List of Requested Improvements to the Draft AB 617 Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for Richmond, San Pablo, and North Richmond from the Richmond City Council Richmond City Council would like to thank the work that CERP Steering committee in collaboration with BAAQMD has done. Here some major gains in the plan:
1. It is the first community plan to name Just Transition of all 19 communities across the state
2. It is the first plan to bring the local union into regulatory practices
3. It is the only plan to ask for community benefits policy.
4. It is the only plan to ask for a 35%-50% reduction in exposure for disproportionately harmed residents in 10 years
In the spirit of collaboration and the project’s purpose, we are submitting public comments to assist with the discussion on how to strengthen the plan so that the plan gets implemented. First, we would like to request BAAQMD for an extension of public comment period. We deeply appreciate the work of the CERP Steering Committee. However, this draft was not released until Dec 13, 2023, when many organizations were closed or community members were with family for the holidays.
Our comments fall into the following themes:
1. A need for greater focus on the critical success factors for our key emission reduction strategies.
2. More aggressive timelines and milestones for our key strategies.
3. The need to receive critical missing data and better analyzed data.
Concern/Improvement Current Plan (text or point
of view)
Completion
Timeframe
Specific Needs &
Rationale
Include a complete profile
of the November 27th
Flaring Event (4 flares full
bore for twelve hours plus
periodic flaring afterwards)
No complete profile or
analysis of any flaring event
Q2 2024 Produce a model report
based on case scenarios
on:
Total emissions
by flare and type
of pollutant
Peak 1-hour
emissions and
dispersion of
health impacts
Complete causal
analysis
A dispersion
model that
shows the path
and distance
release
Faster Development of
tougher Flaring Rule
amendments with goals
FR 2.6. Air District will
initiate a rule development
effort, further evaluating
potential updates to flaring
rules (Rule 12-11 and Rule
2024
Q2 Draft
Q3 Public
Comment
Amendments are not like
new rules. They can be
done more quickly. We
need:
12-12), by the end of 2024.
Rule development efforts
will aim to incorporate
health impacts analyses,
enhance rule enforceability,
and establish new and/or
more stringent limits
Q4 Board
Approval
An event
classification
system based on
cause and health
impacts.
Effective Chevron
reporting
requirements
New penalties by
type of event or
total annual
events, with
multipliers for
repeat offenses.
Discuss 75% Reduction in
annual flaring events with
Chevron senior
management.
No suggestion in the plan
that this is important. No
clear analysis of the causes
of the 3-4X overall increase
in flaring since 2018. No
specific goals, despite the
fact that many large
refineries keep flaring
events to mid-single digits
Q2 2024 When the city council or
mayor declares that
these events are
impacting the community
negatively, Chevron
should come to talk to
the city council after 10
days of the incident
Discuss the health impacts
of the significant 2019 to
2021 increases in 8 of 10 of
the most dangerous TAC
emissions from the refinery
and their legal fight against
the Cat Cracker wet
scrubber rule (6-5) with
Chevron senior
management.
No analysis of why these
changes happened,
although we assume it is
the higher sulfur content of
the crude being processed.
No measurement of the
increase in health risks. No
explanation of Chevron’s
arguments against Rule 6-5.
Q2 2024 When the city council or
mayor declares that
these events are
impacting the community
negatively, Chevron
should come to talk to
the city council after 10
days of the incident
Let’s hear them explain,
for example, the 275%
increase in sulfuric acid
and their plans for
reduction.
Beef up Rule 11-18. Pass
the amendments by the
end of 2024. Model the
impact of tightening the
chronic health & cancer
risk thresholds in Rule 11-
18 by 20 and 30%. What
reductions in which
emissions would these
changes likely force?
Analyze with Chevron and
Currently, the plan says:
Rule 11-18 is our
key strategy for
reducing TAC
emissions and lays
out a strategy for
fixing the
implementation
delays (no impact
in last 5 years).
Q2-4 2024
Some of this
must be in
the Plan to
show clear
direction;
further
analysis can
be added
later in
BAAQMD needs to do 2
things to make 11-18
work. One is to make
sure Chevron complies
with tighter regulations
that force faster emission
reductions. The 2nd is
setting emission
reduction goals and
modeling the various
ways to achieve them,
ChemTrade If these
reductions are possible at
current production levels
and with current feedstock
sulfur levels.
BAAQMD doesn’t
know what
emission reductions
to expect.
BAAQMD will need
to provide better
information on how
they are planning to
achieve any
reductions within
the next 4 years. (A
rule passed in 2018
will have no impact
until 2028 and
remains highly
uncertain)
annual
reports
uncovering the limits of
11-18 and considering all
possible ways to achieve
the 30-40% reduction
goal, including export
limits.
Request the California Air
Resources Board and
OEHHA review the current
state of basic health
research for our ten
highest impact pollutants.
Evaluate whether some
existing risk factors could
underestimate the health
impacts. Create a range of
risk factors to support
sensitivity analysis. Secure
funding for more research
on our most damaging
pollutants (sulfuric acid,
nickel, benzene, particulate
matter (PM), etc.)
The plan suggests that the
Air District and Community
Steering Committee (CSC)
advocate for basic research,
track funding cycles, and
make proposals.
While it is clearly possible
that the health risk factors
we currently use could
understate certain risks,
there is no urgency or
priority in the plan to test
and improve our knowledge.
If the toxicity rating for one
TAC such as sulfuric acid was
underestimated by 25-50%
(very possible!), it would
dramatically affect our
understanding and
priorities.
2025 This is the fundamental
research needed by all
California refinery
communities and US EPA
funding should be easy
to obtain. We need this
to ensure the best
possible targeting of our
emissions reduction
strategies and tactics.
Provide a list of all
emission-related penalties
of $5,000 or more over the
last 5 years. Include firm,
date of violation, and
specific violation.
No data and no analysis or
commentary in the plan
Q2 2024 This should be a living
document that is actively
updated with the most
current data to provide
information to the
public. This can be linked
to the information
provided by the plan.
Provide a list of all
permitted facilities whose
emissions are included in
our current emissions
inventory reports.
Not in the plan Q2 2024 We have the impression
that there are some
polluting firms or some
operations of polluting
firms that are not
currently included.
What’s missing?
What were the 841 Title V
permit violations in 2019-
2022 about? What
enforcement actions have
been taken? What’s the
plan for compliance in this
area?
Not in plan Q2 2024 Has BAAQMD spoken
with senior management
at Chevron about this?
How did it go?
Add 2 Strategy Summary
tables, one for emission
reduction strategies and
the other for all other
strategies. Target length
for both together would be
around 8-10 pages.
Each row should include a
clear one sentence
description of the strategy,
key implementation
milestones, critical success
factors, funding
requirements if any, and
responsible agency
The current plan is
overwhelming and
fragmented. It is difficult to
work with. It often buries
the real strategies in the
individual actions, and it is
difficult to see the whole
picture, in part due to the
lack of specific goals and
firm target dates. There is
no place where you can see
the whole plan with
milestones, responsibilities,
and impacts in a few pages.
Diving down into a single
strategy, look at Reduce
Exposure and Public Health
Impacts from Toxic Air
Contaminants Emitted by
the Fuel Refining Sector. It
includes only a general end
state goal of 30-50% by
2035. That’s great but it
lacks crisp, aggressive
milestones. We see nothing
on what to expect by 2026
or 2030. Or what the critical
success factors are. Also
note we could have 2
strategies as 4 Actions could
Q2 2024 Maybe this format and
this length is helpful to
BAAQMD, but it is not
good for transparency,
community engagement
or accountability. Who is
this plan for?
See previous point about
needing to model the
impact of health risk
threshold reductions on
the impact of Rule 11-
18. Without doing this,
you can’t fill out the row
in the requested table
be combined. all related to
implementing Rule 11-18.
What’s the budget for all of
this?
No description of costs or
funding sources in the plan
Some of these strategies
must require new funding.
How and when do we find
out which strategies can be
funded adequately from
which sources? How will we
set priorities in a world of
limited resources?
2025 The Richmond City
Council would like to
participate in any
discussions about
priorities
Schedule a presentation of
the final draft Community
Emissions Reduction Plan
to the Richmond City
Council by BAAQMD’s CEO
with a focus on the critical
path and key milestones
for goal achievement.
Show how we will get to a
30-40% reduction in
PM2.5, NOx and toxicity-
weighted TAC emissions by
2035 and a 75% reduction
in flaring event by 2025.
Review the status of the
funding picture as well as
our legal challenges,
current delays, and
possibilities.
Not in the plan Q2 or Q3
2024
There needs to be an in-
person meeting with
face-to-face discussion
and commitments.