DOCSLIB.ORG

Dear Whatcom County Council

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dear Whatcom County Council From: [email protected] To: Council; Satpal Sidhu; Barbara Brenner; Rud Browne; Barry Buchanan; Carl Weimer; Ken Mann; Todd Donovan Cc: Jack Louws; Sam (Jeanne) Ryan; PDS_Planning_Commission; PDS Subject: Update on an earlier comment, Regarding Whatcom County Planning Commission review of Cherry Point Land Use Amendments for the Comprehensive Plan Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 10:19:21 PM Dear Whatcom County Council: I am sending this as an update to the attached comment that I sent to the Whatcom County Planning Commission (copied to you all) on the Cherry Point Amendments, regarding the issue of safety and the refineries at Xwe'chi'eXen/Cherry Point. During the couple weeks before my October email below, many Phillips 66 refinery workers had sent in form comments to the Planning Commission, of which numerous ones had personal comments included, but all emphasizing the safety of their plant. My point in my October email was that despite their best efforts, workers cannot keep the dangerous materials in control. And now another incident has occurred at Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery. There was a report today in Discover Ferndale (an online publication) about it and according to the article: "According to Whatcom County Fire District 7 (WCFD7) Division Chief Ben Boyko, 7 people were transported to PeaceHealth St Joseph Medical Center from the refinery. They were treated for inhalation injury and exposure to hydrofluoric acid (HF). 1 was transported in serious condition while the other 6 were transported as a precautionary measure." https://www.discoverferndale.com/large-emergency-response-refinery-neighbors-edge_56701/ Here's a little info on hydrofluoric acid from the Huffington Post article that is linked to in the Discover Ferndale report on the Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery emergency: "The chemical is used to produce high-octane gasoline at about a third of the 141 oil refineries in the United States. If released HF forms a fast-moving, ground-hugging cloud that can cause lasting lung damage, severe burns or death. There are alternatives to HF, but only one U.S. refinery that uses it has voluntarily committed to switch, a process expected to begin this year." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-exxonmobil-near-disaster-you-probably-havent- heard_us_589cde89e4b080bf74f03a39 The ExxonMobil Near-Disaster You Probably Haven’t Heard Of By Jie Jenny Zou, Center for Public Integrity Editor’s note: This story was produced in collaboration with Sou... Also, here's a link to more detailed information on the chemical from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=1142&tid=250 So once again, while it may be true that these refinery operations have come so far, are so advanced, have so many safeguards and improvements, with employees who work so hard to monitor and keep the volatile and toxic substances in check, yet accidents and disasters are still happening, and they are not rare. Over the last 4-5 years there have been numerous safety violations and accidents/fires/explosions at the industries at Cherry Point. An that doesn't begin to address the rest of the country. Just yesterday there was a big explosion at a Phillips 66 pipeline station in southern Louisiana. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pipeline-fire-phillips-louisiana- idUSKBN15P0FG One worker unaccounted for after Phillips 66 Louisiana pipeline fire By Reuters Editorial A Phillips 66 employee was missing on Friday and a contract worker remained hospitalized after an explosion and ... http://www.nola.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/02/phillips_66_pipeline_explosion.html Phillips 66 pipeline fire in Paradis: What we know Friday morning The pipeline is near the Williams Discovery natural gas plant in Paradis. From the Times-Picayune article: "It's unclear how long it will take the fire to burn out. St. Charles officials remained at the site as of 8 a.m. Friday. "The fire, Phillips said, is at its Paradis Pipeline Station, which is near the Williams Discovery Plant at 15849 Old Spanish Trail (map). Paradis is about 30 minutes west of New Orleans." I urge you all to keep this foremost in your minds as you continue to review the Cherry Point Amendments. Sincerely, Dena Jensen Birch Bay [email protected] ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: PDS_Planning_Commission <[email protected]> Cc: PDS <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]>; Jack Louws <[email protected]>; Mark Personius <[email protected]>; Barbara Brenner — <[email protected]>; Rud Browne <[email protected]>; Barry Buchanan <[email protected]>; Carl Weimer <[email protected]>; Ken Mann <[email protected]>; Satpal Sidhu <[email protected]>; Todd Donovan <[email protected]>; Tyler Schroeder <[email protected]>; Sam (Jeanne) Ryan <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 12:53 PM Subject: Regarding Whatcom County Planning Commission review of Cherry Point Land Use Amendments for the Comprehensive Plan Dear Whatcom County Planning Commission: I have been reading through the comments posted on the Cherry Point Amendments page of the Whatcom County website. In light of the comments made by Cherry Point refinery employees and contractors who emphasized their efforts to maintain safety as a priority in their workplace, I wanted to offer some additional information to consider that is not strongly represented yet in the comments to date. Therefore I am attaching my comment from the Public Hearing at the 9/27/2016 Whatcom County Council meeting (below my signature line) and, preceding that, some links to information and facts about Cherry Point Refineries. We are in the midst of a climate crisis currently, and it is one of the dominant reasons for stronger regulations from our government agencies regarding fossil fuel extraction, transport, and processing. You will note in the KUOW article at this link, http://kuow.org/post/these-are-washingtons-top-10- climate-polluters and in the screen shot of the table below, that BP Cherry Point refinery was listed as the #2 top emitter of CO2e in 2014. I also remind you that despite worker's best collective efforts, horrible accidents happen when huge operations are manipulating highly toxic substances and refineries such as BP have not been successful in preventing such accidents from happening. Because of the cautionary nature of this huge disaster, here is a link to the extensively referenced Wikipedia article on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill , and the first paragraph of that article: "The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (also referred to as the BP oil spill, the BP oil disaster, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the Macondo blowout) began on April 20, 2010, in the Gulf of Mexico on the BP-operated Macondo Prospect. Following the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, a sea-floor oil gusher flowed for 87 days, until it was capped on July 15, 2010.[6][7] Eleven people went missing and were never found[6][8][9][10] and it is considered the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry, an estimated 8% to 31% larger in volume than the previously largest, the Ixtoc I oil spill. The US Government estimated the total discharge at 4.9 million barrels (210 million US gal; 780,000 m3).[3] After several failed efforts to contain the flow, the well was declared sealed on September 19, 2010.[11] Reports in early 2012 indicated the well site was still leaking.[12]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#cite_note-AutoBB-3-13" I am also including a link to the Good Jobs First, Violation Tracker report on BP. http://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/bp . You will note that under the Individual Penalty Records section, that BP Cherry Point workers, for all of their diligence, have not been able to keep their location violation-free, as BP Cherry Point received an environmental violation from the EPA in 2014 and a fine of $74,500.00 Phillips66, ConocoPhillips Ferndale Refinery also received a $23,000.00 fine for environmental violation in 2014 according to the Good Jobs First, Violation Tracker report on Phillips 66, listed under Individual Penalty Records, http://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=phillips- 66 This link, http://ehstoday.com/osha/bp-cherry-point-refinery-cited-willful-workplace-safety- violations , provides detail about citations for violating workplace safety and health rules resulting in penalties amounting to $81,500.00 that BP received in 2012 from the Washington Department of Labor and Industries. "L&I cited the company for a willful violation for not ensuring that inspection and testing procedures for process piping followed recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices for all deadleg piping circuits. The proposed penalty for the willful violation is $65,000. "A willful violation is the most significant civil classification that can be issued. It is used when L&I alleges that the violation was committed with intentional disregard or plain indifference or substitution of judgment with respect to worker safety and health regulations." Phillips 66 has received health and safety penalties as well, as reported on the Washington Workers Advisor website in February of this year, https://workersadvisor.com/tag/violations/ . "Two of the violations, each with a penalty of $108,000, involve the refinery’s firefighting and fire suppression systems. Phillips did not inspect or follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices in respect to the firefighting water tank or the buried firefighting water distribution piping. Inspection and maintenance of these systems is required by state regulation and the National Fire Protection Association.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phillips Petroleum Company 2001 Annual Report
    Phillips Petroleum Company 2001 Annual Report NEW EXPECTATIONS PHILLIPS’ MISSION IS TO PROVIDE SUPERIOR RETURNS FOR SHAREHOLDERS THROUGH TOP PERFORMANCE IN ALL OUR BUSINESSES. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CONTENTS COMPANY IN BRIEF 2 PHILLIPS’WORLDWIDE OPERATIONS Phillips Petroleum Company is a 4 LETTER TO SHAREHOLDERS major integrated U.S. oil and gas CEO Jim Mulva describes Phillips’ journey and explains why the company has company. It is headquartered in new expectations for increased shareholder returns. Bartlesville, Oklahoma. The company 7 THE CHAIRMAN’S PERSPECTIVE was founded in 1917. Phillips’ core Jim Mulva responds to questions about the company as it prepares to enter a new era. activities are: 9 FINANCIAL SUMMARY ■ Petroleum exploration and produc- Phillips remains financially strong despite a challenging economic climate. tion on a worldwide scale. 10 EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION (E&P) ■ Petroleum refining, marketing and Phillips anticipates increased oil and gas output from existing projects, and is transportation, primarily in the carrying out a balanced and focused exploration program. United States. 18 REFINING, MARKETING AND TRANSPORTATION (RM&T) ■ Chemicals and plastics production Following its acquisition of Tosco, Phillips is capturing synergies and taking advantage and distribution worldwide through of its expanded capabilities as one of the largest U.S. refiners and marketers. a 50 percent interest in Chevron 24 CHEMICALS Phillips Chemical Company Chevron Phillips Chemical Company is weathering a difficult market, holding down (CPChem). costs and carrying out growth projects. ■ Natural gas gathering, processing 26 GAS GATHERING, PROCESSING AND MARKETING and marketing in North America Phillips’ midstream joint venture is making the most of its strengths while through a 30.3 percent interest in pursuing growth opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Faces of the Future: Conocophillips and Phillips 66 Emerge Spirit Magazine First Quarter 2012 “Energy Production Creates Jobs.”
    CONOCOPHILLIPS ConocoPhillips First Quarter 2012 Faces of the Future: ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 emerge spirit Magazine First Quarter 2012 “Energy production creates jobs.” “We need to protect the environment.” Each wants the best for our country. So how can we satisfy both — right now? At ConocoPhillips, we’re helping to power America’s economy with cleaner, affordable natural gas. And the jobs, revenue and safer energy it provides. Which helps answer both their concerns. In real time. To find out why natural gas is the right answer, visit PowerInCooperation.com © ConocoPhillips Company. 2011. All rights reserved. Sharing Insights Five years ago, I wrote the first Sharing Insights letter for the new spirit Magazine. Since then, the magazine has documented a pivotal time in our company’s history, consistently delivering news and information to a wide-ranging audience. More than 7,000 employees have appeared in its pages. Remarkably, as the magazine grew, so did the number of employees who volunteered to contribute content. When your audience is engaged enough to do that, you know you are making a difference. Now, as we approach the completion of our repositioning effort, I am writing in what will be the final issue of spirit Magazine for Jim Mulva Chairman and CEO the integrated company. I have little doubt that both ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 will continue to offer robust and engaging internal communications. But it seems fitting that this final issue includes a variety of feature articles, news stories and people profiles that reflect the broad scope of our work across upstream and downstream and the rich heritage of our history.
    [Show full text]
  • DNR Cherry Point Plan
    s e c r u o s Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve e Management Plan R l November 2010 a Amended January 2017 r u t a N Acknowledgements Cherry Point Workgroup Brokes, Brendan. Washington Department of Fish Inovlvement in the Cherry Point Workgroup does not and Wildlife imply agreement with the Cherry Point Aquatic Carten, Terry. Washington Department of Natural Reserve or this management plan. Resources Chalfant, Jeff. British Petroleum Additional Information Provided by: Chapman, Alan. Lummi Natural Resources Fredrickson, Angie. Hershman Policy Fellow, Aquatic Department Resources Program, Washington Department of Cook, Cyrilla. People for Puget Sound Natural Resources Doremus, Llyn. Nooksack Indian Tribe Murphy, Kyle. Aquatic Reserves Program Manager, Dupre, Robyn. RE Sources Aquatic Resources Program, Washington Department of Natural Resources Fairbanks, Chris. Whatcom County Marine Resources Committee Elizabeth Ellis. Environmental Planner, Aquatic Resources Program, Washington Department of Felleman, Fred. Friends of the San Juans Natural Resources Hitchman, Marie. Whatcom County Beachwatchers Nightengale, Barbara and Piening, Carol Irving, Steve. North Cascades Audubon Environmental Planners formerly with Aquatic Johnson, Tim. ConocoPhillips Resources Program, Washington Department of Kyte, Michael. ENSR. Natural Resources Landis, Wayne. Institute for Environmental Snoey, Janis. Assistant Attorney General, State of Toxicology, Western Washington University Washington. Larson, Gerald. Birch Bay Association Markiewicz, April. Western Washington University GIS and Mapping McCreery, Scott. British Petroleum Kilgo, Jamie. Aquatic Reserves Program McNair, Fran. Washington Department of Natural Grilliot, Michael. Aquatic Reserves Program, Resources Washington Department of Natural Resources Middleton, Roland. Whatcom County Strickler, Tim. Aquatic Resources Program, Morris, Ted. Birch Bay State Park Washington Department of Natural Resources Palazzi, David.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2020 Update
    LUMMI NATION MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2020 UPDATE Prepared For: Lummi Indian Business Council (LIBC) Funded By: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Performance Partnership Grant (Grant No. BG-01J57901-0) Prepared By: Water Resources Division Lummi Natural Resources Department Contributors: Kara Kuhlman CFM, Water Resources Manager Andy Ross, LG, LHg, CFM, Water Resources Specialist III/Hydrologist Gerald Gabrisch GISP, GIS Manager Adopted by the Lummi Indian Business Council: September 15, 2020 Approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency: October 1, 2020 This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Assistance Agreement BG-01J57901-0 to the Lummi Nation. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 9 1.1. Goals and Objectives .....................................................................................................10 1.2. Sections .........................................................................................................................11 2. Planning Process ...............................................................................................................13 2.1. Plan Preparation ............................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • DEFENDANT BP PLC's REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE NO. 2:18-Cv-00758-RSL
    Case 2:18-cv-00758-RSL Document 123 Filed 09/11/18 Page 1 of 28 1 The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 KING COUNTY, 11 No. 2:18-cv-00758-RSL Plaintiff, 12 DEFENDANT BP P.L.C.’S v. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL 13 NOTICE ACCOMPANYING ITS BP P.L.C., a public limited company of MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST 14 England and Wales; CHEVRON AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; LACK OF PERSONAL 15 CONOCOPHILLIPS, a Delaware JURISDICTION corporation; EXXONMOBIL 16 CORPORATION, a New Jersey NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: corporation; ROYAL DUTCH SHELL November 1, 2018 17 PLC, a public limited company of England and Wales; and DOES 1 through 10, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, defendant BP p.l.c. hereby requests that the 21 Court, in its consideration of BP p.l.c.’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint for 22 Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed August 31, 2018 (the “Motion”), take judicial notice of the 23 following documents that are cited in the Motion. True and correct copies of these documents 24 are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B: 25 26 DEFENDANT BP P.L.C.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1400 NO. 2:18-cv-00758-RSL – Page 1 SEATTLE WASHINGTON 98101 T 206.516.3800 F 206.516.3888 Case 2:18-cv-00758-RSL Document 123 Filed 09/11/18 Page 2 of 28 1 Exhibit A U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Emissions Data from EPA's Petroleum Refining Sector ICR Component 2
    Emissions data from EPA's Petroleum Refining Sector ICR Component 2 - Emission Inventory; non-CBI compiled database of all Component 2 submittals - Final Emissions Inventory Modeling File-HAP data only, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/petref/petrefpg.html. STATE CITY COUNTY FACILITY NAME 2010 HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (lbs.) AK Kenai Kenai Peninsula Borough Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company Kenai Refinery 55,913.28 AK North Pole Fairbanks North Star Borough Petro Star Inc. - North Pole 2,467.58 AK North Pole Fairbanks North Star Borough Flint Hills Resources Alaska LLC. 31,145.55 AK North Slope Borough North Slope Borough ConocoPhillips Kuparuk Plant 7,429.78 AK Prudhoe Bay North Slope Borough BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. 13,076.41 AK Valdez Valdez-Cordova Census Area Petro Star Valdez Refy 2,109.53 AL Atmore Escambia County Goodway Refining LLC 706.18 AL Saraland Mobile County Shell Chemical Company 103,180.02 AL Tuscaloosa Tuscaloosa County Hunt Refining Co. A Co.rporation 46,003.04 AR El Dorado Union County Lion Oil Company 241,699.66 AR Smackover Union County Cross Oil Refining & Marketing, Inc. 92,876.00 CA Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo County ConocoPhillips Santa Maria Facility- Refinery 6,869.96 CA Bakersfield Kern County San Joaquin Refining Company Incorporated 16,508.14 CA Bakersfield Kern County Kern Oil & Refining Company 22,491.85 CA Bakersfield Kern County Big West Oil LLC (Prev. Shell Oil Products US) 1,714.80 CA Benicia Solano County Valero Refining Co. California Benicia Refinery 250,793.05 CA Carson Los Angeles County ConocoPhillips Carson Plant 62,759.34 CA Carson Los Angeles County BP Carson Refinery 436,371.36 CA El Segundo Los Angeles County Chevron USA Products Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Fuel Supply Outlook, 2017
    DOCKETED Docket Number: 17-IEPR-05 Project Title: Transportation Energy Demand Forecast TN #: 221377 Document Title: FINAL STAFF REPORT Transportation Fuel Supply Outlook, 2017 Description: ***THIS DOCUMENT SUPERSEDES TN # 221233*** Filer: Harinder Kaur Organization: California Energy Commission Submitter Role: Commission Staff Submission Date: 10/4/2017 2:55:45 PM Docketed Date: 10/4/2017 California Energy Commission FINAL STAFF REPORT Transportation Fuel Supply Outlook, 2017 California Energy Commission Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor September 2017 | CEC-200-2017-008-SF California Energy Commission Gordon Schremp Ryan Eggers Primary Authors Ryan Eggers Project Manager Marc Pryor Acting Office Manager SUPPLY ANALYSIS OFFICE Sylvia Bender Deputy Director ENERGY ASSESSMENTS DIVISION Robert P. Oglesby Executive Director DISCLAIMER Staff members of the California Energy Commission prepared this report. As such, it does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees, or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the Energy Commission nor has the Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Narayani Balakrishnan pipeline movement
    [Show full text]
  • Cleanup Site Details Report
    Cleanup Site Details Cleanup Site ID: 4886 Cleanup Site ID: 4886 Facility/Site ID: 17 UST ID: 10735 Site Page Site Documents View Map Cleanup Site Name: ConocoPhillips Co Ferndale Refinery Glossary Alternate Names: BP Ferndale Refinery, Conoco Phillips Ferndale Refinery, ConocoPhillips Co Ferndale Refinery, CONOCOPHILLIPS FERNDALE REFINERY, FERNDALE REFINERY, Mobil Oil Corporation, PHILLIPS 66 CO FERNDALE REFINERY, TOSCO CORP, TOSCO NORTHWEST CO FERNDALE REFINERY, TOSCO REFINING CO FERNDALE REFINERY LOCATION Address: 3901 UNICK RD City: FERNDALE Zip Code: 98248 County: Whatcom Latitude: 48.83197 Longitude: -122.69293 WRIA: 1 Legislative District: 42 Congressional District: 1 TRS: DETAIL Status: Cleanup Started NFA Received? No Is PSI site? No Statute: MTCA NFA Date: N/A Current VCP? No Past VCP? No Site Rank: N/A NFA Reason: N/A Brownfield? No Site Manager: Northwest Region Responsible Unit: Northwest Active Institutional Control? No CLEANUP UNITS Resp Cleanup Unit Name Unit Type Unit Status Unit Manager Current Process Unit BP STATION FERNDALE REFINERY Upland Cleanup Started NW Northwest Region Independent Action ACTIVE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS Restriction Recording Recording Instrument Type Restrictions/Requirements Date Tax Parcel Media Number County There are no current Institutional Controls in effect for this site. AFFECTED MEDIA & CONTAMINANTS MEDIA Contaminant Soil Groundwater Surface Water Sediment Air Bedrock Benzene B Petroleum-Diesel C Petroleum-Gasoline C RB Petroleum-Other B Key: B - Below Cleanup Level C - Confirmed Above
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 9 IN AND FOR KING COUNTY 10 KING COUNTY, 11 Plaintiff, Case No. _______________ 12 13 v. COMPLAINT 14 BP P.L.C., a public limited company of England and Wales, CHEVRON 15 CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, CONOCOPHILLIPS, a Delaware corporation, 16 EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, a New 17 Jersey corporation, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, a public limited company of England and 18 Wales, and DOES 1 through 10, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 010694-17 1031546 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 3 II. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................4 4 A. Plaintiff ....................................................................................................................4 5 B. Defendants ...............................................................................................................4 6 C. Defendants’ Connections to Washington.................................................................8 7 III. FOSSIL FUELS ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING........................................................................................................................26 8 IV. DEFENDANTS HAVE PRODUCED MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF 9 FOSSIL FUELS AND HAVE CONTINUED TO DO SO
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed Study of the Petroleum Refining Category – 2019 Report
    Z United States Environmental Protection Agency Detailed Study of the Petroleum Refining Category – 2019 Report September 2019 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (4303T) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 EPA 821-R-19-008 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Table of Contents Table of Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 References .............................................................................................................................. 1-2 2. PETROLEUM REFINING REGULATION HISTORY ............................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Effluent Limitation Guidelines .............................................................................................. 2-1 3. DATA SOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Existing Data Sources ............................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Primary Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 3-4 3.2.1 Site Visits ............................................................................................................. 3-4 3.2.2 2017 Data Request ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S. Oil Refining Industry: Background in Changing Markets and Fuel Policies
    The U.S. Oil Refining Industry: Background in Changing Markets and Fuel Policies Anthony Andrews Specialist in Energy and Defense Policy Robert Pirog Specialist in Energy Economics October 29, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41478 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress The U.S. Oil Refining Industry: Background in Changing Markets and Fuel Policies Summary A decade ago, 158 refineries operated in the United States and its territories and sporadic refinery outages led many policy makers to advocate new refinery construction. Fears that crude oil production was in decline also led to policies promoting alternative fuels and increased vehicle fuel efficiency. Since the summer 2008 peak in crude oil prices, however, the U.S. demand for refined petroleum products has declined, and the outlook for the petroleum refining industry in the United States has changed. In response to weak demand for gasoline and other refined products, refinery operators have begun cutting back capacity, idling, and, in a few cases, permanently closing their refineries. By current count, 124 refineries now produce fuel in addition to 13 refineries that produce lubricating oils and asphalt. Even as the number of refineries has decreased, operable refining capacity has actually increased over the past decade, from 16.5 million barrels/day to over 18 million barrels/day. Cyclical economic factors aside, U.S. refiners now face the potential of long-term decreased demand for their products. This is the result of legislative and regulatory efforts that were originally intended, in part, to accommodate the growing demand for petroleum products, but which may now displace some of that demand.
    [Show full text]
  • Template That Creates a Custom Pleading
    Case 2:18-cv-00758-RSL Document 113 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 KING COUNTY, 11 Plaintiff, Case No. C18-758RSL 12 13 v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 BP P.L.C., a public limited company of England and Wales, CHEVRON 15 CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, CONOCOPHILLIPS, a Delaware corporation, 16 EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, a New 17 Jersey corporation, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, a public limited company of England and 18 Wales, and DOES 1 through 10, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Case No. C18-758RSL 010694-17 1050331 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 Case 2:18-cv-00758-RSL Document 113 Filed 08/17/18 Page 2 of 99 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 3 II. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................4 4 A. Plaintiff ....................................................................................................................4 5 B. Defendants ...............................................................................................................4 6 C. Defendants’ connections to Washington .................................................................9 7 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................43
    [Show full text]