|
-News
Archive
Looking
for Roommates September News DWI Hit Parade - Index to archives, sections News or Advertising Call 301 535 8624 |
|||
United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling and various news articles about Election Eve newsstand raid |
 |
 |
| Valero’s dozen bulk emitters more than half century old | |
|
By Ahmar Khan ST. MARY”S TODAY PINEY POINT — Two more than half-century steam boilers, three more than quarter century old heaters and two 15-year old heaters have been identified as the sources of emissions as refinery operator Valero is poised to expand it’s Piney Point terminal to a mammoth for hire bulk oil storage and distribution property. A dozen of all emission sources are more than half century old. The two January 1951 steam boilers are 25.7 MM BTU per hour Titusville boilers, the two December 1977 Hopkins Heaters are 16.5 MM BTU per hour thermal liquid heaters, one July 1980 Hopkins heater is 25 MM BTU per hour thermal liquid heater, two November 1990 American 14.7 MM BTU per hour thermal liquid heaters. The aging gasoline tanks include four that are at least half century old, designed and built when Harry Truman was still President. At least seven gasoline tanks that have been identified as emission units each, has an external floating roof with a capacity of 3,612,000 gallons. Three of the tanks were installed in 1953, three in 1958 and one in 1959 and all of them are equipped with a mechanical shoe primary seal and a rim-mounted secondary seal. In addition three of the four the internal floating roof gasoline storage tanks, have multimillion gallon capacities. One of those installed in 1953, with IFR installed in March 1994, has a capacity of 3.696 million gallons, and there are two tanks each with a capacity of over million gallons. Both were installed in 1979, but one had its internal floating roof installed in 1986 and the other in March 1994. Additionally there is a 8,000 gallon gasoline storage tank equipped with a stage I and II vapor recovery system that was installed in January 1994. There are five loading racks, in which loading of petroleum distillates into tanker trucks, equipped with a flare/VCU. This was installed in 1951, but modified in1999. The two marine berths that were installed in 1950, has as its emission unit description marine loading/unloading of residual oils and asphalt, and were installed in 1950. Three other marine berths whose emissions unit description includes marine loading/unloading of gasoline, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils or asphalt, were also installed in 1950. Large Refinery Operator Valero Hosts Public Hearing, Grilled by Public Over Emissions By Kenneth C. Rossignol ST. MARY’S TODAY VALLEY LEE — A proposal for a hefty increase in the amount of petroleum products being shipped in by sea to the Piney Point terminal and trucked out over local roads was the subject of a public hearing on Wednesday in Valley Lee, a hearing which revealed out of date technology is being used to monitor the vast tank farm. Residents of the area and of various environmental groups were on hand at the Second District firehouse to grill Maryland Department of the Environment officials as well as officials of Valero, operator of the Potomac River terminal, but the underlying issue of the evening, a future refinery at the site, was never discussed. Valero is the largest operator of refineries in the United States and specializes in buying underperforming petrochemical facilities and turning them around. Last year, following the gas price hike when Hurricane Katrina hit, Congress passed a bill streamlining the permits process for a refinery to make it easier to build one, due in part to the lack of any new refinery being built in the last 30 years. In 1974 Steuart Oil Company, which originally built the terminal and the tank farm, starting in 1949, tried to convince St. Mary’s County to allow it to construct an oil refinery on the site just north of St. George’s Island. A ferocious debate ensued and legislation passed by the late Senator Paul J. Bailey provided for a public referendum to decide on banning refineries from St. Mary’s County. After a long and heated campaign, the voters turned down the refinery by a two to one margin and more than one politician who supported the oil company also lost the election held later that year. A few of those who organized and led the group which fought the refinery, the Citizens Coalition Against the Refinery, were in the audience on Wednesday and raised many questions about how the State of Maryland monitors emissions from the dozens of oil storage tanks. “I want to address the release of cancer causing carcinogens coming from the tank farm,” said Barnes, noting that she has been in the area all her life. “I was present at the 1949 hearing when Steuart first applied for the pier and the tank farm, I watched them buy the land over the years, more tanks all the time.” “I myself am a cancer survivor and I am now under treatment at Johns Hopkins,” said Barnes, who said that her mother-in-law and husband, who lived near the tank farm, both died of cancer. Barnes, who failed to note that her family had sold to Steuart Oil much of the land used in building the terminal and tank farm, demanded to know if there were monitoring devices for each of the chemicals that are released into the air. A Maryland Dept. of the Environment official answered by saying, “We don’t have any standards for monitoring each of those air toxicants.” The MDE admitted that they didn’t know of any violations which have been levied against the terminal at any time in the past. Former Potomac River Association President Jack Witten asked the officials if the MDE if there was any requirement in the permit for the MDE to record actions that they take in regards to enforcement of the conditions of the permit. “Can a local jurisdiction such as St. Mary’s County add any conditions to a permit,” asked Witten. A state official answered that “Our regs say that you cannot create a nuisance.” Another MDE official answered by saying, “There is no monitoring devise sitting there collecting a sample (of air) no, ma’am.” Another citizen asked “How can you approve a permit and not have monitoring in place?” A MDE official responded by saying, “this facility is also required to submit reports to us.” On the subject of complaints, the MDE admitted that complaints made to the company won’t necessarily end up with their agency when a citizen said that he and his neighbors have seen heavy soot coming from the facility and after they called in reports that they have never seen a response. Witten elicited a negative response when he asked if the permit process requires an explanation of the complaint process to the general public. When asked if the MDE records emissions from the tank farm on an annual basis, they revealed that the only reports of emissions come from the company and that MDE does no independent checking of emissions and has no way to question the reports, as long as the same information is provided each year. After much pointed questioning, the MDE admitted “The regs don’t require that emissions be measured.” |
  |
