Category Archives: Benzene emissions

Air pollution, Air quality violations, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Benzene emissions, Keeping Watch on Earth News, Local Regulation, Progressive Democrats of Benicia, Valero Benicia Refinery

Save these dates for important meetings on Air District charges against Valero for continued air pollution violations

Email from Progressive Democrats of Benicia, February 21, 2022


The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) will have two important informational meetings to discuss the serious emissions violations incurred by the Valero Refinery.  BAAQMD sets and enforces air pollution regulations in the Bay Area. Valero’s violations included dangerous benzene emissions.

The first meeting is THIS THURSDAY, FEB 24, FROM 6 TO 8 PM. 

In the words of Jack Broadbent, executive officer of the Air District:

Valero’s disregard for air quality regulations and public safety in the surrounding community warrants decisive action and significant penalties to deter violations in the future. Valero did not report or control the emissions from this source as required by Air District regulations, state and federal law.

Please plan to attend the following Zoom meetings to get answers to your questions, find out more details about what has been released into our air, and learn how it could have affected the air quality in Benicia. What will be the consequences to the refinery for their negligent action? Show Valero and the Air District that we care and are prepared to take action to protect our community!!

At our last general membership meeting we announced a webinar for Benicia Community Air Monitoring System on the 24th. That has now been moved to March 3rd so you can attend these BAAQMD meetings, which we feel are vital for every member and supporter to join if they can, so we can make our voices heard on the matter of these violations, and demand Valero take important steps to regain the trust of our community. Please plan to attend!

 This Thursday, February 24, 6 to 8 pm
Air District staff are holding this meeting and will be present to discuss these violations in detail. Click on the link for more information: https://www.baaqmd.gov/news-and-events/workshops
 Join Zoom Meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83974557503?pwd=Z2hDdTNxNitYV0h4cHgxOHR1eGtPUT09
Meeting ID: 839 7455 7503
Passcode: 808102
One tap mobile
+16699006833

Tuesday, March 1, 6 pm
Benicia City Council will address the Valero emission violations at their regular meeting. City council members have requested a briefing on the Valero case from Air District enforcement staff. This meeting is also open to the public. Please go to this page on the City of Benicia’s website for information on how to join.

Tuesday, March 15, 9:30 am
The second BAAQMD meeting is a legal hearing, where the Air District’s Hearing Board will consider approving the proposed abatement order. The public can view the agenda and provide written comment to the Hearing Board at the following link:
Hearing Board Agendas, Reports, and Orders (baaqmd.gov)
The public can also provide verbal comments to the Hearing Board during the hearing in the following ways:
 Join Zoom webinar:
https://bayareametro.zoom.us/j/88980571855
Webinar ID: 889 8057 1855
. . . or dial in remotely via phone at (669) 900-6833 or (408) 638-0968

 Please plan to attend one or all of these meetings, and thank you for supporting the health and safety of our community by taking action with us. Together, we will show Valero that no amount of cash they pump into our local elections will protect them from facing consequences for these very serious violations.

Kathy Kerridge, Int. Chair, Progressive Democrats of Benicia

See you there!

Kathy Kerridge
Interim Chair

 

Benzene emissions, Particulate pollution, Petroleum Coke (Petcoke), Refinery shutdowns, Valero Benicia Refinery

Valero will not be back online until early to mid May

April 14, 2019

Valero Benicia Refinery emissions Mar23 2.21pm

The Benicia Independent learned yesterday that Valero Benicia Refinery will remain in “partial shutdown” until early or mid-May.

This news raises two concerns:

  1. The shutdown came after the refinery experienced a massive release of black smoke on March 11 containing particles of petroleum coke and other toxic chemicals including benzene.  On March 24, a repeat of the black smoke releases took place, a shelter in place was issued by the health department, and the refinery went into a partial shutdown.  One might ask, “What kind of malfunction could result in a two-month shutdown?  How serious of an incident was this?”
  2. The partial shutdown has already raised gas prices in California.  How will another month offline affect consumers’ gas prices?

Roger Straw
The Benicia Independent

Air pollution, Benzene emissions, Civil penalties, Environmental pollution, US Environmental Protection Agency, Valero Benicia Refinery, Wastewater, Water contamination

EAST BAY TIMES: Benicia: Valero to pay $157,800 penalty over toxic chemicals

Repost from the East Bay Times

Benicia: Valero to pay $157,800 penalty over toxic chemicals

By Denis Cuff, October 5, 2016, 5:53 pm
The Valero refinery is photographed in Benicia, Calif., on Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2014. (Doug Duran/Bay Area News Group)
The Valero refinery is photographed in Benicia, Calif., on Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2014. (Doug Duran/Bay Area News Group)

BENICIA – The Valero oil refinery has agreed to pay $157,800 in federal penalties for improper management and storage of toxic chemicals and hazardous waste, the federal Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday.

The violations included illegal disposal of benzene, a carcinogen, into an unlined storm water retention pond and not alerting the public about all of its toxic chemical releases, EPA officials reported.

In addition to paying the penalties, Valero will modify its piping operations by June 2017 to prevent an estimated 5,000 pounds of benzene from being released into the atmosphere over the next 10 years, officials said.

Evidence of the violations were detected during an EPA inspection of the Benicia refinery in May 2014 to assess compliance with the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.

Additional violations included the company’s failure to determine if solid waste generated at the refinery was hazardous; the failure to maintain and operate to minimize risks of a toxic release; and failure to maintain complete and accurate records, the EPA said.

Air pollution, Bakken Crude, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Benzene emissions, Crude By Rail, Schools, Tar sands crude, Toxic pollutants, Valero Crude By Rail

Valero’s secret output level – 65% of permitted output

By Roger Straw, August 5, 2016

A letter by Kathy Kerridge appeared in the print edition of today’s Benicia Herald. Kerridge clarified statements made many times in recent months regarding Valero’s recent product output as approximately 65% of the refinery’s capacity.

The refinery does not disclose its current operating output, claiming that it is a trade secret.  Kerridge discloses the source for the public knowledge on this.

First a little background: When Commissioner Steve Young questioned Valero executives at the Planning Commission hearing on Feb 8, the transcript has “(No audible response.)” See p. 184. And when Young asked Valero environmental engineer Don Cuffel about this at the Planning Commission on Feb 9, Cuffel’s response was clearly evasive – see page 49-50 of the transcript.

The significance, as Kerridge points out below, has everything to do with Valero’s ability to increase air pollution and even (if permitted) to expand its operations to overseas oil export, if the City were to approve Valero’s Crude by Rail proposal.

Kerridge’s letter follows.  (I have added live links to the sources. I have also excised references to Benicia’s whack-a-mole critic, whose repetitive nonsense is not worth repeating on these pages.)

Letter to the Editor, Benicia Herald, by Kathy Kerridge

HERE IS A SOURCE
August 5, 2016

Dear Editor,

In last Sunday’s paper and in other recent letters [a critic] has been quite upset over the claim that Valero is operating at 65% capacity. He has repeatedly attacked [candidate for City Council] Steve Young over this and most recently attacked me demanding my source for the fact that Valero is operating at less than full capacity. Well here is the source: a report done by Applied Developments Economics, Inc. for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Here is a link to the report: Socio-Economic Analysis of Proposed Regulation 12, Rule 15: Petroleum Refining Emissions Tracking and Regulation 12, Rule 16: Petroleum Refining Emissions Limits and Risk Thresholds.  Look for Table 7 on page 15.

Applied Development Economics reported that Valero is refining 114,443 barrels of crude a day. Valero’s VIP permit in 2003 allowed for an annual average of 165,000 bpd, (with maximum daily permitted level set at 185,000 bpd.) Please see Valero’s permit for that. 114,444 divided by 165,000 equals 69%. Of course if you looked at the maximum daily capacity they are operating at 62% capacity. The average of the two is 65% just what Steve Young has been saying.

Why does this matter?

It matters because the Crude by Rail project will bring in heavy tar sands crude which emits much more reactive organic gases, more toxic air contaminates, benzene and heavy metal pollution. Bakken crude, which they also want to bring in could also result in more pollution. See the reports by Dr. Fox in response to the Crude by Rail DEIR filed 9-15-2014 and report by Greg Karras, senior scientist for CBE, filed 9-15-2014 with the city.

So if Valero operated at its permitted levels with more toxic crude we would see an increase in our local air pollution, particularly since there are no overall plant limits on these emissions at this time, and there may never be. This could cause real health impacts especially to students at Robert Semple school. The air district has been looking at this problem for several years and may never enact a numeric limit. Please see the Air District agendas for the last several years, proposed rule 12-16.

Let me add a few more words about accuracy. In a letter to the editor on July 5 [a critic] stated that Benicia’s opt out rate for Marin Clean Energy was “22% – three times higher than any other city.” He did not state a source. Given that in Benicia the opt out rate is 21% and the overall average for all cities opt out rate is 21%, according to Marin Clean Energy it appears that [the critic] has gotten his facts wrong. What else has he gotten wrong in his letters? I don’t have the time or energy to fact check every statement he makes, but I do look at the source.

Kathy Kerridge JD
Benicia