UPDATE: Good news! On March 4, Benicia City Council voted unanimously in favor of moving forward on the draft Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance.
All Hands on Deck! Benicia City Council to hear first reading of draft ISO, march 4
Word is that Valero Refinery is scheduled to give a 15 minute presentation. Those who have organized and researched and labored for years on this project need YOU, need an overwhelming show of support this Tuesday, to forestall any attempts to weaken or delay the Draft ISO. Please attend in person or online!
Benicia residents need to show that we are not intimidated by an outside mega-corporation. Please show support for our City Council and Fire Chief as they take the first of two votes to adopt an ordinance that will keep us and our friends and families safe.
BELOW is the BISHO Working Group’s latest press release.
If you can’t attend in person, you can participate online here: ZOOM link.
See you there!
[sta_anchor id=”below” /]BENICIA CITY COUNCIL TO HEAR FIRST READING OF DRAFT ISO, MARCH 4
Benicia, CA (February 28, 2025) – Benicia’s long-awaited Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance (ISHO) will receive its first official reading before City Council on Tuesday, March 4. After more than a year of staff research, public hearings, discussions with stakeholders and four drafts, all led by Councilmembers Terry Scott and Kari Birdseye and Fire Chief Josh Chadwick, the ISHO will be presented formally at next week’s council meeting. New City ordinances must go through two readings before they can be adopted. If the draft ISHO passes this first reading, a second reading and vote will be scheduled. [March 4 Agenda.]
More than 90 people showed up for an ISHO status update on February 4, including 30 who spoke in favor of passage of the draft ordinance. Other supporters sent emails, letters and texts to Council members urging passage. There was no opposition at that meeting, but it is anticipated that Valero, one of the industries that will be subject to the ISHO requirements, will present its opposition.
“The March 4 meeting is critical, and we are hoping for another large turn out by supporters,” said Terry Mollica, community activist and member of the Benicia Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance group (BISHO) which has been working toward an ISO passage for a number of years. “We have heard that Valero does intend to attend the March 4 meeting, and apparently they have been granted a significant block of time to express their ongoing opposition including their threat of litigation.”
“We believe that the opponents will use the March 4 meeting as an opportunity to push back, to try to weaken the ISO, to get a foothold on the critical Oversight Commission, and attempt to turn some votes with threats of a lawsuit. We can’t let that happen. It’s more important than ever that we have a strong presence,” he said.
“We are asking all community members who believe in the ISHO and who want to see more accountability, transparency and protections against what goes into our air to show up at City Council on March 4 and make your voices heard,” Mollica added. “With the uncertainty of any air quality protections from the federal government these days, it is more important than ever that we protect our own community.”
City Council will begin Tuesday, March 4 at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 250 East L Street, Benicia. For more information about the draft Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance and its importance and effect on the community, visit https://BISHO.org.
NOTE: Those who cannot attend City Council in person can participate via Zoom:
Benicia, CA (February 28, 2025) – Benicia’s long-awaited Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance (ISHO) will receive its first official reading before City Council on Tuesday, March 4. After more than a year of staff research, public hearings, discussions with stakeholders and four drafts, all led by Councilmembers Terry Scott and Kari Birdseye and Fire Chief Josh Chadwick, the ISHO will be presented formally at next week’s council meeting. New City ordinances must go through two readings before they can be adopted. If the draft ISHO passes this first reading, a second reading and vote will be scheduled. [March 4 Agenda.]
More than 90 people showed up for an ISHO status update on February 4, including 30 who spoke in favor of passage of the draft ordinance. Other supporters sent emails, letters and texts to Council members urging passage. There was no opposition at that meeting, but it is anticipated that Valero, one of the industries that will be subject to the ISHO requirements, will present its opposition.
“The March 4 meeting is critical, and we are hoping for another large turn out by supporters,” said Terry Mollica, community activist and member of the Benicia Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance group (BISHO) which has been working toward an ISO passage for a number of years. “We have heard that Valero does intend to attend the March 4 meeting, and apparently they have been granted a significant block of time to express their ongoing opposition including their threat of litigation.”
“We believe that the opponents will use the March 4 meeting as an opportunity to push back, to try to weaken the ISO, to get a foothold on the critical Oversight Commission, and attempt to turn some votes with threats of a lawsuit. We can’t let that happen. It’s more important than ever that we have a strong presence,” he said.
“We are asking all community members who believe in the ISHO and who want to see more accountability, transparency and protections against what goes into our air to show up at City Council on March 4 and make your voices heard,” Mollica added. “With the uncertainty of any air quality protections from the federal government these days, it is more important than ever that we protect our own community.”
City Council will begin Tuesday, March 4 at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 250 East L Street, Benicia. For more information about the draft Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance and its importance and effect on the community, visit https://BISHO.org.
NOTE: Those who cannot attend City Council in person can participate via Zoom:
SAN FRANCISCO – The Bay Area Air Quality Management District and California Air Resources Board are announcing today a nearly $82 million penalty in a joint case to address significant air pollution violations by Valero Refining Co. at its Benicia refinery. This penalty is the largest ever assessed in the Air District’s history.
Over $64 million of these funds will be returned to the local community to finance projects aimed at reducing air pollution exposure, mitigating air pollution impacts and improving public health in areas surrounding the refinery. These projects will be selected through a public process with input from residents, community organizations, elected officials and advocates representing the impacted area. The remainder of the penalty will be used to fund beneficial clean air projects in overburdened communities throughout the Bay Area, as well as to offset the costs of investigating and prosecuting the case. In total, nearly $80 million of this historic penalty will be returned to Bay Area communities.
“Today’s historic penalty against Valero Refining Co. for its egregious emissions violations underscores the Air District’s unwavering commitment to holding polluters accountable and safeguarding the health of those living in refinery communities,” said Dr. Philip Fine, executive officer of the Air District. “Investing these funds back into the community will empower local residents to drive air quality projects that benefit the surrounding neighborhoods, advancing our mission of cleaner air for all.”
“CARB is pleased to have supported the Air District in investigating and settling this important case that helps remediate the harms Valero’s operations caused to surrounding communities,” said CARB Executive Officer Dr. Steven Cliff. “The Air District’s new community fund provides critical funding for projects that improve air quality and public health for impacted local communities. CARB is proud to direct the majority of its share of the penalties from this settlement to the community fund to expand the reach of its projects.”
“This penalty sends a strong message; adherence to air quality standards is both necessary and expected, and failure to do so can lead to significant fines,” said Steve Young, Benicia Mayor and a member of the Air District Board of Directors. “Benicia residents need to know that air quality violations are taken seriously. The use of these funds will help us address local air quality issues going forward. I am grateful for the work of the Air District, CARB and the California Department of Justice in helping bring this long-standing issue to conclusion.”
The penalty stems from a 2019 inspection that found unreported emissions from the facility’s hydrogen system containing harmful organic compounds in violation of Air District regulations. These organic compounds contributed to the Bay Area’s regional smog and particulate pollution problems, and they contained benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene, or BTEX, compounds, which cause cancer, reproductive harm and other toxic health effects. Air District inspectors discovered that refinery management had known since at least 2003 that emissions from the hydrogen systemcontained these harmful and toxic air contaminants but did not report them or take any steps to prevent them. The refinery emitted an estimated 8,400 tons of these organic compounds in total over this period in violation of Air District regulations – an average of more than 2.7 tons for each day on which a violation occurred, over 360 times the legal limit.
Subsequent investigations uncovered a host of other problems involving the hydrogen system, including emissions in violation of applicable limits, failure to install required emissions abatement equipment, failure to inspect equipment for leaks and failure to report required information, among other violations.
The Air District sought abatement orders from its independent Hearing Board to require Valero to abate ongoing violations. In conjunction with CARB, the Air District has now assessed this monetary penalty to resolve all the violations. In addition to the penalty, Valero will be required to undertake several measures to prevent future violations. Valero will be required to reconfigure the facility’s main hydrogen vent and vents in its hydrogen production plants to prevent emissions from being released directly into the atmosphere. Valero will also be required to implement a training program to ensure that its staff are fully aware of all relevant Air District regulations.
In May 2024, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board of Directors adopted a groundbreaking policy that directs a significant portion of penalty funds to the communities most impacted by air quality violations. Under this policy, most of these penalty funds will be reinvested in local projects specifically designed to reduce pollution and enhance public health. To help improve regional air quality and advance the Air District’s environmental justice and equity goals, penalty funds will be allocated in accordance with this new policy. The policy will ensure that significant amounts of large penalties benefit the community where the violation occurred while also setting aside funds to address the needs of communities overburdened with air pollution that may not have industrial sources that could be subject to large penalties.
This penalty is the third major fine the Air District has assessed against Bay Area refineries this year. In February, the Air District announced a $20 million penalty against the Chevron refinery in Richmond, and earlier this month the Air District announced a $5 million penalty against the Marathon refinery in Martinez. “These significant penalties should put the refineries and other industrial operations on notice,” said Alexander Crockett, the Air District’s general counsel. “If you violate our regulations and pollute our air, we will hold you accountable to the maximum extent provided for by law.”
The joint prosecution with CARB is also indicative of a new level of cooperation among enforcement agencies for air quality violations. The Air District will look to partner with other agencies where appropriate to ensure that maximum enforcement resources are brought to bear for significant violations.
CARB is charged with protecting the public from the harmful effects of air pollution and developing programs and actions to fight climate change. From requirements for clean cars and fuels to adopting innovative solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, California has pioneered a range of effective approaches that have set the standard for effective air and climate programs for the nation, and the world.
[BenIndy: This win shows why Benicia residents are demanding local oversight through the enactment of an Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO). While we’re grateful to Baykeeper for taking a stand for our health and safety, we shouldn’t have to rely on nonprofits for protection. Nor should we accept City leaders’ seeming reluctance to rock the boat in a refinery town by supporting an ISO. The polluted waters this metaphorical boat now floats on demonstrate that inaction and waffling in our leadership is as risky as industrial pollution. It’s time for Benicia’s leaders to pick up their oars and navigate us all to safer, cleaner shores—even if it means making waves.]
Valero and Amports Agree to Clean up Their Acts
Baykeeper drone footage of a petcoke spill at the Port of Benicia. | Baykeeper.
Baykeeper’s 300th Legal Win: Hard Evidence Holds Polluters Accountable
After four years of drone investigations, rigorous evidence collection, and court filings: We won! Valero and Amports—the two companies operating an export terminal at the Port of Benicia—have agreed to stop polluting the Bay and nearby neighborhoods. What’s more, this settlement officially marks Baykeeper’s 300th legal victory over 35 years, and it includes the largest Clean Water Act mitigation payment in our history.
It all started with a report to Baykeeper’s pollution hotline. The tipster let us know that the companies were spilling some dark material into the water while loading cargo ships at the port.
When our field team investigated, we documented long black plumes of petroleum coke drifting out into the Bay. We also recorded clouds of petcoke dust rising off the conveyor belts, fouling the air and threatening people in nearby neighborhoods.
Companies Commit to Cleaner Operations
Valero and Amports have agreed to make significant infrastructure upgrades and operational changes to improve activities at the site. These changes will include thorough cleaning and maintenance, installing state-of-the-art equipment to prevent spills and aerial drift, as well as monitoring and recording all petcoke loading operations. Baykeeper’s experts will be evaluating the companies’ compliance with the agreement over the next three years to ensure they are no longer polluting.
$2.38 Million for Local Nonprofits
The companies have also agreed to pay $2.38 million in environmental mitigation payments to help offset the harm of their past pollution. They will send the payment to our partners at the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment, which will re-grant it to non-profit organizations around the Bay Area to fund projects that benefit the health of the San Francisco Bay-Delta watershed. None of these grants will go to Baykeeper.
With this latest pollution settlement, Baykeeper has directed more than $15 million to the community over our 35-year history. Those funds have supported hundreds of Bay-focused environmental initiatives.
“Baykeeper stood up to these two big companies and made them clean up their acts,” said Baykeeper executive director Sejal Choksi-Chugh. “It’s a big win for the Bay and the people around Benicia. It makes me proud to know that there will be less toxic pollution harming the community, and that lots of local grassroots nonprofits will get a big funding boost to support projects like creek cleanups, wetlands restoration, and environmental education programs because of our win.”
This victory was made possible because of our dedicated supporters. Thank you for enabling us to hold this major fossil fuel polluter accountable, defend local communities, and protect San Francisco Bay.
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.
[sta_anchor id=”summary” /]Summary and notice of 60 days to settle
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.[sta_anchor id=”violations” /]
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.
[sta_anchor id=”60day” /]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.
[sta_anchor id=”photos” /]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.
[sta_anchor id=”petcoke” /]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
[sta_anchor id=”remainder” /]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)
You must be logged in to post a comment.