HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09091997 - D3 '{ Contra
s Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS o; �.rrp!kina► ,�
� County
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP •., _ _ %�,
INTERIM. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
rq couK�
DATE: September 9, 1997
SUBJECT: APPEAL BY COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT OF THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S JUNE 9, 1997 FINDING THAT TOCSO (RODEO) IS COMPLYING-
WITH CONDITION OF APPROVAL 79 OF LAND USE PERMIT (LUP #932038) .
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND- AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Deny this appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's
decision concerning Tosco's compliance with Condition of
Approval 79 (Land Use Permit #932038) .
FISCAL IMPACT
'one.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Introduction:
.Condition 79 requires Tosco (Rodeo) (1) to reduce fugitive volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from 2 ,787 lbs/day to 2 , 000 lbs/day, (2)
to maintain that level of reduction over time, and (3) to convert
seven groups of valves and pumps to lower emitting equipment,
-according to a schedule from February 28, 1995 through December 31,
1998.
On January 8 , 1997, following Tosco's 1995 Annual Compliance
Hearing, the Zoning Administrator found that Tosco (Rodeo) (1) had
reduced emissions to below 2 , 000 lbs/day and (2) had made the
required conversions scheduled for 1995. No one appealed this
decision and the appeal period has long expired.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE \ .
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 9,1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
See the attached Addendum for Board action.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
_x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE -AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Debbie Sanderson 335-1208
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESThD September 9, 1997
cc: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY AD INISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
DS/df
bo3 :coa79 .bo
2
On June 9, 1997, at the conclusion of Tosco (Rodeo) 's 1996 Annual
Compliance Hearing, the Zoning Administrator found that Tosco
(Rodeo) had to date met the requirements of Condition of Approval
79 and that compliance was ongoing.
On July 9, 1997 Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)
submitted a letter appealing this decision. [See Exhibit A. ]
B. Nature of the Appeal:
The grounds for this appeal, as stated in the appellant's July 17,
1997 letter, are that (1) the required reductions were not
sufficiently verified and (2) that maintenance of these reductions
was not sufficiently verified. The appellant defines "sufficient
verification" as that resulting from an independent site inspection
by an expert on contract, rather than staff review of information
obtained from Tosco (Rodeo) .
The only acceptable ground for an appeal, as defined by County
Code, which relates to CBE' s July 17, 1997 appeal, requires
demonstration that "Specified findings of the planning division
appealed from are not supported by the evidence before it; "
[See Section 26-2 .2404 (3) ] .
C. Discussion and Staff Evaluation:
Item 1: Required reductions not sufficiently verified:
As stated above, on January 8, 1997, the Zoning Administrator found
that the required reductions [to 2, 000 lbs/day] were met (See
Resolution No 3-1997) . The appeal period for this decision has
long expired. Staff Response: Therefore, item (1) of this
appeal is not a valid grounds for appeal at this time.
Item 2 : Maintenance of Reductions has not been sufficiently
verified•_
The second part of CBE' s appeal does relate to the Zoning
Administrator' s decision of June 9, 1997 .
CBE' s appeal did not describe how or in what way the evidence
before the Zoning Administrator failed to support the decision that
the condition was being met and that compliance was ongoing. The
appellant appears to presume that the information is only valid if
gathered by an independent expert working neither for the owner or
the County.
Evidence before the Zoning Administrator in making her June 9, 1997
finding was the following:
• Tosco (Rodeo) met the required reduction by July, 1995;
• Tosco (Rodeo) 's conversions of 155 valves and 7 pumps occurred
after Tosco (Rodeo) had reduced emissions to the required level;
• Tosco (Rodeo) listed the valves and pumps that had been
converted.
• No other major projects had been approved at Tosco (Rodeo) that
might have increased significantly fugitive emissions of VOCs.
[Note that the entire Clean Fuels Project emits only 143 lbs/day
Of VOCs] .
3
Additional evidence considered by staff prior to recommending a
finding of "condition met; compliance ongoing" to the Zoning
Administrator included the following:
• Knowledge that the emission levels reached in 1995 were about
half the level required by the permit;
• Verbal assurances from Tosco (Rodeo) that levels had been
maintain and that annual reports to the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District would confirm these levels and were
available upon request;
• An offer from Tosco (Rodeo) to provide copies of work orders and
certification from the contractor that the conversions had been
completed as specified; and
• Knowledge that, during the 1995 to 1997 period, Air District
regulations had also reduced the amount of fugitive volatile
organic compound emissions that were allowed at this refinery.
Staff Response: Staff therefore disagrees with Item (2) of the
appeal, which states that the information was insufficient to
verify that the reductions had been maintained and that the
conclusion could only be verified based on an independent site
inspection by a contract expert.
Additional Information: In order to provide additional reassurance
to the Board that these levels have been maintained, staff
requested, received, and reviewed the following information:
• In July, 1995, fugitive VOC emissions were about 1, 000
lbs/day, about half the required level.
• The contractor has certified in writing which valves were
converted, their identification numbers, their locations, and
dates that the work was performed.
• Tosco (Rodeo) Is reports to the Air District show emissions of
1, 113 lbs/day in 1995 and 890 lbs/day in 1996.
D. conclusions
Staff finds that the information before the Zoning Administrator
was sufficient to support the finding that Tosco (Rodeo) has
complied with Condition of Approval 79 of its Land Use Permit and
that its compliance is ongoing. Staff further finds that
additional information, collected since the filing of this appeal,
further corroborates this decision by the Zoning Administrator.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the
appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator' s finding that Tosco
(Rodeo) is complying with Condition of Approval 79 of its Land Use
Permit.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.3
Agenda September 9, 1997
This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for a
hearing on the Administrative Appeal by Communities for a Better Environment
from the Zoning Administrator's July 21, 1997 finding that Tosco (Rodeo) is in
compliance with Condition of Approval #79, County File LUP #2038-93, Rodeo
area.
Debbie Sanderson, Community Development Department, presented the
staff report and recommendations on the matter.
The public hearing was opened and the following people commented on
the issue:
Richard Bonner, Tosco Refinery, 860 Shell Drive, Martinez;
Denny Larson, Communities for a Better Environment, 500 Howard St.;
#506, San Francisco;
Those desiring to speak having been heard, the Board discussed the issues
including the methodology used for determining emission levels relative to
compliance with Condition 79, and that there two recognized different methods
used to determine fugitive emissions.
Supervisor Uilkema suggested that the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District could be contacted to validate the baseline emission figures offered by
the appellant today.
Supervisor DeSalunier inquired if Condition 79 specified which
methodology was used to determine Tosco's compliance.
Supervisor Gerber requested that staff provide the Board with the
language in Condition 79.
Supervisor Canciamilla advised that he would not be making a decision
today without the complete information, and recommended that the matter be
continued to September 16, 1997, at 2:30 p.m. in the Board's chambers.
Supervisor Gerber seconded the motion.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the
Administrative Appeal of Communities for a Better Environment from the
decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding Tosco's compliance with LUP
#2038-93, Condition #79, Rodeo, is CONTINUED to September 16, 1997, at
2:30 p.m. in the Board's chambers.
` 'EXHIBIT A"
RECEIVED
0AUM UNITIES FOR. A .
71997 I
t BETTER
CLERK BOARD Of SUPERVLsOrt
C'JNTRA COSTA Co. ERONiVIENT
July9, 997 Fdrmerly`Citizens'foraBetter Environment-California
Debra Sanderson
Community Development.. Department
Contra Costa County
Martinez, CA 94553
510-335'1222
RE: Appeal of TOSCO-RODEO LUP#932038 Condition#79
Dear Ms. Sanderson: .
Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) on behalf of our 10,000
members, several thousand of. whom live in_Contra Costa County in the vicinity of
the T05CO West (formerly Unocal)"Refinery in Rodeo,-California, is writing to,
-appeal the County's decision.that TOSCO is in compliance with,condition.79 of
their Land Use Permit #932038.
Permit condition #79 requires TOSCO to reduce and-maintain reductions of
toxic fugitive VOC air emissions which pose:a health.risk to the.workers and
communities alike. These reductions were never sufficiently verified by the County
and whether the reductions havebeen maintained`has never been verified. CBE .
believes that TOSCO must maintain the levels of reductions required aslong as they
'Operate the-facility, just as any facility is required to install a sidewalk and not tear it
down the following years,
.Sincerely,
Denny A: Larson
Regional Director of CBE
500 Howard Street, Suite..506 • San Fraricisco, CA94105 '4 (415) 243-8373
In Southern California:.605 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 850 a Los Angeles, CA 90015 • (213)486-5114
ne-Free 100%post-consumer 01400"',
.Chlori .'
RECEIVEp
COMMUNITI ES FOR A
1 71997ETTER
July 1.7, 1997K BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
cJNTRA Cos rA Co iJ NVIRONMENT
Debra Sanderson Formerly`Citizens'fora Better Environment-California
Community. Development Department
Contra Costa County
Martinez, CA 94553
A0510-335-1222
RE: Appeal of.TOSCO-RODEO. LUP#932038 Condition#79
Dear Ms. Sanderson:
Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) on behalf of our 10,000
members, several thousand of whom live m' Contra Costa County in the vicinity of
: the TOSCO West.(formerly Unocal) Refinery in Rodeo, California, is writing to
appeal the County's decision that TOSCO is in compliance with condition 79.of
their Land Use.Permit#932038.
Permit condition #79 requires TOSCO to reduce and maintain reductions of
toxic fugitive VOC air emissions which pose a health risk to the.workers and
communities alike. These reductions were never sufficiently verified by the County
and whether_the reductions have been maintained.has never been verified. The
County apparently accepted photographs and statements from TOSCO and their
employees rather than contracting with an expert to conduct an independent site
inspection of each piece of equipment and never independently verified that the
emissions reductions allegedly achieved have been maintained. CBE believes that
TOSCO must.maintain the levels.of reductions required as long as they operate the
facility, just as any facility is required to install a sidewalk and not tear it down the
following years.
Enclosed is a check for$125 to pay for the appeal.
I. Denny A. Larson, declare:that I am the'.Regional Director, of CBE. I also
declare under,penalty of perjury under laws of the state of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July*17, 1997; at San Francisco, California:
Denny A. Larson
Regional Director.of CBE
500 Howard Street, Suite.50.6 P San.Francisco, CA 94105 + (415) 243-8373 '
:In Southern:California-.605.W.Olympic Blvd., Suite 850 • Los Angeles,CA 90015 (213).486-5114
Chlorine-Free l00%post-consumer 0
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
939 ELLIS STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109
June 16; 1997 -
RECENED
DRAFT, SEP 9 1997
STAFFREPORT CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
Regulation 8, Rule 18
Equipment,Leaks
��tiITY A4A�,9c
OF C kL1FD4`
PREPARED BY:
WAYNE KINO, A.Q. SPECIALIST II,
HAROLD LIPS Ph, .D., PRINCIPAL A.Q. ENGINEER Il
DICK WOCASEK P.E.; A.Q. ENGINEER II
REVIEWED BY:
JIM'KARAS.P.E., A.Q. ENGINEERING MANAGER
DRAFT"Staff Report Regulation 8, Rule 18 Page 1 June 18, 1997
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 3
Overview
Present Program 4
Amendment Proposal Overview 5
: .Proposed Rule Amendments 6
Proposal
Proposal Discussion
Fugitive Emission Data . 9
References 12
Appendikk COPY OF PROPOSED RULE MODIFICATIONS 14
DRAFT Staff Report Regulation,8, Rule 18 Page 2 June 18, 1997
Task 6 - Independent Verification
After the participating facility program has been in place for twelve months
the District will verify that,the Emission Reduction Program is achieving
the emission targets established in Task 3.
Task 7 - Future Participation
The facility may elect to continue.with the Emission Reduction Program if
they meet mass emission .target levels or return to the existing LDAR
program. Audit results will be reviewed by the District to determine-if they
meet expectations: If a facility chooses to continue with the Emission
_ Reduction Program an independent audit will be performed periodically,
once a year, to ensure continued compliance:
FUGITIVE EMISSION DATA
There are many fugitive emission estimating ,methods that.yield a wide range of
results (estimates may vary as much as a factor of 100 depending on the method
selected). To estimate emissions for this study, US-EPA fugitive emissions .
estimating methods published in the report. `1995 EPA Protocol (Reference 10), '
and the BAAQMD Rule Effectiveness Study (Reference 9) were used. This EPA
report presents a number of methods for estimating refinery emissions and the
method selected is the, "Leak/N.o Leak Approach". This method uses the
screening data (the hydrocarbon concentration) to calculate the mass emission
rates based on the component leak level (above or below 10,000 ppm). These
correlations are specific to the type of component and differentiate between- F-V
valves, connectors, :pumps, compressors,. open-ended .lines and pressure relief
valves. The Leak/No-Leak Method was selected because a recent EPA Report 3�
comparing estimating methods to- mass measurements, by bagging, indicated GIYYt�Y'
this method gave the best correlation. These study results are summarized in � ?
Table 3-4 -of' the. EPA Report; Evaluation of the High Volume Collection
Reference 11).: The .screening data taken at the interface was used in these
calculations since this is what EPA uses and what has been used in deriving the
correlations.
To predict emissions, the-Rule Effectiveness Study audit data was entered into a
spreadsheet program. A "leak" in this report is,defined as >100 ppm for valves
and connectors, and >500 ppm for pumps and compressors. The component
counts are slightly different from those.listed in the Leaking Equipment Totals
Tables, because of two reasons: 1) tagged (leaking components identified prior
to audit) valves and connectors are included and, 2) flanges and open-ended-
lines are treated as connectors.
DRAFT Staff Report Regulation 8, Rule 18 Page 9 June 18, 1997
u ,
The results of the emission estimate are presented in the table below. Four
categories are shown: valves, connectors, pumps and liquid leaks. The District-
wide emission estimate is for the five refineries that participated in the recent
WSPA/Radian fugitive emission study: Chevron,Exxon, Shell, Tosco and Unocal
(now Tosco Rodeo).
Leaks. , Audit Group District-wide
Valves Count 92' 7,787 A
Emission(lb%day) 81 308 7,125
Connectors Count 115 2 1,158 G _ 1
Emission(lb/day) 66 , 132 2/� 5,638
G.OoF,2�3 Z
Pumps Count 5 137 f _
Emission(lb/day) 3 95 1,477
Liquid Leaks Count 5 b 116
Emission(lb%day) 1 1 23-
Grand
3-Grand Total Emission(lb/day) �c��� 14;263
(ton/yr.) q 2,660, /
Flanges and Open Ended Lines have not been listed as separate categories and
the few that were checked have been placed in ,the category of connector.
Liquid Leaks are those components that.were found to be dripping liquid. These
were quantified by counting drops per minute and assuming .a 1/8 inch droplet
size.
The second.column in this table is the Audit Group and the projected emissions
of the audit group. This was done by using the audit group count size (the
number of components checked) and adding in emissions for the checked
components that were below the recording limit (100 ppm ,for- valves and
connectors .and 500 ppm for pumps). The' EPA method provides emission
estimates for components that measure below the Leak/No'-Leak threshold
(10,000 ppm).
The third column in the table is a projection to District-wide, emissions which is
the total estimated fugitive emissions for the components audited r�je ;te ver
the five refineries that participated in the WSPA/Radian Report on Eion of
the .Cost of Compliance (Reference 12). The total valve count of 180,323 and
total pump count of 2,140 is-taken from the Radian Study. The connector count
of 901,615 'is derived by assuming there are five connectors for every valve.
Observations during the audit indicated connector-to-valve ratios varied from
DRAFT Staff Report Regulation 8, Rule 18 Page 10 June 18, 1997
�j
about 3:1 to 15:1. Therefore, 51 ' is considered a reasonable value. - It "is
assumed the leak data taken in this audit'is representative'of the district-wide
population. "Actual emissions may be higher than those estimated because
inaccessible components were not checked and they are, expected to, have
higher leak rates than accessible components.
A comparison was made of the frequency of leaks.and emission estimates in this
audit compared to the WSPA/Radian Study.- This study was done for the five
major refineries in the,Bay Area based on data gathered" in Second Quarter
1995. This comparison.is presented in the following table.
Radian BAAQMD
Study Audit
(2Q95) (March 97)
Valves >500 ppm : 1.0% 0.5%
>100 ppm 2.1% 1.1%
Emission (Ib/day) 246 7125
Pumps >1000 ppm 3:4% 0.7% .
>500 ppm 4.9% 2.9%
Emission (Ib/day) 65 1477
These figures indicate the percentage of leaks has decreased since 1995, "but:.
there, is a large difference in the emission estimates due to the use of different
estimating techniques. The,Radian Study used EPA Correlation Equations while
the BAAQMD estimate used the Leak/No- Leak method.
DRAFT Staff Report Regulation 8, Rule 18 Page 11 June 18, 1997
r
REFERENCES
1 "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air.Pollutants;
Announcement of"Negotiated.Regulation for Equipment Leaks",
Federal Register, Vol 56; No 9315, 40 CRF Ch 1 [FRL.3910-3],
March 6, 1991
2 - Rule 1173, Fugitive Emissions of Reactive Organic'Compounds,
South coast Air Quality Management District.
3 "Controlling Petroleum.Refinery Fugitive Emissions Via Leak
Detection and Repair", B.A. Tichenot, K.C. Hustvedt, and R.C: .
Weber, EPA-600/9-80-013
4 "Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors", EPA publication
AP-42, September, 1985
5 "Valve Screening Study at Six San Francisco Bay Area Petroleum
Refineries", R.L. Honerkamp, et. al., Radian Report DCN 79-219-
370-03, January 24, 1979.
6 "Study of Fugitive Emissions Data,from Bay Area Refineries
Western States Petroleum Association report done by Radian
DCN: 91-256-168-01, March 6, 1991
7 Staff Report,for Rule 1142, Peter Votlucka, J.D. Nadler, Karen
Fisher, South,Coast Air Quality,Management District, May 25, 1991
8 "Protocols for Generating Unit-Specific Emissions Estimates for
Equipment Leaks of VOC and VHAP", EPA-450/3-88-010, October
1.988
9 "Rule Effectiveness Study: Valves and Connectors, Pumps and
Compressors Seals at.Refineries, Chemical Plants, Bulk Plants and
Bulk Terminals", D. Wocasek and M. Wedl, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, May, 1997
10 "1995 Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates (EPA-
453/R-95-.017)",'U. S. EPA, November., 1995
DRAFT Staff Report Regulation 8, Rule 18 Page 12 June 18, 1997