Category Archives: Keeping Watch on Earth News

Valero Benicia Refinery ordered to stop 20 years of illegal toxic emissions, public gets detailed summary of emissions 2003-2021

Air District board approves abatement order for longstanding toxic releases at Valero Benicia refinery

The Valero Benicia refinery. Photo: Downtowngal/Wikimedia Commons.

Vallejo Sun, By Scott Morris, Mar 15, 2022

BENICIA – A hearing board for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District approved an abatement order for the Valero Benicia Refinery on Tuesday to correct an issue where a hydrogen vent has been allowed to spew thousands of tons of pollution into the air for decades.

The approval of the abatement order was expected as both the air district and Valero recommended its approval. But the ordeal has exposed some of the limits of the air district’s ability to detect and address harmful emissions from the refinery and raised questions about whether it withheld vital information from the Benicia community regarding Valero’s operations.

The excess emissions from a hydrogen vent were first detected by Valero in 2003 when it started measuring output from the vent, but the air district believes it likely had been going on even earlier and has no measurements from that time.

Since 2003, the air district estimates that the vent was releasing about 4,000 pounds of hydrocarbons per day, far more than state regulations allow. Overall, Valero released more than 10,000 tons of excess hydrocarbons over 16 years, including 138 tons of toxic air contaminants benzene, ethylbenzene, tolyrene and zolerine.

Following the discovery, Valero made a change to its process where it recycled the hydrogen, which resulted in a 70% reduction in emissions in 2020 and a 98% reduction in 2021 from 2019 levels, nearly bringing the refinery into compliance, according to new data released by the air district on Tuesday.

However, air district counsel Joel Freid said that the 2021 data had only been submitted last week and had not yet been vetted by the air district.

Summary of Valero hydrogen venting carbon emissions 2003-2021

Year Total carbon emissions (lbs.) Emissions limit (lbs.)
2003 2,183,855 5,475
2004 1,146,268 5,475
2005 245,225 5,475
2006 197,280 5,475
2007 288,269 5,475
2008 1,198,433 5,475
2009 224,440 5,475
2010 1,459,327 5,475
2011 287,821 5,475
2012 663,168 5,475
2013 788,064 5,475
2014 679,170 5,475
2015 1,159,426 5,475
2016 2,044,739 5,475
2017 3,023,303 5,475
2018 523,640 5,475
2019 566,485 5,475
2020 169,941 5,475
2021 8,732 5,475
Total 2003-2021 16,857,586 104,025

Air district officials have said that the refinery should have reported the emissions, which were not detected by any existing monitoring or inspection mechanisms, but Valero officials said during Tuesday’s hearing that the company was not aware the vent was subject to regulation and only used the data it collected for its internal operations.

When the air district discovered the excess emissions in 2019, it didn’t report its findings publicly either, working with Valero to fix the problem for nearly two years before disclosing it to city leaders and the community. That has led to criticism of a lack of transparency by the air district.

Tuesday’s hearing involved witnesses describing the air district’s findings and Valero’s response to the hearing board, a quasi-judicial body that adjudicates compliance issues and hears appeals. Since both sides had agreed with the abatement order prior to the hearing, there was little argument.

The air district issued the proposed abatement order in January and a statement describing its investigation in February. Valero submitted a written response to the air district hearing board last week.

Nearly 20 years of excess emissions detected

The refinery is one of five oil refineries in the Bay Area and processes 170,000 barrels – approximately 7 million gallons – of crude oil per day. Valero purchased the refinery from ExxonMobile in 2000 and has operated it since.

The air district found a hydrogen vent releasing excess emissions at another Bay Area refinery in July 2017 and the following year launched an investigation into whether any of the other four Bay Area refineries had similar vents. It discovered the excess emissions by Valero in 2019.

The equipment that led to the emissions is a vent for excess hydrogen. Hydrogen is used by the refinery in various parts of its production process and while the refinery approximately produces what it needs, it creates some excess that is released into the atmosphere. This isn’t an issue with pure hydrogen, but air district officials would later discover that the hydrogen released by Valero was hardly pure.

Gasses vented by a refinery are not allowed to exceed 15 pounds per day and 300 parts per million of carbon, according to Linda Duca, a supervising air quality specialist at the air district. The emissions from Valero were about 10,000 parts per million.

According to the air district, after an exhaustive search of the air district’s permitting records, it discovered there was no acknowledgement of the vent’s existence.

“We have one inspector assigned to Valero, that inspector is responsible for inspecting 239 sources,” Duca said during Tuesday’s hearing. “The stack does have steam coming out of it but it doesn’t have smoke or any unusual color coming out of it that would draw the inspector’s attention. It really did take this across the board hydrogen venting audit to discover this.”

As for why Valero didn’t report it, Valero Benicia director of health, safety, environmental and regulatory affairs Kimberly Ronan said Tuesday that Valero didn’t realize that state regulations applied. The regulations had been last amended in the early 1980s and the stack predated Valero’s acquisition of the refinery, so only a change in regulation or a change in Valero’s process would trigger a review of the regulatory applicability, she said.

“It’s fair to say we obviously knew that there were some impurities in the hydrogen stream,” Ronan said.

After discovering the violations, Valero instituted a partial fix in 2019 that resulted in a reduction in emissions but still more than state law allows. Valero has designed an engineering fix that it says will be implemented during the facility’s next “turnaround,” a periodic full plant shutdown for maintenance.

Exactly when that will be, however, is unclear as the turnaround schedule is proprietary information the company keeps secret as it can affect fuel supply and gas prices.

Valero had a two-month turnaround late last year, refinery manager Josh Tulino said during a December meeting of the Benicia Refinery Community Advisory Panel. During that event, a contractor working on a piece of equipment had an accident and died.

Air district faces accusations of lack of transparency

Since announcing the proposed abatement order, the air district has taken steps to conduct community outreach, including holding a virtual town hall meeting last month, where many members of the community were concerned both with how long it had taken the air district to detect the emissions and how long it had taken to inform the community.

During that meeting, Solano County public health officer Bela Matyas discussed the potential health effects of the emissions. While he said it was difficult to quantify, he said people with respiratory conditions could have that exacerbated. And while some of the chemicals released could be carcinogenic, the probability of a cancer case occurring was less than one case over 20 years of exposure.

“But that’s not the same thing as no risk,” Matyas said. “However low that risk number may seem, I don’t think it’s right to say it was a non-risk scenario.”

A week later, air district officials appeared at Benicia City Council meeting and faced many of the same concerns from the city council.

Air district Senior Deputy Executive Officer of Operations Damian Breen said at the March 1 meeting that the air district did a health risk analysis of the emissions in 2019, and determined that the facility would be required to install controls based on the toxic emissions that it was detecting.

Benicia Mayor Steve Young said he was concerned about that response as not even city officials were informed of the emissions before January of this year.

“You still did not release that information to the city or the county or the community,” Young said. “If you’re identifying toxic releases and then not telling people about it, that’s problematic for the community.”

Breen said that the air district did inform a county inspector of the emissions in June 2019 and followed up with emails in 2020.

“We take our duty to protecting this community very seriously,” Breen said. “We should have done better in this regard and we understand that and that’s why you see us changing our processes here.”

Breen said that had the air district been operating in 2019 as it is today, the case would have come before the hearing board sooner. “We’ve used our hearing board process very few times over the last 20 years, and we think it’s time that that changed,” he said.

Regarding Valero collecting data on the vent for its operations but never reporting it to the air district, Breen said, “they knew or should have known that those emissions should have been reported.”

The air district is still evaluating what monetary penalties will be imposed on Valero for the violations, but Breen said air district staff will recommend to the agency’s Board of Directors that as much of penalty as possible will go to the Benicia community, but did not say how.

The air district has also said it reported the violations to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and has not ruled out criminal prosecution, though in last month’s meeting officials said they have not yet communicated with the state Attorney General’s Office nor the Solano County District Attorney’s Office.

Dangerous Valero Emissions Went Unchecked For Years In Benicia

Benicia’s mayor and other city leaders said they were not informed of the problem until two months ago.

Benicia-Martinez Bridge, Valero Benicia Refinery in distance. (Paul Hames/California Department of Water Resources)

Benicia Patch, March 4, 2022

BENICIA, CA — Representatives from Valero and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District appeared in front of the Benicia City Council Tuesday night after revelations were made known that the refinery was emitting harmful, excessive levels of hazardous chemicals for nearly 16 years before BAAQMD said it became aware of them.

The council and community members also grilled BAAQMD for failing to notify the city of Benicia as soon as it found out about the emissions in 2018. Benicia’s mayor and other city leaders said they were not informed of the problem until two months ago.

BAAQMD began its PowerPoint presentation to the council with an image of Valero’s byzantine system of pipes, storage tanks, chimneys, towers, vents and smokestacks with a red arrow pointing down to one of them. Under the arrow stood a slim, vertical pipe emitting smoke that the air district claims it had thought was merely a steam vent. As it turned out, the innocuous vent had been emitting pollutants at hundreds of times the daily limit since 2003.

According to BAAQMD, Valero had been releasing benzene, ethylbenzene, and other organic compounds considered hazardous. District rules set a cap on such emissions at 15 pounds per day and a maximum of 300 parts per million. What the district discovered was that Valero had been emitting an average of 5,200 pounds per day and 19,148 parts per million.

The presentation given to council was an attempt of the air district to “be more transparent,” something they say they are committed to in the wake of the revelations.

“We should have done better and we should have done better sooner,” said Damian Breen, BAAQMD’s senior deputy executive officer of operations.

Joshua Tulino, general manager of Benicia’s Valero refinery, told the council and community that they, too, were unaware of the emissions until 2018 and “immediately” administered piping modifications that solved 71 percent of the hydrocarbon emission issues. He also said that since then, Valero has reduced the emissions by 98 percent.

Tulino maintained that informing the community about dangerous emissions is an “obligation” they take seriously but that “this source of emissions did not fall into that category.”

Tulino added that they were not aware that the vent was a source that needed to be monitored.

Benicia Mayor Steve Young asked Breen why the air district didn’t release the information it had gathered as soon as it found out and questioned how they could identify toxic releases and not share information with the city.

Breen said Solano County and “hazmat” officials were notified, but that they “should have done better” about notifying Benicia.

“That’s why you see us changing our policies here.”

The changes Breen referenced are holding more public hearings when violations occur, increasing transparency, keeping communities better informed, and monitoring refineries “better.”

As part of this effort, BAAQMD will be holding a March 15 public hearing about these Valero violations. The air district will also be installing a remote air monitoring station in Benicia near the Fire Museum at 900 East Second Street, a move that councilmembers unanimously accepted Tuesday.

Seeno attorneys request new trial – Save Mount Diablo says motion “Should be denied”

Seeno’s attorneys request new trial following Save Mount Diablo legal victory against Faria project in Pittsburg hills

The Pittsburg hills where the Faria project has been approved for construction, as seen from the San Marco neighborhood in Pittsburg. Photo: Scott Hein
607-acre, 1,650-home development next to planned Thurgood Marshall Regional Park – SMD leader says motion for new trial “should be denied”

Contra Costa Herald, by Allen D. Payton, March 3, 2022

Last Friday, Feb. 25, 2022, attorneys representing Discovery Builders and their Faria new home development requested a new trial for the lawsuit by Save Mount Diablo, following a judge’s decision in favor of the environmental group to stop the project. As previously reported, on March 30, 2021, Save Mount Diablo filed a lawsuit challenging the City of Pittsburg’s approval of the 1,650-unit Faria project, on the ridgeline between Pittsburg and Concord. According to the agenda item documents, the master plan overlay district encompasses approximately 607 acres of land. (See related article)

The motion for a new trial was filed “on the basis that the Court’s decision is not supported by the evidence and controlling legal authorities. Specifically…that there were several portions of this Court’s February 10, 2022, Statement of Decision that may not have fully considered evidence in the administrative record.” In addition, the motion asks that the “Court vacate its Statement of Decision and enter a new decision denying SMD’s motion” and “conduct a new hearing”. Faria project Motion for New Trial Parsons Dec. ISO Mot for New Trial      Raskin Dec. ISO Mot for New Trial    Faria project new trial Proof of Service

A hearing date on the motion for a new trial has been set for April 14, 2022.

The now named Thurgood Marshall Regional Park is directly adjacent to the Pittsburg City Council approved Faria project. Herald file graphic. Credit: Save Mount Diablo/Google Earth.

On the day of the decision, Save Mount Diablo issued the following press release about their legal victory: [Previously published here on BenIndy, see Save Mount Diablo Wins Major Legal Victory Against Seeno to Protect Pittsburg’s Hills.]

Save Mount Diablo Says Motion for New Trial “Should Be Denied”

Asked about the motion for a new trial, Save Mount Diablo Executive Director, Ted Clement responded, “Regarding the Seeno companies/Pittsburg request for a new trial, the Court has already rejected their arguments for reasons fully set forth in its decision. Their Motion for New Trial does not question the adequacy of the administrative record on which the Court properly based its decision (and which the City itself prepared) or suggest there was any other irregularity or unfairness in the hearing. Instead, they seek a second bite of the apple.”

“Their Motion reargues issues that were fully briefed and addressed in the Court’s Decision,” he continued. “They also seek to introduce irrelevant and improper extra-record evidence, violating black letter law that CEQA actions must be decided on the record that was before the agency when it made its decision.”

“Because their Motion provides no basis for this Court to order a new trial solely on the issues decided adverse to them, it should be denied,” Clement concluded.

Valero Hit With Suit Over Bay Area Petroleum Coke Pollution

[BenIndy Editor: Last October, Baykeeper announced a Notice of Intent to sue, offering 60 days for a settlement.  Evidently there was no agreement to settle.  Today’s news below.  See also: earlier reports on the Benicia Independent.]

SF Baykeeper Sues Water-Discharging Businesses

Law Street Media, by Jose Rascon, March 2, 2022
On Thursday, plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper filed suit against Amports, Inc APS West Coast, Benicia Port Terminal Company, and Valero Refining Company in the Northern District of California. San Francisco Baykeeper is claiming that the defendants have unlawfully discharged pollutants into public waters.

The defendants, according to the complaint, are a group of corporations that conduct business in the automotive processing industry, while the plaintiff is a nonprofit organization “whose main focus is to hold polluters and government agencies accountable to create healthier communities and help wildlife thrive”

The complaint states that the defendants have “directly discharge petroleum coke into the Carquinez Strait at the Port of Benicia and that Defendants do so without a valid permit under the Clean Water Act and in violation of California law.”

The plaintiff is claiming that the defendants have gone out and discharged harmful toxins in the Port of Benicia through several means. Some of these means have been through “the washing of petcoke and pollutants off the deck of the ship and other loading-related equipment, directly into the Bay,” as well as the direct “aerial deposition of particulate matter into the water from Amports’ conveyance system and operations.”

According to the plaintiff the substance that the defendants have allegedly been discharging, known as Petroleum coke, or petcoke is a harmful byproduct of petroleum refining. Some of the properties that Petcoke contains are heavy metals such as copper, zinc, nickel arsenic, and mercury. This substance is being claimed to be “a harmful and deleterious to aquatic ecosystems, animal and plant species in and around waters, and poses risks to human health”.

Other allegations that the plaintiff is asserting is that the substance Petcoke makes its way into the public waters of the Carquinez Strait where the defendants do not have the proper authorization to work in.

Ultimately, the defendant is facing 10 counts, including NPDES permit violations, Clean Water Act violations, and violation of unfair competition law.

The Plaintiff is being represented by Schute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP