Category Archives: Air Monitoring

Letter from Benicia’s Marilyn Bardet to BAAQMD: Must enforce refinery air monitor requirements

Copy of Marilyn Bardet’s letter, forcefully asking the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to follow through on promised enforcement of refinery air monitoring standards


Marilyn Bardet

From: Marilyn Bardet <email>
Subject: BAAQMD oversight/enforcement of Reg 12 – Rule 15, the Petroleum Refining Emissions Tracking Rule.
Date: October 21, 2020 at 3:37:37 PM PDT
To: Marcy Hiratzka <email@baaqmd.gov>

October 21, 2020

BAAQMD Board of Directors
Chair: Council member Rod Sinks, City of Cupertino
Vice Chair: Supervisor Cindy Chavez, Santa Clara County
Secretary: Supervisor Karen Mitchoff,  Contra Costa County

Sent via email:  <email@baaqmd.gov>

Subject:    BAAQMD oversight and enforcement of Regulation 12 – Rule 15, the Petroleum Refining Emissions Tracking Rule.

Dear Chair Rod Sinks, Vice Chair Cindy Chaves, Secretary Karen Mitchoff and Direrctors

I’m writing  as a 34-year resident of Benicia and a founding active member of the Good Neighbor Steering Committee, [“GNSC”] which was organized in 2000 to address public concerns and protect community health and safety as related to operations of the Valero refinery. I’d hope to express the following concerns at the Special Meeting held as a webinar today, but was unable to do so.

On August 1st, the Board received emailed letters from Jay Gunkelman and myself, outlining problems to date with refineries’ fenceline monitoring systems’ performance and reliability.

As you recall, Rule 15 was adopted in April, 2016. It required Bay Area refineries to install new, best technology fenceline monitoring systems, with raw data to be collected in real time at 5 minute intervals, and with a website provided for public access to that data.

After 4 years since Rule 15’s adoption, for the sake of public health and community safety, we would have expected by now that the Air District would have enforced standards for reliable performance of fenceline monitoring systems at all Bay Area refineries, and that data quality would be assured. Yet, to date, as per Rule 15 protocols, the District has not yet signed off on—e.g., given final approval of— the refineries’ fenceline monitoring and quality assurance plans. This is an unacceptable situation.

Today, we encourage the board and staff to fully address the various problems associated to Rule 15’s implementation at all Bay Area refineries. 

Pertinent to the Benicia community, Valero recently asserted that their Benicia refinery will be “the last man standing” among Bay Are refineries, and will continue to refine crude oil and produce petroleum products. Emissions tracking and fenceline monitoring will continue to be of particular concern to Benicians. The reliability of Valero’s fenceline systems’ performance is in serious doubt. 

In 2017, as per Rule 15 Guidelines, the GNSC submitted substantial comments to the District on Valero’s plans that had been created by Sonoma Tech for Valero.

In late 2019, the Benicia City Council voted to encourage Valero to get their fenceline systems installed and up and running before the District’s original deadline. Valero complied, installing 3 pathway systems and creating a public website to provide access to the data collected. Later, when public questions began to arise, Valero said that the new Hydrogen Sulfide monitoring system they’d purchased had never been field tested. After a year’s worth of data collection, data reliability remains questionable even for “signature” gases, including benzene. According to the Federal EPA’s Benzene Fenceline Monitoring Program, Valero’s benzene emissions were not only found to be the highest in the Bay Area; Valero’s total benzene emissions are four times greater than the four other refineries in the region.

It is implausible that there would be so few reportable detections, as the website routinely reports. Repeatedly, the website indicates that instruments are offline, or data is “pending final review.” Whose review? There is apparently no public access to archived data. Good science requires independent validation of data. Credibility of the systems and the data collection is at stake. Without independent review, public confusion and doubt about the sytems’ reliability will persist.

Right now, there is no independent, 3rd party data analysis required by the Air District. Yet verification of data for accuracy is crucial to public trustUnfortunately, in our casethe District has still not yet approved Valero’s fenceline monitoring system plan including the required quality assurance plan as mandated by Rule 12-15.

In the meantime, concerned Benicia residents formed a non-profit, incorporated in 2019, to provide an independently operated, community-based air-monitoring station for Benicia, called Benicia Community Air Monitoring Program. The system will be operated by solar, and will meet international standards for data quality. (Funding was appropriated through GNSC’s urging amendments to the  Settlement Agreement negotiated with Valero and City of Benicia.) We expect the new station will be operational by the end of 2020.

How is it possible that a small community group in Benicia can locate, configure and install an array of air monitoring equipment in less than a year, while the refineries in the Bay Area are still installing technologically inferior fenceline systems four years after they were told by the BAAQMD that these systems had to be approved and proven reliable, thus producing accurate data by now? 

I reiterate my request made in my letter of August 1st: 

We ask the Board to compel Valero to present all of the data associated with these systems to the public as soon as possible. In addition, we would like to see all raw data produced by the fenceline system at Valero so that it can be reviewed by independent experts. We ask that the  public have access to all District staff comments on refineries’ monitoring plans including quality assurance plans.

Thank you for your timely consideration of these matters.

Respectfully,

Marilyn Bardet
Benicia CA 94510

VIDEO: Benicia City Council workshop on air monitoring

By Roger Straw, October 23, 2019

Here is filmmaker Constance Beutel’s video of the City of Benicia’s Air Monitoring Workshop with representatives from Benicia Fire Department, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Valero and the newly forming non profit, Benicia Community Air Monitoring Program.

For more background and the staff report, see Mayor Patterson’s invitation, Benicia City Council workshop on Air Monitoring.

Benicia City Council workshop on Air Monitoring – Tues. Oct 22, 6pm

An E-Alert from Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, October 20, 2019

The city council is conducting a workshop on air monitors this Tuesday at 6:00 at the Benicia Library, Dona Benicia Room.  The agenda and staff report are on line.

The staff report states:

AIR MONITORING STUDY SESSION (Fire Chief)

Air monitoring in the City of Benicia has greatly improved over the last year. During this study session, Fire Department staff will provide the City Council with an overview of current and future air monitoring programs in the City. Additionally, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) staff will be available to present the City Council with an update on the district’s efforts to improve air monitoring programs in the region, Valero Refinery staff will be available to address concerns with their air monitoring programs, and Benicia Community Air Monitoring Program (BCAMP) members will be available to provide an update on efforts to increase air monitoring in the community. The objective of the study session is to provide a comprehensive overview of air monitoring programs and provide a clear picture of efforts to continue to improve the quality of air monitoring in the community.

There will be opportunity to ask questions.  You may be interested to learn the status of the fence line monitors required by the Air District as well as part of an agreement between the City of Benicia and Valero for measuring many constituents of air pollution including toxic air contaminants such as benzene and H2S.

In the staff report are letters from the Air District extending the compliance date for the monitors for H2S.  The Air District is providing more time to establish these air monitors for H2S because of problems with existing market monitors for open path monitors.  Fixed measurements may be considered.

Here is the power point  presentation for June 25, 2019.  The actual agreement does seem to be posted on the city’s website.  Click here for the agreement from my files.

Bardet & Campbell correspondence: need for southwest Benicia air monitors

By Roger Straw, October 21, 2019

Correspondence now public, “for the record” – City to provide copies at workshop on Oct. 22

Following is an email thread between Benicia activist and environmental watchdog Marilyn Bardet and City Councilmember Tom Campbell, in which they richly detail the need for air monitoring in south and west Benicia.

The exchange follows, first from Bardet, then Campbell, and finally from Bardet:

From: Marilyn Bardet
Sent: Thu, Oct 17, 2019 9:55 am
Subject: Fwd: [refineries-rule-group] We finally know what caused the refinery blast that rocked Philadelphia

Good morning, Mayor Patterson, Councilmembers, City Manager Tinfow and Fire Chief Chadwick,

The article, published yesterday (see link below) about the root cause analysis performed for understanding the Philadelphia Energy Solutions explosion and decimation should give us all pause.

The explosion of Philadelpia’s refinery is a clarion call, especially in light of the “teachable moment” of the Nustar Energy tank farm explosions and fire two days ago. Rodeo and Crockett residents are duly and rightly alarmed, as we all should be, at Phillip66’s plan for extensive expansion that would include construction of 6 new propane/butane spheres in a liquifaction zone within only ~2,300 ft of a residential neighborhood.

A point of fact:  portions of the Lower Arsenal Historic District and port area are in a recognized liquifaction zone with live pipelines crisscrossing the area, including behind Jefferson Street’s Officers Row, and 3 petroleum coke silos and pet coke terminal operations at the end of Tyler Street.

Why is this important to address now?

Our City is in the process of reviewing and considering adoption of a draft set of new design standards applicable for residential and mixed use development in the Arsenal and Downtown historic districts, and throughout the rest of town. While form-based code, established more than a decade ago, aimed to especially address the appearances of our historic districts, the code does not specifically address the overarching goal of our General Plan that calls for sustainable development. As well, the General Plan, in the Community Health and Safety chapter, also directs that new residential development should not put people in harm’s way, e.g. in close proximity to known hazards where soils may be contaminated from former uses. I would extend that concern to airborne toxic emissions, such as in the case where residential development is considered for specific locations in close proximity to pipelines, valves, stacks, and petroleum coke port terminal operations that could  impact residents’ health and safety, (whether from acute or chronic exposures to PM).

For example, refinery pipelines carrying flammable products and crude oil run behind the entire Arsenal Historic District’s “National Register C” which encompasses Jefferson Street and Jefferson Ridge. Unfortunately, residential condos were long ago permitted along Buchanan Street behind which are refinery pipelines.  The whole lower Arsenal, from Jefferson St to Grant St, to the Port area present multiple dangerous hazards, including daily truck traffic that enters and leaves the Lower Arsenal and port area often using Park Road.

I will be submitting comments and recommendations for the new form based design standards within the framework of these concerns for new residential and mixed use developments, which I have often written about, especially during the review of the Arsenal Specific Plan EIR that was not adopted.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Marilyn


From: Tom Campbell
Sent: Sat. Oct 19, 2019, at 9:34 AM
Subject: RE: Fwd: [refineries-rule-group] We finally know what caused the refinery blast that rocked Philadelphia

What the Nustar explosions and the recent Martinez flaring prove is that we need a community air monitoring system and information system to get that live time air monitoring information to the public. The south side of Benicia has no such system in place or even being contemplated. With the prevailing wind patterns and recent history it is essential in order to protect Benicians that there be air monitors in the south and southwest side of Benicia. There are none and none contemplated. Mobile monitors only give a short term transit set of information at best and are not enough for daily protection on the south and west side. This is why your approach is not going to work. Also putting the one air monitoring system near Valero is nothing put a redundant system that will only check on the fence line monitors and leaves the entire south and west side of Benicia naked. While you have chosen to concentrate on Valero you have missed all of the air pollutants coming from the refineries south of Benicia. And that is why the Good Neighbors’ choice of spending so little settlement money on air monitors was flat out wrong.

“If you can’t breath nothing else matters” American Ling Association

Tom


Marilyn Bardet <mjbardet@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: [refineries-rule-group] We finally know what caused the refinery blast that rocked Philadelphia

Hello Tom,

Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the workshop on Tuesday, and that’s why I’m writing to address your letter sent personally to me  and why I’m copying all the others to whom I’d sent my original message.  I appreciate receiving your conments and your concern to  provide a real-time, 24/7 community-based monitoring station located in the vicinity of downtown neighborhoods in the southwest area of Benicia, for all the reasons you cited: those neighborhoods are downwind of  the Phillips 66 refinery and NuStar tank farm, and depending on wind direction, the Chevron refinery.  I had written the message that your letter responds to about the  dangerous risks posed  to our community in the event of such explosions and fires as we experienced last week. I took pictures at 5pm, downtown from Maria Field and also from the Marina Green of the huge, dark sooty cloud drifting  broadly across our city and likely Vallejo from southwest to northeast.

I am certain that other GNSC members and new BCAMP board members agree—  a second monitoring station located in a southwest side neighborhood could/would be desirable to catch  those “downwind” air quality conditions. However, I disagree with your assessment of the location of the BCAMP station as “flat wrong” and that our station would somehow (impossibly) be primarily focused on refinery emissions and be thus redundantly measuring gases already captured by Valero’s fenceline openpath monitors. That just ain’t so.

The GNSC, and now the new BCAMP board, accepted that the location of the first BCAMP monitoring station was in part  determined  by the availability of a secure location with access to power—a small former cell tower cement block building now owned by Ruszel Woodworks and located on their property along Bayshore Rd. The site will sample air in the general vicinity  of the port, I-680 corridor, industrial park, Southern Pacific tracks, and the Valero southeast tank farm nearest residential neighborhoods of the upper eastside.

Our mission is to sample ambient air quality. BCAMP’s location was not chosen to selectively focus on refinery emissions, even if that were possible.

We have worked to get the Air District, meeting with Eric Stevenson, to agree to establishing a District-operated and funded monitoring station within a Benicia community neighborhood.

It is my understanding that they will be looking to assess particular opportunities with the City to identify a possible City-owned securable site for a permanent “real time” community-based monitoring system.

The GNSC is well aware, as is the BCAMP’s board, that in the future our monitors can be moved, housed in our trailer, and relocated to another secure site somewhere else in town. Perhaps BUSD could make assessments for siting a trailer on one of their school properties? The caveat:  any location identified must allow for access to the station by persons contracted to operate the systems  and perform routine maintenance and re-calibrations of equipment as necessary.

Have you got suggestions for such an optimum location for sampling ambient air quality? I see no reason why you couldn’t be involved on the part of the City in such an effort to find that additional site!

Thanks for your comments. I’m always willing to discuss!

🙂 Marilyn


Summary background: Bardet & Campbell: Benicia needs air monitors on south and west sides

Please attend the City workshop on air monitoring on Tues Oct 22, 6pm at City Hall, 250 East L Street Benicia.