Category Archives: Local Regulation

‘First I Had Heard of It’: Valero’s Benicia Refinery Secretly Released Toxic Chemicals for Years

The Valero refinery in Benicia (Craig Miller KQED)

Air district holding a virtual public workshop on the Valero releases on Thursday (tonight – 3/24)

KQED News, by Ted Goldberg, February 24, 2022
[BenIndy Editor: More at SAVE THESE DATES…  – R.S.]

Officials in Benicia and Solano County want to know why Valero’s oil refinery there was able to release excessive levels of hazardous chemicals for more than 15 years before regional air regulators discovered the emissions — and why those regulators failed for another three years to alert local communities to the potential danger.

A Bay Area Air Quality Management District investigation launched in November 2018 found that one refinery unit produced pollutant emissions that were, on average, hundreds of times higher than levels permitted by the agency.

The emissions consisted of a variety of “precursor organic compounds,” or POCs, including benzene and other toxic chemicals.

An air district rule limits the release of such compounds to 15 pounds a day and a maximum concentration of 300 parts per million. The district’s investigation found that from December 2015 through December 2018, POC emissions averaged 5,200 pounds a day — nearly 350 times the daily limit. The average POC concentration recorded during the first year of that period was 19,148 parts per million, more than 60 times the level set by the agency.

Those findings led the air district to issue a notice of violation to Valero in March 2019. But it wasn’t until late last month that the agency went public and announced it would seek to impose an abatement order requiring the refinery to halt the excessive pollution releases.

“That was the first I had heard of it,” said Benicia Mayor Steve Young, one of four members of the city council who say they want to know why the community was not told earlier.

“We should have been notified by the air district when this was first discovered in 2019, and certainly while negotiations with Valero were going on,” he said.

The Solano County agency responsible for inspecting the Valero refinery and investigating incidents there says it was also left out of the loop.

Chris Ambrose, a hazardous materials specialist with the county’s Environmental Health Division, said in an email his agency “was never formally notified by or requested to participate in BAAQMD’s emissions investigation.”

A health risk assessment carried out by the air district in 2019 found that the refinery’s release of benzene and other pollutants posed an elevated risk of cancer and chronic health threats and violated several agency regulations.

Solano County Health Officer Bela Matyas told KQED that because the wind often pushes refinery emissions away from Benicia, the refinery’s prolonged pollution releases didn’t likely pose any extreme risk to residents.

“But it doesn’t excuse the process. It doesn’t excuse the failure to adhere to standards and it doesn’t provide any excuse for the fact that the city of Benicia was put at some risk as a result of these emissions,” Matyas said.

The air district, which plans to hold a virtual public workshop on the Valero releases on Thursday night, is defending its decision to not alert local officials earlier.

“To protect the integrity of the air district’s investigation and ensure that Valero is held accountable, we were not able to notify the city of Benicia until the investigation was concluded,” district spokesperson Kristine Roselius said.

“Going forward, the air district is committed to additional transparency around these types of ongoing violations, to putting companies in front of our hearing board in a public forum where information can be shared, and working to ensure these types of cases are brought into that forum as quickly as possible,” she said.

The hearing board Roselius referred to is an independent panel created under state law to rule on issues that arise at individual facilities that the air district regulates. The board is scheduled to consider the district’s abatement order at an all-day public session on March 15.

At issue is the infrastructure that produces hydrogen for the facility. Hydrogen is integral to several refining processes, but demand for it throughout the refinery fluctuates. When the supply of hydrogen in the system is higher than the demand for it, the refinery vents the unneeded gas into the atmosphere.

Related Coverage

At issue is the infrastructure that produces hydrogen for the facility. Hydrogen is integral to several refining processes, but

The air district says that soon after it launched its investigation in late 2018, it discovered that Valero had known since 2003 that the refinery was venting hydrogen that contained a range of regulated pollutants, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.

In 2019, Valero devised a workaround that reduced emissions significantly but still failed to bring them within allowable limits.

The air district’s proposed abatement order would set up a timeline for the company to design and build a new vent system to bring the facility into compliance, with the work completed no later than the facility’s next “turnaround” — the industry term for a refinery-wide maintenance shutdown.

The Benicia City Council has asked Valero executives and air district officials to answer questions at its March 1 council meeting.

Mayor Young, Vice Mayor Tom Campbell and council members Christina Strawbridge and Lionel Largaespada all say they want to know how the emissions went undetected for so long.

“I’d like to know how it was missed when Valero has had two or three full plant turnarounds since 2003 and the air board is out there every week,” Campbell said.

A Valero representative responded to a request for comment by referring KQED to a city of Benicia press release that includes the air district’s proposed abatement order.

The air district says it’s consulting with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to determine whether the Valero releases violated federal law. It’s unclear when the EPA learned of the refinery problems.

The Benicia facility has been the subject of repeated scrutiny for past problems, leading to investigations by not only air regulators but also county hazardous materials specialists and the California Public Utilities Commission.

Save these dates for important meetings on Air District charges against Valero for continued air pollution violations

Email from Progressive Democrats of Benicia, February 21, 2022


The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) will have two important informational meetings to discuss the serious emissions violations incurred by the Valero Refinery.  BAAQMD sets and enforces air pollution regulations in the Bay Area. Valero’s violations included dangerous benzene emissions.

The first meeting is THIS THURSDAY, FEB 24, FROM 6 TO 8 PM

In the words of Jack Broadbent, executive officer of the Air District:

Valero’s disregard for air quality regulations and public safety in the surrounding community warrants decisive action and significant penalties to deter violations in the future. Valero did not report or control the emissions from this source as required by Air District regulations, state and federal law.

Please plan to attend the following Zoom meetings to get answers to your questions, find out more details about what has been released into our air, and learn how it could have affected the air quality in Benicia. What will be the consequences to the refinery for their negligent action? Show Valero and the Air District that we care and are prepared to take action to protect our community!!

At our last general membership meeting we announced a webinar for Benicia Community Air Monitoring System on the 24th. That has now been moved to March 3rd so you can attend these BAAQMD meetings, which we feel are vital for every member and supporter to join if they can, so we can make our voices heard on the matter of these violations, and demand Valero take important steps to regain the trust of our community. Please plan to attend!


 This Thursday, February 24, 6 to 8 pm
Air District staff are holding this meeting and will be present to discuss these violations in detail. Click on the link for more information: https://www.baaqmd.gov/news-and-events/workshops
 Join Zoom Meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83974557503?pwd=Z2hDdTNxNitYV0h4cHgxOHR1eGtPUT09
Meeting ID: 839 7455 7503
Passcode: 808102
One tap mobile
+16699006833


Tuesday, March 1, 6 pm
Benicia City Council will address the Valero emission violations at their regular meeting. City council members have requested a briefing on the Valero case from Air District enforcement staff. This meeting is also open to the public. Please go to this page on the City of Benicia’s website for information on how to join.


Tuesday, March 15, 9:30 am
The second BAAQMD meeting is a legal hearing, where the Air District’s Hearing Board will consider approving the proposed abatement order. The public can view the agenda and provide written comment to the Hearing Board at the following link:
Hearing Board Agendas, Reports, and Orders (baaqmd.gov)
The public can also provide verbal comments to the Hearing Board during the hearing in the following ways:
 Join Zoom webinar:
https://bayareametro.zoom.us/j/88980571855
Webinar ID: 889 8057 1855
. . . or dial in remotely via phone at (669) 900-6833 or (408) 638-0968


 Please plan to attend one or all of these meetings, and thank you for supporting the health and safety of our community by taking action with us. Together, we will show Valero that no amount of cash they pump into our local elections will protect them from facing consequences for these very serious violations.

Kathy Kerridge, Int. Chair, Progressive Democrats of Benicia

See you there!

Kathy Kerridge
Interim Chair

 

Open Letter to Benicia City Council: Dr. Richard Fleming on mask mandate

Professional perspective and corrections: vaccine, hospitalizations, role of government, Bay Area comparisons

Email, by Richard Fleming, M.D., November 17, 2021, with permission

Hi Benicia City Council members,

Richard Fleming, M.D.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss and consider the safest way forward for our city during the pandemic. I hope you can take a few minutes to consider the following points:

  1. Vaccination rate.  According to publicly available data from the California Department of Public Health, the fully-vaccinated rate for the city of Benicia is 67.7%.  We have never been above 70% and certainly never been above 80%, numbers which have been mentioned in past city council meetings. (If we include those who got only one shot, the percentage is 76.7%, but the more important number is those who are fully vaccinated.) I strongly urge you to use the CDPH-reported fully-vaccinated rate for Benicia in future city council meetings. Also keep in mind that many fully-vaccinated people have not yet gotten boosters, and are beginning to lose some degree of immunity. Thus, the proportion of our city which has good immunity against covid-19 is actually less that 67.7%.
    You can see the state-provided numbers here:
    https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kabc/ca-vaccine-tracker/CA_vax_zip_map.html
  2. Vaccine availability is not a good measure of our city’s immunity to covid-19.  It is not a good metric to use in making public health safety decisions. Vaccines are equally available throughout the Bay Area, yet our city’s vaccination rate is below the average vaccination rate for the other 8 Bay Area counties. It is clear that availability of the vaccine does not equate to uptake of the vaccine. It is better to make public health decisions based on the actual level of immunity, rather than the potential level of immunity.
  3. Are cases or hospitalizations a better metric to follow? As Councilmember Largaespada noted at last night’s meeting, covid cases can vary depending on how much testing is being done. He correctly pointed out that the hospitalization rate is a better gauge of the virus’ impact on our city. I am unaware of Benicia-specific hospitalization data, so Solano County’s data is a fair proxy. The August City Council decision used cases as the metric to follow. I strongly urge you to change this metric to hospitalizations, since this measure more accurately captures how the pandemic is affecting our residents. Also, it is important to not view ICU capacity as equivalent to hospitalization rates. Councilmember Largaespada interchangeably referred to ICU capacity and hospitalization rates, but those are two very distinct and different measures. Since treatment options for covid-19 have improved dramatically, many covid-19 patients who are quite sick are now being safely managed on standard medical units or step-down units. The only ones needing ICU beds these days are the sickest of the sick. If ICU capacity in our county is going to be used as a metric, we could have stopped all public health precautions several months ago.
  4. Should covid public health policies let those who choose not to be vaccinated live with the consequences of their decision? At your meeting last night, it was said we at some point need to just move on, and accept the fact the virus will be with us for a long time. Since vaccines are now widely available, it is up to individuals to decide whether to get them or not. I have two responses:
    (a) Yes, covid-19 will likely become endemic at some point, like influenza. But we are not there yet. In fact, we are far from that point. In very bad influenza years, the country loses an average of 142 people per day. Covid-19 is still killing over 1,000 people per day. Covid-19 is surging in many areas of the country and the world, and the coming winter months, along with holiday parties, will very likely increase the risk of viral spread. Most public health experts do anticipate covid-19 will become endemic and something we need to manage in our lives. But we are not there yet.
    (b) Government has always had a role and responsibility to help protect people from themselves. That is why, for example, we have seat belt laws. The availability of seat belts does not necessarily mean they will be used, so we have laws which force people to use them. Even more importantly, government has a role to insure people not make individual decision which harm others. That is why why have drunk driving laws. A person may feel they can hold their liquor and drive safely, but the government has decided to not leave that judgment up to each individual. With covid, those who opt to not be vaccinated are both putting themselves at risk and putting others at risk. It is fully appropriate for government to adopt policies to protect both the individual and the community from those who are putting themselves and others at risk.
  5. What other Bay Area counties are doing. At last night’s meeting, I said that the other eight Bay Area counties are all retaining mask mandates. As was correctly pointed out, Marin has lifted their mask mandate, but it is only lifted for fully-vaccinated people. Partially vaccinated and unvaccinated people are still under a mask mandate. Marin has the highest vaccination rate, the lowest hospitalization rate, and the lowest death rate in the Bay Area. Contra Costa has not yet made a decision to lift their mask mandate. They along with several other counties are lifting mask mandates for selected businesses, but only when 100% of employees and customers are fully vaccinated. The other Bay Area counties have fared better during the pandemic than Solano County, and are approaching easing up on precautions very cautiously. I strongly encourage you to follow a similar approach.

Thank you for your work helping safeguard our community.

Richard Fleming, MD


MORE

For details on Council’s discussion and outcome, see: “Benicia City Council debates changing mask mandate, decides to keep in place, will review again on Dec. 7

Benicia City Council debates changing mask mandate, decides to keep in place, will review again on Dec. 7

The Council’s August 24 Mask Mandate remains in place for now

By Roger Straw, November 18, 2021
Benicia Mayor Steve Young

Benicia Mayor Young reported on last night’s City Council meeting that “Council decided not to change the mask requirements but to continue with the same metrics.”

The mandate, he continued, “will be reviewed again at the Dec 7 meeting.  If our 7-day case rates stay below high or substantial for another two weeks, the mandate will be dropped.”

The Mayor agreed with the Benicia Independent and many throughout the community that the City should be wary of dropping the mandate before the holidays and onset of winter.  “I was urging to wait through the holidays,” he wrote.

Dr. Richard Fleming agreed: “While the council agreed to continue the current mask mandate until their December 7 meeting, there appeared to be a desire by some to lift the mandate soon if the current case counts stay where they are for two more weeks.

“I feel strongly,” he continued, “that such a step would be premature and would risk opening the door to more viral spread.  I wrote the Council this morning (see text here), to explain why I think they should reassess the basis on which they decide whether to retain or remove the mask mandate, based on scientific evidence.”

Dr. Fleming added that “Many city residents called in to offer their opinions, and the vast majority were in favor of retaining the mandate until the pandemic has subsided significantly.  A number of callers spoke of the likelihood of a winter surge in cases due to colder weather and holiday gatherings.”

Council rejected a motion by Councilmember Lionel Largaespada to ease the metrics governing the mandate, which would have basically done away with the citywide mask mandate at this time.  Largaespada’s motion died for lack of a second.

Mayor Young was prepared to bring a motion to allow local businesses to voluntarily permit customers to enter maskless if 100% of employees and customers show proof of vaccination.  Young wrote, “The idea generated over 100 form letters of virulent opposition, and were evidently persuasive to council who did not support it.”  Sensing no support, Young chose not to offer the motion, and joined the majority in support of the City’s previously agreed upon mandate metrics – requiring 30 consecutive days below the CDC’s SUBSTANTIAL transmission level (7-day case rate).

For Benicia’s current and recent 7-day case rates, see https://beniciaindependent.com/coronavirus/#beniciacases.

No final vote was required on maintaining the status quo.  As Mayor Young wrote, “Since we weren’t changing existing policy it didn’t require a motion.”


MORE
Richard Fleming, M.D.


>> For an important analysis of Council’s discussion, see “Open Letter to Benicia City Council: Dr. Richard Fleming on mask mandate“.