Category Archives: Bay Area Air Quality Management District

20 By 2020: A Pledge To Reduce Bay Area Refinery Pollution

Repost from SWITCHBOARD, Natural Resources Defense Council Staff Blog

20 By 2020: A Pledge To Reduce Refinery Pollution

By Diane Bailey, October 9, 2014

Diane Bailey

The Bay Area Air District has been working for the past two years to craft regulations that track and limit refinery pollution as oil companies begin bringing in extreme new types of crude oil that put workers and refinery fenceline communities at risk.  Facing much more pollution from refining extreme crude oil, like tar sands and Bakken crude, and in the aftermath of the massive August 2012 fire at Chevron Richmond, a number of community and environmental advocates got together with refinery workers at the start of the rulemaking effort.  (below, the Chevron refinery and tanks loom large over North Richmond; Photo Credit: Environmental Health News)

Chevron richmond homes.jpgWe came up with the Worker-Community Approach to not only ensure that pollution would not increase from refineries but to track crude oil used and achieve continual progress on air quality by reducing 20 percent of refinery pollution by 2020.

Our challenge to the Bay Area Air District and to all Chevron tankfarm homes.jpgfive oil companies with refineries in the region is that given the tremendous amounts of pollution pumped out by refineries and impacting the health of fenceline communities every day, will they work together to commit to cutting pollution by 20 percent by 2020?  Here are five things you need to know about refinery pollution in the Bay Area that help explain why Refineries in the Bay Area are much more polluting than other refineries and can easily reduce 20 percent of their toxic emissions over the next five years:

1)      According to US EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Data: Bay Area refineries, on average, report more than twice the toxic chemical releases reported by Los Angeles Area refineries.

2)      According to the California Air Resources Board, emissions inventory data, Bay Area refinery emissions are estimated to decrease by 50 percent or more by 2020, making a 20 percent reduction by 2020 seem easy.  But projections are one thing; we need a reliable commitment in writing.

3)      The CARB emissions inventory data also shows that Bay Area Refineries currently emit 7 times more nitrogen oxides (NOx), 3 times more sulfur dioxide and at least a third more organic hydrocarbons (like benzene) than Southern CA refineries, yet Southern California refineries collectively have over a third more capacity.

4)      According to regional air district data, the Chevron Richmond refinery is much more polluting than its El Segundo “twin” that has the same design; Chevron Richmond emitted more than twice as much organic hydrocarbon and particulate matter (PM) and eight times more toxic benzene than the El Segundo refinery in 2012.  Going back to TRI emissions, Chevron Richmond released over 80 percent more toxic air pollution than Chevron El Segundo in 2011.

5)      According to a 2013 Statewide Audit, on a rough per gallon of gasoline basis, Bay Area Refineries are 50 percent more climate polluting, twice as polluting for organic hydrocarbons and NOx, almost 20 percent more polluting for PM and leak over three times as much benzene and almost five times as much formaldehyde relative to gasoline produced in Southern California.

Wouldn’t it be great if Bay Area refineries – Valero, Chevron, Tesoro, Phillips 66 and Shell – took the 20 by 2020 pledge?  They could use the same modern pollution controls that refineries in Southern California have installed.  This kind of commitment to clean air, is not only doable technologically, it is a smart approach to being a good neighbor and supporting community health.  The proactive Worker-community Approach to improving air quality also ensures that we won’t see an increase in pollution as oil companies bring more extreme crude oil into the region.  In fact, we would like to see refiners take a good neighbor pledge not to bring any extreme, dangerous crude oil into the Bay Area at all.  At the very least, they should pledge a 20 percent reduction of toxic pollution by 2020.  They did it in Southern California; Bay Area communities deserve no less.

THE PLEDGE:  A Worker-Community Approach to Emission ReductionsIn order to address the ongoing health hazards in refinery-impacted communities and prevent any increases in pollution caused by changing crude oil, the refinery rule should require:

1)  Each refinery is required to decrease refinery-wide emissions of pollutants that create environmental health hazards by at least 20 percent below the refinery’s baseline by 2020, showing adequate incremental progress of at least two percent each year;

OR

2)  If these reductions aren’t possible, a refinery needs to show that they are using the best available emission control technology (BACT) throughout the refinery (i.e., eliminate “grandfathered,” “non-BACT” and “exempted” sources in the refinery).


Sources & Notes:
  1. Refinery Capacity vs. Throughput: Refinery comparisons were adjusted by capacity as reported to US EPA and to the California Energy Commission.  Although annual crude oil throughput would be a better comparison point, it is not publicly available.  Thus an imperfect assumption that most refineries utilize most of their capacity must be made in order to compare emissions.  According to CEC, Southern California has roughly 1 million BPD refining capacity and the Bay Area has roughly 700,000 BPD capacity.  “A rough per gallon” refined basis is relative to reported capacity not throughput or production.
  2. CARB emissions inventory queries were run for 2012 and the future projection year of 2020 for industrial sources, taking the sum of the Emissions Inventory Categories: 040-Petroleum Refining (Combustion) and 320-Petroleum Refineries.
  3. BAAQMD Emissions Inventory Data for each refinery was transmitted to NRDC via Public Records Request, August 28, 2014 for years 2011 through 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

Contra Costa Times: Judge tosses out suit seeking to stop crude oil shipments by rail

Repost from The Contra Costa Times

Richmond: Judge tosses out suit seeking to stop crude oil shipments by rail

By Tom Lochner, Contra Costa Times, 09/05/2014

SAN FRANCISCO — A lawsuit by environmental groups seeking to stop shipments of crude oil by rail to Richmond was tossed out by a judge Friday on the grounds that it was filed too late.

Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council sued the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in March. The suit involved a Feb. 3 permit issued to Kinder Morgan to receive crude oil by rail at its Richmond trans-loading facility along the BNSF Railway tracks off Garrard Boulevard, where the oil is transferred to trucks.

Kinder Morgan Material Services LLC and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP were co-defendants.

Tanker cars sit on railroad tracks near the Shell Refinery in Martinez, Calif. on Monday, May 6, 2013. The Bay Area’s five refineries have moved
Tanker cars sit on railroad tracks near the Shell Refinery in Martinez, Calif. on Monday, May 6, 2013. The Bay Area’s five refineries have moved toward acquiring controversial Canadian tar sands crude through rail delivery. (Kristopher Skinner/Bay Area News Group)

The Feb. 3 permit amended a July 2013 permit that allowed Kinder Morgan to operate a denatured ethanol and crude oil bulk terminal. Ethanol is a volatile liquid derived from grain that is used as fuel or as a fuel additive, among other uses. The Feb. 3 amendments included modified testing procedures and standards for trucks. But the judge applied the 180-day statute of limitations to when the July 2013 permit was issued.

Both permits were issued ministerially and without environmental review.

Kinder Morgan has declined to say where the trucks are headed, citing confidentiality, but they are widely believed to be bound for the Tesoro Golden Eagle refinery in Martinez. Tesoro was an intervenor in the lawsuit, which had sought a preliminary injunction against further crude oil operations at Kinder Morgan and suspension of the air district permit pending a full review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Earlier this year, a Tesoro spokeswoman confirmed the Martinez facility receives between 5,000 and 10,000 barrels per day of Bakken crude, a light, flammable variety named after oil fields in North Dakota and adjacent areas. That amount is equivalent to about two to four trains per month, the spokeswoman said, and is received through a “third-party facility” that she did not identify.

Air district counsel Brian Bunger hailed Friday’s decision as “a correct application of the law.”

“We’re pleased with the outcome,” Bunger said.

Air district spokeswoman Lisa Fasano said late Friday that “The Air District will continue to work with state legislators and policy makers regarding where and how crude oil is transported into the region for refining.”

But Earthjustice blasted the dismissal, saying it allows Kinder Morgan and the air district to “get away with opening (Richmond) to crude oil transport by rail without public notice.”

“This is just how the agencies and industry wins — hide the information, make the change under the cover of night, and hope people don’t notice while the clock winds down on any hope to stop these dangerous and callous developments,” Earthjustice attorney Suma Peesapati said in a news release. “What’s worse is this emboldens other companies to do the same thing and hide their switch to crude oil.”

Kinder Morgan spokesman Richard Wheatley said his company is “satisfied with the outcome.”

“It was a well-reasoned and thoughtful decision by the judge,” Wheatley said in an email Friday. “We look forward to continuing to serve our customers safely and reliably.”

Tesoro did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Responding by email Friday, Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia, who sits on the air district board, said: “Despite this case’s dismissal, I remain concerned about the safety of transporting Bakken Crude and believe it’s important for the Federal Government to strengthen safety standards.”

Judge dismisses environmentalists’ lawsuit against BAAQMD

Repost from SFGate

BREAKING NEWS: Judge says suit to stop Richmond oil shipments filed too late

By Bob Egelko, September 5, 2014

A judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by environmental groups over shipments of volatile crude oil to the Richmond rail terminal, saying they had waited too long to challenge regulators’ approval of the project – approval they discovered only after the deadline for going to court.

Trains from the Midwest have been carrying the oil to the terminal of the Kinder Morgan energy company since early February. The environmental law firm Earthjustice learned of the shipments from news reports in mid-March and sued later that month, saying air-quality regulators should have conducted an environmental study of the potential for toxic emissions as well as the explosions that have occurred elsewhere.

But the Bay Area Air Quality Management District had decided in July 2013 to let Kinder Morgan receive crude oil instead of ethanol, which had been delivered to the terminal since 2009.

Acting under its legal authority, the district made no public announcement of the new permit, but – according to Friday’s ruling – its action started the clock ticking on a 180-day deadline for a lawsuit.

That deadline expired two months before the suit was filed, said San Francisco Superior Court Judge Peter Busch.

“I understand the deep concern,” Busch said in a courtroom filled with opponents of the shipments, some of whom wore “Stop Crude by Rail” stickers on their shirts. But he said courts must follow “the Legislature’s determination of the appropriate time period to impose finality.”

Lawmakers’ decision

In setting that firm timetable, he said, “the Legislature contemplated circumstances where the public wouldn’t know” a project had been approved.

Communities for a Better Environment, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed the suit.

Their lawyer, Suma Peesapati of Earthjustice, argued that the 180-day timeline should have started much later, either when the public learned of the oil shipments or when Kinder Morgan halted them for two weeks to bring in oil trucks with stronger protections against vapor release.

According to documents now available, Peesapati told the judge, the district and the energy company had studied the project for a year and initially agreed that it was likely to harm air quality, a conclusion that would have required a full environmental study and public input. Then, she said, the district reversed course and “cooked the books” to cover its tracks.

“There was a bait and switch,” Peesapati said. “The public had no way of knowing.”

5 months of tests

Lawyers for the district and Kinder Morgan said they had acted safely and legally. John Lynn Smith, the company’s lawyer, said it conducted five months of tests before beginning the shipments, and used trucks that kept vapor releases to their levels during the ethanol deliveries.

Busch said neither the commencement of the oil shipments nor the truck substitution made significant changes in the project the air district had already approved.

Peesapati said the environmental groups would consider an appeal. The district’s approval process “was biased in favor of Kinder Morgan at every turn,” she said.

Bay Area Air Quality: Isn’t your family’s health more important than Big Oil profits?

From an email by Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter
[Editor: For details about participating in the upcoming meeting of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, see below.  – RS

Isn’t your family’s health more important than Big Oil profits?

Jess Dervin-Ackerman, August 27, 2014

For too long, the Bay Area’s five oil refineries have been polluting our air and water and pouring money into local politics to ensure they can continue their dirty, harmful practices. In the Bay Area alone, air pollution kills nearly 2,000 people each year.

We need the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (the body tasked with regulating the refineries) to take strong and bold action to protect our communities from the toxic air pollution spewing from these facilities. Send a message to the Air District Board supporting a proactive approach to regulating refinery emissions now!

The Chevron refinery in Richmond is one of the worst offenders; two years ago this month, a huge fire at the facility sent upwards of 15,000 Richmond residents to the hospital with respiratory problems. Right now, the Chevron refinery is emitting fine particulate matter that causes heart and lung disease—and the rules allow them to do it. We need stronger regulations that prevent toxic polluters from poisoning Bay Area families, as well as specific action to cap fine particulate emissions from the Chevron refinery.

Add your voice to the growing movement in the Bay Area calling for strong and bold action to reduce dangerous emissions and carbon pollution from the refineries along the Bay.

Thank you for taking action to protect the health and safety of our community and the planet.

Jess Dervin-Ackerman
Conservation Organizer
Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter

P.S. — Forward this message to a friend!


Please attend the September 3rd Air District Board meeting to support cleanup and emissions restrictions.

Support  –  including emission limits in BAAQMD’s proposed Bay Area refineries rule.
Oppose – Big Oil’s proposal of a ‘monitoring only’ rule that threatens to study us to death.

What: Meeting of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board of Directors—write “For Cleanup” on your speaker card

When: Wednesday, September 3 (all morning—suggest arrival by 9 AM)

Where: BAAQMD offices, 939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 (Ellis near Van Ness Ave., about eight blocks from Civic Center BART Station)