SAN FRANCISCO – The Bay Area Air Quality Management District and California Air Resources Board are announcing today a nearly $82 million penalty in a joint case to address significant air pollution violations by Valero Refining Co. at its Benicia refinery. This penalty is the largest ever assessed in the Air District’s history.
Over $64 million of these funds will be returned to the local community to finance projects aimed at reducing air pollution exposure, mitigating air pollution impacts and improving public health in areas surrounding the refinery. These projects will be selected through a public process with input from residents, community organizations, elected officials and advocates representing the impacted area. The remainder of the penalty will be used to fund beneficial clean air projects in overburdened communities throughout the Bay Area, as well as to offset the costs of investigating and prosecuting the case. In total, nearly $80 million of this historic penalty will be returned to Bay Area communities.
“Today’s historic penalty against Valero Refining Co. for its egregious emissions violations underscores the Air District’s unwavering commitment to holding polluters accountable and safeguarding the health of those living in refinery communities,” said Dr. Philip Fine, executive officer of the Air District. “Investing these funds back into the community will empower local residents to drive air quality projects that benefit the surrounding neighborhoods, advancing our mission of cleaner air for all.”
“CARB is pleased to have supported the Air District in investigating and settling this important case that helps remediate the harms Valero’s operations caused to surrounding communities,” said CARB Executive Officer Dr. Steven Cliff. “The Air District’s new community fund provides critical funding for projects that improve air quality and public health for impacted local communities. CARB is proud to direct the majority of its share of the penalties from this settlement to the community fund to expand the reach of its projects.”
“This penalty sends a strong message; adherence to air quality standards is both necessary and expected, and failure to do so can lead to significant fines,” said Steve Young, Benicia Mayor and a member of the Air District Board of Directors. “Benicia residents need to know that air quality violations are taken seriously. The use of these funds will help us address local air quality issues going forward. I am grateful for the work of the Air District, CARB and the California Department of Justice in helping bring this long-standing issue to conclusion.”
The penalty stems from a 2019 inspection that found unreported emissions from the facility’s hydrogen system containing harmful organic compounds in violation of Air District regulations. These organic compounds contributed to the Bay Area’s regional smog and particulate pollution problems, and they contained benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene, or BTEX, compounds, which cause cancer, reproductive harm and other toxic health effects. Air District inspectors discovered that refinery management had known since at least 2003 that emissions from the hydrogen systemcontained these harmful and toxic air contaminants but did not report them or take any steps to prevent them. The refinery emitted an estimated 8,400 tons of these organic compounds in total over this period in violation of Air District regulations – an average of more than 2.7 tons for each day on which a violation occurred, over 360 times the legal limit.
Subsequent investigations uncovered a host of other problems involving the hydrogen system, including emissions in violation of applicable limits, failure to install required emissions abatement equipment, failure to inspect equipment for leaks and failure to report required information, among other violations.
The Air District sought abatement orders from its independent Hearing Board to require Valero to abate ongoing violations. In conjunction with CARB, the Air District has now assessed this monetary penalty to resolve all the violations. In addition to the penalty, Valero will be required to undertake several measures to prevent future violations. Valero will be required to reconfigure the facility’s main hydrogen vent and vents in its hydrogen production plants to prevent emissions from being released directly into the atmosphere. Valero will also be required to implement a training program to ensure that its staff are fully aware of all relevant Air District regulations.
In May 2024, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board of Directors adopted a groundbreaking policy that directs a significant portion of penalty funds to the communities most impacted by air quality violations. Under this policy, most of these penalty funds will be reinvested in local projects specifically designed to reduce pollution and enhance public health. To help improve regional air quality and advance the Air District’s environmental justice and equity goals, penalty funds will be allocated in accordance with this new policy. The policy will ensure that significant amounts of large penalties benefit the community where the violation occurred while also setting aside funds to address the needs of communities overburdened with air pollution that may not have industrial sources that could be subject to large penalties.
This penalty is the third major fine the Air District has assessed against Bay Area refineries this year. In February, the Air District announced a $20 million penalty against the Chevron refinery in Richmond, and earlier this month the Air District announced a $5 million penalty against the Marathon refinery in Martinez. “These significant penalties should put the refineries and other industrial operations on notice,” said Alexander Crockett, the Air District’s general counsel. “If you violate our regulations and pollute our air, we will hold you accountable to the maximum extent provided for by law.”
The joint prosecution with CARB is also indicative of a new level of cooperation among enforcement agencies for air quality violations. The Air District will look to partner with other agencies where appropriate to ensure that maximum enforcement resources are brought to bear for significant violations.
CARB is charged with protecting the public from the harmful effects of air pollution and developing programs and actions to fight climate change. From requirements for clean cars and fuels to adopting innovative solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, California has pioneered a range of effective approaches that have set the standard for effective air and climate programs for the nation, and the world.
Christina Gilpin-Hayes, endorsed candidate for Benicia City Council. | Campaign photo.
My name is Christina Gilpin-Hayes, and as you may have heard, I’m running for Benicia City Council. Before I tell you about my qualifications and why I’m asking for your vote, let me say that it has truly been an honor to run for Council. I have enjoyed every moment of this election season so far—meeting neighbors who have become friends, knocking on doors, and being welcomed into homes to listen to concerns and engage with our community members. It has been a rewarding experience that reinforces my commitment to serving our community.
I find joy in this process. Even neighbors who may not agree with me or are voting for another candidate have shared their stories and experiences with me. This is what community means to me. Even when we don’t agree, there is an opportunity to communicate.
Now, a bit more about me: I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Communication and Organizational Behavior, along with a background in law and finance. I was previously employed as a corporate paralegal supporting startup companies and large technology firms. I eventually moved into a leadership role at a large firm, managing a team of approximately 100. After a brief stint at an investment bank, I returned to law firm life, where I now manage a team developing legal tech software to make legal services more efficient and, hopefully, less expensive. In my professional life, I’vemanaged people and budgets, and I have experience making tough decisions when necessary. In my opinion, all of these responsibilities can be fulfilled with empathy, care, and creativity.
Personally, I am passionate about community organizing. I am the founder of the Benicia LGBTQIA Network and an avid animal rescuer. My wife and I moved to Benicia in early 2021 and instantly fell in love with this community; we knew it was home for us. I’ve always been politically and socially active, volunteering for multiple local, state, and federal campaigns over the years, including working on the legal Election Protection Team for two presidential elections to ensure voters had access to the polls across the country. I believe in the democratic process, and that’s just one of the reasons I’m running for Benicia City Council. I’d like to answer some of the questions I’ve encountered on the campaign trail in Benicia.
WHERE DO I STAND ON THE ISSUES?
I am in favor of Measures F, G, and H.
Measure F
I know our community is experiencing tax fatigue, and the city is asking us to contribute more. I understand; I really don’t want to pay more taxes either. However, with Measure F, we can contribute a small amount when dining out or purchasing items, which will help address some of our road issues. For an $80 dinner at Baxter’s, one of my favorite Benicia restaurants, the tax I will pay on that meal will increase from $7.30 to $7.70. I am comfortable paying the additional $0.40 to help the city start making a dent in the backlog of roads that badly need repair and repaving. I also appreciate that there will be a community oversight committee to ensure that this money is used as intended by voters. Additionally, even if Measure F passes, our tax rate will still be lower than many of our neighboring communities.
Measures G and H:
There is a lot of misinformation floating around about these measures, leading to confusion. I’ve met homeowners who thought that voting in favor of these measures would result in immediate reassessments of their homes. To be clear, that is not accurate. First, Measure H cannot be implemented without Measure G. A General Law City, which is what Benicia currently is, cannot implement a city transfer tax. If Measure H is approved, together with Measure G, it means real property sales will be assessed a city transfer tax, and while I understand the frustration with being asked to contribute more, this measure will enable the city to plan for the future. I’ve heard questions like, “Why didn’t the city anticipate this?” or “Why didn’t the previous council do something to ensure we could collect on X, Y, or Z?” This measure provides the city with that opportunity. It means when new developments occur, the city will receive a transfer tax, ensuring that new residents contribute to our beautiful community to fund city needs, such as necessary infrastructure, police, and fire. Additionally, if any commercial properties—yes, including Valero—ever sell, the city will receive funding from those sales. We want to avoid a situation where, in 2, 5, or 10 years, sales occur from new housing developments or a large commercial property, and the city has not planned for it.
What about budget cuts?
One thing is certain: we cannot cut our way to a balanced budget. This community has made its priorities clear, and public safety is a top concern. This means maintaining staffing levels for police and fire. To achieve this, we must compensate our public safety staff at a level consistent with neighboring communities. In my conversation with the Police Chief, he indicated that we have already lost five police officers in 2024 alone. While there will be opportunities to reduce staff in certain departments in the coming years, that alone will not bridge the budget gap.
We also cannot cut consultant fees as a way to balance the budget. Consultants provide efficient and cost-effective services without the long-term obligations that permanent employees require. Hired city staff require benefits and pension contributions. Consultants can be brought in when needed without those long-term commitments. Moreover, many items on the consultant list are supported by this community, such as automated license plate readers and the goats for vegetation management, among others. We could eliminate all of those and save quite a bit of money, but then would we hire full-time shepherds and purchase a herd of goats to cancel that contract, or do away with the Automated License Plate Readers that assist our Police Department, or even hire a team of full-time city attorneys with the appropriate specialties to replace our contracted City Attorney, which would also come with benefits and pensions? Additionally, some of the consultants the city has engaged over the past two years have helped ensure compliance with state housing requirements. The city does not maintain full-time staff to manage all of its needs, as doing so would inflate the budget far beyond the consultant fees we currently pay.
Relying on the termination of consultant contracts to find money to balance the budget or fix our roads is short-sighted and unrealistic.
Our Budget/Long-Term Economic Goals
These tax measures are not a magic solution; they are merely a starting point. We must continue to make significant plans, regardless of whether these measures pass. We need to focus on attracting new commercial opportunities, which means city leaders must identify ways to leverage relationships and encourage businesses to consider Benicia. This may involve collaborating with commercial property owners to assist in identifying potential businesses for vacant properties, particularly those that would generate sales tax revenue. Warehouses do not typically generate revenue for the city. My focus would initially be on our industrial park. While Main Street is the crown jewel of Benicia, it accounts for only about 7% of our total sales tax revenue. We should continue to support all our Main Street businesses, but initially, we should prioritize new commercial opportunities in the industrial park. This won’t be easy, but it can be achieved if we work together—city leaders, city staff, the Benicia Industrial Park Association, and the community at large. The time for the City Council to act is now. We must focus on what’s next for Benicia to diversify our revenue streams, which is essential for our city’s long-term financial health, and we must engage every voice to do what’s right for Benicia.
The Industrial Safety Ordinance
I believe we need a strong Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO). We are the only refinery city in the Bay Area without one. City leaders would be doing a disservice to the community if they did not ensure Benicia’s long-term environmental safety in all industrial settings. I have read the draft ISO, the community comments, Valero’s comments, as well as Solano County’s comments. I hope the ISO can be implemented without litigation and that all interested parties can agree to prioritize the environment and public safety.
Other Issues
While these issues don’t necessarily touch the city directly, I think it’s important for you, the Benicia voter, to know where I stand:
I am pro-choice. Since I turned 18, I have actively advocated for and defended a woman’s right to control her own body and decisions.
I support marriage equality. I campaigned and canvassed with Equality California to overturn Prop 8 and am emphatically voting for Proposition 3, which will finally repeal Prop 8 language from the California constitution.
I advocate for a living wage and will be voting “yes” on the state minimum wage proposition.
While this isn’t necessarily a city, county, or state issue, as mentioned, I am an avid animal rescuer, and if you have a dog, I’m more than likely going to greet your dog first.
In Closing
Mayor Steve Young, Vice Mayor Terry Scott, and Council Member Kari Birdseye have provided invaluable information and support throughout this process, and I’m a better candidate for it. I am truly grateful for all of the current and former leaders of this city, as well as long-time Benicians, who have been willing to invite me into their homes and lives, talk to me, and share information.
If you watched the Benicia Chamber of Commerce candidate forum or attended any of my campaign events, you’ll know I don’t take myself too seriously. I smile a lot and genuinely find joy in my work, my life, and this campaign process. You might wonder if I have the chops to do this job if I’m cracking jokes. I assure you, I do. I am a leader in my industry and my community, and when it’s time to get down to business, I do so with ease—but always with a smile on my face.
I will champion Benicia and remain accessible to hear your concerns, even if we don’t agree. I hope you’ll take some time to get to know me, and I ask for your vote on November 5th or via your mail-in ballot.
The Benicia Independent and its Founder/Editor Emeritus, Roger Straw, have also wholeheartedly endorsed Christina Gilpin-Hayes for Benicia City Council. Her genuine passion for our amazing community, combined with her ability to connect with residents and listen to their concerns, truly sets her apart as the best candidate in this field. Christina is the right leader for Benicia.
This ad was first published in the Benicia Herald on October 19, 2024. The Herald does not have an online edition. Supporting local journalism is crucial for ensuring communities are informed and facilitates transparency and accountability during important local events like this one. You can subscribe to the Herald by email at beniciacirculation@gmail.com or by phone at 707-745-6838.
Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land
By Stephen Golub, first published in the Benicia Herald on October 13, 2024
When we think about courage, the kinds of things that come to mind are police taking on violent criminals or firefighters rushing into burning buildings. We don’t think of city officials poring over spreadsheets and budget documents.
But when it comes to this year’s mayoral and City Council elections, there’s an admirable element of courage at play. This is a central reason I’m endorsing Mayor Steve Young for reelection, as well as Christina Gilpin-Hayes and (current Council Member) Trevor Macenski for City Council.
They all also merit support for additional reasons that go beyond our budget crisis, including the initiative and energy they’ll bring to these (largely uncompensated) jobs. But with respect to that crisis, they’ve earned respect by biting the bullet and backing the three revenue-enhancing measures on the Benicia ballot, involving a small sales tax increase for road repair and introduction of a modest real estate transfer tax for more general purposes.
Retiring Benicia Council Member Tom Campbell has endorsed Gilpin-Hayes for City Council, along with Mayor Steve Young, Vice Mayor Terry Scott, and Council Member Kari Birdseye. | City of Benicia.
Regrettably, as demonstrated by retiring Council Member Tom Cambell in his October 9 letter to the Herald, the responsibility shown by Young, Gilpin-Hayes and Macenski sharply contrasts with an erroneous budgetary approach taken by a twice-defeated (and once victorious) current Council candidate, Republican Lionel Largaespada. Not one to mince words, Campbell describes Largaespada’s number-juggling in terms of “voodoo math.”
As ably analyzed by Campbell, Largaespada’s misleading approach includes incorrectly claiming that he’s “found” enough existing City money to cover road repair and identifying supposedly excessive spending on outside contracting services – even though such services in fact are essential or even crucial to Benicia (and, I’d add, would most likely be more expensive if carried out by City personnel).
Campbell further explains that “Largaespada never talked to anyone in the [City’s] finance department or the City Manager’s department about his plan.” Finally, demonstrating some fine institutional memory, Campbell points to the video of a specific Council meeting to assert that in 2019, while on the Council( before being defeated in 2022), Largaespada backed a higher sales tax than the one candidate Largaespada now opposes. He was apparently for that kind of tax before he was against it.
All this worries me in three ways.
First, with 44 percent of the City budget going to fire and police protection, there seems no way to adopt Largaespada’s apparent voodoo math without cutting that essential protection. It could also mean deteriorating roads and other City services, as well as a failure to repair City buildings and facilities, such as the Police headquarters, the Senior Center, the Swim Center, the library and a host of other structures.
Second, Campbell does not stand alone in his refutation of Largaespada’s math. His critique is part of a broad consensus of criticism that I’ve heard from responsible Benicians across the political spectrum, ranging from business-centric to progressive circles.
Finally, if Largaespada brings this questionable approach to the budget, one must wonder about his judgment in handling other pressing issues Benicia faces – not least safety and health challenges presented by Texas-based Valero, who’s dangerous crude-by-rail “bomb train” plan he backed several years ago and which has massively, indirectly supported him through political action committee spending over the years – often through misleading ads that unfairly attack his opponents.
I don’t like criticizing Largaespada in these pages. He is a good, bright person. But I don’t like the possibility of gutting City services hanging over our heads either, especially when Campbell and many other experts refute his calculations.
Back to courage and judgment: It’s hard to tell people we need additional taxes. It’s harder still to put one’s political career on the line to do so. But Mayor Young has led the way in dedicating much of his campaign to that, in order to right the City’s fiscal ship for now and into the future.
The Benicia Save Our Streets Committee are fighting to pass Measure F to fix out streets.
Thus, he’s backing Ballot Measure F, the product of a citizen initiative that gathered over 2,000 signatures, which will increase the sales tax on non-grocery items by a small amount (to still less than a number of other Bay Area communities) in order to ensure that road repair is fully funded.
He’s similarly backing Measures G and H, which together will allow the City to raise funds to help close our looming budget deficits via a modest transfer tax on real estate sales – with key exceptions such as no tax in the case of inheritance or divorce.
A real value of G and H is that with state-mandated additions of housing to Benicia, other possible housing developments on the horizon and the possibility of Valero selling its refinery down the line, large chunks of revenue could be generated by the transfer tax without imposing any costs on current Benicia residents.
I won’t delve into the pros and cons of these three measures beyond very briefly addressing certain frequently heard counter-arguments.
For instance, aren’t City employees overpaid or isn’t the City overstaffed? No. In fact, sometimes Benicia does not even match the going rate for some jobs in other municipalities, which has meant losing valuable staff to them and the resulting expense of recruiting and hiring replacements. And Benicia has made staff consolidations to streamline its operations.
Or, why can’t we renegotiate employee pensions? Because we’re bound by law to honor them.
For these reasons and many more, all three measures have the support of Benicia’s public safety unions, the Solano County Association of Realtors, the County’s Democratic Party and many other organizations and individuals across the political spectrum.
The budget crisis isn’t at all the only reason I’m backing Steve Young for Mayor. He displays an even keel in leading the City, as evidenced by the calm stewardship he showed during the pandemic. He offers various sensible plans and projects to enhance our business climate and quality of life. Such initiatives will yield additional revenues down the line without imposing additional taxes.
I have not addressed Macenski’s candidacy much because, as a popular incumbent, he does not seem to need the same level of discussion as newcomer Gilpin-Hayes, whom I’ve previously, enthusiastically endorsed. Suffice to say that he is a very sharp individual who brings great knowledge to consideration of many city issues.
Smoke from the Valero Benicia refinery during a 2017 incident. | Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
There is, however, one regard in which I wish Gilpin-Hayes, Macenski and especially Young were stronger: the proposed Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) that Vice Mayor Scott, Council Member Birdseye and several other individuals have labored over for the past year. All three have cautiously endorsed aspects of it in principle, which is understandable. But as a matter of leadership and legacy, and of safety and health, stronger and clearer support would be welcome in the lead-up to the election – especially in contrast with the eventual unsupportive stance we might expect from Largaespada in view of his past backing by Texas-based Valero.
I have not addressed the candidacies of Kevin Kirby for Mayor and (former Valero and Exxon Mobil employee) Franz Rosenthal for City Council because, while they both came across as nice folks in a recent forum organized by the Benicia High School debate team, neither have matched the focus or knowledge of Young, Gilpin-Hayes, Macenski or Largaespada– whether at that forum or online – regarding the crucial issues confronting Benicia. The one exception is former Valero and Exxon Mobil employee Rosenthal’s clear opposition to the ISO.
In addition, given Rosenthal’s apparent extremely late entry into the race, one wonders whether, as the other new face in the Council contest, he’ll counterproductively take votes away from the energetic and well-qualified newcomer Gilpin-Hayes.
To sum up: For their courage, judgement and many more reasons, I hope that Benicians will work for, donate to and above all vote for Young, Gilpin-Hayes and Macenski for Mayor and City Council Members. Benicia needs the sound, responsible, energetic approaches they bring to the table.
[Note: I have donated to the Young and Gilpin-Hayes campaigns.]
The BenIndy has also endorsed Christina Gilpin-Hayes for City Council. Learn more about her campaign by clicking the image below and visiting her website
[BenIndy: This win shows why Benicia residents are demanding local oversight through the enactment of an Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO). While we’re grateful to Baykeeper for taking a stand for our health and safety, we shouldn’t have to rely on nonprofits for protection. Nor should we accept City leaders’ seeming reluctance to rock the boat in a refinery town by supporting an ISO. The polluted waters this metaphorical boat now floats on demonstrate that inaction and waffling in our leadership is as risky as industrial pollution. It’s time for Benicia’s leaders to pick up their oars and navigate us all to safer, cleaner shores—even if it means making waves.]
Valero and Amports Agree to Clean up Their Acts
Baykeeper drone footage of a petcoke spill at the Port of Benicia. | Baykeeper.
Baykeeper’s 300th Legal Win: Hard Evidence Holds Polluters Accountable
After four years of drone investigations, rigorous evidence collection, and court filings: We won! Valero and Amports—the two companies operating an export terminal at the Port of Benicia—have agreed to stop polluting the Bay and nearby neighborhoods. What’s more, this settlement officially marks Baykeeper’s 300th legal victory over 35 years, and it includes the largest Clean Water Act mitigation payment in our history.
It all started with a report to Baykeeper’s pollution hotline. The tipster let us know that the companies were spilling some dark material into the water while loading cargo ships at the port.
When our field team investigated, we documented long black plumes of petroleum coke drifting out into the Bay. We also recorded clouds of petcoke dust rising off the conveyor belts, fouling the air and threatening people in nearby neighborhoods.
Companies Commit to Cleaner Operations
Valero and Amports have agreed to make significant infrastructure upgrades and operational changes to improve activities at the site. These changes will include thorough cleaning and maintenance, installing state-of-the-art equipment to prevent spills and aerial drift, as well as monitoring and recording all petcoke loading operations. Baykeeper’s experts will be evaluating the companies’ compliance with the agreement over the next three years to ensure they are no longer polluting.
$2.38 Million for Local Nonprofits
The companies have also agreed to pay $2.38 million in environmental mitigation payments to help offset the harm of their past pollution. They will send the payment to our partners at the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment, which will re-grant it to non-profit organizations around the Bay Area to fund projects that benefit the health of the San Francisco Bay-Delta watershed. None of these grants will go to Baykeeper.
With this latest pollution settlement, Baykeeper has directed more than $15 million to the community over our 35-year history. Those funds have supported hundreds of Bay-focused environmental initiatives.
“Baykeeper stood up to these two big companies and made them clean up their acts,” said Baykeeper executive director Sejal Choksi-Chugh. “It’s a big win for the Bay and the people around Benicia. It makes me proud to know that there will be less toxic pollution harming the community, and that lots of local grassroots nonprofits will get a big funding boost to support projects like creek cleanups, wetlands restoration, and environmental education programs because of our win.”
This victory was made possible because of our dedicated supporters. Thank you for enabling us to hold this major fossil fuel polluter accountable, defend local communities, and protect San Francisco Bay.
In a previous post, I shared the Baykeeper press release announcing the photo and video evidence of illegal polluting of the Carquinez Strait and San Francisco Bay by Benicia AMPORTS.
Re: Notice of Ongoing Violations and Intent to File a “Citizen Suit” Under the Clean Water Act
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) regarding violations of the Clean Water Act1 (“CWA” or “Act”) at the Amports Port of Benicia Terminal, owned and operated by Amports, Inc. (“Amports”) at 1997 Elm Road, Benicia, CA 94510 (“Facility”) and 1007 Bayshore Road, Benicia, CA 94510. The purpose of this letter (“Notice Letter”) is to put Amports on notice that, at the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date the Notice Letter is served, Baykeeper intends to file a “citizen suit” action against Amports in U.S. Federal District Court. The civil action will allege significant, ongoing, and continuous violations of the Act and California’s General Industrial Storm Water Permit2 (“General Permit”) at the Facility, including but not limited to, the direct deposition of petroleum coke (“petcoke”) into the water from the conveyance system, equipment, and ship, aerial deposition of petcoke directly to the water from the deck of the ship, and the uncontrolled discharge of polluted storm water to the Carquinez Strait, a part of the San Francisco Bay.
Detailed list of violations
As described in detail below, Amports is liable for ongoing violations of the Act as a consequence of the Facility’s: (1) direct discharge of petcoke into the Carquinez Strait, both through deck washing and direct aerial deposition; (2) inaccurate use of SIC code designations to avoid coverage for regulated industrial activities under the General Permit; (3) failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the General Permit resulting in unpermitted storm water discharges, including but not limited to the preparation and implementation of a proper Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan related to Amports’ petcoke loading operation, preparation and implementation of a Monitoring Implementation Plan, and compliance with technology-based Effluent Limitations.
60-day notice and offer of settlement
CWA section 505(b) requires that sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of a civil action under CWA section 505(a), a citizen must give notice of their intent to file suit. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b). Notice must be given to the alleged violator, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the State in which the violations occur. As required by section 505(b), this Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit provides notice to Amports of the violations that have occurred and which continue to occur at the Facility. After the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date of this Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit, Baykeeper intends to file suit in federal court against Amports under CWA section 505(a) for the violations described more fully below.
During the 60-day notice period, Baykeeper would like to discuss effective remedies for the violations noticed in this letter. We suggest that you contact us as soon as possible so that these discussions may be completed by the conclusion of the 60-day notice period. Please note that it is our policy to file a complaint in federal court as soon as the notice period ends, even if discussions are in progress.
Background and photos
A. San Francisco Baykeeper
San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) is a non-profit public benefit corporation….
Members of Baykeeper reside in Benicia, California, as well as in many of the surrounding communities. Baykeeper’s members and supporters use and enjoy San Francisco Bay and other waters for various recreational, educational, and spiritual purposes. Baykeeper’s members’ use and enjoyment of these waters are negatively affected by the pollution caused by the Facility’s operations….
B. The Owner and/or Operator of the Facility
Amports, Inc. is a dba of APS West Coast Inc. and is identified as the owner and operator of the Benicia Port Terminal Company. All three entities have the same address, CEO, Secretary, CFO, and Controller.
C. The Facility’s Industrial Activities and Discharges of Petcoke and Other Pollutants
The Facility is a roughly 400-acre site which includes marine cargo loading equipment, the petcoke loading equipment and conveyor system, parking for cars, docking area and equipment for ships, silos to store petcoke, train car petcoke offloading area and equipment, vehicle maintenance, equipment cleaning, ship cleaning, ship maintenance, and other facilities. According to Amports’ 2015 Notice of Intent to comply with the General Permit under the Clean Water Act, at least 8 acres at the Facility consisted of areas that were exposed to storm water.
The Valero Benicia Refinery processes crude oil by separating it into a range of hydrocarbon components or fractions. Petroleum fractions include heavy oils and residual materials used to make asphalt or petcoke, mid-range materials such as diesel (heating oil), jet fuel, and gasoline, and lighter products, such as butane, propane, and fuel gases.
The petcoke is transported via rail to the Facility and is stored there in silos. Amports transfers the petcoke from the silos to a ship’s hold at the Facility’s dock by way of a covered conveyor system. During this process, the petcoke may escape in half a dozen or more ways.
First, petcoke spills off of the conveyor belt system and is deposited onto the wharf and directly into Carquinez Strait. This occurs while the crane boom is in the lowered position, and, as depicted below, continues as the boom is raised while the conveyor continues to operate.
March 2021
Second, petcoke is deposited onto the deck of the ship and into the water, potentially due to overspray from the loading mechanism or other operations, leaving visible plumes of petcoke that can be seen in the water.
February 2021
Third, at the conclusion of the loading, longshoremen hose off the deck of the ship, and the related loading equipment on and around the ship, cleaning the equipment and forcing contaminated runoff directly into the Carquinez Strait, again leaving visible plumes of petcoke that can be seen in the water.
February 2021
Fourth, as the ship is being loaded, large visible clouds of black particulate matter, presumably petcoke dust, drift through the air away from the ship before being directly deposited into the water and/or onto the nearby shoreline.
Additionally, petcoke may escape and be deposited onto the Facility or into the water during: (a) the offload from trains, (b) the movement of petcoke around the Facility, (c) storage at the Facility, (d) from equipment and vehicle cleaning, (e) from equipment and vehicle maintenance or repair, and (f) each time a sufficient rain event occurs due to the Facility’s discharge of pollutants from industrial activity in storm water, through direct discharges of industrial pollutants.
The deposition of petcoke and other pollutants into San Francisco Bay is harmful and deleterious to the Bay’s wildlife and communities. Petcoke is a petroleum byproduct and is known to contain pollutants including heavy metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, arsenic, mercury, and vanadium, all of which are harmful to aquatic life, including fish and birds.
Additionally, people exposed to petcoke pollutants can experience severe health problems like asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease.
Detailed harmful effects of Petcoke
The deposition of petcoke and other pollutants into San Francisco Bay is harmful and deleterious to the Bay’s wildlife and communities. Petcoke is a petroleum byproduct and is known to contain pollutants including heavy metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, arsenic, mercury, and vanadium, all of which are harmful to aquatic life, including fish and birds. Additionally, people exposed to petcoke pollutants can experience severe health problems like asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease.
Amports is permitted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to process and load 2 million tons of petcoke onto export ships over a 12-month period. Amports does not have any permits from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”). Amports is not permitted to discharge petcoke directly into the Carquinez Strait. And Amports is also not permitted to discharge any storm water, directly or indirectly, that is the result of industrial activity, including water that is commingled with industrial discharges.
Baykeeper’s suit will allege that petcoke is deposited on the site with every instance of: petcoke being transported by rail to the site, petcoke offloading from a train at the Facility, and petcoke being handled and transported on the Facility’s premises. Additionally, Baykeeper will allege that petcoke enters the Carquinez Strait with every instance of: petcoke being loaded and/or oversprayed onto a ship docked at the Facility, petcoke-related equipment, including the conveyor systems, cranes, and ships, being maintained and/or cleaned, and each storm event at the Facility in excess of 0.1” of precipitation.
The discharge of pollutants from industrial facilities contributes to the impairment of surface waters and aquatic-dependent wildlife. These contaminated discharges can and must be controlled for ecosystems to regain their health and to protect public health. As part of its investigation of the Facility, Baykeeper observed and documented by video numerous instances of illegal discharges during Amports’ various activities and handling of marine cargo (specifically petcoke) at the Facility between November 2020 and March 2021.
Additionally, with every significant rainfall event, millions of gallons of polluted storm water originating from industrial operations such as the Facility pour into storm drains and local waterways. The consensus among agencies and water quality specialists is that storm water pollution accounts for more than half of the total pollution entering surface waters each year. Such discharges of pollutants from industrial facilities contribute to the impairment of downstream waters and aquatic dependent wildlife. These contaminated discharges can and must be controlled for the ecosystem to regain its health.
Click image for full 20-page notice
THE REMAINDER OF THE DOCUMENT is organized into the following sections, which you can study at length here.
II. THE CLEAN WATER ACT (p. 7) A. The NPDES Permit Program (p. 7) B. California’s General Industrial Storm Water Permit (p. 8) C. The Facility’s Permit Enrollment Status (p. 12) III. NAME AND ADDRESS OF NOTICING PARTY (p. 13) IV. COUNSEL (p. 13) V. VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT AND GENERAL PERMIT (p. 13) A. Amports’ Direct, Non-Storm Water Discharges Without an NPDES Permit (p. 14) B. Amports’ Illegal Indirect Discharges Without An NPDES Permit (p. 15) C. Amports’ Illegal Storm Water Discharges (p. 15) D. Violations of the Act and General Permit Reporting and Monitoring Rules (p. 16) E. Violations of the General Permit’s SWPPP Requirements (p. 17) VI. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT (p. 17) VII. CONCLUSION (p. 18) ATTACHMENT 1: DATES OF ALLEGED EXCEEDANCES BY AMPORTS FROM OCTOBER 4, 2016 TO OCTOBER 4, 2021 (p. 19) ATTACHMENT 2: SERVICE LIST (p. 20)
You must be logged in to post a comment.