* Court Deems Lumber Liquidators’ Case a “SLAPP” Suit
* Orders Flooring Giant to Pay Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
* Also see "GCM announces new testing results of Lumber Liquidators Chinese-made laminates; All Chinese-made laminates purchased for testing failed CARB standards" (2015-03-02) [https://archive.today/pIgiw].
(Oakland, CA) Yesterday a California environmental advocacy group won a resounding Court judgment against flooring giant Lumber Liquidators’ claims of defamation. In a strongly worded 21-page decision, a judge ruled that Lumber Liquidator’s lawsuit against Global Community Monitor (GCM) was a strategic lawsuit against public participation and a clear violation of California’s anti-SLAPP law.
The court battle stemmed from a Proposition 65 lawsuit GCM filed last year against the company for high levels of cancer-causing formaldehyde found in Chinese-made laminate flooring sold by the company. Lumber Liquidators responded with a defamation suit, which was struck down yesterday.
“Lumber Liquidators tried to silence us and the court saw through it,” stated Denny Larson, Executive Director of Global Community Monitor. “The court recognized that we have a constitutional right to free speech and the public likewise has a right to know if any product they buy may be harmful to their families’ health.”
California’s anti-SLAPP statute provides for the “early dismissal of unmeritorious claims filed to interfere with the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.” As Judge Carvill noted in his decision, “The anti-SLAPP statute is ‘construed broadly’ to achieve its goal of ensuring that ‘participation in matters of public significance’ is not ‘chilled through abuse of the judicial process.’” The judge goes on to conclude that Lumber Liquidators’ defamation claims against GCM do not “have any likelihood of success.”
In addition, the Court ordered Lumber Liquidators to pay the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by GCM for having to defend the meritless SLAPP suit. GCM’s attorney, Richard Drury of Lozeau Drury LLP stated, “This is a good day for free speech and for the consumers of the State of California who are concerned that Chinese-made laminate flooring sold by Lumber Liquidators contains cancer-causing formaldehyde far above levels allowed by law.”
###
Global Community Monitor is a nonprofit environmental health and justice organization empowering communities to prevent their exposure to toxic chemicals and promote healthy outcomes for all. Global Community Monitor is joined in the Proposition 65 lawsuit by Sunshine Park, a firm affiliated with private investment companies that have substantial short financial exposure to Lumber Liquidators. Sunshine Park and its affiliates have financed extensive testing and have conducted substantial on-the-ground investigation regarding Chinese-made laminate flooring production.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Collins Pine Company Sued by Global Community Monitor & Community Health Watch For Clean Water Act Violations and Toxic Releases Into Drinking Water Supply
Hundreds of Self-Reported Violations - Polluted Discharges into Drinking Water -
(2015-04-09, Chester, CA) A Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act (“Proposition 65”) lawsuit was served today in the federal Eastern District Court of California against Collins Pine Company for its sawmill and biomass incinerator operations, which have caused pollution for years in this small community of approximately 2,000 residents. The suit was filed by Aqua Terra Aeris (ATA) Law Group on behalf of local group, Community Health Watch (CHW), and an international toxics watchdog, Global Community Monitor (GCM) (who was recently featured on 60 Minutes with Anderson Cooper (http://www.gcmonitor.org/watch-gcm-on-60-minutes). Community Health Watch and Global Community Monitor seek an injunction to halt the habitual and pervasive pollution caused by Collins Pine Company’s discharges, emissions and dumping of toxic pollutants, in addition to civil penalties.
State and federal law prohibit discharges of carcinogens, reproductive toxics and pollutants as a means to avoid harm to persons and the environment. Hundreds of hours of research on official reports revealed significant, continuing pollution caused by the Collins Pine Company to drinking water sources, forested land, and surface waters in Chester, CA and the surrounding areas.
“These discharges and releases of toxics and water pollutants were more than the occasional lapse – the self-reported violations suggest an unlawful pattern and practice engaged in by CPC. Despite violations noted by regulators over a number of years, we continue to discover additional violations,” said Matthew Maclear of ATA Law Group.
With hundreds of self-reported violations and other discharges and emissions of Proposition 65 listed chemicals, the public health of the local community has been adversely affected according to information collected by local leaders of Community Health Watch.
The families in the Chester deserve clean air and water free of cancer causing chemicals," said Denny Larson of GCM. "The apparent rampant releases from the outdated incinerator and treatment technologies must stop."
The violations noted to date, include disposals and discharges containing known carcinogens, reproductive toxicants and other pollutants. Ineffective government oversight has failed to stop the ongoing pollution. CHW and GCM are requesting that Collins Pine Company be required to manage its operations properly in conformance with state and federal laws.
CHW is an unincorporated citizen group located in Chester, California. The mission and focus of CHW is to protect the combined social, health, environmental and cultural conditions that influence individuals and the community in the Chester and Lake Almanor area of Plumas County, California
GCM is a nonprofit public-benefit corporation, based in El Cerrito, California, whose mission is to protect the global environmental through education, community mobilizing, training and focus on underserved communities harmed by industrial pollution.
ATA Law Group represents nonprofits, community groups, property owners, environmental justice communities and individuals impacted by pollution.
(2015-04-09, Chester, CA) A Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act (“Proposition 65”) lawsuit was served today in the federal Eastern District Court of California against Collins Pine Company for its sawmill and biomass incinerator operations, which have caused pollution for years in this small community of approximately 2,000 residents. The suit was filed by Aqua Terra Aeris (ATA) Law Group on behalf of local group, Community Health Watch (CHW), and an international toxics watchdog, Global Community Monitor (GCM) (who was recently featured on 60 Minutes with Anderson Cooper (http://www.gcmonitor.org/watch-gcm-on-60-minutes). Community Health Watch and Global Community Monitor seek an injunction to halt the habitual and pervasive pollution caused by Collins Pine Company’s discharges, emissions and dumping of toxic pollutants, in addition to civil penalties.
State and federal law prohibit discharges of carcinogens, reproductive toxics and pollutants as a means to avoid harm to persons and the environment. Hundreds of hours of research on official reports revealed significant, continuing pollution caused by the Collins Pine Company to drinking water sources, forested land, and surface waters in Chester, CA and the surrounding areas.
“These discharges and releases of toxics and water pollutants were more than the occasional lapse – the self-reported violations suggest an unlawful pattern and practice engaged in by CPC. Despite violations noted by regulators over a number of years, we continue to discover additional violations,” said Matthew Maclear of ATA Law Group.
With hundreds of self-reported violations and other discharges and emissions of Proposition 65 listed chemicals, the public health of the local community has been adversely affected according to information collected by local leaders of Community Health Watch.
The families in the Chester deserve clean air and water free of cancer causing chemicals," said Denny Larson of GCM. "The apparent rampant releases from the outdated incinerator and treatment technologies must stop."
The violations noted to date, include disposals and discharges containing known carcinogens, reproductive toxicants and other pollutants. Ineffective government oversight has failed to stop the ongoing pollution. CHW and GCM are requesting that Collins Pine Company be required to manage its operations properly in conformance with state and federal laws.
CHW is an unincorporated citizen group located in Chester, California. The mission and focus of CHW is to protect the combined social, health, environmental and cultural conditions that influence individuals and the community in the Chester and Lake Almanor area of Plumas County, California
GCM is a nonprofit public-benefit corporation, based in El Cerrito, California, whose mission is to protect the global environmental through education, community mobilizing, training and focus on underserved communities harmed by industrial pollution.
ATA Law Group represents nonprofits, community groups, property owners, environmental justice communities and individuals impacted by pollution.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
"GCM Announces New Testing Results of Lumber Liquidators Chinese‐made Laminates; All Chinese‐made Laminates Purchased for Testing Failed CARB Standards" (2015-03-02)
CONSUMERS CONTACT: Linda Dardarian, 800‐538‐1467
Why These Tests Matter -
As noted in the 60 Minutes report, which aired on March 1, 2015, probably tens of thousands of households in California and probably hundreds of thousands of households nationwide are being exposed to formaldehyde emissions from Lumber Liquidators Chinese‐made laminate flooring. According to its website, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) "evaluated formaldehyde exposure in California and found that one of the major sources of exposure is from inhalation of formaldehyde emitted from composite wood products containing urea‐formaldehyde resins. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassified formaldehyde from "probably carcinogenic to humans" to "carcinogenic to humans" in 2004, based on the increased risk of nasopharyngeal cancer. Formaldehyde was also designated as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) in California in 1992 with no safe level of exposure. State law requires [C]ARB to take action to reduce human exposure to all TACs" [http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/compwood.htm].
Lumber Liquidators (LL) has stated that it had "over 620,000 customer transactions" in 2014 alone. LL also states that Laminate, Bamboo, Cork, and Vinyl Plank together accounted for 38% of net sales in 2014. In previous years, LL also disclosed that laminates were 22%, 23%, and 21% of net sales in 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively (Source: Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. SEC filings)
The Standards -
CARB's emissions standards regulate the formaldehyde emissions from "composite wood products"such as particleboard, plywood, and medium density fiberboard (MDF). These composite wood products are used in finished goods such as laminate flooring, furniture, or shelving. The underlying particleboard, plywood, or MDF is sometimes referred to as the "core" of the finished good. CARB's emission standards make it unlawful to sell products, including laminate wood flooring, in California that contain composite wood cores that exceed certain formaldehyde levels set by CARB.
The Test Method & Results -
The tests analyzed Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring purchased in California both in stores and online - the same flooring that consumers would purchase. Lumber Liquidators states that this laminate flooring complies with the CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde standard. Three different laboratories conducted extensive testing on this flooring - these labs performed over 80 "deconstruction tests" (of which 76 were on Chinese‐made laminates) using the CARB‐approved finished goods methodology and over 200 other formaldehyde tests.
Every single U.S.‐made Lumber Liquidators laminate product purchased for testing passed the CARB standard. Every single Chinese‐made Lumber Liquidators laminate product purchased for testing failed the CARB standard - and by a large average margin. The average formaldehyde emissions of the Chinese‐made products tested was over 6x the CARB legal limit for the MDF core.
Average Formaldehyde Emissions in Tested Lumber Liquidators' Chinese‐Made and US‐Made
Laminate Flooring Purchased by Plaintiffs for Testing.
China: 76 Tests / USA: 5 Tests.
CARB Phase II Limit: MDF 0.11 ppm
All Three Laboratories Used the CARB‐Approved Test Method -
Each of the testing laboratories used the finished goods sample preparation method and test method developed by CARB and published on CARB's website. This is the official CARB test method. CARB has only one published test method for testing for formaldehyde in finished products containing composite wood cores, and that is the test method the independent laboratories used.
The purpose of the deconstruction is to expose the composite wood core so that its emissions can be compared against CARB's numeric limit. CARB has published a "Standard Operating Procedure" for finished goods testing. This SOP can be found in the "Test Methods" section of CARB's website [http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/outreach/testmethods.htm].
According to this SOP, this procedure "is to be used to prepare a finished good for laboratory testing to determine if the finished good complies with" CARB standards [http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/outreach/compwood_sop_fg_decon_091313.pdf]. Senior CARB personnel have confirmed that the SOP is the official CARB methodology for analyzing formaldehyde emissions from finished goods.
Lumber Liquidators has criticized the CARB test method, but that industry argument has long since been rejected by CARB. CARB's official legislative history from 2007 states (Agency Response, 24‐Landry‐070423‐CWIC [http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fsorcompwood07.pdf]) [begin excerpt]: Yes it is correct that finished products must be deconstructed to test for compliance. But, we disagree that there is great uncertainty in the enforcement program. Deconstructive testing is needed for finished goods to verify compliance with the emission standards. We are currently developing the sample preparation and testing protocols that we will use to enforce the ATCM (see page 127 of the ISOR). The sample preparation and emission testing protocol we use to enforce the ATCM will be technically sound and will be more than adequate to identify non‐compliant composite wood products found in finished goods for California. [end excerpt]
Although Lumber Liquidators says it has done testing, it does not say that it has performed deconstructive testing. The company also posted a chart of "Fiberboard Core Testing" on its website. If these tests were performed by "Third Party Certifiers" (TPCs) in China, it would only indicate that the core manufacturer is capable of producing CARB‐compliant cores - not that the cores used in Lumber Liquidators' products are actually CARB compliant. As noted by 60 Minutes, "[e]mployees at the mills openly admitted that they use core boards with higher levels of formaldehyde to make Lumber Liquidators laminates, they also admitted falsely labeling the company's laminate flooring as CARB2". In addition, TPCs sometimes conduct testing on pre‐scheduled dates (rather like announcing the location of highway "speed traps.")
CARB defines a Third Party Certifier as "an organization or entity approved by the Executive Officer that verifies the accuracy of the emission test procedures and facilities used by manufacturers to conduct formaldehyde emission tests, monitors manufacturer quality assurance programs, and provides independent audits and inspections" [http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/certifiers.htm].
Therefore, TPC tests do not, and cannot, prove that all of Lumber Liquidators' Chinese‐made products sold in the United States comply with CARB standards. Lumber Liquidators has acknowledged as much in a public court filing: "A [third‐party certification] is obtained from an approved, third‐party testing lab that tests samples of products - not every product - for formaldehyde levels. Thus, LL's statement that it obtains [third‐party certifications] from its suppliers (mills) is in no way a representation that every single product meets CARB's standards." See Donnie Williamson, et al., v Lumber Liquidators, Inc. Case #1:14‐00035‐GBL‐TCB. "Memorandum in Support of Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)."
---
Update, 2015-03-12:
Lumber Liquidators Admits CARB Tests Resulted in a Preliminary Agency Finding That Some Products Exceed Formaldehyde Limits -
Today, Lumber Liquidators acknowledged that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has tested Lumber Liquidators’ products and preliminary results show that some of the products exceed the CARB formaldehyde standard. The admission was made by the company’s CEO, Robert Lynch during a conference call. Lumber Liquidators also announced, for the first time, that it is offering free formaldehyde tests and potentially the replacement of floors which may be found to exceed acceptable levels of formaldehyde.
The transcript from today’s briefing states: “CARB has ‘deconstructed’ our products in routine inspections, as well as we believe others in the industry, in order to try to determine if the core materials complied. In CARB's preliminary findings, some of our samples they deconstructed and tested (due to the variability of the test) exceeded the limits for raw cores.”
“CARB testing is the standard to which Lumber Liquidators’ laminate products must be held,” said Denny Larson, Executive Director of GCM. “They admitted today that CARB has made a preliminary finding that some of their products have failed to pass the formaldehyde test conducted by CARB. Lumber Liquidators must go farther to make sure that all of their laminate products comply with the standard and provide increased protection for the consumers.” GCM has asked Lumber Liquidators to disclose which products failed the CARB testing and by how much above the CARB formaldehyde standard. Lumber Liquidators’ laminate products have now failed to pass the CARB formaldehyde test conducted dozens of times by 60 Minutes, at least three independent laboratories, and apparently by CARB itself. While Lumber Liquidators continues to dispute the test method, the test method has been adopted, published and applied by CARB itself.
About the authors:
Global Community Monitor is a nonprofit environmental health and justice organization empowering communities to prevent their exposure to toxic chemicals and promote healthy outcomes for all. Global Community Monitor is joined in the Proposition 65 lawsuit by Sunshine Park, a firm affiliated with private investment companies that have substantial short financial exposure to Lumber Liquidators. Sunshine Park and its affiliates have financed extensive testing and have conducted substantial on‐the‐ground investigation regarding Chinese‐made laminate flooring production.
Why These Tests Matter -
As noted in the 60 Minutes report, which aired on March 1, 2015, probably tens of thousands of households in California and probably hundreds of thousands of households nationwide are being exposed to formaldehyde emissions from Lumber Liquidators Chinese‐made laminate flooring. According to its website, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) "evaluated formaldehyde exposure in California and found that one of the major sources of exposure is from inhalation of formaldehyde emitted from composite wood products containing urea‐formaldehyde resins. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassified formaldehyde from "probably carcinogenic to humans" to "carcinogenic to humans" in 2004, based on the increased risk of nasopharyngeal cancer. Formaldehyde was also designated as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) in California in 1992 with no safe level of exposure. State law requires [C]ARB to take action to reduce human exposure to all TACs" [http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/compwood.htm].
Lumber Liquidators (LL) has stated that it had "over 620,000 customer transactions" in 2014 alone. LL also states that Laminate, Bamboo, Cork, and Vinyl Plank together accounted for 38% of net sales in 2014. In previous years, LL also disclosed that laminates were 22%, 23%, and 21% of net sales in 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively (Source: Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. SEC filings)
The Standards -
CARB's emissions standards regulate the formaldehyde emissions from "composite wood products"such as particleboard, plywood, and medium density fiberboard (MDF). These composite wood products are used in finished goods such as laminate flooring, furniture, or shelving. The underlying particleboard, plywood, or MDF is sometimes referred to as the "core" of the finished good. CARB's emission standards make it unlawful to sell products, including laminate wood flooring, in California that contain composite wood cores that exceed certain formaldehyde levels set by CARB.
The Test Method & Results -
The tests analyzed Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring purchased in California both in stores and online - the same flooring that consumers would purchase. Lumber Liquidators states that this laminate flooring complies with the CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde standard. Three different laboratories conducted extensive testing on this flooring - these labs performed over 80 "deconstruction tests" (of which 76 were on Chinese‐made laminates) using the CARB‐approved finished goods methodology and over 200 other formaldehyde tests.
Every single U.S.‐made Lumber Liquidators laminate product purchased for testing passed the CARB standard. Every single Chinese‐made Lumber Liquidators laminate product purchased for testing failed the CARB standard - and by a large average margin. The average formaldehyde emissions of the Chinese‐made products tested was over 6x the CARB legal limit for the MDF core.
Average Formaldehyde Emissions in Tested Lumber Liquidators' Chinese‐Made and US‐Made
Laminate Flooring Purchased by Plaintiffs for Testing.
China: 76 Tests / USA: 5 Tests.
CARB Phase II Limit: MDF 0.11 ppm
All Three Laboratories Used the CARB‐Approved Test Method -
Each of the testing laboratories used the finished goods sample preparation method and test method developed by CARB and published on CARB's website. This is the official CARB test method. CARB has only one published test method for testing for formaldehyde in finished products containing composite wood cores, and that is the test method the independent laboratories used.
The purpose of the deconstruction is to expose the composite wood core so that its emissions can be compared against CARB's numeric limit. CARB has published a "Standard Operating Procedure" for finished goods testing. This SOP can be found in the "Test Methods" section of CARB's website [http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/outreach/testmethods.htm].
According to this SOP, this procedure "is to be used to prepare a finished good for laboratory testing to determine if the finished good complies with" CARB standards [http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/outreach/compwood_sop_fg_decon_091313.pdf]. Senior CARB personnel have confirmed that the SOP is the official CARB methodology for analyzing formaldehyde emissions from finished goods.
Lumber Liquidators has criticized the CARB test method, but that industry argument has long since been rejected by CARB. CARB's official legislative history from 2007 states (Agency Response, 24‐Landry‐070423‐CWIC [http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fsorcompwood07.pdf]) [begin excerpt]: Yes it is correct that finished products must be deconstructed to test for compliance. But, we disagree that there is great uncertainty in the enforcement program. Deconstructive testing is needed for finished goods to verify compliance with the emission standards. We are currently developing the sample preparation and testing protocols that we will use to enforce the ATCM (see page 127 of the ISOR). The sample preparation and emission testing protocol we use to enforce the ATCM will be technically sound and will be more than adequate to identify non‐compliant composite wood products found in finished goods for California. [end excerpt]
Although Lumber Liquidators says it has done testing, it does not say that it has performed deconstructive testing. The company also posted a chart of "Fiberboard Core Testing" on its website. If these tests were performed by "Third Party Certifiers" (TPCs) in China, it would only indicate that the core manufacturer is capable of producing CARB‐compliant cores - not that the cores used in Lumber Liquidators' products are actually CARB compliant. As noted by 60 Minutes, "[e]mployees at the mills openly admitted that they use core boards with higher levels of formaldehyde to make Lumber Liquidators laminates, they also admitted falsely labeling the company's laminate flooring as CARB2". In addition, TPCs sometimes conduct testing on pre‐scheduled dates (rather like announcing the location of highway "speed traps.")
CARB defines a Third Party Certifier as "an organization or entity approved by the Executive Officer that verifies the accuracy of the emission test procedures and facilities used by manufacturers to conduct formaldehyde emission tests, monitors manufacturer quality assurance programs, and provides independent audits and inspections" [http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/certifiers.htm].
Therefore, TPC tests do not, and cannot, prove that all of Lumber Liquidators' Chinese‐made products sold in the United States comply with CARB standards. Lumber Liquidators has acknowledged as much in a public court filing: "A [third‐party certification] is obtained from an approved, third‐party testing lab that tests samples of products - not every product - for formaldehyde levels. Thus, LL's statement that it obtains [third‐party certifications] from its suppliers (mills) is in no way a representation that every single product meets CARB's standards." See Donnie Williamson, et al., v Lumber Liquidators, Inc. Case #1:14‐00035‐GBL‐TCB. "Memorandum in Support of Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)."
---
Update, 2015-03-12:
Lumber Liquidators Admits CARB Tests Resulted in a Preliminary Agency Finding That Some Products Exceed Formaldehyde Limits -
Today, Lumber Liquidators acknowledged that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has tested Lumber Liquidators’ products and preliminary results show that some of the products exceed the CARB formaldehyde standard. The admission was made by the company’s CEO, Robert Lynch during a conference call. Lumber Liquidators also announced, for the first time, that it is offering free formaldehyde tests and potentially the replacement of floors which may be found to exceed acceptable levels of formaldehyde.
The transcript from today’s briefing states: “CARB has ‘deconstructed’ our products in routine inspections, as well as we believe others in the industry, in order to try to determine if the core materials complied. In CARB's preliminary findings, some of our samples they deconstructed and tested (due to the variability of the test) exceeded the limits for raw cores.”
“CARB testing is the standard to which Lumber Liquidators’ laminate products must be held,” said Denny Larson, Executive Director of GCM. “They admitted today that CARB has made a preliminary finding that some of their products have failed to pass the formaldehyde test conducted by CARB. Lumber Liquidators must go farther to make sure that all of their laminate products comply with the standard and provide increased protection for the consumers.” GCM has asked Lumber Liquidators to disclose which products failed the CARB testing and by how much above the CARB formaldehyde standard. Lumber Liquidators’ laminate products have now failed to pass the CARB formaldehyde test conducted dozens of times by 60 Minutes, at least three independent laboratories, and apparently by CARB itself. While Lumber Liquidators continues to dispute the test method, the test method has been adopted, published and applied by CARB itself.
---
About the authors:
Global Community Monitor is a nonprofit environmental health and justice organization empowering communities to prevent their exposure to toxic chemicals and promote healthy outcomes for all. Global Community Monitor is joined in the Proposition 65 lawsuit by Sunshine Park, a firm affiliated with private investment companies that have substantial short financial exposure to Lumber Liquidators. Sunshine Park and its affiliates have financed extensive testing and have conducted substantial on‐the‐ground investigation regarding Chinese‐made laminate flooring production.
City of Napa has detected levels of disinfection byproducts above drinking water standards
More information about Trihalomethanes at [https://archive.today/xUBcU].
Thursday, February 5, 2015
To Mitigate Ecological Fallout from Activities at the Lake Herman Quarry
Goal:
* To verify whether or not there are Cinnabar deposits at the area of the quarry.
* To place wind barriers along the hillsides of the region and gauge particulate pollution originating from activity at the quarry.
* To preserve water resources.
"Company seeks to expand its strip mining in Solano County", 2013-08-07 by Tony Burchyns from Vallejo Times-Herald [http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_23811618/company-seeks-expand-its-strip-mining-solano-county] [https://archive.today/MHg7x]:
Syar Industries is seeking Solano County approval to nearly double its strip-mining operation near Vallejo. The project would expand the quarry pit from 113 to 211 acres and increase the permitted annual extraction rate from 2 million to 4 million tons. It would also deepen the pit by 200 feet and allow 24-hour operation during times of emergency or unusually high demand, according to its environmental impact report. Solano County planners released the environmental document on July 22. The public comment period ends Sept. 4.
The project is of interest to the city of Benicia, which has raised concerns about aesthetics, agriculture, traffic and natural habitats as well as air and water quality. The city's Sky Vallejo Open Space Committee is scheduled to review the environmental document on Aug. 21.
Located in unincorporated Solano County on the slopes of Sulphur Springs Mountain, the quarry is bordered to the north, east and south mostly by range land and open space. The Blue Rock Springs Golf Course, owned by Vallejo, is located northwest of the property.
---
* "Mining Napa's eastern hills" (2013-07-13) [http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/mining-napa-s-eastern-hills/article_c6ca0fb0-ec15-11e2-bff9-001a4bcf887a.html] [https://archive.today/5vDSP]
Bay Area Concrete Aggregates: Syar - Lake Herman Quarry
[http://www.act-right.net/AggregateProject/syar-herman.shtml] [https://archive.today/HdHyw] (the webpage includes an erroneus map placing the quarry 20 miles away in another county!):
Lake Herman, Vallejo is a quarry producing 100% crushed basalt rock. This is currently mostly used for asphalt and aggregate base, since thus far it has been uneconomical to use for concrete aggregates.
Quarry total output is approximately 2 million tons per year, and supply is estimated at 50 years, although the quarry is up for re-permitting in three years.
Vallejo/Lake Herman Readymix Plant
[http://www.syarconcrete.com/concreteLakeHerman.html] [https://archive.today/gxH8t]:
Syar’s high production Vallejo/Lake Herman Readymix Plant, located in Vallejo, Solano County, primarily services Contra Costa, Napa and Solano counties as well as areas of Marin County with Caltrans specified concrete products. This plant is connected to Syar Concrete’s other locations through a centralized dispatch system which serves the needs of customers by dispatching readymix concrete products to construction projects from the plant with the quickest haul. Among other significant regional projects, this plant supplied much of the concrete poured at both Carquinez Bridges.
Syar quarry in Vallejo (2007) [https://archive.today/80XiQ]
Syar Vallejo gravel quarry 1993-2012 [https://archive.today/IHzrc]
Sulfur Mt will vanish - Syar industries at work since 1980's. (photo 2009-05)
Dark bluish-gray basaltic and the burnt-red tuffic rock line a Syar Industry Quarry in Vallejo as seen from the air on May 25, 2013 [https://archive.today/93Cjx]
Near St John's Mine, Vallejo [https://archive.today/9saaP]
* St. John's Mine (Wikipedia, retrieved 2015-02) [https://archive.today/mnxH2]: Principal ongoing impact is from mercury contamination of spring water flowing beneath the site. Furthermore, the drainage from St. John's Mine flows to receiving waters of Rindler Creek and thence to Lake Chabot. Miles of underground shafts were driven in the course of working the quicksilver deposits in the area. In 1989, Earth Metrics reviewed old 1918 maps of workings of the Hastings and St. John's Mines and found that mine shafts were not driven into the site prior to the year 1918.
More on the ecological fallout from closed mercury mines:
"Alaska seeks cleanup of mercury mine threatening villages" (2012-08-20) [https://archive.today/8Bal6]
* To verify whether or not there are Cinnabar deposits at the area of the quarry.
* To place wind barriers along the hillsides of the region and gauge particulate pollution originating from activity at the quarry.
* To preserve water resources.
"Company seeks to expand its strip mining in Solano County", 2013-08-07 by Tony Burchyns from Vallejo Times-Herald [http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_23811618/company-seeks-expand-its-strip-mining-solano-county] [https://archive.today/MHg7x]:
Syar Industries is seeking Solano County approval to nearly double its strip-mining operation near Vallejo. The project would expand the quarry pit from 113 to 211 acres and increase the permitted annual extraction rate from 2 million to 4 million tons. It would also deepen the pit by 200 feet and allow 24-hour operation during times of emergency or unusually high demand, according to its environmental impact report. Solano County planners released the environmental document on July 22. The public comment period ends Sept. 4.
The project is of interest to the city of Benicia, which has raised concerns about aesthetics, agriculture, traffic and natural habitats as well as air and water quality. The city's Sky Vallejo Open Space Committee is scheduled to review the environmental document on Aug. 21.
Located in unincorporated Solano County on the slopes of Sulphur Springs Mountain, the quarry is bordered to the north, east and south mostly by range land and open space. The Blue Rock Springs Golf Course, owned by Vallejo, is located northwest of the property.
---
* "Mining Napa's eastern hills" (2013-07-13) [http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/mining-napa-s-eastern-hills/article_c6ca0fb0-ec15-11e2-bff9-001a4bcf887a.html] [https://archive.today/5vDSP]
Bay Area Concrete Aggregates: Syar - Lake Herman Quarry
[http://www.act-right.net/AggregateProject/syar-herman.shtml] [https://archive.today/HdHyw] (the webpage includes an erroneus map placing the quarry 20 miles away in another county!):
Lake Herman, Vallejo is a quarry producing 100% crushed basalt rock. This is currently mostly used for asphalt and aggregate base, since thus far it has been uneconomical to use for concrete aggregates.
Quarry total output is approximately 2 million tons per year, and supply is estimated at 50 years, although the quarry is up for re-permitting in three years.
Vallejo/Lake Herman Readymix Plant
[http://www.syarconcrete.com/concreteLakeHerman.html] [https://archive.today/gxH8t]:
Syar’s high production Vallejo/Lake Herman Readymix Plant, located in Vallejo, Solano County, primarily services Contra Costa, Napa and Solano counties as well as areas of Marin County with Caltrans specified concrete products. This plant is connected to Syar Concrete’s other locations through a centralized dispatch system which serves the needs of customers by dispatching readymix concrete products to construction projects from the plant with the quickest haul. Among other significant regional projects, this plant supplied much of the concrete poured at both Carquinez Bridges.
Syar quarry in Vallejo (2007) [https://archive.today/80XiQ]
Syar Vallejo gravel quarry 1993-2012 [https://archive.today/IHzrc]
Sulfur Mt will vanish - Syar industries at work since 1980's. (photo 2009-05)
Dark bluish-gray basaltic and the burnt-red tuffic rock line a Syar Industry Quarry in Vallejo as seen from the air on May 25, 2013 [https://archive.today/93Cjx]
Near St John's Mine, Vallejo [https://archive.today/9saaP]
* St. John's Mine (Wikipedia, retrieved 2015-02) [https://archive.today/mnxH2]: Principal ongoing impact is from mercury contamination of spring water flowing beneath the site. Furthermore, the drainage from St. John's Mine flows to receiving waters of Rindler Creek and thence to Lake Chabot. Miles of underground shafts were driven in the course of working the quicksilver deposits in the area. In 1989, Earth Metrics reviewed old 1918 maps of workings of the Hastings and St. John's Mines and found that mine shafts were not driven into the site prior to the year 1918.
More on the ecological fallout from closed mercury mines:
"Alaska seeks cleanup of mercury mine threatening villages" (2012-08-20) [https://archive.today/8Bal6]
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Smoke cloud over Vallejo (2015-01-31)
Looking East, over Georgia st. towards the Syar Quarry in the Blue Rock Springs area of Vallejo
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Critical Comments on the Phillips 66 Rodeo and Santa Maria Refineries Expansion of Combined Production Capacity
Charles Davidson of Hercules (2015-01-27) at [https://archive.today/nEP9d]:
Please read my submitted brief critique of the Phillips 66 EIRs for the “piece-mealed” Rodeo and Santa Maria combined Tar Sands project. The comment is based on my reading of the recirculated draft EIRs for both the Phillips 66 Rodeo Refinery’s Propane Recovery Project and the Santa Maria Refinery’s interrelated Rail Spur Expansion Project and Throughput expansion Projects.
My short comment letter, with slight variation, was sent to both (the Contra Costa and San Lois Obispo) County Planning Commissions and was also based on the great detailed analysis of both Greg Karras (of Communities for a Better Environment) and Dr. Phyllis Fox (of Shute, Mahely and Weinberg). I tried to make my 2-page letter (below) as short and non-technical as possible.
The analysis was made easier in the recirculated EIR compared to the draft EIR, because they finally stated outright that the crude by rail would absolutely not be the highly volatile Bakken North Dakota light shale oil, leaving Canadian Tar Sands bitumen (extra heavy crude) as the only possibility.
Tar Sands and Bakken crude are both land-locked and can only get to CA by rail or barge from up north, but the key P66 project in Santa Maria is a Tar Sands rail expansion project.
The reason that Canadian Tar Sands ends up in Rodeo, is that CA crude from down south would not arrive in 100 car trains and the crude that is pre-processed in Santa Maria goes directly, via their 200-mile pipeline, into P66’s Rodeo coker unit, that only processes heavy crude.
Note: The Tar Sands bitumen is so dense and heavy that it must be diluted with 30% light weight petroleum solvents to liquify it and it is then called DilBit.
Per Greg Karras: DilBit takes 2-3 times the energy to refine as typical or traditional crude, it has unusually high amounts of heavy metals (like nickel and vanadium), it produces more Petroleum Coke (PetCoke) and coking it violently (at 900 degrees Fehrenheit) for a day or so produces lots more propane than would the refining go traditional crude oil, hence part of the reason for the propane recovery project to recover the extra propane. P66 has a nearly one billion dollar contract deal with the Chinese company SinoPec for propane delivery ($850 million).
P66 in Rodeo, at least according to a recent EPA document, is the most polluting refinery in California. The brief, unreferenced document did not break down particular pollutants or whether the pollutants are airborne or water born.
Not stated in my EIR comment letter: It should be noted that P66 in Rodeo has a “Nelson Complexity Index” of 13.6, one of the highest in the world and the highest in the U.S., indicating that the refinery is unusually complex and capable of refining the heaviest crude in order to produce the highest valued products, such as gasoline.
SUBMITTED EIR COMMENT:
Phillips 66 Rodeo and Santa Maria Refineries Expansion of Combined Production Capacity, Tar Sands Refining Capability and Propane Production
The first major problem with Phillips 66’s Santa Maria Railroad Spur Extension Project Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR; 1), is that it is a piecemealed project since the Santa Maria Refinery is connected by a 200-mile pipeline to the San Francisco Refinery in Rodeo. In turn, the Rodeo Refinery accepts heavy gas oil derived from semi-refined Santa Maria heavy crude feedstock and then completes the refining processes in order to make higher-valued products, such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Concurrently, a Rodeo Refinery RDEIR is proposing the Propane Recovery Project (1). Multi-project EIR piecemealing is illegal in California under CEQA.
A second major problem with Phillips 66’s Santa Maria Refinery Railroad Spur Extension Project RDEIR is that it fails to disclose the fact that the refineries’ most likely source of crude oil would be a type of high-sulfur, extra heavy crude oil derived from Canadian Tar Sands, called bitumen. Specifically, Phillips’ RDEIR states that light, low-sulfur “sweet” Bakken North Dakota crude oil would be an “excluded” type of refinery feedstock carried by rail into Santa Maria, leaving Tar Sands bitumen as the only other “crude-by-rail” available in large enough amounts. (2) The combined Santa Maria-Rodeo Refinery Projects’ dependence on energy-intensive bitumen refining would make them, cumulatively, high greenhouse gas-producing projects that are capable of emitting increased amounts of toxic pollutants and a large excess of highly flammable propane. – Charles Davidson. Dec. 2014
============================================================
Greg Karras from Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) and Refinery Engineer Phillis Fox, from Shute, Mahaley and Weinberger, have critiqued these disparate Phillips 66 EIRs, authored by Environmental Science Associates, for both their Santa Maria Refinery and Rodeo Refinery. Karras and Fox have established that the separate projects are inherently interrelated and interdependent and they each have done a cumulative analysis for these collective Phillips 66’s projects.
Large amounts of partially refined diluted Tar Sands bitumen, i.e. DilBit, will be sent by a 200-mile pipeline to the Rodeo refinery, that is undergoing the Propane Recovery Project. The Santa Maria Refinery is planning two projects, the Rail Spur Extension (CBR) Project and the Throughput Increase Project.
The Rodeo Refinery will finish off the refining of the heavy gas oils sent from Santa Maria in order to create high valued products such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Aggressive refining of bitumen produces large amounts of propane. DilBit dilutent has a large amount of lightweight hydrocarbons, like propane, as well as butane and pentane, which together are over 7% by weight of DilBit and a much larger percentage by volume.
============================================================
1) Executive Summary; Phillips SMR Rail Project Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report RDEIR. October 2014 ES-5.
2) Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project RDEIR – SCH# 2012072046 and Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery Company Rail Spur Extension Project (RDEIR) – SCH# 2013071028
The Santa Maria and Rodeo EIRs were illegally piecemealed and in their EIRs Phillips tried to obfuscate the real source of the crude, that will be DilBit, like the EIR’s authors imagining a crude influx for some other domestic sources that have dwindle markedly in recent years and decades, like California inland and offshore crudes. Alaska crude has also dwindled in recent decades since its peak, when it was a primary source in-state refinery crude feedstock. These types of domestic crudes are not a practical option in the Santa Maria crude-by-rail expansion project,
The Santa Maria rail spur extension project declares that their will absolutely be no Bakken crude delivered, i.e. that Bakken was explicitly “excluded”, so the only other practical option for delivery by rail is also the most likely rail delivery, being DilBit from Alberta, Canada. To accommodate the fact that DilBit weights much more per barrel and per railroad per tank car than traditional crudes, the RDEIR states that there will be 13 percent less crude within each tanker due to weight limits. The RDER also states that there will be heaters available, that would only be the case should the heavy bitumen in the DilBit separate from the diluent during transportation.
CBE noted that the proposed 10 percent increased processing capacity of the Santa Maria Refinery would indicate real total capacity of about 1 train per day or 344 trains/year, while Phillips’ “RDEIR provides no data supporting its “expected” maximum of 250 trains/year”.
The 200-mile pipeline goes directly into the Rodeo Refinery’s coker, which processes the heaviest portions of crude and heavy gas oils. The coker produces a solid, heavy-metal-laden toxic byproduct, called petroleum coke or PetCoke, that is exported to China and India to burn in place of coal in order to make electricity. High-temperature coking and high-pressure hydro-cracking of the heaviest oils in Rodeo will make a lot of propane and butane, that are sold as Liquified Petrolem Gas or LPG.
The excessive yield of propane recovered will be both from that portion of propane produced by refining extra-heavy DilBit and also by the accumulation of propane-laden DilBit diluent. The Rodeo Refinery currently uses propane and butane to operate their refinery. Phillip’s plan is to convert the refinery to operating with a large increase in piped-in natural gas, purchased from PG&E.
Phillips has signed a multi-year $850 million dollar contract with the Chinese company, SinoPec, for exporting LPG to China, that would lock Phillips 66 into refining the heaviest crudes. The excess propane generated under this DilBit refining scenario might indicate that the propane must be removed, lest the refinery blow up due to unbalanced thermodynamics. – Charles Davidson. Dec. 2014
Please read my submitted brief critique of the Phillips 66 EIRs for the “piece-mealed” Rodeo and Santa Maria combined Tar Sands project. The comment is based on my reading of the recirculated draft EIRs for both the Phillips 66 Rodeo Refinery’s Propane Recovery Project and the Santa Maria Refinery’s interrelated Rail Spur Expansion Project and Throughput expansion Projects.
My short comment letter, with slight variation, was sent to both (the Contra Costa and San Lois Obispo) County Planning Commissions and was also based on the great detailed analysis of both Greg Karras (of Communities for a Better Environment) and Dr. Phyllis Fox (of Shute, Mahely and Weinberg). I tried to make my 2-page letter (below) as short and non-technical as possible.
The analysis was made easier in the recirculated EIR compared to the draft EIR, because they finally stated outright that the crude by rail would absolutely not be the highly volatile Bakken North Dakota light shale oil, leaving Canadian Tar Sands bitumen (extra heavy crude) as the only possibility.
Tar Sands and Bakken crude are both land-locked and can only get to CA by rail or barge from up north, but the key P66 project in Santa Maria is a Tar Sands rail expansion project.
The reason that Canadian Tar Sands ends up in Rodeo, is that CA crude from down south would not arrive in 100 car trains and the crude that is pre-processed in Santa Maria goes directly, via their 200-mile pipeline, into P66’s Rodeo coker unit, that only processes heavy crude.
Note: The Tar Sands bitumen is so dense and heavy that it must be diluted with 30% light weight petroleum solvents to liquify it and it is then called DilBit.
Per Greg Karras: DilBit takes 2-3 times the energy to refine as typical or traditional crude, it has unusually high amounts of heavy metals (like nickel and vanadium), it produces more Petroleum Coke (PetCoke) and coking it violently (at 900 degrees Fehrenheit) for a day or so produces lots more propane than would the refining go traditional crude oil, hence part of the reason for the propane recovery project to recover the extra propane. P66 has a nearly one billion dollar contract deal with the Chinese company SinoPec for propane delivery ($850 million).
P66 in Rodeo, at least according to a recent EPA document, is the most polluting refinery in California. The brief, unreferenced document did not break down particular pollutants or whether the pollutants are airborne or water born.
Not stated in my EIR comment letter: It should be noted that P66 in Rodeo has a “Nelson Complexity Index” of 13.6, one of the highest in the world and the highest in the U.S., indicating that the refinery is unusually complex and capable of refining the heaviest crude in order to produce the highest valued products, such as gasoline.
SUBMITTED EIR COMMENT:
Phillips 66 Rodeo and Santa Maria Refineries Expansion of Combined Production Capacity, Tar Sands Refining Capability and Propane Production
The first major problem with Phillips 66’s Santa Maria Railroad Spur Extension Project Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR; 1), is that it is a piecemealed project since the Santa Maria Refinery is connected by a 200-mile pipeline to the San Francisco Refinery in Rodeo. In turn, the Rodeo Refinery accepts heavy gas oil derived from semi-refined Santa Maria heavy crude feedstock and then completes the refining processes in order to make higher-valued products, such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Concurrently, a Rodeo Refinery RDEIR is proposing the Propane Recovery Project (1). Multi-project EIR piecemealing is illegal in California under CEQA.
A second major problem with Phillips 66’s Santa Maria Refinery Railroad Spur Extension Project RDEIR is that it fails to disclose the fact that the refineries’ most likely source of crude oil would be a type of high-sulfur, extra heavy crude oil derived from Canadian Tar Sands, called bitumen. Specifically, Phillips’ RDEIR states that light, low-sulfur “sweet” Bakken North Dakota crude oil would be an “excluded” type of refinery feedstock carried by rail into Santa Maria, leaving Tar Sands bitumen as the only other “crude-by-rail” available in large enough amounts. (2) The combined Santa Maria-Rodeo Refinery Projects’ dependence on energy-intensive bitumen refining would make them, cumulatively, high greenhouse gas-producing projects that are capable of emitting increased amounts of toxic pollutants and a large excess of highly flammable propane. – Charles Davidson. Dec. 2014
============================================================
Greg Karras from Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) and Refinery Engineer Phillis Fox, from Shute, Mahaley and Weinberger, have critiqued these disparate Phillips 66 EIRs, authored by Environmental Science Associates, for both their Santa Maria Refinery and Rodeo Refinery. Karras and Fox have established that the separate projects are inherently interrelated and interdependent and they each have done a cumulative analysis for these collective Phillips 66’s projects.
Large amounts of partially refined diluted Tar Sands bitumen, i.e. DilBit, will be sent by a 200-mile pipeline to the Rodeo refinery, that is undergoing the Propane Recovery Project. The Santa Maria Refinery is planning two projects, the Rail Spur Extension (CBR) Project and the Throughput Increase Project.
The Rodeo Refinery will finish off the refining of the heavy gas oils sent from Santa Maria in order to create high valued products such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Aggressive refining of bitumen produces large amounts of propane. DilBit dilutent has a large amount of lightweight hydrocarbons, like propane, as well as butane and pentane, which together are over 7% by weight of DilBit and a much larger percentage by volume.
============================================================
1) Executive Summary; Phillips SMR Rail Project Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report RDEIR. October 2014 ES-5.
2) Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project RDEIR – SCH# 2012072046 and Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery Company Rail Spur Extension Project (RDEIR) – SCH# 2013071028
The Santa Maria and Rodeo EIRs were illegally piecemealed and in their EIRs Phillips tried to obfuscate the real source of the crude, that will be DilBit, like the EIR’s authors imagining a crude influx for some other domestic sources that have dwindle markedly in recent years and decades, like California inland and offshore crudes. Alaska crude has also dwindled in recent decades since its peak, when it was a primary source in-state refinery crude feedstock. These types of domestic crudes are not a practical option in the Santa Maria crude-by-rail expansion project,
The Santa Maria rail spur extension project declares that their will absolutely be no Bakken crude delivered, i.e. that Bakken was explicitly “excluded”, so the only other practical option for delivery by rail is also the most likely rail delivery, being DilBit from Alberta, Canada. To accommodate the fact that DilBit weights much more per barrel and per railroad per tank car than traditional crudes, the RDEIR states that there will be 13 percent less crude within each tanker due to weight limits. The RDER also states that there will be heaters available, that would only be the case should the heavy bitumen in the DilBit separate from the diluent during transportation.
CBE noted that the proposed 10 percent increased processing capacity of the Santa Maria Refinery would indicate real total capacity of about 1 train per day or 344 trains/year, while Phillips’ “RDEIR provides no data supporting its “expected” maximum of 250 trains/year”.
The 200-mile pipeline goes directly into the Rodeo Refinery’s coker, which processes the heaviest portions of crude and heavy gas oils. The coker produces a solid, heavy-metal-laden toxic byproduct, called petroleum coke or PetCoke, that is exported to China and India to burn in place of coal in order to make electricity. High-temperature coking and high-pressure hydro-cracking of the heaviest oils in Rodeo will make a lot of propane and butane, that are sold as Liquified Petrolem Gas or LPG.
The excessive yield of propane recovered will be both from that portion of propane produced by refining extra-heavy DilBit and also by the accumulation of propane-laden DilBit diluent. The Rodeo Refinery currently uses propane and butane to operate their refinery. Phillip’s plan is to convert the refinery to operating with a large increase in piped-in natural gas, purchased from PG&E.
Phillips has signed a multi-year $850 million dollar contract with the Chinese company, SinoPec, for exporting LPG to China, that would lock Phillips 66 into refining the heaviest crudes. The excess propane generated under this DilBit refining scenario might indicate that the propane must be removed, lest the refinery blow up due to unbalanced thermodynamics. – Charles Davidson. Dec. 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)