HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05081990 - S.1 • `,� 4E- C, O
To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
d
B
Harvey E. ragon
FROM:
Director of Community Development
DATE: May 7, 1990
Requests to the Bay Area Air Quality Management
SUBJECT; A �
District' s Hearing Board Related to the Abatement COU>y
of Refinery Wastewater Treatment and Pond Odors
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
This report on Item S. 1 is included on the Board of Supervisors
agenda for May 8, 1990, rather than on a later agenda, because
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District' s Hearing Board is
scheduled to act on the Shell and Tosco refinery abatement orders
on May 9, 1990 .
RECOMIKENDATIONS
1. Request the Bay Area Air Quality Management District' s Hear-
ing Board (BAAQMD) to arrange for the odor control programs
for the Shell and Tosco refineries wastewater treatment
ponds, which the BAAQMD is about to require through abate-
ment orders, to be closely monitored by the District; and,
accordingly, request the BAAQMD Hearing Board to arrange for
the District to notify the County of odor episodes noted by
BAAQMD staff or reported by complaints, and provide copies
of reports on the programs to the County; and
2. Request the BAAQMD Hearing Board to require the use of Best
Available Control Technology in the plan for enclosing the
Shell Oil Company' s refinery wastewater treatment system,
which the BAAQMD is about to require through an abatement
order, prior to approving the enclosure plan; and, request
that the BAAQMD Hearing Board enable the County to review
and comment on the plan prior to its approval; and
3 . Request the BAAQMD Hearing Board to enable the County to
review and comment on an enclosure plan for the Tosco
refinery' s wastewater treatment ponds if the Hearing Board
orders its preparation; and
4 . Authorize the Community Development and Health Services
Departments to prepare, for Board of Supervisors considera-
tion, a policy calling for the enclosure of industrial
wastewater treatment systems, to complement the Board' s
policy on the elimination of open pon for treating
hazardous wastes.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: 'X YES SIGNATOR
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOM TION B RD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON May 8 , 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development Dept. ATTESTED _ May
Y 8 , 1990_
Health Services Dept. . PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382,'7-83 BY DEPUTY
2.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND
On April 26, 1990, the Hearing Board of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District held public hearings in Martinez to take
testimony on proposed abatement orders concerning the Shell and
Tosco refineries ' wastewater treatment ponds that the Hearing
Board is considering adopting on May 9, 1990. Copies of the
proposed abatement order were not available prior to the hearing.
The County Community Development Department appeared at the Shell
hearing and requested the opportunity to review both the proposed
short-term abatement program and the long-term enclosure plan,
addressed in the abatement order, and the opportunity to take the
matter to the Board of Supervisors. BAAQMD Hearing Board proce-
dures, however, required testimony to be introduced at the
hearing, but we believe that the proposed recommendations to the
Hearing Board will receive consideration because they address the
subsequent implementation of the Hearing Board' s abatement
orders.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors request the BAAQMD
Hearing Board to arrange for the District to monitor the short-
term abatement programs and make information on it available to
the County. We are basically concerned that the abatement
programs be monitored and made to be effective, rather than the
refineries simply made responsible for implementing a specific
program whether or not it is working well. In particular, we
want the program to be effective, or made to be effective, during
the hot season of the year.
With respect to the Shell refinery, we are also concerned that
the short-term abatement program be superseded by the long-term
(enclosed system) solution as soon as practicable. A deficiency
with the BAAQMD Hearing Board' s draft abatement order, as we see
it, is that the abatement order sets a time for the submission of
the enclosure plan (December 10, 1990 ) , but not a deadline for
its implementation. Accordingly, we recommend that the Board of
Supervisors ask the Hearing Board for the opportunity to review
and comment on the plan in draft form.
The third recommendation, as noted in its text, is for staff to
draft a policy for Board of Supervisors' consideration extending
the Board' s past policy on the elimination of toxic waste ponds
to include unenclosed industrial wastewater treatment ponds.
Copies of the BAAQMD' s draft abatement order for the ; Shell Oil
Company refinery are being provided to the Board of Supervisors '
members. We have not yet received the draft abatement order for
the Tosco refinery.
jl47:baagmd.brd
2.
I TOBY SHERWOOD
Assistant District Counsel
2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis Street
3 San Francisco, CA 94109
Telephone: (415) 771-6000
4 Attorney for Complainant
S KEITH HOWARD
6 Cooper, White & Cooper
1333 N. California Blvd. , Suite 450
7 P. 0. Box 5246
Walnut Creek, California 94596
8 Telephone: (415) 935-0700
9 Attorneys for Respondent
10
11 i
BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
— 12 i BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
i3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER )
OF THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY ) NO. 2227
15 MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, )
STIPULATED CONDITIONAL !
16 Complainant, ) ORDER FOR ABATEMENT
i7 Vs. )
18 SHELL OIL COMPANY, )
19
Respondent. )
20 I )
21 On February 21, 1990, the Air Pollution Control officer of
j
22I the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("District") filed
against Shell Oil Company ("Shell or Respondent") an Accusation
i
24 of Violation of Bay Area Air Quality Management District
25 Regulation 1, section 301, and California Health and Safety Code
26 section 41700, and Regulation 9 , Rule 2 , section 301 and
1
i
I Application for Order for Abatement.
2 On March 7, 1990, Respondent filed a Notice of Defense and
3 Statement by way of Mitigation and Presentation of new Matter by
4 way of Defense in this Docket No. 2227.
5 On April 26, 1990, the parties submitted to the Hearing
6
Board a Stipulated Amended Conditional Order for Abatement, under
7 Health and Safety Code section 42451 (b) , agreed upon by them as
8 I to form and substance. Respondent and the District have agreed
9 to this Stipulated Amended Conditional Order for Abatement to
10 i resolve the issues raised in the District' s Accusation. The
11 Order includes short term and long term corrective actions with
I
� 12 a compliance schedule and increments of progress.
;3 On April 26, 1990, the matter came on for hearing. Toby
14 r:
Sherwood, Assistant Counsel , appearing for the Air Pollution
I;
15 ii Control Officer, and Keith Howard appearing for Respondent, and
16 ` all persons interested in the matter wishing to be heard having
�! been heard, and the matter having been taken under submission for
17 ,: '
i
18 ! decision; i
19i The Hearing Board states as the reasons for its decision,
1
20 and finds as to those matters in which its findings are required,
21 that
22 1
1. Notice of this hearing has been given for the time and
23in the manner required by law, and, in particular, by sections
?4 40823 and 42451 of the Health and Safety Code, and the hearing
I
25 was conducted in accordance with the terms of said provisions of
26 � the Health and Safety Code.
2
I i
i
o
2. The District contends that Respondent is discharging
2 odorous emissions from its Martinez Manufacturing Complex which
3 creates a public nuisance in the community downwind from
4 Respondent. Respondent disputes that contention.
5 3 . Members of the public were given an opportunity to
6 testify, and several testified.
4 . Respondent is the owner and operator of an oil refinery
8 and manufacturing complex located in the City of Martinez, and
9 ' Contra Costa County, California.
I
7p i 5. Aspart of Respondent's manufacturing business,
Respondent operates a waste water treatment system that has the
i2 potential to emit air contaminants. Potential sources within the
s
t 3 Y open 1; system include o ponds 1-4 and 6, the biotreater, dissolved
i.
t
4 ! air flotation unit, the API separator and the sludge thickener.
15 • The District contends that odors emitted from these sources
i
,6 , have caused violation of Reg. 9, Rule 2 , section 301 and have
I:
caused detriment nuisance and annoyance to a considerable
;7 Y
18 number of persons and the public and have a natural tendency to
19 cause injury or damage to business or property in violation of
20I District Regulation 1-301 and Health and Safety Code section
I1
21Ij 41700. Respondent has denied each and every contention.
22 ,i
6. The parties agree that Respondent has embarked upon a
23 I program to identify odor sources and corrective action in order
i
24 ' to effect a permanent resolution of the alleged violations and
I
25 nuisance odors. Further, the parties agree Respondent has
26 � undertaken and shall continue to undertake the interim control
3
1
i
1 measures and short-term and long-term measures to reduce and
2 control alleged odorous emissions, including appropriate time
3 schedules and increments of progress.
4
7. Respondent employed the consulting firm Brown &
5 Caldwell to undertake a study to identify sources of odors from
6Ithe waste water treatment facility and assess short and long term
solutions for control. The study concluded the primary odor
i
8 emission source that contributed to detectable odors is sludge
9
in ponds 1, 2, 3 , 4 and 6.
10 8. Respondent, commencing in June of 1989 , and continuing
11 to date, has undertaken a number of interim measures and short-
,2 term measures to reduce and control alleged odorous emissions
13 from its waste water treatment facility, specifically including
those items listed in paragraphs A. 1. through A. 8 . of this Order.
I �
15 Respondent has further committed to the activities and increments j
16 : of progress set forth in paragraph B. 1. of this Order.
17
9. Pursuant to the provisions of California Health and
18 Safety Code §42451 (b) , the Complainant (District) and Respondent
i.
19 '; have stipulated to the terms and conditions of this Conditional
20
Abatement Order without the necessity of this Board making a
21 I finding of violation of Health and Safety Code §41700 or 41701.
22
NOW THEREFORE, the Hearing Board ORDERS:
23 That 'Respondent, Shell Oil Company, Martinez Manufacturing
24 Complex (Respondent) , abate odorous emissions from its wastewater
25
treatment facility in accordance with 'the following terms and
26 conditions:
I
4
I
. i
I
A. Short Term: Respondent shall undertake the following
2 short term activities in accordance with the following schedule
3 and increments of progress:
i
4 1. By October 1, 1990, convert an existing SO2 monitor
5 to a portable H2S monitor (or purchase a new H2S monitor should
!
6 I the conversion fail) , and install and maintain said monitor in
7f
an area known as the "East Levee Site". Upon request of the
$ 'i District, and within three days of such request, Respondent will
relocate such monitor to the area immediately Southeast of tank
I
10 1159 . Respondent shall maintain and inspect daily H2S detection
�i
111: cards (lead acetate strips) at the site immediately southeast of
12 � tank 1159 during all periods of time that the area is not
13 :: monitored by the H2S monitor. Respondent shall keep the daily
14 cards from such monitoring for a period of 30 days and record and
15 retain for one year the results .of the daily inspections. All
16 records required to be kept pursuant to this paragraph shall be
17 available to the District upon request.
18 2 . Remove, and dispose of off-site, accumulated f
i
19 + sediments from the effluent treatment plant surface impoundments
i
20 �' commonly designated as Ponds 1, 2, 3 , 4 , and 6 as follows:
i
i Ponds 3 and 4 -------------------------- by March 15, 1990
21 �' Pond 6 - by June 30, 1990
22 ! Ponds 1 and 2 -------------------------- by August 1, 1990
I
23 3 . Carbon drum abatement devices shall be utilized to
24 � minimize odors at transfer points during surface impoundment
I
25 ! sediment removal dewatering operation.
26
i
i
5 i
I
4. Dewatering presses utilized in the sludge removal
2 operation shall be operated under negative pressure in
3 conjunction with the carbon drum abatement devices referred to
4 in item 3 above.
5 S. Measures 1 through 6 and 81 and 9 of the Global
6
Environmental Systems, Inc. report dated December 26, 1989,
i
pertinent portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and
8 i incorporated herein by reference, shall be followed during the
9 sediment removal operations.
10 6. Water stored in effluent treatment plant surface
11 ! impoundments designated as Ponds 1, 2 , and 6 shall be monitored l
12 ! daily for pH and sulfide and controlled 'to maintain a pH of at
�. !;
13
least 10. 5. Respondent shall maintain records for one year of
� I
.4 the pH and sulfide concentration measurements and provide such
15 records to the District upon request. j
i
' 7. Ferric salts shall be added to effluent treatment
16 f
plant surface impoundments designated as Ponds 1, 2 , and 6
,7
18 whenever measurements of H2S monitored in the vicinity of the
i
19 plant indicate concentrations of 10 ppb or greater. The addition
20 of ferric salts shall be discontinued when no observable effect
21
on H2S generation is noted. !
221 8. Use pumps to circulate water in effluent treatment
23 ! plant surface impoundments designated as Ponds 1, 2 , and 6 as
24 necessary to disperse ferric salts and to prevent the development
25 of potentially odorous stagnant areas in the ponds.
26 :1
I
6
i
B. Lona Term:
2 1. On or before December 30, 1990 Respondent shall
3 submit to the Board in an original and eight copies the results
4 of a study which shall include the following:
5 (i) The method of elimination of the use of open
6 ponds 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 (except for containment during
7 storms with respect to pond 6) .
8 (ii) The potential and practicability of the
9 covering of the activated sludge biotreater.
10
(iii) The potential and practicability of the
I
11 future use of the surface impoundments referred to in item
I
12 (i) above for storage of stormwater overflow only.
f-- i
13 I! (iv) The potential and practicability of the I
14 I enclosure of and control of emissions from API separators,
15 i dissolved air flotation, and sludge thickener, at the j
i
16 , wastewater treatment facility.
171 Respondent shall accompany said study with its own
18 report in an original and eight copies designating the method and
19timing in which Respondent will implement paragraph 1. (i) above,
20I and identifying any odor control measures to be implemented
21 , pursuant to paragraphs (ii) , (iii) and (iv) , together with
i
22i schedules for implementation.
II, �
23 ` C. Within 30 davn of the District's receipt of the report
24I and study referred to in item B.1. above, the District shall
25I comment in writing to the Hearing Board in an original and eight
26 copies regarding the schedules included in said report and or any
other matter covered by the report and study. The District shall
2 accompany said report with a statement as to whether or not the
3 District seeks a further hearing with respect to the content of
4 the report and study and/or the timing of implementation of
5 recommendations contained therein and if such statement is in the
6 affirmative, the Hearing Board shall schedule a further hearing
7 in the matter.
8 D. Respondent shall report to the Hearing Board in an
9 original and eight copies describing in detail its progress in
10 complying with the various terms and conditions set forth in this
P Y� g
11 Order on the following dates:
_ 12 i July 5, 1990 i
j
13 August 5, 1990
I
14 January 5, 1991.
i
15 E. Respondent shall report immediately to the Hearing Board
16 in writing in an original and eight copies its failure to meet
17
any date included in any of the compliance schedule set forth in
18 � this Order. Such failure shall constitute a violation of this
19 i Order.
20 F. This Order- does not and shall not have the effect of
21 permitting a variance.
22 �
G. The compliance dates set forth .in Paragraphs A & B above
23 may be extended by the Hearing Board upon a showing by Respondent i
24 that a failure to meet a compliance date was due to circumstances
25 beyond the control of Respondent. j
26
8
i
I H. The Hearing Board shall retain jurisdiction of this
2 matter and shall consider modifications to this Order on its own
3 motion or in the event either party requests that hearings be re-
4 opened for such purpose.
5 1. This Order shall become effective immediately upon its
6 filing with this Board.
7 Dated: , 1990.
8
9 Thomas J. Ferrito, Chairperson
10
11
Henry J. Ongerth, Vice-Chair
—. 12
13
Gail E. McCarthy
14
15
I Ruth H. Koehler
16
17
James P. Hughes, M. D.
18
19 shell-st.ord
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
9
_ LOBA " £XH B IT A
. ENVW#ONWNTAL
SYSTEMS.INC.
ce er 26, 198-9
had a mild hydrocarbon odor, but no detectable hydrogen sulfide
odor. Acidifying the sample released _& small amount of hydrogen
sulfide indicating that sulfides are present in the sample,
probably as FeS. In order to get a more precise idea of the
sludge 's composition, a sample was sent out to a local lab for
several tests. The results are expected by January 5th and will
be forwarded to the District as soon as they are available.
Global Environmental Systems, Inc. will act as the general
contractor for this project and will be responsible for super-
vising and scheduling all dewatering and dredging activities.
Global has tentatively selected the road immediately south of
Pond 6 as the site for all the dewatering and sludge storage
equipment . At present, Global and Shell have: agreed to proceed
with equipment mobilization and have scheduled January 15th as
the first day of dewatering and dredging operations. Global has
arranged to use two large filter presses for the dewatering work
and will be generating 130-140 tons per day of filter cake in 14
to 18 dumpboxes. The large dewatering equipment, which is rate-
limiting, has been selected to complete the removal and dewa-
tering of 200-250 thousand barrels of pond sludge in approxi-
ninety days of round-the-clock operation.
ODOR ABATEMENT PROGRAX:
Global Environmental is aware that there have been odor com-
plaints, outside the refinery, downwind of Pond 6. It is be-
lieved these odors are caused by minute levels of airborne
mercaptans and other reduced sulfur species Formed by anaerobic
activity in the pond sludge . Shell has stipulated that Global
perform the dredging and dewatering work without causing addi-
tional odors and maintaining H?S levels at Shell 's fenceline of
less than 30 ppb. Global is concerned that :its operations may be
singled out as the cause of any odors detected during the project
and will conduct its own monitoring program Ito discover potential
odor sources. Global will abate these sources to the maximum
practical extent and is committed to the odor prevention steps
described below. Global 's odor protection measures will include
the following:
I . Maintain a one to two foot water blanket over all parts of
the pond that are being dredgeu.
2 . Survey the approximately 8 acres of pond surface to ascer-
tain the areas with the deepest sludge and dredge those
areas first.
3 . Operate the dredge only during daylight hours .
2 '
i
C(1
GLOBAL . - -- -
ENVVIONNIENTAI_
SYSTEMS.INC.
December 26, 1989
4 . Use a Jerome Hydrogen Sulfide analyzer to assist and supple-
ment Shell's HrS monitoring program (see attached procedure)
that is conducted every four hours at five points around
Shell 's Effluent Treatment Plant. In addition, Global 's
site supervisor will conduct similar checks at areas down-
wind of the dewatering equipment at the beginning and end of
each 8-hour shift, twenty-four hours per day.
5. Global will make extensive use of ferric chloride for
chemically abating odors. Ferric chloride acts as an
oxidizing agent to destroy reduced sulfur compounds such as
mercaptans and sulfides. Global will work with Shell to
adopt a daily program of batch ferric chloride additions to
Pond 6. This will include a minimum of one FeC13 addition,
at the beginning of each day, in the pond areas to be
dredged.
6. Global will be adding 40-42% ferric chloride solution at a
2-3% dosage to all sludge going to the filter press. It has
been found that this ferric chloride , in combination with
lime, acts as an excellent sludge conditioning agent to
insure optimum dewatering via pressure filtration. Since
ferric chloride will also act to chemically abate sulfide
odors , this method was selected over more conventional
sludge conditioning methods, e.g. diatomaceous earth.
7 . As the ferric chloride will destroy most odor producing
compounds upstream, Global has elected to cover the filter
presses for weather protection only and allow them to be
naturally ventilated. The filter presses will only be
Opened for twenty to thirty minutes during each 1-2 hour
cycle to drop the filter cakes.
8 . Global will ensure that all 20 cubic yard dumpboxes have
their tops closed, or are covered, once they have been
filled with filter cake. Baker Tanks will be abated as
provided below.
9 . In accordance with past Bay Area AQMD permits, Global will
monitor its equipment once per shift with a portable FID
hydrocarbon analyzer and a hydrogen sulfide analyzer sensi-
tive down to 1 vppm of either species. Global agrees to
abate any vapor sources containing hydrocarbons at levels
above 10 vppm (excluding methane) , measured as methane-
equivalent, or hydrogen sulfide above 1 vppm. Global will
abate these sources by venting them through one or more 55
gallon, activated carbon canisters.
3
Pr) R(1V nPs'200 ron�1 SAO-Q4A'
-V•►
SUPV, FA DEN , MT2 TEL No .415-646-1396 Apr 30 ,90 16 :31 No .016 P .02
. S . l
tot BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Cwtrd
IPROMI Supervisor Fanden Casts
Supervisor McPeak t. O
DATEt May 1, 1990
SUBJECTS Oil Refinery Wastewater Ponds
SP<ICtRIC REOUESTOR Ri<C4MMENDATIbNtS) Ik BA
tB) CKaROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Community Development and Health Departments review
the B.A.A.Q.M.D. abatement program concerning odors from
waste water ponds at Shell and Tosco oil refineries, and
report to the Board in one week.
BACKGROUND:
Waste water ponds at central county refineries have been a
long-standing source of odor problems. The Board previously
took a position supporting elimination of hazardous waste
ponds and it' s time to now consider whether it is in the
best interest of county residents to continue ponding of
waste water or move to an enclosed tank system.
The air district hearing board is considering enforcement
action under an abatement order at this time, and will take
testimony for two weeks from April 26th.
CONTINUCD ON ATTACNMENTj,.._._._VE$ WONATURE.
...�,.RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RIECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI1r iiai
APPROVE OTHER y�
SIGNATURE(S)
�. ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED As RECOMMENDED
VOTE Or BUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) i HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS 18 A TRUE
AYES?. NOESt A ORR19CT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSfENTt _.�„� ADS-Ti►1Nt AND EN D ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
Of SUPERVISO ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CCt ATTESTED
Phil Batchelor,perk a1 the of
Supervisors and County Adminlstretor