DEATHS: Solano reported no new COVID-related deaths today. Solano deaths over the course of the pandemic now total 305. The County reported 32 COVID deaths over the last 32 days.
CASES: The County reported 82 new COVID cases over the last two days, 41 per day. AGES: 13 of these 82 cases (16%) were youth and children under 18. 59% were age 18-49, 21% were age 50-64, and only 6% were 65+.
COMMUNITY TRANSMISSION RATE: Over the last 7 days, Solano has seen 451 new cases, down from 639 on Monday but still just barely in the CDC’s population-based definition of a HIGH transmission rate.
(CDC FORMULA: Based on Solano County population of 449,432, the CDC would rate us in “SUBSTANTIAL” transmission with 225 cases over the last 7 days. Double that, or 450 cases in the last 7 days would rank us in “HIGH” transmission. Reference: CDC’s “Level of SARS-CoV-2 Community Transmission”.]
ACTIVE CASES: Solano’s 467 ACTIVE cases is down from Monday’s 514, but still far above our summer rates.
POSITIVE TEST RATE: Solano’s 7-day average percent positivity rate was only 6.2% today, down from Monday’s 6.7%. COMPARE: today’s California rate is 1.9% and today’s U.S. rate is 6.3%. [Source: Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Tracking Center]
HOSPITALIZATIONS:
CURRENT hospitalizations were down today from 53 to 50 persons, and still in the range we saw during the winter surge.
ICU Bed Availability is up today, from 23% to 29%, but still in the yellow danger zone. Again, we are in the worrisome range we saw during the winter surge.
Ventilator Availability is down today from 53% to 49%, still in the range of last February’s winter surge.
TOTAL hospitalizations: Solano County’s TOTAL hospitalized over the course of the pandemic must be independently discovered in the County’s occasional update of hospitalizations by Age Group and by Race/Ethnicity. The County did not update its Hospitalizations charts today. See below. The differing race/ethnicity numbers indicate a number of persons whose race/ethnicity was not given or recorded.
FACE MASKS… Required for all in Benicia and Vallejo
Benicia City Council passed a citywide indoors mask mandate that went into effect on August 24 and includes everyone 4 years old and up when indoors in public places, even those of us who are vaccinated. Benicia was joined by Vallejo on August 31. In the Bay Area, Solano County REMAINS the only holdout against a mask mandate for public indoors spaces.
OLD NEWS BUT SIGNIFICANT – SOLANO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS failed to consider an agendized proposal for a countywide MASK MANDATE on Tuesday, September 14. The Board’s agenda called for discussion of an indoors mask mandate for all and a vaccination mandate for county workers. The Board voted 4-1 to require county-run facilities in Vallejo and Benicia to abide by local mandates. But the Board voted down the vaccination mandate 3-2, and failed to even consider the agendized question of a county-wide mask mandate. The Solano Board of Supervisors joined with Dr. Bela Matyas in officially showing poor leadership on the COVID-19 pandemic.
Cases by City on Wednesday, October 6:
Beniciaadded 13 new cases today, a total of 1,460 cases since the outbreak began. Benicia has seen 38 new cases over the last 7 days, continuing in the CDC’s definition of HIGH community transmission (defined as 28 or more cases, based on Benicia population).[Note that Solano County is at a level of HIGH transmission, and Solano’s 6 other cities are likely also individually experiencing high or substantial transmission.]
Dixon added 6 new cases today, total of 2,493 cases.
Fairfield added 14 new cases today, total of 11,994 cases.
Rio Vista added 5 new case today, total of 576 cases.
Suisun Cityadded 4 new cases today, total of 3,170 cases.
Vacaville added 13 new cases today, a total of 11,749 cases.
Vallejoadded 27 new cases today, a total of 13,123 cases.
Unincorporatedadded 0 new cases today, a total of 139 cases (population figures not available).
>>The data on this page is from the Solano County COVID-19 Dashboard. The Dashboard is full of much more information and updated Monday, Wednesday and Friday around 4 or 5pm. On the County’s dashboard, you can hover a mouse or click on an item for more information. Note the tabs at top for “Summary, Demographics” and “Vaccines.” Click here to go to today’s Solano County Dashboard.
See also my ARCHIVE of daily Solano COVID updates (an excel spreadsheet). I have posted full CORONAVIRUS REPORTS almost daily here on the Benicia Independent.
In a previous post, I shared the Baykeeper press release announcing the photo and video evidence of illegal polluting of the Carquinez Strait and San Francisco Bay by Benicia AMPORTS.
Re: Notice of Ongoing Violations and Intent to File a “Citizen Suit” Under the Clean Water Act
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) regarding violations of the Clean Water Act1 (“CWA” or “Act”) at the Amports Port of Benicia Terminal, owned and operated by Amports, Inc. (“Amports”) at 1997 Elm Road, Benicia, CA 94510 (“Facility”) and 1007 Bayshore Road, Benicia, CA 94510. The purpose of this letter (“Notice Letter”) is to put Amports on notice that, at the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date the Notice Letter is served, Baykeeper intends to file a “citizen suit” action against Amports in U.S. Federal District Court. The civil action will allege significant, ongoing, and continuous violations of the Act and California’s General Industrial Storm Water Permit2 (“General Permit”) at the Facility, including but not limited to, the direct deposition of petroleum coke (“petcoke”) into the water from the conveyance system, equipment, and ship, aerial deposition of petcoke directly to the water from the deck of the ship, and the uncontrolled discharge of polluted storm water to the Carquinez Strait, a part of the San Francisco Bay.
Detailed list of violations
As described in detail below, Amports is liable for ongoing violations of the Act as a consequence of the Facility’s: (1) direct discharge of petcoke into the Carquinez Strait, both through deck washing and direct aerial deposition; (2) inaccurate use of SIC code designations to avoid coverage for regulated industrial activities under the General Permit; (3) failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the General Permit resulting in unpermitted storm water discharges, including but not limited to the preparation and implementation of a proper Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan related to Amports’ petcoke loading operation, preparation and implementation of a Monitoring Implementation Plan, and compliance with technology-based Effluent Limitations.
60-day notice and offer of settlement
CWA section 505(b) requires that sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of a civil action under CWA section 505(a), a citizen must give notice of their intent to file suit. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b). Notice must be given to the alleged violator, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the State in which the violations occur. As required by section 505(b), this Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit provides notice to Amports of the violations that have occurred and which continue to occur at the Facility. After the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date of this Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit, Baykeeper intends to file suit in federal court against Amports under CWA section 505(a) for the violations described more fully below.
During the 60-day notice period, Baykeeper would like to discuss effective remedies for the violations noticed in this letter. We suggest that you contact us as soon as possible so that these discussions may be completed by the conclusion of the 60-day notice period. Please note that it is our policy to file a complaint in federal court as soon as the notice period ends, even if discussions are in progress.
Background and photos
A. San Francisco Baykeeper
San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) is a non-profit public benefit corporation….
Members of Baykeeper reside in Benicia, California, as well as in many of the surrounding communities. Baykeeper’s members and supporters use and enjoy San Francisco Bay and other waters for various recreational, educational, and spiritual purposes. Baykeeper’s members’ use and enjoyment of these waters are negatively affected by the pollution caused by the Facility’s operations….
B. The Owner and/or Operator of the Facility
Amports, Inc. is a dba of APS West Coast Inc. and is identified as the owner and operator of the Benicia Port Terminal Company. All three entities have the same address, CEO, Secretary, CFO, and Controller.
C. The Facility’s Industrial Activities and Discharges of Petcoke and Other Pollutants
The Facility is a roughly 400-acre site which includes marine cargo loading equipment, the petcoke loading equipment and conveyor system, parking for cars, docking area and equipment for ships, silos to store petcoke, train car petcoke offloading area and equipment, vehicle maintenance, equipment cleaning, ship cleaning, ship maintenance, and other facilities. According to Amports’ 2015 Notice of Intent to comply with the General Permit under the Clean Water Act, at least 8 acres at the Facility consisted of areas that were exposed to storm water.
The Valero Benicia Refinery processes crude oil by separating it into a range of hydrocarbon components or fractions. Petroleum fractions include heavy oils and residual materials used to make asphalt or petcoke, mid-range materials such as diesel (heating oil), jet fuel, and gasoline, and lighter products, such as butane, propane, and fuel gases.
The petcoke is transported via rail to the Facility and is stored there in silos. Amports transfers the petcoke from the silos to a ship’s hold at the Facility’s dock by way of a covered conveyor system. During this process, the petcoke may escape in half a dozen or more ways.
First, petcoke spills off of the conveyor belt system and is deposited onto the wharf and directly into Carquinez Strait. This occurs while the crane boom is in the lowered position, and, as depicted below, continues as the boom is raised while the conveyor continues to operate.
March 2021
Second, petcoke is deposited onto the deck of the ship and into the water, potentially due to overspray from the loading mechanism or other operations, leaving visible plumes of petcoke that can be seen in the water.
February 2021
Third, at the conclusion of the loading, longshoremen hose off the deck of the ship, and the related loading equipment on and around the ship, cleaning the equipment and forcing contaminated runoff directly into the Carquinez Strait, again leaving visible plumes of petcoke that can be seen in the water.
February 2021
Fourth, as the ship is being loaded, large visible clouds of black particulate matter, presumably petcoke dust, drift through the air away from the ship before being directly deposited into the water and/or onto the nearby shoreline.
Additionally, petcoke may escape and be deposited onto the Facility or into the water during: (a) the offload from trains, (b) the movement of petcoke around the Facility, (c) storage at the Facility, (d) from equipment and vehicle cleaning, (e) from equipment and vehicle maintenance or repair, and (f) each time a sufficient rain event occurs due to the Facility’s discharge of pollutants from industrial activity in storm water, through direct discharges of industrial pollutants.
The deposition of petcoke and other pollutants into San Francisco Bay is harmful and deleterious to the Bay’s wildlife and communities. Petcoke is a petroleum byproduct and is known to contain pollutants including heavy metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, arsenic, mercury, and vanadium, all of which are harmful to aquatic life, including fish and birds.
Additionally, people exposed to petcoke pollutants can experience severe health problems like asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease.
Detailed harmful effects of Petcoke
The deposition of petcoke and other pollutants into San Francisco Bay is harmful and deleterious to the Bay’s wildlife and communities. Petcoke is a petroleum byproduct and is known to contain pollutants including heavy metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, arsenic, mercury, and vanadium, all of which are harmful to aquatic life, including fish and birds. Additionally, people exposed to petcoke pollutants can experience severe health problems like asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease.
Amports is permitted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to process and load 2 million tons of petcoke onto export ships over a 12-month period. Amports does not have any permits from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”). Amports is not permitted to discharge petcoke directly into the Carquinez Strait. And Amports is also not permitted to discharge any storm water, directly or indirectly, that is the result of industrial activity, including water that is commingled with industrial discharges.
Baykeeper’s suit will allege that petcoke is deposited on the site with every instance of: petcoke being transported by rail to the site, petcoke offloading from a train at the Facility, and petcoke being handled and transported on the Facility’s premises. Additionally, Baykeeper will allege that petcoke enters the Carquinez Strait with every instance of: petcoke being loaded and/or oversprayed onto a ship docked at the Facility, petcoke-related equipment, including the conveyor systems, cranes, and ships, being maintained and/or cleaned, and each storm event at the Facility in excess of 0.1” of precipitation.
The discharge of pollutants from industrial facilities contributes to the impairment of surface waters and aquatic-dependent wildlife. These contaminated discharges can and must be controlled for ecosystems to regain their health and to protect public health. As part of its investigation of the Facility, Baykeeper observed and documented by video numerous instances of illegal discharges during Amports’ various activities and handling of marine cargo (specifically petcoke) at the Facility between November 2020 and March 2021.
Additionally, with every significant rainfall event, millions of gallons of polluted storm water originating from industrial operations such as the Facility pour into storm drains and local waterways. The consensus among agencies and water quality specialists is that storm water pollution accounts for more than half of the total pollution entering surface waters each year. Such discharges of pollutants from industrial facilities contribute to the impairment of downstream waters and aquatic dependent wildlife. These contaminated discharges can and must be controlled for the ecosystem to regain its health.
Click image for full 20-page notice
THE REMAINDER OF THE DOCUMENT is organized into the following sections, which you can study at length here.
II. THE CLEAN WATER ACT (p. 7) A. The NPDES Permit Program (p. 7) B. California’s General Industrial Storm Water Permit (p. 8) C. The Facility’s Permit Enrollment Status (p. 12) III. NAME AND ADDRESS OF NOTICING PARTY (p. 13) IV. COUNSEL (p. 13) V. VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT AND GENERAL PERMIT (p. 13) A. Amports’ Direct, Non-Storm Water Discharges Without an NPDES Permit (p. 14) B. Amports’ Illegal Indirect Discharges Without An NPDES Permit (p. 15) C. Amports’ Illegal Storm Water Discharges (p. 15) D. Violations of the Act and General Permit Reporting and Monitoring Rules (p. 16) E. Violations of the General Permit’s SWPPP Requirements (p. 17) VI. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT (p. 17) VII. CONCLUSION (p. 18) ATTACHMENT 1: DATES OF ALLEGED EXCEEDANCES BY AMPORTS FROM OCTOBER 4, 2016 TO OCTOBER 4, 2021 (p. 19) ATTACHMENT 2: SERVICE LIST (p. 20)
Public Tips Lead to Catching Fossil Fuel Polluter in the Act – Baykeeper Notifies Benicia Petcoke Polluter of Intent to Sue
…
Oakland, CA—San Francisco Baykeeper yesterday served a notice of intent to sue Amports, the owner of the Port of Benicia, alleging repeated violations of the Clean Water Act.
Baykeeper, responding to tips to its pollution hotline, observed several instances of petroleum coke dust being discharged directly into the Carquinez Strait portion of the Bay during the loading of cargo ships.
Petroleum coke (petcoke) is an oil refinery waste product that contains copper, zinc, nickel, arsenic, mercury, and vanadium, which are all considered to be toxic substances by the EPA and are regulated under the Clean Water Act.
“Petcoke from the Amports facility may have been polluting San Francisco Bay and the nearby community for years, and now thanks to tips from the public, Baykeeper was able to catch the polluter red handed,” said Baykeeper executive director Sejal Choksi-Chugh. “Baykeeper plans to make sure the Amports terminal is cleaned up and the polluter is held accountable for creating a toxic mess that could hurt people and the environment.”
Baykeeper observed and documented numerous instances of petcoke being discharged directly into the Bay during the cargo loading process between November 2020 and March 2021. Baykeeper video, taken by drone, has captured black plumes of petcoke that can be seen in the water drifting away from the ship with the currents during and after loading and cleaning. (Video and photographs available here)
Amports’ Port of Benicia, petcoke spill in the Carquinez Strait. Photo: SF Baykeeper
Baykeeper observed petcoke spilling off the conveyor belt system and entering the Bay. Additionally, Baykeeper observed a significant amount of petcoke deposited onto the decks of ships due to overspray, where it was then hosed off the deck directly into the Bay at the end of the loading process.
In the majority of Baykeeper’s hundreds of past industrial pollution cases, the polluting company and Baykeeper have negotiated a settlement in which the company agreed to a specific plan and timeline to clean up its operations and come into compliance with the laws. If the allegations can’t be resolved within sixty days of receiving the notice of intent to sue, Baykeeper will file and prosecute a lawsuit in federal court.
“While we prefer to resolve this quickly and amicably, either settlement negotiations or success at trial will lead to structural and procedural improvements at the Port of Benicia that would stop the polluting activities and require the company to comply with all applicable environmental laws,” said Choksi-Chugh. “Ultimately that means the Bay, its wildlife, and nearby residents will be better protected from petcoke pollution in the future.”
The Port of Benicia Terminal, owned by Amports, is located in a community historically exposed to pollution, and is near a fishing pier, a point of public access to the Bay, and an area that is home to a variety of wildlife. The heavy metals found in petcoke are known to be harmful to fish and birds. Petcoke dust is also found to have irreversible respiratory effects in humans, and exposure to the pollutants in petcoke can cause severe health problems like asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease.
The petcoke loaded onto ships in the Port of Benicia is mostly exported to Asia, where it is burned for fuel. When burned, petcoke is a significant climate pollutant that is considered to be dirtier and more carbon-emitting than coal.
Founded in 1989, Baykeeper is the only organization that regularly patrols San Francisco Bay for polluters, by both boat and drone, and holds polluters and agencies accountable to create healthier communities and help wildlife thrive. Anyone who witnesses pollution happening on the Bay may report it to 1-800-KEEP-BAY or hotline@baykeeper.org.
###
Keeping an eye on the Bay since 1989
Mark Westlund, Communications Director (he/him)
San Francisco Baykeeper 1736 Franklin St #800 | Oakland, CA 94612 Office: 510-735-9700 x(111) | Mobile: 510-841-8329
DEATHS: Solano reported 8 new COVID-related deaths today, one age 50-64 and seven over 65. The County accounted for race/ethnicity of six of the eight: 1 Hispanic, 4 White and 1 Multirace. Solano deaths over the course of the pandemic now total 305. The County reported 32 COVID deaths over the last 30 days.
CASES: The County reported 169 new COVID cases over the weekend, 54 per day. AGES: 33 of these 169 cases (20%) were youth and children under 18. 49% were age 18-49, 19% were age 50-64, and only 12% were 65+.
COMMUNITY TRANSMISSION RATE: Over the last 7 days, Solano has seen 639 new cases, up from 518 on Friday and decidedly in the CDC’s population-based definition of a HIGH transmission rate.
(CDC FORMULA: Based on Solano County population of 449,432, the CDC would rate us in “SUBSTANTIAL” transmission with 225 cases over the last 7 days. Double that, or 450 cases in the last 7 days would rank us in “HIGH” transmission. Reference: CDC’s “Level of SARS-CoV-2 Community Transmission”.]
ACTIVE CASES: Solano’s 514 ACTIVE cases is down from Friday’s 545, but still far above our summer rates.
POSITIVE TEST RATE: Solano’s 7-day average percent positivity rate was only 6.7% today, down from Friday’s 7.8%. COMPARE: today’s California rate is 2.0% and today’s U.S. rate is 6.4%. [Source: Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Tracking Center]
HOSPITALIZATIONS:
CURRENT hospitalizations were up today from 46 to 53 persons, and still in the range we saw during the winter surge.
ICU Bed Availability is up today, from 18% to 23%, but still in the yellow danger zone. Again, we are in the worrisome range we saw during the winter surge.
Ventilator Availability remained at 57% today, still in the range of last February’s winter surge.
TOTAL hospitalizations: Solano County’s TOTAL hospitalized over the course of the pandemic must be independently discovered in the County’s occasional update of hospitalizations by Age Group and by Race/Ethnicity. The County did not update its Hospitalizations charts today. See below. The differing race/ethnicity numbers indicate a number of persons whose race/ethnicity was not given or recorded.
FACE MASKS… Required for all in Benicia and Vallejo
Benicia City Council passed a citywide indoors mask mandate that went into effect on August 24 and includes everyone 4 years old and up when indoors in public places, even those of us who are vaccinated. Benicia was joined by Vallejo on August 31. In the Bay Area, Solano County REMAINS the only holdout against a mask mandate for public indoors spaces.
OLD NEWS BUT SIGNIFICANT – SOLANO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS failed to consider an agendized proposal for a countywide MASK MANDATE on Tuesday, September 14. The Board’s agenda called for discussion of an indoors mask mandate for all and a vaccination mandate for county workers. The Board voted 4-1 to require county-run facilities in Vallejo and Benicia to abide by local mandates. But the Board voted down the vaccination mandate 3-2, and failed to even consider the agendized question of a county-wide mask mandate. The Solano Board of Supervisors joined with Dr. Bela Matyas in officially showing poor leadership on the COVID-19 pandemic.
Cases by City on Monday, October 4:
Beniciaadded 8 new cases today, a total of 1,447 cases since the outbreak began. Benicia has seen 34 new cases over the last 7 days, solidly back in the CDC’s definition of HIGH community transmission (defined as 28 or more cases, based on Benicia population).[Note that Solano County is at a level of HIGH transmission, and Solano’s 6 other cities are likely also individually experiencing high or substantial transmission.]
Dixon added 14 new cases today, total of 2,487 cases.
Fairfield added 42 new cases today, total of 11,980 cases.
Rio Vista added 2 new case today, total of 571 cases.
Suisun Cityadded 10 new cases today, total of 3,166 cases.
Vacaville added 47 new cases today, a total of 11,736 cases.
Vallejoadded 46 new cases today, a total of 13,096 cases.
Unincorporatedadded 0 new cases today, a total of 139 cases (population figures not available).
You must be logged in to post a comment.