Category Archives: Regional regulation

Coronavirus, Covid 19, Intensive Care Units (ICUs), Regional regulation, San Francisco Bay Area, Stay-at-home

Newsom reopens California, with most counties going to ‘purple’ tier. Here’s what it means

Elias Gambaccini brings in a propane heater as he shuts down his restaurant's outdoor seating at Pizzeria Trattoria in North Beach in San Francisco. Across California, some counties will begin allowing some business activities to resume, including outdoor dining, after Gov. Gavin Newsom rescinded regional stay-home orders.
Elias Gambaccini brings in a propane heater as he shuts down his restaurant’s outdoor seating at Pizzeria Trattoria in North Beach in San Francisco. Across California, some counties will begin allowing some business activities to resume, including outdoor dining, after Gov. Gavin Newsom rescinded regional stay-home orders. Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez / The Chronicle
Vanessa Arredondo and Michael Williams Jan. 25, 2021 Updated: Jan. 25, 2021 9:18 a.m.

Gov. Gavin Newsom lifted mandatory stay-home orders across California Monday as the surge of coronavirus cases that followed the holiday season begins receding.

The move will shift counties back into the color-coded reopening system and reopening will no longer be tied strictly to the number of available beds in intensive care units.

Now, with most counties statewide poised to reenter the purple tier, some activities like outdoor dining and personal-service businesses like nail salons will be allowed to resume. Individual counties can still impose stricter requirements, despite the relaxed mandate from the state.

“California is slowly starting to emerge from the most dangerous surge of this pandemic yet, which is the light at the end of the tunnel we’ve been hoping for,” said California Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly.

“Seven weeks ago, our hospitals and front-line medical workers were stretched to their limits, but Californians heard the urgent message to stay home when possible and our surge after the December holidays did not overwhelm the health care system to the degree we had feared,” he said.

Mayor London Breed tweeted Monday morning that she expects San Francisco to return to the state’s purple tier. “We will be moving forward with some limited re-openings, including outdoor dining and personal services,” she said. More details on San Francisco’s reopening plans were expected to emerge during a news conference Monday afternoon.

Following a post-holiday surge, coronavrirus cases and hospitalizations have been decreasing across the state. ICU capacity in regions that remained under the stay-at-home orders as of Sunday — including the Bay Area and Southern California — are projected to rise above the 15% threshold that triggered the lockdown measures.

The decision comes more than six weeks after the Bay Area and nearly all of the state was placed under stringent stay-at-home orders due to the explosive spread of the virus in late November and early December.

Though the Dec. 3 stay-at-home order was statewide, it was not triggered unless ICU projections fell below 15%. Because of this, the state’s northernmost counties were never affected. Most Bay Area counties voluntarily moved into the lockdown condition on Dec. 6. But as of Saturday’s report from the state, the Bay Area’s ICU capacity was 23.4%.

News of the change first began circulating Sunday evening after the California Restaurant Association sent a letter to members saying it had received word from Newsom’s administration that the stay-at-home orders would be lifted. Several members passed the letter along to media outlets including The Chronicle.

Vanessa Arredondo and Michael Williams are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers.
Air Monitoring, Air pollution, Air Quality, Keeping Watch on Earth News, Particulate pollution, Refinery emissions, Regional regulation

CA State Senator seeks higher fines for illegal refinery emissions

Press Release from CA Senate District 3, Rep. Bill Dodd

Sen. Dodd seeks higher fines for illegal refinery emissions

Friday, February 16, 2018

SACRAMENTO – Senator Bill Dodd (D-Napa) introduced a new bill to help deter harmful emissions from oil refineries. The bill would increase fines for serious violations of emissions standards that sicken people or force shelter-in-place orders.

“There are already fines on the books for illegal refinery emissions, but the most common fine hasn’t been increased since Richard Nixon was in the White House,” said Senator Dodd. “When people are sickened by refinery emissions or forced to shelter-in-place, there should be stiffer penalties. My bill reinforces that oil companies should take proactive steps to avoid violations in the first place.”

Dodd’s bill, SB 1144, would triple existing fines for violations of emissions standards if the violations cause a health problem or impact over 25 people. Existing law doesn’t allow increased penalties for violations that injure nearby residents or for refineries with multiple violations. Currently, the maximum amount for the most common level of fines is $10,000 and hasn’t been adjusted since 1974.

Dodd’s bill would set the new fine at $30,000, and if refineries are found negligent, the amount would go up to $75,000 per day. In instances where a refinery fails to correct a known violation or intentionally violates standards, the violations would be even greater. For serial offenders with multiple serious violations within 36 months, the fines could be as much as $500,000 per day.

“Representing communities that house several refineries, I want to encourage the industry to be proactive in meeting their duty to neighboring residents,” said Senator Dodd. “This measure isn’t a silver bullet for addressing safety, but it certainly provides greater incentive to act responsibly.”

Senator Dodd’s district includes the majority of the Bay Area’s refineries. In September 2016, numerous Vallejo residents were sickened by a refinery incident that triggered over 1,500 complaints. The state’s Office of Emergency Services reported that area hospitals and medical facilities treated 120 patients for headaches, nausea, dizziness, and burning of the eyes, nose and throat. The Bay Area Air Quality Management issued a notice of violation to the refinery in Rodeo for that incident.

The funds from the fines in Dodd’s bill would be available to support more robust monitoring and enforcement. The bill is expected to come up for a committee vote next month.

###
Related imageSenator Bill Dodd represents California’s 3rd Senate District, which includes all or portions of Solano, Napa, Sonoma, Yolo, Sacramento, and Contra Costa Counties. You can learn more about Senator Dodd at www.sen.ca.gov/dodd.
Crude By Rail, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Local Regulation, Regional regulation, Surface Transportation Board, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

DAVIS ENTERPRISE: Area agencies oppose Valero oil train petition

Repost from the Davis Enterprise

Davis joins regional agencies in opposing Valero oil train petition

By Felicia Alvarez, July 10, 2016

In the latest addition to the turbulent saga of Valero Refining Company’s proposal to expand a crude oil-by-rail train route through the Sacramento-Davis region to a refinery in Benicia, the City of Davis, Yolo County, and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments have submitted formal letters opposing the Valero’s latest moves to approve the project.

The local agencies are joined by a formidable coalition opposing Valero’s project, including State Attorney General Kamala Harris, the cities of Oakland and Berkeley, and a number of air quality management districts.

The letters oppose Valero’s most recent steps to push through the crude-by-rail proposal and expansion of their Benicia refinery.

Last February saw the Benicia Planning Commission unanimously vote down the project’s environmental impact report. Valero decided to take it to the federal level, petitioning the Surface Transportation board for a federal preemption [by] the railroads.

Preemption would allow the company to expand its operations to transport oil through Davis along Interstate 80 toward the refinery in Benicia. It would also include routes that travel to San Luis Obispo, Bakersfield, and several other projects in Oregon and Washington.

The route of the most local concern would see 100-car trains travel through Old East Davis, downtown Davis, and the south end of UC Davis each day.

Last Friday, the City of Davis delivered its own letter to the Surface Transportation Board opposing Valero’s proposal. The city signed alongside Yolo County, Oakland, Berkeley and SACOG.

Fighting to maintain local control of planning and zoning management of the proposal in the interest of public safety, the letter states:

“Valero’s complaints do not actually pertain to rail operations at all. They pertain to the operations of oil refineries within California, refineries that wish, for their own financial benefits, to be exempted from compliance with state and local environmental and planning laws.”

The local agencies go on to argue that granting preemption is outside of the role of the board to rule on an oil refinery’s obligations.

The Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District decried Valero’s petition as well, drafting a letter alongside the Butte, Sutter, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta and Bay Area air quality management districts. 

The letter points to the project’s revised draft environmental impact report, which lists the additional air quality impacts that would be felt across multiple air districts if additional railcar trips were made across the region.

” … federal preemption prohibits the mitigation of project emissions either directly from locomotives or indirectly through the purchase of emission offsets,” the letter states, adding that this is what prompted the air quality districts to oppose the petition.

Yolo Solano AQMD’s letter goes on to echo the city’s argument that Valero is not a rail carrier, and therefore is not eligible to receive a preemption on the railroads from the Surface Transportation Board.

The Benicia City Council is slated to give the oil train proposal another hearing in September.

Air Quality, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Chevron Refinery, Flaring, Regional regulation, Violations of law

Chevron fined for air pollution at Richmond refinery

Repost from SFGate

Chevron fined for air pollution at Richmond refinery

By Kurtis Alexander, August 11, 2015 2:42 pm

Chevron has agreed to pay $146,000 in fines for spewing pollutants into the air at its refinery in Richmond, air quality regulators said Tuesday.

The penalty stems from 22 citations from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District mostly for discharging unhealthy levels of hydrogen sulfide and other harmful compounds through flaring, the process of burning off excess gas, common at industrial sites.

The refinery was also cited for excess carbon monoxide coming out of its furnace.

“Even though the incidents were minor and did not result in any significant impacts to people or the environment, we take these matters seriously, and have taken preventative measures to avoid similar situations from occurring in the future,” said Leah Casey, a spokeswoman for Chevron Corp., in an e-mail to The Chronicle.

The notices of violation were sent to Chevron between 2012 and 2014. The fines will support the air district’s enforcement work.