[Editor: The Benicia Herald does not have an online edition – their lead story in today’s print edition is presented here as a photographic image (click to enlarge). To support our local newspaper, please subscribe by email at beniciacirculation@gmail.com or by phone at 707-745-6838.]
After this quick read, PLEASE SEND YOUR COMMENTS on Valero’s Air Monitoring Plans and Quality Assurance Project Plans to the Bay Area Air District. They are accepting comments on the refineries’ plans through Thursday, April 20 at 5 p.m. Details on the BenIndy here. Comments should be sent to jlapka@baaqmd.gov.
Read more!As Air Quality is so essential to our health, you might want to check out these resources:
Please – anyone can report Air Quality issues/events to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District: General Public Information: (415) 749-4900, or Air Quality Complaints: 1-800-334-ODOR (6367)
[Editor: After this quick read, PLEASE SEND YOUR COMMENTS on Valero’s Air Monitoring Plans and Quality Assurance Project Plans to the Bay Area Air District. They are accepting comments on the refineries’ plans through Thursday, April 20 at 5 p.m. Details on the BenIndy here. Comments should be sent to jlapka@baaqmd.gov.]
The Valero Refinery in Benicia was one of four refineries in the SF Bay Area that did not meet air quality requirements for compliance with the Bay Area Quality Management District. (Chris Riley/Times-Herald)
Martinez refinery only one of five in SF Bay Area to pass
Vallejo Times-Herald, by Thomas Gase, April 15, 2023
Of the five San Francisco Bay Area refineries, only the Martinez Refining Company has met the minimum air quality requirement for compliance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, according to a news release sent out Friday.
Four other refineries — Benicia’s Valero, Richmond’s Chevron and Phillips 66 and Pacheo’s Tesero — all use the same air monitoring system for H2S, and didn’t meet the requirements as defined by BAAQMD and Rule 12-15.
Rule 12-15, passed in 2016, requires refineries to monitor and report fugitive gasses from their operating equipment, such as valves, compressors, and storage tanks. These emissions impact the health of the surrounding communities — the toxic gases released include noxious chemicals like the cancer-causing benzene and other serious gasses like hydrogen sulfide which can mix with PM 2.5 from other cumulative sources to create a toxic mix that affects the quality of the air.
Benicia Community Air Monitoring Program Board Member Kathy Kerridge said that after a trip to the Valero Refinery a few months ago, she’s not surprised at the four refineries failing.
“I was very much expecting this because when the Benicia Community Air Monitoring Program visited the site the refinery had a slideshow about hydrogen sulfite,” said Kerridge. “They knew what the regulations were and the slide show was showing what it was detecting. You can’t have an average of more than 15 parts per billion and their system was showing many times above that limit. Their three-month plan with different systems and operations was not showing they would be able to pass. They were different from Martinez in that it was clear that what they were doing was not working.”
BAAQMD set new requirements for H2S monitoring (part of Rule 12-15) that went into effect in January. Under the direction of its contractors, these four refineries installed H2S fence line systems that failed to meet the performance standards of the rule, and that provide unreliable, confusing data reports from those fence line sources. The operational and data display requirements in the QAPPs are not uniform across the four refineries.
According to the news release, “All the refineries should utilize equipment that meets the Air District requirements, be as uniform as possible in their operation, and display data to allow communities to compare measurements and performance across them. It is vital that the non-compliant refineries be held accountable — not just by paying fines, but by installing the equipment that will meet the BAAQMD’s requirements without delay.
Kerridge said she is not sure what will happen next, but is hoping to put pressure on the BAAQMD to make the four refineries come in compliance.
“Fines are trivial to them,” Kerridge said. “It’s like they are having a direct slap to the face with the community. The main problem is that the air monitoring gives us the sense of false security.”
Those fines include the Benicia Valero refinery agreeing last week with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to pay $1.2 million for violating the Clean Air Act.
After what the EPA called “significant chemical incidents” at the refinery in 2017 and 2019, an inspection found that Valero had failed to report the release of hazardous substances, among other noncompliance issues.
“This settlement sends a clear message that EPA will prosecute companies that fail to expend the resources needed to have a compliant, well-functioning Risk Management Plan to the fullest extent of the law,” said Larry Starfield, the acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, in a statement.
As part of the settlement, Valero agreed to make chemical safety improvements at the Benicia refinery.
Emissions from the refinery have plagued nearby residents in recent years, leading city officials in 2019 to urge residents to stay indoors after the refinery started emitting hazardous particulates.
This isn’t the first time the Valero refinery has had to pay up for emitting smoke or chemicals into the air. In April 2017, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District fined Valero $340,000 for 28 violations committed in 2014. A month later, they were hit with four additional violations — one for causing a public nuisance and three for releasing excessive smoke.
The BAAQMD is accepting comments on the refineries’ plans through Thursday at 5 p.m. Comments should be sent to jlapka@baaqmd.gov. [BenIndy Editor: PLEASE SEND YOUR COMMENTS on Valero’s Air Monitoring Plans and Quality Assurance Project Plans to the Bay Area Air District. They are accepting comments on the refineries’ plans through Thursday, April 20 at 5 p.m. Details on the BenIndy here.]
Grace Hase of the Bay Area News Group contributed to this article.
Read more!As Air Quality is so essential to our health, you might want to check out these resources:
Please – anyone can report Air Quality issues/events to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District: General Public Information: (415) 749-4900, or Air Quality Complaints: 1-800-334-ODOR (6367)
This is a news release from Benicia Community Air Monitoring Program (BCAMP), issued April 12, 2023. Please take a few minutes to follow the instructions below to submit an emailed comment in support of this important request.
We need the public to push the Air District to enforce its fenceline regulations. Valero is failing.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is requesting public input by Thursday, April 20 on the Air Monitoring Plans (AMPs) and Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) from the five Bay Area refineries. The public input relates to the measurement of the dangerous gas-hydrogen sulfide (H2S) by the refineries’ open path fenceline monitoring systems.
The bottom line is this: since the law went into effect in January, four out of the five Bay Area refineries are not meeting BAAQMD’s requirements for detecting and reporting the level of hydrogen sulfide at the refinery fencelines. One of the refineries, Martinez Refining Company, is meeting the requirements, so we know that the technology to provide the important data to the public is readily available.
We need to make sure that all five Bay Area Refineries, including Valero, are held accountable!
This is not just about the refineries following rules set by the Air District, it’s about public health. We need to know what is in the air we breathe! Your comments to the district make a tremendous difference. The Air Board does pay attention to the comments and the public sentiment. So please take a couple of minutes to send this email or one like it.
How to comment
IMPORTANT: the deadline for comments is Thursday, April 20 at 5pm. Don’t delay! Please act now.
Please put in the subject line: “Comment on Revised Draft Refinery Fenceline Air Monitoring Plans for Valero, Phillips 66, Tesoro and Chevron.”
You can simply copy and paste the following as your comment, or write your own:
The revised refinery air monitoring plans show that four out of five refineries are not meeting BAAQMD’s requirements. It is apparent that only the open path system being utilized at the Martinez Refining Company meets the requirements listed in the Air District’s 12/22/2022 letter, as defined by the requirements in their Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The systems being used at the other four refineries does not meet these requirements. All refineries should utilize equipment that meets the Air District requirements as stated in the 12/22/2022 letters. All requirements across all Bay Area refineries should be as uniform as possible in operation and data display to allow communities to compare measurements and performance across refineries. This isn’t just about following the rules, it’s about public health and safety! We deserve to know what we are breathing.
In addition, we request that all technologies used at all Bay Area refineries have similar operational and data display parameters developed and required soon. We truly feel this will help re-establish community trust in the data generated by the technologies in use as part of Rule 12-15.
It is vital that the refineries be held accountable—not just by paying fines—but by installing the equipment that will meet the Air District’s requirements without delay.
There should also be a public meeting about this important topic.
Thank you for taking a stand with us!
Read more!As Air Quality is so essential to our health, you might want to check out these resources:
Please – anyone can report Air Quality issues/events to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District: General Public Information: (415) 749-4900, or Air Quality Complaints: 1-800-334-ODOR (6367)
[BenIndy Contributor Kathy Kerridge – Californians like to think of themselves as climate forward, and Governor Gavin Newsom certainly projects that image. However, there is often a gap between rhetoric and action. Last year, as part of the governor’s climate proposals, the legislature enacted setbacks so oil drilling — with all its health risks — could not happen in your backyard, next to your child’s school or near health facilities. The oil industry then qualified an initiative to overturn that effort (often positioning their bill as “pro-setback” to the people who signed) and CalGEM has continued busily granting permits for drilling in within setback zones. So why doesn’t Newsom back up his rhetoric? This op-ed from the director of Sierra Club California, published by the LA Times, does a good job of explaining how Gov. Newsom might turn rhetoric into action. – K.K.]
Director of Sierra Club CA Brendan Dawson: “If Newsom wants to live up to his reputation as a champion for the climate and an opponent of Big Oil, he must do more than just promise to protect our environment and health.”
By Brendan Dawson, first published in the LA Times on April 7, 2023.
California politicians promise to protect the environment a lot more than they actually do. For environmental advocates like me, reconciling a politician’s public statements on environmental issues with their actions doesn’t take much time: Simply put, there is no reconciling them.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s stance on oil and gas is no exception. Late last year, the governor called for a special legislative session to hold oil and gas companies accountable for gouging California consumers when gasoline prices spiked last fall by imposing a penalty on excess profits. The bill that came out of the session in March fell short of the governor’s goals, settling for requiring more industry transparency.
Environmental groups, including Sierra Club California, nevertheless supported the measure as a step toward regulating an industry that was hurting the working class and overheating the planet at the same time. Newsom himself announced “a new sheriff in town” and claimed to have “brought Big Oil to their knees.”
And yet his administration continues to capitulate to the oil industry in other important ways. Newsom’s public determination to take on this industry differs significantly from what goes on behind closed doors.
For instance, after the fossil fuel industry used the state’s referendum process to stall a critical law banning new or reworked oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, parks and healthcare facilities, the governor decried the move. He said in a statement that he was proud to have signed the setback measure, Senate Bill 1137, “to stop new oil drilling in our neighborhoods and protect California families.”
Since Newsom’s statement, however, his administration’s oil agency, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, or CalGEM, has approved hundreds of permits to rework existing oil and gas wells and continue dangerous operations within setback zones. CalGEM has approved a total of 897 permits since the beginning of the year, 62% of which are within the zones that would be protected by SB 1137.
Reworking of existing wells is a significant source of pollution that puts communities at elevated risk of asthma, cancer and other illnesses. Environmental justice advocates fought for decades to secure setbacks from these operations, only to see CalGEM continue to rubber-stamp permits while the governor stood by.
Newsom is obviously aware of the fossil fuel industry’s repercussions for California communities and the environment. Other departments in his administration have taken steps to advance clean air, and Newsom publicly champions them. But CalGEM, the agency charged with “protecting public health, safety, and the environment in its oversight of the oil, natural gas, and geothermal industries,” clearly missed the memo.
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in the recently released final part of its sixth assessment of the global climate, calls for cutting two-thirds of global carbon pollution by 2035 and ending reliance on oil and gas by 2040. In the report, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres says we must “massively fast-track climate efforts by every country and every sector and on every timeframe. Our world needs climate action on all fronts: everything, everywhere, all at once.” For California to do our part to meet these demands, Newsom must align his administration’s actions with his public statements.
There are a few more concrete steps Newsom can take toward that end. First, he can direct CalGEM to stop issuing new and rework permits, prioritizing the rescinding of permits within the setback zone that would be established by SB 1137.
He should also organize a government-wide effort to plan California’s transition from oil and gas to clean, renewable energy. This transition must consider the needs of the communities that will be most affected by the transition, especially those that consist of predominantly low-income households and people of color.
Finally, he must hold the oil industry accountable for cleaning up abandoned oil wells. Thousands of wells across the state have been abandoned by the industry, and the often exorbitant cleanup costs are wrongly falling on California taxpayers. CalGEM recently spent more than $34 million in taxpayer money to clean up 171 oil wells in Santa Barbara’s Cat Canyon alone.
These steps are practical and immediately achievable. If Newsom wants to live up to his reputation as a champion for the climate and an opponent of Big Oil, he must do more than just promise to protect our environment and health.
Brandon Dawson is the director of Sierra Club California.
You must be logged in to post a comment.