I believe that the subject Project[i] may have a significant effect on the environment and that a full ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) should be required.
The subject Project has been described by the Environmental Management Division of the Los Angeles Harbor Department as primarily an effort “to comply with the State of California’s Marine Oil Terminal Engineering and Maintenance Standards (MOTEMS).[ii]” In addition, the proposed Project includes:
- Vessel berthing improvements at Berth 148-149 and demolition and reconstruction of the Phillips 66 wharf structures at Berth 150-151 (Berths 150-151 have not been utilized as a Marine Oil Terminal (MOT) since 2008),
- Shoreline protection improvements and the installation or modification of various landside marine oil terminal components, including piping, pumps, pollution control systems (e.g., vapor recovery, spill containment, storm water management) and tankage, to support future operations at the new wharf at Berth 150-151 (Berths 148-149 would continue to be used until its marine vapor recovery system is transferred to Berths 150-151 at an unspecified date or after an unspecified duration, after which the wharf at Berths 148-149 would covert to non-MOT uses[iii]), and
- Consideration of a new 20-year entitlement (with two potential 10- year additional options) to Phillips 66 for continued operations at Berths 148-151 (this is assumed to be a forty-year entitlement).
Among the four objectives[iv] stated for the project were to “[o]timize the use of existing land at the terminal and associated waterways in a manner that is consistent with the LAHD’s public trust obligations by maintaining the existing facility’s throughput capabilities and operational parameters through a new, long-term entitlement [and to e]nsure continued reliability and availability of fuel supplies to help meet Southern California’s energy needs given evolving market conditions and business cycle variability.” [bolds are mine]
Given that “public trust obligations” are on behalf of all the people of California and are required to promote maritime navigation and fisheries, to protect natural resources, and to develop recreational facilities for public use, the public trust obligation of promoting commerce seems incomplete.[v] Accordingly, an EIR could clarify how all public trust obligations are met. In addition, I would encourage the Port to supplement this EIR with a parallel tidelands trust analysis.
Having an objective of meeting “Southern California’s energy needs” over the next forty years is a complex problem since these energy needs are sensitive to many assumptions. Among these assumptions are the state’s continued desire to minimize air and water pollution by promoting less polluting transportation modes, changing demographics, and evolving economic conditions. Using differing sets of assumptions, California’s energy needs could be subject to different futures, for examples, as follows:
California Energy Demand Scenarios[vi]
| Scenario | Demographics | Economics | Efficiency |
| Maximum demand | Year 2050 pop. = 70 million; Decreasing persons per household (PPH); Increasing % of single family households (SFHH) | Average annual gross state product (GSP) growth = 3.74% | Frozen at current levels, or very minor improvement |
| Baseline High demand – low efficiency | Year 2050 pop. = 55 million; Continuation of current household trends | Average annual GSP growth = 2.75% | Frozen at current levels, or very minor improvement |
| Baseline demand | Year 2050 pop. = 55 million; Continuation of current household trends | Average annual GSP growth = 2.75% | Continued historical and projected near term trends |
| Baseline Low demand – high efficiency | Year 2050 pop. = 55 million; Continuation of current household trends | Average annual GSP growth = 2.75% | Technically feasible improvements (with today’s technology) |
| Minimum demand | Year 2050 pop. = 45 million; Increasing PPH; Decreasing % of SFHH | Average. annual GSP growth = 1.05% | Technically feasible improvements (with today’s technology) |
Given such demand scenarios, the total fuel demand in 2050 (and the subject Project could be entitled through 2062) could vary between 12 and 68 billion gallons (about a factor of 6 difference). The implications of this wide demand range in meeting California’s energy needs are significant, as the necessary infrastructure, resource requirements and impacts on complementary energy systems will be quite different for the different scenarios. As such, it demands an EIR to further elucidate the options.[vii]
California Transportation Fuel Demand Ranges Based on Scenarios[viii]
Indeed, given that local crude oil production continues to decline, it appears that one of Phillips 66’s goals related to the subject Project could be transporting Canadian tar sands and/or North Dakotan Bakken crude oil via marine shipment and pipeline to its San Pedro Bay area (Carson and Wilmington) refineries.[ix] Achievement of this goal would involve moving large volumes of crude oil by ship, barge, and other transport modes which would be aided by the completion of this Project. Such crude oil movements would increase the risk of explosions, spills, and deaths associated with the Carson and Wilmington oil refineries’ activities. The corrosive, high sulfur tar sands and volatile Bakken crude would also raise greenhouse gas emissions and increase air pollution. Although it is noted that CEQA Guidelines §15064 (f)(5) states that an “[a]rgument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute substantial evidence,” sometimes it may be necessary to plausibly speculate if a Project primarily described as a standards upgrade is part of a piecemeal effort designed to handle a new and long term new business need that could have a significant impact on the environment.
Californians are expected to lead the nation and the world in efforts to combat climate change.[x] Given our state’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050, indirectly inducing Phillips 66 to increase its two local refineries’ abilities to process even larger volumes of tar sands-derived crude oil is ill-advised. I am concerned about the pollution, health, safety, and climate impacts that these “primarily MOTEMS’ compliance” improvements could cause. This memorandum addresses some of the impacts that might be expected to occur because of this Project.
The dirtier crude oil feedstocks derived from tar sands that will likely be shipped to and through the MOT have dangerous consequences for nearby communities as well as for ecosystems in the San Pedro Bay area, all along potential shipping routes, and for the Earth’s climate. The impacts of a spill in marine waters remains unknown, and potential responders do not have adequate real-time information about what cargoes ships are carrying. Furthermore, information about the precise chemical composition and proportion of those cargoes is difficult to obtain, when it should be readily available to the responders and communities that will have to deal with the aftereffects of a spill. Worse still, there are no proven containment methods for mitigating a spill of these dirtier crudes.
Phillips 66 is one of multiple oil companies operating San Pedro Bay area refineries that may be preparing facility modifications to enable more tar sands crude to be imported by ship. Taken together, these refinery modifications will significantly increase ship traffic in San Pedro Bay, making spills and accidents more likely. More ships will also result in greater amounts of air pollution, water degradation, impacts to area species, and increased health risks. The report itself states that there will be over a one-third increase in shipping activity, mainly via oil barges.[xi] Based on this increase in shipping activity alone (equivalent to 2% of Canadian tar sands’ pipeline estimated 2022 capacity), additional annual emissions generated by the Project would be as follows:[xii]
Annual Additional Emissions Generated by the Project
Overview
Canadian tar sands production has led to significant oil transport infrastructure projects including the ongoing $12.6 billion Trans Mountain Expansion Project that would increase tar sands pipeline capacity to 890,000 barrels of oil per day by December 2022.[xiii] This increase promises to result in a drastic surge in the amount of tar sands crude that reaches the San Pedro Bay.
Tar sands oil deposits produce bitumen, “a dense and highly viscous petroleum found in clay and sand deposits known as bituminous sands, oil sands, or tar sands.”[xiv] In spite of increasing bitumen production, “the scientific study of impacts has largely lagged behind the rapid pace of oil sands development, and where it has progressed, it has focused primarily on effects on regional landscapes, freshwater systems, climate change, and human communities. To date, the effects of the industry on marine environments have received relatively little scientific attention.”[xv] There is no publicly available information available on the behavior, fate, and toxicity of dilbit[xvi] in the marine environment. These uncertainties are of great concern, and any evaluation of the environmental impact of an increase in the shipping of bitumen to the Phillips 66 refinery must take this uncertainty into account by evaluating worst case scenarios and requiring robust mitigation measures based on precautionary principles.
Bitumen is generally considered to be a recalcitrant and immobile crude oil that requires unconventional extraction methods as well as the addition of diluents for transport through unheated transmission pipelines. “The key differences are in the exceptionally high density, viscosity, and adhesion properties of the bitumen component of the diluted bitumen that dictate environmental behavior as the crude oil is subjected to weathering (a term that refers to physical and chemical changes of spilled oil).”[xvii] There is very little publicly available information about the reaction of dilbit to the marine environment and the organisms and ecosystems found there, and widespread uncertainty remains even as to the most basic questions like whether dilbit products will float or sink, what chemicals are contained in dilbit at what concentrations, what response dilbit will have to weathering, and how it will interact with marine species and sediment.
In cases where traditional removal or containment techniques are not immediately successful, the possibility of submerged and sunken oil increases. This situation is highly problematic for spill response because (1) there are few effective techniques for detection, containment, and recovery of oil that is submerged in the water column, and (2) available techniques for responding to oil that has sunk to the bottom have variable effectiveness depending on the spill conditions.[xviii]
Tar sands refining could increase drastically in California if existing MOT plans move forward. In fact, the tar sands industry’s expansion plans rely on California’s refinery capacity, partially because Gulf Coast heavy crude refining capacity is more limited. Current Canadian production of tar sands crude sits around 100,000 barrels per day, but that could increase to as much as 800,000 barrels per day in coming decades.[xix]
Each tanker trip carries an added risk of a spill (approximately 1 spill per decade with an average spill volume of about 2100 gallons per year would be expected[xx]), and I am concerned about the possibility that a tanker or barge carrying tar sands crude to the Phillips 66 MOT will cause an oil spill. Marine cleanup of a tar sands spill has never been tried, and I am concerned about the potential ecological consequences of such a spill and responders’ ability, or lack thereof, to effectively clean up a spill of tar sands dilbit.
The submergence of persistent residues of dilbit in aquatic environments, and the potential for long-term deposition in sediments and banks and remobilization in the water column present environmental concerns and cleanup challenges not presented by commonly transported crude oils.
California’s legislators have paid attention to this threatened influx of tar sands oil. California Government Code Section 8670.2(f) declares that “[b]ecause of the inadequacy of existing cleanup and response measures and technology, the emphasis [in Oil Spill Response and Contingency Planning (added)] must be put on prevention, if the risk and consequences of oil spills are to be minimized.”
Environmental Impacts
The water quality impacts from the improvements of the Phillips 66’s MOT must be thoroughly examined, from impacts associated with the extraction of tar sands feed stocks in Canada to the dilution of those feedstocks with diluents and shipment by pipeline to Vancouver or other ports, through the loading process onto tankers and the shipping routes they take down the west coast to San Pedro Bay, then to the unloading of those feedstocks and transport into the refinery, the separation and reuse of diluents, the eventual shipment of refined or reused products to end markets or extraction sites, and finally through to impacts from the use of end products. This lifecycle analysis must consider global effects such as climate change and ocean acidification, as well as local water quality impacts that could have serious consequences for the communities at extraction sites, ports, along the shipping routes, and near the actual Project site. This analysis must also disclose the extent to which unknowns exist, such as the lack of concrete information concerning effective marine spill cleanup methodologies for tar sands dilbit and the environmental impacts of such spills, and evaluate the risks taken because of those unknowns.
Each tanker trip carries an added risk of a spill, as a reported 50% of large spills occur in open water.[xxi] The majority of spills, however, are less than 200,000 gallons, and most of these spills happen while in port.[xxii] Two types of tanker will likely be used to transport tar sands crude to California refineries, coastal tankers, which can carry as much as 340,000 barrels of oil (14.3 million gallons), and coastal tank barges, which typically carry 50,000 to 185,000 barrels of oil, though newer models can carry as much as a coastal tanker. Even the smallest tar sands barge would carry at least twice that amount.
California’s $45 billion coastal economy has a lot to lose to a spill.[xxiii] California commercial fisheries for instance, produced from 186-361 million pounds of fish from 2013-2015, at a value of $129 to $266 million dollars.[xxiv] An EIR evaluating the environmental impacts of expanding operations at the Phillips 66 MOT must take into account the increased risk of an unprecedented spill of tar sands crude oil into San Pedro Bay or at any other point along the route oil transport tankers and barges will take from Canada.
Uncertainty over how to clean up spills of oils derived from tar sands extends to the specific technology used for cleanup efforts. “The environmental impacts associated with oil spill clean-up efforts (e.g. mechanical or chemical) may increase the magnitude of ecological damage and delay recovery.”[xxv] Recent surveys have not found any studies on the response of “trophic groups within eelgrass and kelp forest ecosystems to bitumen in the environment, or the impacts of different spill- response methods.”[xxvi] Without a thorough report on past spills that includes a description of what happened and how such accidents can be prevented in the future, the proposed EIR will not be able to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential environmental impacts.
Additional National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) effluent criteria may be needed, a possibility which must be evaluated in the proposed EIR. Foreseeable spill rates from an increase in MOT activity might qualify as a discharge to waters of the United States because it is reasonably predictable that a certain number of spills will occur. With this and other water quality impacts in mind, the regional water board should at least be another responsible agency, if not the lead agency evaluating a permit to increase MOT operations.
Furthermore, different feedstock may result in a change in the effluent discharged by the refinery under their existing NDPES permit, another reason why the regional water board should at least be a responsible party. The proposed EIR must evaluate an updated NPDES permit that reflects the changing feedstock that will result from the Project.
No reasonable mitigation or planning can be done regarding the risk posed by the transport of dilbit to the Phillips 66 Carson refinery without specific information as to the chemical composition of the crude oil being transported. Details on the types of oil expected to arrive on the tankers utilizing the MOT’s improved capacity must be part of the EIR and must be made publicly available. It is irresponsible to base risk assessment and best practices for the handling of dilbit on assessments and practices for conventional oil without at least knowing exactly what the chemical composition of the dilbit is, including separate information on bitumen and diluent constituents, and how it differs from conventional oil. As indicated above, the available scientific evidence suggests that the type of risks associated with marine spills of dilbit, tars sands, and other sinking oils are wholly different from risks from spills of floating conventional crude oil. Additional research into best management practices, spill prevention practices, and cleanup and response planning is needed before we can allow a major increase in the amount of tar sands coming into California’s waters.
I ask that the EIR contain and make publicly available an independent scientific study on the risks to – and best achievable protection of – state waters from spills of nonfloating or potentially nonfloating oils. This study should evaluate the hazards and potential hazards associated with a spill or leak of nonfloating oils. The study should encompass potential spill impacts to natural resources, the public, occupational health and safety, and environmental health and safety. This analysis should include calculations of the economic and ecological impacts of a worst-case spill event in the San Pedro Bay ecosystem, along the California coast, and along the entire projected shipping route for the improved MOT.
Based on this study, the EIR should also include a full review of the spill response capabilities and criteria for oil spill contingency plans and oil spill response organizations (OSROs) responsible for remediating spills. I request that the EIR include an analysis indicating whether there are OSROs currently operating in California capable of responding adequately to a spill of non-floating oil. Further, the adequacy of an OSROs spill response capability should be compared to the baseline of no action rather than to a best available control technology standard.
Finally, the EIR must evaluate ship maintenance impacts. Increased shipping means increased maintenance in regional shipyards and at regional anchorages, and these impacts must be analyzed.
Wildlife Impacts
Increased shipping because of tar sands production and transport causes stress to the marine environment and can thus impact wildlife. Wake generation, sediment re-suspension, noise pollution, animal-ship collisions (or ship strikes), and the introduction of non-indigenous species must all be studied as a part of the EIR process. “Wake generation by large commercial vessels has been associated with decreased species richness and abundance (Ronnberg 1975) given that wave forces can dislodge species, increase sediment re-suspension (Gabel et al. 2008), and impair foraging (Gabel et al. 2011).”[xxvii] Wake generation must be evaluated as an environmental impact of the Project.
Acoustic impacts can also be extremely disruptive. “Increased tanker traffic threatens marine fish, invertebrate, and mammal populations by disrupting acoustic signaling used for a variety of processes, including foraging and habitat selection (e.g. Vasconcelos et al. 2007; Rolland et al. 2012), and by physical collision with ships – a large source of mortality for marine animals near the surface along shipping routes (Weir and Pierce 2013).”[xxviii] Acoustic impacts must be evaluated as an environmental impact of the project.
Invasive species are also a dangerous side effect of commercial shipping. “Tankers also serve as a vector for the introduction of non-indigenous species (NIS) via inadvertent transfer of propagules from one port to another (Drake and Lodge 2004), with the probability of introduction depending on the magnitude and origin of shipping traffic along tanker routes (Table 1 and Figure 3; Lawrence and Cordell 2010).”[xxix] Invasive species impacts must be evaluated as an environmental impact of the project.
Shipping Traffic Impacts
Additional impacts must be analyzed starting at the port that ships take on their crude oil cargos and ending at the ports they discharge it to. The EIR should include shipping impacts to public or non-Project commercial vessels and businesses, including impacts to recreational boaters and ferries, that might experience increased delay, anchorage waits or related crowding, and navigational complexity. Such shipping traffic impact evaluations should extend to spills, air quality, marine life impacts from ship collisions, and other environmental impact evaluated by the EIR that could impact shipping traffic.
Air Quality Impacts
Air quality impacts evaluated by the EIR must include an adequate study area in order to appropriately estimate the Project’s potential to result in substantial increases in criteria pollutant emissions. The air quality baseline examined by the EIR must be specifically based on current conditions and cannot rely only on permitted levels. As part of this analysis, the EIR must consider the fact that refinery emissions are likely to backslide because of different feedstocks that feature tar sands.[xxx] Air quality impacts must include all of the Project’s components and connected actions. The Project’s climate change implications must be accurately estimated. Any offsets or emission reduction credits contemplated must be legally adequate and thoroughly studied, including any environmental justice impacts from the use of such offsets or credits. Finally, the EIR must consider emissions from construction activities.
Tar sands crudes alone are comprised of higher molecular weight chemicals. These chemicals include large amounts of benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, xylenes (together commonly referred to as BTEX compounds), and other heavy metals such as lead. These chemicals are found in both state and federal toxic emissions inventories, and are, therefore, of particular concern to both federal and state regulatory agencies.[xxxi] The U.S. Geological Survey reports that natural bitumen, the source of all Canadian tar sands- derived oils, contains 102 times more copper, 21 times more vanadium, 11 times more sulfur, six times more nitrogen, 11 times more nickel, and 5 times more lead than conventional heavy crude oil.[xxxii]
The distinction in crude oil feedstock matters. The chemical composition of raw materials that are processed by a refinery directly affect the amount and composition of the refinery’s emissions. The amount and composition of sulfur in the crude slate, for example, ultimately determines the amount of sulfur dioxide that will be emitted from every fired source in the refinery and the amount of odiferous hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans that will be emitted from tanks, pumps, valves, and fittings. The composition of the crude slate establishes the CEQA baseline against which impacts must be measured. Other significant impacts, such as increased energy consumption, air emissions, toxic pollutant releases, flaring and catastrophic incident risks, are also entirely dependent on the quality of crude oil processed at the facility. Furthermore, the diluents typically used in dilbit have a low molecular weight and high vapor pressure, so they can cause fugitive, gaseous releases by increasing vapor pressure in various refinery operation and transport components, including tankers and pipelines. Finally, a heavier crude oil feedstock has also been identified as a contributing factor to potentially catastrophic incidents at refineries, and a root cause of the August 6, 2012, fire at the Chevron Richmond Refinery.[xxxiii]
An increase from 229 ships and barges per year to 306 total shipments per year carries with it obvious air quality impacts from ship exhaust as well. These impacts must be evaluated for every mile the ships and barges travel, and for every community along their route. Shipments will not arrive at the Project terminal from out of a vacuum, and each additional ship or barge beyond those currently in fact using the terminal – not just those currently permitted – must be evaluated.
Environmental Justice and Economic Impacts
To the extent the Project utilizes offsets or credits, these have an undue impact on disadvantaged and already polluted communities, and the environmental justice impacts of such use must be evaluated. The EIR should include a full Health Risk Assessment for communities that will be affected by this project. The MOT ranks in the top 1% of the state’s highest concentration of hazardous waste facilities and has a high concentration of contamination from Toxic Release Inventory chemicals, ranking in the top 4% for that factor.[xxxiv]
Fisheries would also be a major casualty of any large spill of dilbit or other petroleum product, and struggling fishing communities would be hardest hit by such impacts. Additional stress on these fisheries as a result of a spill or from other impacts from increased tanker traffic could have catastrophic consequences that need to be examined in the EIR. Overall, California produced 366 million pounds of fish worth 252.6 million dollars in 2014 and 195 million pounds of fish worth 143.1 million dollars in 2015, and threats to this industry that result from the Project must be evaluated in the EIR.
Climate Impacts
Tar sands is one the most greenhouse gas intensive fuel sources in the world. “Per unit of energy delivered, transport fuel derived from oil sands deposits generates more greenhouse gases throughout its lifecycle than other petroleum products.”[xxxv] Because tar sands’ oil has a greater impact on climate, any change in marine terminal operations that has the practical effect of changing the feedstock used at the Phillips 66 refinery to include a greater mix of dilbit must take into account lifecycle climate impacts, including ocean acidification, ocean warming, and sea-level rise. Tar sands development will exacerbate the effects of ongoing climate change, so the Project EIR must take impacts from climate change into account.
With the use of tar sands comes the additional possibility that a change in feedstocks could result in an increase in the production of petcoke or other petroleum derivatives. This possibility should be included in the impacts analysis, along with lifecycle evaluations of all derivatives.
The EIR must also explain whether this project’s increased greenhouse gas emissions are consistent with California’s greenhouse gas reduction goals: a reduction of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.[xxxvi]
The Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL pipeline provided an important precedent. The methodology employed by the U.S. State Department in that case accounted for increased emissions from the entire lifecycle of these new sources of crude oil, including both tar sands and Bakken, which was compared to lifecycle emissions of a baseline conventional crude. The marginal change in lifecycle emissions was multiplied by the pipeline’s throughput to arrive at the change in greenhouse gas emissions that could be directly attributed to the pipeline.
Ocean acidification is a real threat to the health of California’s marine ecosystem and the connection between ocean acidification and high-carbon activities, such as tar sands extraction, refinement, and fuel consumption, is well established.
Elevated CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere lead to higher dissolved CO2 concentrations in seawater, which in turn lower its pH. Acidification can alter growth, survival, and reproduction of species (Doney et al. 2009; Kroeker et al. 2013). At particular risk are organisms with calcareous shells or skeletons that cannot form properly in acidified seawater. These species tend to be at the base of marine food webs, amplifying the impacts throughout marine ecosystems (Harley et al. 2006; Kroeker et al. 2013).[xxxvii] Ocean acidification impacts must be evaluated in the Project EIR.
Marine ecosystems are also threatened by warming water temperatures. “Warming sea- surface Temperatures have been associated with decreased productivity, diversity, and resilience of nearshore marine ecosystems over the past few decades (Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno 2010; Wernberg et al. 2011a) and with increased risk of species extinction (Wernberg et al. 2011b).”[xxxviii] As such, warming water temperature impacts must be evaluated in the Project EIR.
Sea level rise is a clear and present danger, not just in California but throughout the world. “Sea-level rise will shift habitat for nearshore marine communities in regionally specific ways, depending on local geomorphology, and is expected to have substantial economic consequences for coastal human populations (e.g. Hinkel et al. 2014).”[xxxix] Extensive research in California has modeled and predicted some of the effects of sea level rise, and this research must be taken into account by the Project EIR when determining the environmental impact of expanding the Phillips 66 MOT to accommodate increased dilbit supply from Canada.
Because of the high greenhouse gas cost of tar sands, this Project may well increase California’s overall greenhouse gas emissions and/or undermine California’s rigorous climate change reduction goals. The Project must be evaluated for consistency with Assembly Bill 197[xl], which instructs regulators to reduce emissions directly from industrial sources such as the Phillips 66 Refineries that disproportionately impact disadvantaged communities. In addition, the Project must be evaluated for consistency with state and local plans and local planning codes, which could include climate change.
Cross-Border Impacts
Tar sands extraction is intensely environmentally destructive, and the Project EIR must consider environmental impacts that occur outside of California because of actions within California.
Cumulative Impacts
The completion of Trans Mountain Expansion Project in Canada will mean an eight-fold increase in the amount of tar sands crude oil that reaches the Canadian coast. The predicted increase in tar sands production could result in more than 2,000 additional barges and tankers carrying tar sands crude to and from these refineries on the West Coast. Each such barge trip carries an incrementally increasing chance of a spill, so the Project’s cumulative impact with other MOT operations that will also be expanded because of the increased supply of dilbit from Canada must be evaluated.
Review must also consider a reasonable range of project alternatives including cleaner, alternative fuel sources and include an evaluation consistent with state and San Pedro Bay area/Port of Los Angeles plans to reduce climate change pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.
Terrorism Impacts
More ships and barges bring increased risk, especially if those ships are carrying a volatile fuel like tar sands. Anti-terrorism and security measures, as well as the potential impacts from a terrorist or other non-accidental action, must be evaluated in the proposed EIR.
Project Baseline, Piecemealing, and Lifecycle Analysis
As a threshold issue, the Project’s baseline should consider not just the MOT, but also the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refineries in Carson and Wilmington as well as the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plant’s Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project (which received a Negative Declaration in 2014)[xli]. A project baseline should not necessarily rely on permit limitations, but rather should examine conditions as they exist on the ground. Actual emissions must be used to establish baseline air quality, for instance.
I am concerned about the potential for the Project to be piecemealed. There are multiple additional projects that should have been included in Phillips 66’s decision to convert to refining tar sands crude, not just the MOT improvements. The improved MOT requested under the current Project could not be fully utilized without additional operational capacity in the refineries themselves and in other areas connected to the MOT but not directly contemplated by the Project. Any cumulative impact analysis is de facto inadequate without all considering all related projects, including the potential for other San Pedro Bay area refineries to increase MOT themselves and bring in more tar sands oil.
Phillips 66’s other conversions or expansions must be part of the analysis for the Project, including any linkages with the Project. Because of the many connected actions associated with the Project – as described above the Project is piecemealed and potentially contemplates an inadequate baseline – if it should be determined that it is part of one larger project, as a result, it would be more appropriate to analyze it under a Program EIR. This would have several advantages: provide a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR; ensure adequate consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis; allow for an earlier and more practical consideration of mitigation measures; and save considerable agency resources.[xlii]
Finally, a lifecycle analysis of tar sands crude must be undertaken to evaluate environmental impacts such as climate, air quality, and wildlife impacts, to name just a few. This lifecycle analysis would have to include the foreseeable, inevitable results of refining crude oil.
Conclusion
The many impacts that can be expected from the subject Project, as outlined in this memorandum, necessitate caution in the study and approvals process. While, over the next forty years, demand for petroleum fuel products could conceivably halve or double in Southern California, more likely scenarios indicate lesser local demand over time. Thus, providing improved infrastructure to manufacture additional refined fuel products in this area may mean that Southern California would endure likely disproportionate negative environmental impacts from the transshipment and transloading of imported crude petroleum products and exported refined petroleum products. I urge the City of Los Angeles Harbor Department and its Environmental Management Division to pursue the recommendations in this document as well as those contained in the suggestions of the numerous other commenters in written or oral comments about the subject Project and pursue a full EIR.
In these dark times, there must be light. The public must be allowed to participate in and review the environmental documents generated as a result of this process and in the preparation of the full EIR and its parallel tidelands trust analysis and to confront the actual decision makers with their comments and concerns.
[i] See https://kentico.portoflosangeles.org/getmedia/43f00966-2ee2-4525-8597-73da6ab8b126/Berths-148-151-P66-MOTEMS-NOI-English-Spanish
[ii] See https://kentico.portoflosangeles.org/getmedia/d9b76ad6-9242-46e2-91b5-a7def9ac4e1f/Berths-148-151-P66-MOTEMS-Draft-IS-MND , p. 1.
[iii] It is unknown whether these non-MOT uses are potentially convertible to MOT use at some or any time during the proposed forty-year extension. If so, the increase in shipping activity would double, at a minimum, through the use of two, improved berths instead of one, older berth. This point needs to be clarified.
[iv] See https://kentico.portoflosangeles.org/getmedia/d9b76ad6-9242-46e2-91b5-a7def9ac4e1f/Berths-148-151-P66-MOTEMS-Draft-IS-MND , p. 10.
[v] See 29 Cal.App.5th 562 (2018), SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE LANDS COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent; HANSON MARINE OPERATIONS, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest. No. A151821. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four. October 31, 2018 re in San Francisco Baykeeper vs.California State Lands Commission (2018) 29 Cal. App.5th 562 (Baykeeper II) and San Francisco Baykeeper vs. California State Lands Commission (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 202 (Baykeeper I).
[vi] See McCarthy, Ryan, Yang, Christopher, and Ogden, Joan. California Energy Demand Scenario Projections to 2050, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series, p. 6. See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46440080_California_Energy_Demand_Scenario_Projections_to_2050.
[vii] As further evidence, California Energy Commission CONSULTANT REPORT Analysis of Benefits Associated With Projects and Technologies Supported by the Clean Transportation Program, Prepared for: California Energy Commission, Prepared by: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. November 2021 | CEC-600-2021-039, page 2 estimates a 249 million gallon annual reduction in petroleum fuel demand in California by 2035 (this is moving closer to the minimum scenario in Figure 1 above).
[viii] See McCarthy, Ryan, Yang, Christopher, and Ogden, Joan. California Energy Demand Scenario Projections to 2050, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series, p. 54. See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46440080_California_Energy_Demand_Scenario_Projections_to_2050.
[ix] These refineries have a Nelson Complexity Index (NCI) of 14.3, indicating that they can refine such lower quality crude. However, if crude from these sources is not anticipated to be imported, oil from other locations around the world could also be processed and refined by San Pedro Bay area refineries.
[x] The main source for this document was the Comments of San Francisco Baykeeper, STAND.earth, and Friends of the Earth on the Phillips 66 Marine Permit Revision Project – Draft Environmental Impact Report dated August 28, 2017, at https://biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/pdfs/2017-08-28_Scoping_Comments.pdf. Many relevant comments were freely drawn from this source.
[xi] See https://kentico.portoflosangeles.org/getmedia/d9b76ad6-9242-46e2-91b5-a7def9ac4e1f/Berths-148-151-P66-MOTEMS-Draft-IS-MND , p. 8.
[xii] See A Modal Comparison of Domestic Freight Transportation Effects on the General Public: 2001–2014, January 2017. Prepared by Center for Ports and Waterways, Texas A&M Transportation Institute,701 N. Post Oak, Ste. 430, Houston, TX 77024-3827. Prepared for National Waterways Foundation.
[xiii] See https://www.transmountain.com/project-overview/ .
[xiv] Green et al., Oil sands and the marine environment: current knowledge and future challenges, The Ecological Society of America, Front Ecol. Environ. 2017; 15(2): 74–83.
[xv] Id.
[xvi] Bitumen is chemically distinct from conventional oil and must be diluted to transport and refine. The diluted product is often referred to as “dilbit.”
[xvii] Spills of Diluted Bitumen from Pipelines: A Comparative Study of Environmental Fate, Effects, and Response, National Academies of Sciences (2016, National Academies Press).
[xviii] National Academies of Sciences 2016.
[xix] Report: West Coast Tar Sands Invasion, Natural Resources Defense Council et al., p. 4 (April 2015) (based off a report by the Borealis Centre for Environmental and Trade Research, commissioned by NextGen and NRDC).
[xx] See A Modal Comparison of Domestic Freight Transportation Effects on the General Public: 2001–2014, January 2017. Prepared by Center for Ports and Waterways, Texas A&M Transportation Institute,701 N. Post Oak, Ste. 430, Houston, TX 77024-3827.
[xxi] The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (2016 spill statistics), p. 8
[xxii] Id.
[xxiii] California Ocean and Coastal Economies, National Ocean Economics Program (March 2015).
[xxiv] Based on California Department of Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service data.
[xxv] Green et al., 2017.
[xxvi] Id.
[xxvii] Memorandum for Commander, South Pacific Division (CWSPD-PD), FY 17 O&M Dredging of San Francisco (SF) Bay Navigation Channels, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Jan. 12, 2017) (Army Corps memo discussing deferred dredging).
[xxviii] Green et al. 2017.
[xxix] Id.
[xxx] Refining tar sands could result in an increase in Toxic Air Contaminants and Hazardous Air Pollutants. Tar sands crudes are distinct from even the heaviest of crudes processed in the past at the Refinery, for two principal reasons: (1) the unique chemical composition of the bitumen itself; and (2) the presence of large quantities of volatile diluents containing high levels of VOCs, TACs and HAPs. When released, these air pollutants cause significant public health and air quality impacts that must be adequately addressed in the EIR.
[xxxi] See, e.g., U.S. EPA, Clean Air Act 1990 List of Hazardous Air Pollutants, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/orig189.html; see also, California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List, available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/cattable.htm#Note 1.
[xxxii] R.F. Meyer, E.D. Attanasi, and P.A. Freeman, Heavy Oil and Natural Bitumen Resources in Geological Basins of the World, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1084, 2007, p. 14, Table 1, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1084/OF2007-1084v1.pdf.
[xxxiii] See Chemical Safety Board Interim Report on Chevron Fire (April 19, 2013). In addition, high acid levels in dilbit and its semi-refined products would accelerate corrosion of refinery components, contributing to equipment failure, more accidental releases, and risk of harm to both worker’s and the public’s health and safety.
[xxxiv] OEHHA, Cal Enviro Screen 1.1 (amended), Statewide Zip Code Results, Rodeo, available at https://oehha.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=1d202d7d9dc84120ba5aac97f8b39c56.
[xxxv] Green et al. 2017
[xxxvi] See California Executive Orders B-30-15 and S-3-05.
[xxxvii] Green et al. 2017, attached.
[xxxviii] Id.
[xxxix] Id.
[xl] See https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB197
[xli] See http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/permit-projects/2014/phillips-66-fnd.pdf#:~:text=PHILLIPS%2066%20LOS%20ANGELES%20REFINERY%20CARSON%20PLANT%20-,installed%20on%20each%20tank%20to%20control%20fugitive%20emissions.
[xlii] CEQA Guidelines § 15168.