shall be posted at the MWWTP entrance. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.
Mitigation Measure AIR-5: Diesel Particulate Reduction Measures. Diesel-powered onsite rolling stock and any other diesel equipment or trucks operating solely within the MWWTP and West End property used in regular operation for the Modified Biodiesel Project shall install a CARB-verified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter to reduce PM2.5 emissions to achieve a minimum reduction of 50 percent (sufficient to reduce combined emissions to below the BAAQMD CEQA excess cancer risk threshold of 10 in a million). Alternative options for achieving this reduction can also be implemented, including the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as such become available.
Biological Resources Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Protection of Nesting Birds. To the extent practicable, project construction activities including tree removal/pruning and demolition will occur outside of the generally accepted nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If tree removal cannot be completed between September 1 and January 31, and it is not feasible to avoid starting construction during the nesting season, then the following measures will be taken:
• No more than two weeks before the initiation of construction/demolition activities that would commence between February 1 and August 31, a nesting bird survey will be conducted within 250 feet of the project site by a qualified biologist. If active nests are observed, buffer zones will be established around the nests, with a size acceptable to the CDFW. Construction activities will not occur within buffer zones until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned.
• If construction/demolition is halted for more than two weeks during the nesting season, then additional surveys will be conducted as above.
• Nests that are established during construction/demolition will be protected from direct project impact (e.g., trees or a buffer area around the nests shall be flagged and avoided).
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Replacement of Protected Trees. EBMUD will replace each tree that is removed for this project and that is considered a “protected tree” under the City of Oakland Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance. The replacement tree (e.g., 5-gallon size) will be planted on site in a suitable location at the MWWTP/West End property.
46
Cultural Resources Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Recovery of Buried Cultural Resources. If previously unidentified cultural materials are unearthed during construction, EBMUD will halt work in that area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If any find is determined to be significant, EBMUD and the archaeologist will determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. In considering any suggested measures proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, EBMUD will determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) will be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Recovery of Buried Paleontological Resources. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, EBMUD will notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5. If a breas1 or other fossil is discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If EBMUD determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist will prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan will be submitted to EBMUD for review and approval prior to implementation. Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Recovery of Discovered Human Remains. In the event human burials are encountered, EBMUD will halt work in the vicinity and notify the Alameda County Coroner and contact an archaeologist to evaluate the find. If human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC will then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who would then help determine what course of action should be taken in dealing with the remains.
1 A seep of natural petroleum that has trapped extinct animals, thus preserving and fossilizing their remains.
47
Geology Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Perform Design-Level Geotechnical Evaluations for Seismic Hazards. During the design phase for all other Master Plan elements that require ground-breaking activities, EBMUD will perform site-specific, design-level geotechnical evaluations to identify potential secondary ground failure hazards (i.e., seismically-induced settlement) associated with the expected level of seismic ground shaking. For specific Land Use Master Plan element sites within the MWWTP that have previously been subject to a geotechnical investigation, a geotechnical memorandum shall be prepared to update the previous investigation. The geotechnical analysis will provide recommendations to mitigate those hazards in the final design and, if necessary, during construction. The design-level geotechnical evaluations, based on the site conditions, location, and professional opinion of the geotechnical engineer, may include subsurface drilling, soil testing, and analysis of site seismic response as needed. The geotechnical engineer will review the seismic design criteria of facilities to ensure that facilities are designed to withstand the highest expected peak acceleration, set forth by the California Building Code (CBC) for each site. Recommendations resulting from findings of the geotechnical study will be incorporated into the design and construction of proposed facilities. Design and construction for buildings will be performed in accordance with EBMUD’s seismic design standards, which meet and/or exceed applicable design standards of the International Building Code. Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Perform Design-Level Geotechnical Evaluations for Liquefaction and Other Geologic Hazards. During the design phase for all other Master Plan elements that require ground-breaking activities, EBMUD will perform site-specific design-level geotechnical evaluations to identify geologic hazards and provide recommendations to mitigate those hazards in the final design and during construction. For specific Land Use Master Plan element sites within the MWWTP that have previously been subject to a geotechnical investigation, a geotechnical memorandum shall be prepared to update the previous investigation.
The design-level geotechnical evaluations will include the collection of subsurface data for determining liquefaction potential, and appropriate feasible measures will be developed and incorporated into the project design. The performance standard to be used in the geotechnical evaluations for mitigating liquefaction hazards will be minimization of the hazards. Measures to minimize significant liquefaction hazards could include the following, unless the site-specific soils analyses dictate otherwise:
• Densification or dewatering of surface or subsurface soils; • Construction of pile or pier foundations to support pipelines and/or buildings; and • Removal of material that could undergo liquefaction in the event of an earthquake, and
replacement with stable material. • If soil needs to be imported, EBMUD would require that the contractor ensure that such
imported soil complies with specifications that define the minimum geotechnical
48
properties and analytical quality characteristics that must be met for use of fill material from off-site borrow sources.
Greenhouse Gas Measures
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: GHG Reduction Measures. EBMUD shall implement BAAQMD-recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs) for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions where feasible, which include the following:
• At least 15 percent of the fleet should be alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment.
• At least 10 percent of building materials should be from local sources. • At least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials should be recycled or
reused.
Mitigation Measure GHG-2a: Energy Efficiency Measures. Direct and indirect GHG emissions shall be estimated based on the final project design, and energy efficiency measures shall be incorporated into the project as necessary to meet the BAAQMD GHG significance threshold in effect at the time of project implementation. Mitigation Measure GHG-2b: Water Conservation Measures for Land Use Master Plan Projects. Non-potable water shall be used wherever feasible for equipment and area wash down to minimize GHG emissions associated with increased water demand.
Hazardous Materials Measures
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Hazardous Building Materials Surveys and Abatement. For any building not already surveyed for lead, a registered environmental assessor or a registered engineer would perform a lead-based paint survey for the structure prior to reuse or demolition. Adequate abatement practices for lead-containing materials, such as containment and/or removal, would be implemented prior to reuse or demolition of each structure that includes lead-containing materials or lead-based paint. For demolition, any PCB- or DEHP-containing equipment or fluorescent lights containing mercury vapors would also be removed and disposed of properly. If removal of a transformer is required, EBMUD or the owner/operator would retain a qualified professional to determine the PCB content of the transformer oil. For removal, the transformer oil would be pumped out with a pump truck and appropriately recycled or disposed of off site. The drained transformer would be reused or disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.
Hydrology Measures
Mitigation Measure HYD-3: Prepare and Implement a Comprehensive Drainage Plan. Prior to expanding the stormwater collection system to treat runoff from the West End property, EBMUD shall prepare and implement a Comprehensive Drainage Plan for the Master Plan that incorporates measures to ensure that the storm drain system and treatment capacity are not exceeded during peak conditions. The drainage plan shall define operational controls necessary to prevent flooding of the MWWTP headworks and/or release of surface runoff off site.
49
Mitigation Measure HYD-5: Prepare and Implement a Tsunami Response Plan. EBMUD shall prepare and implement a Tsunami Response Plan for the MWWTP site that defines emergency response and coordination procedures. The Tsunami Response Plan shall contain information specific to actions that may be necessary related to receipt of a tsunami watch, warning, or as a result of an actual tsunami along the San Francisco Bay. The first priority of emergency management response shall be the protection of life and property.
Noise Measures
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Implement Noise Controls. EBMUD’s Construction Specifications (013544-3.4) require compliance with local noise ordinances, and measures that shall be employed to meet applicable City of Oakland Noise Ordinance noise limits include the following:
• Pile driving activities and operation of other types of impact equipment such as jackhammers should be limited to the daytime hours (7 am to 7 pm on weekdays);
• If impact pile drivers must be used near the eastern MWWTP boundary, they should not be operated for longer than 10 days to the extent feasible. If pile driving must occur for longer than 10 days near this boundary, sonic or vibratory pile drivers should be used if feasible;
• “Quiet” pile driving technology (such as pre-drilling of piles, the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration) should be employed where feasible (where geotechnical and structural requirements allow);
• Pile driving activities with all construction projects at the MWWTP should be coordinated to ensure that these activities do not overlap;
• Best available noise control techniques (including mufflers, intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) will be used for all equipment and trucks as necessary; and
• If any construction activities must occur during the nighttime hours (7 pm to 7 am on weekdays, 8 pm to 9 am on weekends), operation of noisier types of equipment should be prohibited as necessary to meet ordinance noise limits.
Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Implement Vibration Controls. To ensure that adjacent freeway structures and future commercial structures to the south are not subject to cosmetic damage, EBMUD shall ensure that any future pile driving activities associated with Master Plan projects do not exceed the 0.2 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) threshold at these structures. Measures that could be employed to meet this performance standard include using sonic or vibratory pile drivers where feasible or pre-drilling pile holes. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Employ Noise Controls for Stationary Equipment. EBMUD shall use best available noise control techniques (including mufflers, intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) as necessary on stationary equipment associated with all Master Plan projects in order to comply with applicable City of Oakland Noise Ordinance noise limits, adjusted to reflect ambient noise levels occurring at the time of project implementation (under 2010 conditions, the nighttime noise limit is 54 dBA
50
[Leq] at receiving residential uses to the east and 73 dBA [Leq] at future receiving commercial uses to the south).
Traffic Measures
Measure TRA-1: Construction Traffic Management Plan. EBMUD would implement the following measures during project construction at the local intersections outside the MWWTP property:
EBMUD and the construction contractor would coordinate with the appropriate City of Oakland agencies to determine traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic congestion during construction of this project and other nearby projects that could be simultaneously under construction. EBMUD would develop a construction management plan for submittal to the Planning and Zoning Division, the Building Services Division, and the Transportation Services Division. The plan would include at least the following items and requirements:
• A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours and designated construction access routes;
• Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries would occur; and
• A process for responding to, and tracking, complaints pertaining to construction activity, including identification of an onsite complaint manager. The manager shall determine the cause of the complaints and shall take prompt action to correct the problem.
Measure TRA-7a: Railroad Crossing Safety for New Rail Spur. EBMUD shall install pavement markings and warning signs along Engineers Road where the new rail spur would cross to enter the internal driveway for the biodiesel production facility. Pavement markings and warning signs shall conform to standards set forth in the California Manual on Uniform Transportation Devices. Measure TRA-7b: Coordination with Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). EBMUD and its rail contractor(s) shall work with BNSF during the design phase to obtain the necessary permits and construction approvals for the rail spur and connection with the existing BNSF rail line.
Measures to Minimize Disruption to Existing Utilities
Mitigation Measure UTIL-6 Coordinate Relocation and Interruptions of Service with Utility Providers during Construction. The construction contractor will be required to verify the nature and location of underground utilities before the start of any construction that would require excavation. The contractor will be required to notify and coordinate with public and private utility providers at least 48 hours before the commencement of work adjacent to any utility. The contractor will be required to notify the service provider in advance of service interruptions to allow the service provider sufficient time to notify customers. The contractor will be required to coordinate timing of interruptions with the service providers to minimize the frequency and duration of interruptions.