Tag Archives: Clean Air Act

Clean Air Act, EPA, Tesoro

BAAQMD fines Richmond refinery $1.15 million for air quality violations

[Note from BenIndy Contributor Nathalie Christian: The article makes need for independent air monitoring systems abundantly clear. Refineries can’t improve on what they can’t – or simply don’t – measure. Benicia’s Community Air Monitoring Program (BCAMP) is a tremendous resource worthy of our attention, acclamation and support. To sign up for BCAMP email notifications whenever pollutants exceed exposure levels established by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), click this link. It’s wonderful that BAAQMD staff will recommend that the Air District use a portion of these penalty funds in the Richmond community to support projects to improve air quality, but unspecific promises offer impacted communities very little in terms of holding both the refinery and the air district accountable to that easily made promise. Which programs? Exactly how much of the money?]

Air District fines Chemtrade $1,150,000 for air quality violations

This photo shows the old General Chemical plant at Hensley and Castro streets in Richmond during a vapor leak on May 1, 2001. The current plant owner, Chemtrade, agreed to pay $135,000 in penalties for alleged air pollution violations occurring between 2009 and 2014. | Gregory Urqiaga for Contra Costa Times.

Faulty monitors caused an underreporting of sulfur dioxide emissions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, July 27, 2023

SAN FRANCISCO – The Bay Area Air Quality Management District announced today that it has fined Chemtrade $1,150,000 for air quality violations at Chemtrade’s sulfuric acid manufacturing plant in Richmond. The penalty resolves seven notices of violation issued to Chemtrade for violations that occurred at its facility in Richmond.

The violations primarily involved Chemtrade’s continuous emissions monitoring system, which measures the plant’s sulfur dioxide emissions to ensure the facility complies with permit limits. Chemtrade failed to properly calibrate, operate and maintain this monitoring system over an eight- year period. This caused the monitoring system to under-report sulfur dioxide emissions by an estimated 33 percent per year on average.

“The substantial financial penalties for these violations send a clear message to Chemtrade that they must accurately monitor their sulfur dioxide emissions in compliance with all air quality regulations to help protect those living in the surrounding communities,” said Dr. Philip Fine, executive officer of the Air District. “Protecting air quality and the health of Bay Area residents is our top priority.”

Sulfur dioxide can have adverse impacts on the respiratory system and contributes to acid rain. The Air District’s audit did not find evidence that Chemtrade’s sulfur dioxide emissions exceeded the facility’s permit limits. But it did find that Chemtrade’s monitoring system was unable to reliably monitor the extent of the plant’s emissions.

The Air District’s Hearing Board previously issued an abatement order that required Chemtrade to address the problems with its monitoring system in April 2022. The assessment of this $1,150,000 fine adds a monetary penalty to that enforcement response. Agency staff will recommend that the Air District’s Board of Directors consider using a portion of these penalty funds in the Richmond community for projects to improve air quality.

In addition to the problems with monitoring system, the $1,150,000 penalty also covers violations for failure to use required abatement equipment to prevent emissions while unloading railcars at the facility; failure to properly start up the sulfuric acid plant, resulting in a visible yellow-brown plume from its main exhaust stack; and failure to report required information regarding these violations. All the violations that led to this settlement have been corrected.

The Air District issues Notices of Violation when facilities violate a specific air quality regulation or rule. Violators are generally required to respond to the notice within 10 days and submit a descriptionof the actions they will take to correct the problem. These actions can include shutting down certain operations immediately or changing operations or equipment to come into compliance.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is the regional agency responsible for protecting air quality in the nine-county Bay Area.

CONTACT: communications@baaqmd.gov

SEE ALSO:

Clean Air Act, EPA, Tesoro

Martinez refinery fined $27.5 million for Clean Air Act violations

U.S. EPA fines Tesoro $27.5 million for violations at Martinez refinery

San Francisco Chronicle, by Joel Umanzor, April 27, 2023

Tesoro Refinery in Martinez
The Tesoro refinery stands in Martinez, California, U.S., on Monday, Feb. 2, 2015 | David Paul Morris/Bloomberg.

 

Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, which operates a petroleum refinery in Martinez, will pay a $27.5 million penalty for violating a 2016 consent decree ordering the company to reduce air pollutants, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The company, according to Thursday’s settlement, failed to limit nitrous oxide emissions from July 2018 to May 2020, when authorities said the refinery suspended operations.

Shortly before shutting down refinery operations, Marathon Petroleum Corporation acquired Tesoro’s parent corporation and announced plans to convert the refinery from producing fuels from crude oil to renewable sources such as vegetable oil, according to the EPA.

Prior to the refinery’s operations suspension, the EPA said, Tesoro would produce approximately 161,000 barrels per day and was the fourth largest petroleum refinery in California.

Thursday’s agreement does not prohibit Tesoro from resuming petroleum refining but requires the company to install “specific air pollution control technology” to ensure nitrous oxide limits are met, according to the EPA.

As a result of mitigation, Tesoro has agreed to give up almost all of its nitrous oxide emission trading credits, according to authorities. Companies can receive these credits when they shut down certain equipment and may use the credits to offset emissions from other projects or in trades with other companies

The agreement will modify the 2016 decree while including new requirements that will apply to Tesoro if they choose to reopen the Martinez refinery as a petroleum refinery or renewable fuels plant, according to the EPA.

Reach Joel Umanzor: joel.umanzor@sfchronicle.com

SEE ALSO:

Carbon dioxide, Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan, Climate Change, Climate change denial, COP21 Climate Conference Paris, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Fossil fuels, Greenhouse gas emissions, President Barack Obama, Public utilities

Obama vetoes GOP push to kill climate rules

Repost from The Hill

Obama vetoes GOP push to kill climate rules

By Timothy Cama – 12/19/15 08:35 AM EST 
Getty Images

President Obama has vetoed a pair of measures by congressional Republicans that would have overturned the main pillars of his landmark climate change rules for power plants.

The decision was widely expected, and Obama and his staff had repeatedly threatened the action as a way to protect a top priority and major part of his legacy.

The White House announced early Saturday morning, as Obama was flying to Hawaii for Christmas vacation, that he is formally not taking action on the congressional measures, which counts as a “pocket veto” under the law. “Climate change poses a profound threat to our future and future generations,” the president said in a statement about Republicans’ attempt to kill the carbon dioxide limits for existing power plants.

“The Clean Power Plan is a tremendously important step in the fight against global climate change,” Obama wrote, adding that “because the resolution would overturn the Clean Power Plan, which is critical to protecting against climate change and ensuring the health and well-being of our nation, I cannot support it.”

That rule from the Environmental Protection Agency mandates a 32 percent cut in the power sector’s carbon output by 2030.

He had a similar argument in support of his regulation setting carbon limits for newly-built fossil fuel power plants, saying the legislation against it “would delay our transition to cleaner electricity generating technologies by enabling continued build-out of outdated, high-polluting infrastructure.”

Congress passed the resolutions in November and December under the Congressional Review Act, a little-used law that gives lawmakers a streamlined way to quickly challenge regulations from the executive branch.

Obama had made clear his intent to veto the measures early on, so the passage by both GOP-led chambers of Congress was only symbolic.

The votes came before and during the United Nations’ major climate change conference in Paris, as an attempt to undermine Obama’s negotiating position toward an international climate pact.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and a vocal climate change doubter, said it’s important to send a message about congressional disapproval, even with Obama’s veto.

“While I fully expect these CRA resolutions to be vetoed, without the backing of the American people and the Congress, there will be no possibility of legislative resurrection once the courts render the final judgments on the president’s carbon mandates,” he said on the Senate floor shortly before the Senate’s action on the resolutions.

Twenty-seven states and various energy and business interests are suing the Obama administration to stop the existing plant rule, saying it violates the Clean Air Act and states’ constitutional rights.

They are seeking an immediate halt to the rule while it is litigated, something the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could decide on later this month.

All Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential election want to overturn the rules.

In addition to the veto, Obama is formally sending the resolutions back to the Senate to make clear his intent to disapprove of them.

Obama has now vetoed seven pieces of legislation, including five this year, the first year of his presidency with the GOP controlling both chambers of Congress.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Energy Commission, Clean Air Act, Environmental Impacts, Environmental justice, Hazardous waste dumps, Legal action, Public Health, Public Safety

Pittsburg CA: Suit claims EPA failed to investigate

Repost from the Contra Costa Times

Pittsburg: Suit claims EPA failed to investigate complaints of environmental discrimination

By Bay City News Service, 07/21/2015 09:43:40 AM PDT

PITTSBURG – A consortium of environmental groups sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to investigate complaints of discrimination in the placement of power plants or hazardous waste dumps in various locations across the country, including two power plants in Pittsburg.

The EPA has 180 days to respond to the complaints, but according to the suit, which was filed on July 15, the federal regulator has not responded to the complaints in 10 to 20 years in some cases.

The suit includes allegations about facilities in Michigan, Texas, New Mexico, Alabama and California.

In Pittsburg, the suit alleges that the local regulatory agencies — the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the California Air Resources Board, and the California Energy Commission — discriminated against residents by locating two power plants in an already environmentally over-burdened area, according to Marianne Engelman Lado, a lawyer with Earthjustice, which is representing the plaintiffs.

“This is in a community where people have high rates of asthma or cancer and they were concerned that these plants would add to that,” Engelman Lado said.

Californians for Renewable Energy, or CARE, filed a complaint with the EPA’s Office of Civil Rights in April 2000 charging the local agencies discriminated against the predominantly nonwhite and low-income residents by failing to consider the additional environmental burden of the two new plants, the complaint alleges.

Permitting for the plants, the Los Medanos Energy Center LLC and Delta Energy Center, continued and the plants were approved and went online in 2001 and 2002, respectively, according to the complaint. The EPA accepted the complaint in December 2001 but has yet to conduct an investigation into the allegations, despite attempts in 2006 and 2009 by CARE to prompt the federal agency to respond, the complaint alleges.

In June 2002, the EPA classified Los Medanos Energy Center as being in “significant violation” of the Clean Air Act and over the last five years the facility has had to pay over $3,000 in fines for violating the act, according to the complaint.

In the meantime, residents have been suffering the consequences, Engelman Lado said.

“The plants are still standing and they’re polluting,” she said. “They’re emitting toxins and the community is living with that everyday.”

Engelman Lado said it’s clear the EPA has violated the law, and she’s hoping the lawsuit will result in the EPA completing their investigation.

Engelman Lado added she’s confident that when the EPA does complete the investigation, it will make findings of discrimination.

“We would hope, whether through a court order or by sitting down at the table, we could bring resources to bear to say, ‘What can we do to help these communities who are suffering from a lack of infrastructure or resources,'” she said.

That could take the form of more monitoring, infrastructure to mitigate some of the negative impacts of the power plants, or more extensive buffers between the community and the plants.

A representative from the EPA did not return a request for comment.