Category Archives: Air Quality

Air Quality, Chevron Refinery, Refinery safety

Attorney General Confirms CBE Concerns over Chevron Refinery

News Release from Communities for a Better Environment
[Editor: Read the June 9 news release here, or  download the release.  And… Read the Attorney General’s letter to the Richmond Planning Dept.  – RS]

Attorney General Confirms CBE Concerns over Chevron Refinery

June 9, 2014

 A CBE News Release – A.G. Kamala Harris cited refinery safety, air pollution, and climate protection concerns with Chevron’s proposed Richmond refinery expansion—the same concerns raised by CBE.

Urging the City of Richmond “to revise the EIR so that it will fully inform the public and the City Council of the local and statewide impacts of this Project,” Attorney General Kamala Harris cited refinery safety, air pollution, and climate protection concerns with Chevron’s proposed Richmond refinery expansion—the same concerns raised by Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) last month.

The Attorney General’s June 6th comment letter identified at least five issues that need further evaluation in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Chevron Expansion (“Modernization”) Project:

  • Safety hazards of the proposed project;
  • Potential project impacts on statewide climate protection objectives;
  • disparately impacted local community;
  • Feasible measures to cut local air pollution; and
  • Reasonable alternatives that may be environmentally superior to the project as currently proposed.

Specific concerns Harris raised include, among others, increased safety hazards from refining higher sulfur oil, increased carbon emission intensity, and the reliance on ‘emission reduction credits’ that do not require emission reductions in the communities directly affected by the proposed project’s potential air pollution.

CBE called on the City to revise and recirculate Chevron’s draft EIR, in comments documenting these same concerns submitted May 2, 2014. Last week CBE challenged air quality officials’ action granting a permit for the project without any valid air quality or environmental review. The Richmond Planning Commission has scheduled a decision on the project and EIR for a public hearing on July 9, 2014.

Download the June 9th press release
Read the Attorney General’s letter to the Richmond Planning Dept.

Air Quality, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Chevron Refinery, Communities For A Better Environment (CBE)

Lawsuit Filed – Chevron Refinery Permit to Pollute Exposed

NEWS ADVISORY by Communities For A Better Environment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 5, 2014

CBE_logo

Lawsuit Filed – Chevron Refinery Permit to Pollute Exposed

Today Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) filed suit against the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for the District’s illegal permitting of the Chevron (“Modernization”) Expansion Project.  CBE had previously requested the District to revoke the permit that allowed Chevron to build a Richmond refinery expansion that could increase air pollution from one of the state’s biggest industrial climate polluters without required emission prevention and environmental reviews.

“Letting oil refineries expand without requiring—or even looking for—measures to prevent the resultant air pollution threatens our health” said CBE Attorney Roger Lin.

CBE discovered that the Air District staff granted Chevron “Authority to Construct” the project without an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), public review or analysis of whether the emissions from the project will even meet EPA’s national standards for the protection of public health and welfare from harmful levels of pollutants.  Chevron sought the approval despite court orders in 2009 and 2010 that invalidated its permits for a Richmond refinery project with many of the same elements.  The courts found its EIR for that project failed to disclose impacts of refining lower quality oil and improperly deferred greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation.

Chevron’s new project would switch to lower quality oil, and—if unmitigated—could increase refinery GHG emissions by 725,000–890,000 tonnes/year, increase toxic emissions, and worsen a cause of Chevron’s disastrous 2012 fire, according to a revised draft City of Richmond EIR that relies largely on the Air District to mitigate project air impacts.

“First, we discovered the permit to allow the ticking time bomb of crude-by-rail with no public disclosure or environmental review.  Then we discovered a permit that was stopped in the courts for a project that could be dirty, dangerous, and deadly.  The Air District needs to respond with answers and act immediately to stop putting communities at risk,” demanded Vivian Yi Huang, Campaign & Organizing Director of Asian Pacific Environmental Network.

“Issuing air district permits prematurely before CEQA review of the project has been completed makes no sense, especially to a corporation that has demonstrated criminal negligence leading up to the August 2012 explosion and fire. Experience has shown that monitoring alone is less effective than controlling the source of emissions from the outset. We expect BAAQMD to do a better job of protecting the health and well-being of our community” said Marilyn Langlois of the Richmond Progressive Alliance.

“It’s high time the Air Board members stand up to their staff’s errors in judgment in rubber stamping Chevron’s illegal permit and revoke it immediately,” stated Denny Larson of Global Community Monitor, a resident of Richmond. Larson added: “The people of Richmond have suffered enough at the hands of Chevron and the Air District staff—it’s time for a change!”

“The health impacts of this project cannot be understated. The project calls for substantial increases in local emissions, including many chemicals that are known carcinogens. This deeply concerns me as a nurse and as a community member. The public deserves full disclosure and an environmental review,” said Deborah Burger, RN, Co-President of the California Nurses Association.

In 2011, EPA delegated permitting authority to maintain national air quality standards to the Air District.  By repeatedly renewing Chevron’s permit since 2010, versus waiting for the revised and adequate EIR, and then asking Chevron to reapply for its permit under current, more protective requirements, the Air District dodged applying that delegated authority to the Project.  This ignores the new review’s findings of massive potential GHG and toxic particulate matter emission increases from the project that would otherwise trigger best available technology requirements to instead reduce emissions. Those protections are basic requirements of both CEQA and clean air laws–and desperately needed in the already-overburdened communities on Chevron’s fence line.

The Richmond refinery has been among the state’s three largest GHG-emitting facilities in each of the five years when the Air Resources Board reported those emissions (2008–2012), emitting more GHG than any other California facility three of those years. Its 2012 crude unit fire that nearly killed 20 workers and sent some 15,000 residents to the hospital was caused by Chevron’s failure to heed its own workers’ warnings about corrosion from higher sulfur crude, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board has found. Particulate matter air pollution from its catalytic cracker has increased to more than 1,700 pounds per day, more than 1,200 lb/day above the permitted limit, as the cat-cracker runs more oil produced from the heaviest parts of the crude stream, CBE’s review of Air District records has found.  All of these impacts could worsen if the project enables Chevron to refine even lower quality oil.

Contact:
Roger Lin, CBE   (510) 302-0430 x16
Nile Malloy, CBE  (510) 926-5737
Vivian Huang, APEN  (510) 282-0135
Denny Larson, GCM (415) 845-4705

Download this News Advisory in PDF format
Air Quality, Environmental Impacts, Fracking, Oil Industry

Texas fracking verdict puts industry on notice about toxic air emissions

Repost from The Center For Public Integrity

Texas fracking verdict puts industry on notice about toxic air emissions

A nearly $3 million jury verdict against a Texas oil and gas company highlights regulatory failures and health risks linked to fracking

By David Hasemyer  |  May 28, 2014 
A TCEQ investigator filmed these "heavy plumes" of emissions wafting from the Aruba facility using an infrared camera. Thirty seconds later he reportedly “felt the physical effects of dizziness and a sore throat”. Screenshot from TCEQ video
A TCEQ investigator filmed these “heavy plumes” of emissions wafting from the Aruba facility using an infrared camera. Thirty seconds later he reportedly “felt the physical effects of dizziness and a sore throat”. Screenshot from TCEQ video

Between February 2010 and July 2011, Lisa and Bob Parr filed 13 complaints about air pollution from gas and oil operations near their ranch in Wise County, Texas. Sometimes they had trouble breathing, they told the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). They also experienced nausea, nosebleeds, ringing ears and rashes.

Other families were also alarmed. Between 2008 and 2011, the TCEQ received 77 complaints from Wise County, in the Barnett Shale drilling area in North Texas. One said the odor was so powerful that the complainant “couldn’t go outside,” according to the TCEQ report.

Frustrated and angry, the Parrs decided to sue. Their attorney warned them that lawsuits against the oil and gas industry rarely, if ever, succeed. But the Parrs persisted and last month won what appears to be the first successful U.S. lawsuit alleging that toxic air emissions from oil and gas production sickened people living nearby. A Dallas County jury found that Aruba Petroleum, a privately owned company based in Plano, Texas, “intentionally created a private nuisance” that affected the family’s health and awarded the Parrs almost $3 million in damages.

“When you don’t have a strong regulatory system, a system to prevent what happened to this family, the only place left to turn for help is the courts,” said Robert Percival, director of the University of Maryland’s Environmental Law Program.

There are no assurances the verdict against Aruba will survive an appeal or lead to regulatory changes in Texas or any of the other states where people complain their health is jeopardized by gas and oil drilling. The issues are so complex that the industry, the public and policy makers may be sorting through them for years.

Aruba has asked Judge Mark Greenberg, who presided over the Parrs’ case, to reverse the jury’s verdict. Greenberg is expected to hear arguments over the verdict in June.

“This case will be looked at very, very closely because it has set the stage in a way that has never been set before,” said attorney Tomas Ramirez. He represents two families in similar lawsuits in the booming Eagle Ford Shale of South Texas, where emissions are raising the same alarms that have been sounding in the heavily developed Barnett Shale region the Parrs call home.

Aruba used two long-standing industry arguments in its defense: That the emissions could have come from one of its competitors’ wells, and that it was in compliance with Texas environmental rules.

The fact that those arguments failed in this case “exposes every company to more possible litigation,” said Thomas McGarity, a University of Texas law school professor who specializes in environmental and administrative law.

“Losing this case was not good for the industry,” McGarity said. “My guess is the industry will coalesce around this case. The industry will want to stop the dam from breaking wide open … This is where they will take a stand.”

Aruba officials declined requests for interviews but released a statement though a public relations firm that said: “We contended the plaintiffs were neither harmed by the presence of our drilling operations nor was the value of their property diminished because of our natural gas development.”

In a motion to overturn the verdict, company lawyers argued “there is no evidence that Aruba engaged in any conduct intended to cause harm … Aruba’s operations complied with best industry practices and met the standard for a reasonable and prudent oil and gas operator.”

Air Quality, Bakken Crude, Bay Area Refineries, Benicia-Martinez rail bridge, Martinez CA, Spill prevention and response, Take Action

Request to Martinez City Council: moratorium on crude by rail

Repost from The Martinez Gazette

Martinez Environmental Group: Martinez moratorium resolution, facts to consider

May 11, 2014 | by GUY COOPER,  Special to the Gazette

The Martinez Environmental Group presented a resolution to the City Council May 7, proposing opposition to increased crude-by-rail (CBR) traffic through our city, mirroring similar resolutions and expressions of concern already proffered by Berkeley, Richmond, Davis, Benicia, and many other communities along the tracks. The following is what I wish I would have said in support at that meeting if I hadn’t chickened out.

A major attraction of Martinez is its status as a transportation hub. People commute and travel via Amtrak. There are connections to BART and bus destinations north, south, east and west. The train brings people to our town, sometimes for the first time. They stop, stroll, eat, drink, shop. I’ve talked to many of them. They like what they see, are amazed by the friendliness of the locals. Many are surprised such a town even exists huddled beside those hulking refineries. Basically, they come and go with a good impression that can’t hurt.

Personally, I love being able to jump on the train, catch a Giants game, make a trip to the City or Jack London Square for an event, or head towards Davis, Sacramento, or Truckee for a weekend. Naturally, money is spent on tickets, restaurants, hotels, etc.

If WestPac, Tesoro, Valero, Kinder Morgan, Chevron and Phillips 66 have their way, we could see five to six oil trains a day pass through. Each train consists of about 100 tanker cars. Each car holds about 30,000 gallons of crude. So each train contains about 3 million gallons, is over a mile long, and weighs about 28 million pounds.

A major consideration: How much can our 85-year-old rusty Benicia/Martinez rail trestle tolerate? Has it ever had to endure that kind of traffic before? What’s the frequency of inspections and maintenance of that span? None of this info is easily accessible. The Coast Guard and rail companies have haggled over a bridge refurb for years. How can it be done without contaminating the water, and who’s going to pay for it? Meanwhile, nothing happens. A few years back Channel 4 did a piece on the trestle, noting the heavy rust, separated metal and bent bolts. I guess it was stoutly built way back when, but how long can we expect our elderly bridge to endure an onslaught not seen since WWII? If the rail bridge failed under the load of one of these trains … well, I don’t even want to contemplate that disaster.

These oil trains would use the same tracks used by the California Zephyr, the Capital Corridor commuters, the Coast Starlight.

Farmers, industrial customers, and rail passengers in the heartland of this country are already complaining about train delays and freight delivery impacts due to oil train traffic kludging up the system. What exactly will the local economic impact be if passenger rail schedules are severely disrupted?

Have you noticed the increase in delays lately just trying to get across the tracks to the waterfront as oil trains are built, rolling back and forth, attaching more cars, blocking traffic?

Exactly what economic impact do the local refineries have? Taxes, wages … I’d like to see the details. And please, not the contributions to local causes. For them, that’s just a drop in the PR bucket. What about the health effects of the carcinogens and other toxics spewed into our local environment? We rate amongst the worst in the country in that regard, because of the refineries. What are those costs? The more trains, the more detrimental health impacts. These trains out-gas toxic stuff while unloading or just sitting. Has that been factored into the cost/benefit mix? How about emergency response costs? Not just in responding to a sudden emergency, but in equipping and staffing for the eventuality. Are the oil producers and refiners offering to cover those costs?

Here’s some more math. These so-called “Bakken Bombers” carry a crude that has been likened to gasoline in volatility. One gallon of gas is equivalent to the explosive power of 63 sticks of dynamite. A Bakken Bomber contains about 3 million gallons, or the equivalent of 189,000,000 sticks of dynamite. You know, I’ve been to Hiroshima, Japan. A sobering experience. The power of the bomb that flattened that city was rated at 12 kilotons, or equivalent to 4.8 million sticks of TNT. So one Bakken Bomber train could potentially contain the explosive power of 39 Hiroshimas.

My point is, there is very little benefit to our city hosting this exponential increase in oil train traffic. And much at risk. Any one of these trains could annihilate our town or indelibly poison our water front. It’s just not worth it.

I believe the City of Martinez should be acutely concerned about this issue and wish to join our neighboring municipalities in conveying that concern to the powers at the state and federal levels that can do something about it. So I ask that the City Council call for a moratorium on crude-by-rail until all safety and health concerns are remedied. Vote to pass our resolution.