Toxic hotspot law requires Wilmington refinery to notify residents of potential cancer risk

Poster boards of facility risk assessment were displayed for public to read.
(Photo by Anabell Romero)

Air pollution agency South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) hosted a public meeting Thursday night along with Phillips 66 refinery to inform residents of a state air pollution regulation law that was violated by the Wilmington refinery.

The meeting room at Banning’s Landing was filled with community residents, environmentalist, AQMD officials and refinery workers.

The purpose of the meeting was to provide details on the possible health risk, which state law known as Assembly Bill 2588 (AB2588), requires that facilities notify nearby residents of potential effects caused by toxic air pollutants released in the air. The goal of the toxic hot spot law is to collect facility’s emissions data, identify localized impacts to determine health risks and to inform the public of such findings.

Based on the facility’s emissions and calculated risk, people living in the area would have their chances of getting cancer increased by a maximum of 23.2 chances in a million.  People who work in the area of impact would have their chances of getting cancer increased by a maximum of 6.6 chances in a million over a 46-year lifetime, according to the summary health risk noted on the public notice. 

The AB2588 law demands that notification to the public is made when facilities that emit air pollution cause a cancer risk or other health threats above certain levels, which Phillips 66 exceeded. In this case refinery officials said they mailed out two notices in English and Spanish informing residents of the public meeting.

“This is taken extremely seriously,” said refinery manager Chris Chandler. “We work very hard to get zero penalties.”

This is a facility risk map determining what parts of the neighborhood are
mostly impacted by air pollutants released by Phillips 66. 

Both AQMD and refinery officials gave a presentation on a risk assessment explaining the dangers of being exposed to emissions such as higher cancer risk, which they presented being a result of these three main compounds; diesel particulate, 1,3-butadiene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Environmental activist expressed discontent with the assessment and demanded that a better evaluation be made to determine how many cases of cancer and other related illnesses already exist amongst Wilmington and nearby neighborhoods.

“We the public had to get assemblyman and other senators to vote and approve AB2588, every refinery was against 2588, not one supported it when it went before assembly committees,” said long-time environmental activist, Jesse Marquez.

Despite public comments scheduled to the end of the meeting, many concerned residents could not help but interrupt the presenter to ask pressing questions of their findings.

“I think it’s up to us, the community, to make sure that there is a fair study and that there is no bias,” said 39-year-old Wilmington resident Arturo Gonzalez. “I think their needs to be a neutral party.”

A map was shown to illustrate the homes mostly impacted by the refinery, which includes a large part of Wilmington.

Refinery officials also took the time to briefly comment on the September 15 incident where black smoke hovered above local neighborhoods as a result of burn-off caused by a power outage, which required the refinery to shut down for a few hours.

Until this day many residents remain unclear of the incident and are oblivious on whether it had any direct health impacts on the community.

Although attendees were appreciative of officials hosting the public meeting many residents continue to be concerned of how properly the refineries are being ran and whether AQMD is doing enough to ensure that not only Phillips 66 is being monitored but also other industry in Wilmington.

Resident Angela Ingalls shared her thoughts on the meeting, watch here:

Air Quality Agency Presented a Rule to Discover What Chemicals are Used in Oil Production

Oil being pumped out on L Street and
Avalon Boulevard near homes, businesses and a
school across the street. (Photo by Anabell Romero)

Long awaited measures to control the types of chemicals used in an oil drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing were presented yesterday by the government agency, South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD).

Concerned Wilmington residents ranging from environmental activist, seniors, high school students and overall frustrated community members expressed discontent with the agency's delay in evaluating environmental and health impacts these practices have had on the neighborhood.

“This rule goes further than what any other agency is doing,” said Susan Nakamura, planning and rules manager at AQMD.

The proposed rule 1148.2 would require prior notification and reporting of chemicals used when hydraulic fracturing is conducted.  This would help determine if existing AQMD regulations adequately cover oil and gas production activities when conducting hydraulic fracturing, also commonly referred to as fracking. 

Officials of the air quality agency said when their governing board adopts this rule, reporting of these potentially dangerous chemicals used in fracking will begin 90 days after date of approval. The members of their governing board consist of supervisors and council members of Los Angeles County, Riverside County, Orange County, South Pasadena, Rolling Hill Estates and other regions.

The time frame AQMD proposed was of two years to determine what and if any chemicals in oil related production are polluting the air and affecting the health of thousands of residents.

Alicia Rivera, environmental activist and 
community organizer, addressing her concerns 
to the AQMD panel. 
(Photo by Anabell Romero)

“A two-year period is too long, it should be shorter,” said Alicia Rivera, environmental activist and community organizer from Communities for a Better Environment. “An environmental impact report should be conducted before, if not this allows expansion and drilling operations…damage has already been done for years.”

The agency responded by stating that this first step is required to move forward and that perhaps it takes less than two years.

A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on risk of fracking in cities like New York found that it, “generates massive amounts of polluted wastewater that threaten the health of our drinking water supplies, rivers, streams, and groundwater.”

The report also states that, “the rapid expansion of natural gas drilling across the nation endangers human health and the environment.”

Wilmington resident and neighborhood council member, Sylvia Arredondo, asked the agency if when this process was completed how they were going to hold these companies accountable for possibly endangering the health of thousands in the community.

She suggested fining them and proposed that these companies take care of cost associated with medication for illnesses caused or aggravated by air pollution like asthma and cancer.

“We can’t negotiate way more than my agency will allow me to say,” said Nakamura.

Since the PowerPoint presentation addressed by AQMD took less than 30 minutes attendees at the meeting were given more than an hour to speak their concerns and share personal experiences of how unregulated practices by industry in Wilmington has directly impacted their lives.

“People continue dying daily,” said Maria Ramos, an elderly resident who spoke Spanish with her soft and emotional tone. “If we were rich and comfortable we wouldn’t be living here, but this is a poor community.”

Throughout the meeting residents continuously thanked AQMD for coming to Wilmington and for their efforts in adopting new rules to better control polluters in the neighborhood.

“This room should be filled,” said 39-year-old resident Arturo Gonzalez. “Rise up people!”

The agency said they were committed to creating better outreach strategies to ensure that more residents are informed of these public meetings.

Residents proposed AQMD return in six months to provide an update of this rule. Nakamura said she would address everyone’s concerns to her governing board and maybe host another meeting in six to nine months.

Click here to see an interactive graphic that simplifies what fracking is. To report complaints of air polluters in Wilmington call 1-800-CUT-SMOG (1-800-288-7664) 

(A Wilmington youth speaks out during a public meeting hosted by South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and shares her experience of how pollution in her neighborhood has dramatically impacted her.)

Residents Voice Their Concerns at Wilmington Town Hall Meeting

Councilman Joe Buscaino speaking at town
hall meeting in Wilmington February 13.
(Photo by Anabell Romero)

A small but engaged group of residents attended last night’s town hall meeting with Councilman Joe Buscaino at Banning High School’s auditorium. He spoke of his accomplishments during his first year in office and shared a 10 minute video detailing all his work for the 15th district in Los Angeles, which includes Harbor City, Harbor Gateway, San Pedro, Watts and Wilmington.

Because there was such low attendance almost every attendee was given an opportunity to voice their concerns about ongoing problems in the neighborhood like, crime, violence, overwhelming amount of liquor stores in comparison to resourceful centers, poor air quality and illegal dumping.

Community leaders like Salvador Lara who has mobilized hundreds of residents in an effort to clean-up Wilmington spoke out against illegal dumping in the neighborhood and demanded these people get fined as well as more oversight from law enforcement and residents.

Salvador Lara that people get fined for illegal
dumping in Wilmington.
(Photo by Anabell Romero)

Members of the environmental activism group Clean Up Green Up, pleaded for Buscaino’s support to make LA communities healthier through the establishment of green zones in Wilmington. On the spot Buscaino said he supported the initiative.

When a youth got up and asked for Buscaino to support their group Youth Action and the California Youth Bill of Rights, Buscaino said, “anything to mobilize our youth and I’m with you!”

Buscaino made references to when he was a police officer and patrolled areas like downtown LA when it was a hotspot for crime and now has been transformed into L.A. Live, the entertainment complex that has helped revitalize the city.

“We want the same economic development here,” said Buscaino.

He did acknowledge that more work needs to be done to make Wilmington a safer and healthier community and he committed to doing so if re-elected during the LA city elections March 5, where angelenos will also elect a new city mayor.  

He emphasized on creating more jobs, local economic development and making neighborhoods safer.  

Here's a video highlighting some of Buscaino's accomplishments during his first year in office.

Deportation Relief for Undocumented Young People

As the immigration debate continues in Washington D.C., after a bipartisan group of 8 senators issued an immigration reform plan last week, the President released his plan soon there after, and the House of Representatives hearings began this week a national debate about what is at stake for our communities is ongoing. In the mean time, there is a program set in place that provides temporary deportation relief for many undocumented young people named, "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" (DACA).

In August of 2012, the Department of Homeland Security started accepting applications for DACA, which prevents the deportation of DREAM act eligible immigrants under the age of 31 (more details here).  DACA provides up to 2 years of temporary relief from deportation and eligible individuals are able to apply for a work permit during the period of deferred action. Eligibility for this program is determined on a case by case basis and for more information you can check out the National Immigration and Law Center because they list all of the eligibility criteria here. 

If you or someone you know is an undocumented young person who was born on or after June 16, 1981 and arrived in the US before the age of 16 find out if they qualify for this program.  If you need more information and would like to receive assistance the Long BeachImmigration Rights Coalition is hosting information sessions at the Long Beach Gay & Lesbian Center.  These information sessions start today (Wednesday, February 6th) and tomorrow (Thursday, February 7th) from 1 PM to 5:30 PM and welcome everyone! The details of the event are below in both English and Spanish:

Have you attended an informational forum on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and would like some help putting your application together? Are you having second thoughts about your supporting documents? Would you like an attorney to look over your application before you send it? If so, then join us! We will have trained DACA application screeners and those that attend will have the opportunity to schedule an appointment with a qualified immigration attorney. 

Wednesday Feb. 6 2012; 1:00-5:30PM
Thursday Feb. 7 2012; 1:00-5:30PMEmail: lbimmigrantrights@gmail.com Call (562) 204-6333
The Center of Long Beach2017 E. 4th St. Long Beach, CAPlease RSVP at: www.lbirc.org/daca (Book your appointment today!)

~~~~~~~~~~Spanish~~~~~~~~~~~~
¿Ha asistido a un evento informativo sobre el programa de Acción Diferida (DACA) y le gustaría recibir ayuda con su aplicación? ¿Tiene dudas sobre sus documentos suplementarios? ¿Le gustaría que un abogado revise su aplicación antes de que la entregue? ¿O tiene más preguntas sobre el programa? Entonces acompáñenos! Tendremos voluntarios entrenados que le podrán contestar sus preguntas y también tendrá la oportunidad de hacer una cita individual con un abogado de inmigración GRATIS! 
Miércoles Febrero 6 2012; 1:00-5:30PMJueves Febrero 7 2012; 1:00-5:30PMEmail: lbimmigrantrights@gmail.comTeléfono (562) 204-6333
The Center of Long Beach2017 E. 4th St. Long Beach, CACitas: www.lbirc.org/daca (Haga su cita HOY!)


Here is the event on facebook: DACA Workshop Information

California Department of Public Health Issues Penalty to Kaiser

Kaiser Permanente registered nurse Esther Sagun joins fellow nurses and healthcare professionals in protesting recent staff reductions outside Kaiser Permanente South Bay Medical Center in Harbor City December 11. (Photo and caption originally published on Los Angeles Times Blog L.A. Now)

                     This month has been a rough one for Kaiser Permanente South Bay Medical Center in Harbor City where nurses and healthcare professionals protested earlier this month for recent staff reductions, reported the Los Angeles Times. Now the hospital is under fire again. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued 12 penalties today to California hospitals along with fines totaling $785,000 after investigations found the facilities’ noncompliance with licensing requirements caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury or death to patients.

       Harbor City’s Kaiser failed to ensure the health and safety of a patient when it did not follow established policies and procedures for safe distribution and administration of medication. The penalty is $50,000. This is the hospital’s first administrative penalty.

The following hospitals also received penalties:

1.      Kaiser Foundation Hospital - Oakland/ Richmond, Oakland, Alameda County: The hospital failed to ensure the health and safety of a patient when it did not follow manufacturer’s instructions for the use of a particular medical device. The penalty is $100,000. This is the hospital’s third administrative penalty.

2.      Kaiser Foundation Hospital - San Diego, San Diego, San Diego County: The hospital failed to ensure the health and safety of a patient when it did not follow established surgical policies and procedures. The penalty is $75,000. This is the hospital’s second administrative penalty.

3.      Kaiser Foundation Hospital - San Rafael, San Rafael, Marin County: The hospital failed to ensure the health and safety of a patient when it did not follow surgical policies and procedures. The penalty is $50,000. This is the hospital’s first administrative penalty.

4.      Kaweah Delta Medical Center, Visalia, Tulare County: The hospital failed to ensure the health and safety of a patient when it did not follow established maternity care policies and procedures. The penalty is $50,000. This is the hospital’s first administrative penalty.

5.      Kaweah Delta Medical Center, Visalia, Tulare County: The hospital failed to ensure the health and safety of a patient when it did not follow established policies and procedures related to patient assessment. The penalty is $75,000. This is the hospital’s second administrative penalty.

6.      Methodist Hospital of Southern California, Arcadia, Los Angeles County: The hospital failed to ensure the health and safety of a patient when it did not follow surgical policies and procedures. This resulted in a patient having to undergo a second surgery to remove a retained foreign object. The penalty is $50,000. This is the hospital’s first administrative penalty.

7.      Mission Hospital Regional Medical Center, Mission Viejo, Orange County: The hospital failed to ensure the health and safety of a patient when it did not follow surgical policies and procedures. This resulted in a patient having to undergo a second surgery to remove a retained foreign object. The penalty is $100,000. This is the hospital’s fifth administrative penalty.

8.      Mission Hospital Regional Medical Center, Mission Viejo, Orange County: The hospital failed to ensure the health and safety of a patient when it did not follow surgical policies and procedures. This resulted in the patient undergoing a second surgery. The penalty is $100,000. This is the hospital’s sixth administrative penalty.

9.      Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, Fountain Valley, Orange County: The hospital failed to ensure the health and safety of a patient when it did not follow surgical policies and procedures. This resulted in a patient having to undergo a second surgery to remove a retained foreign object.  The penalty is $50,000. This is the hospital’s first administrative penalty.

10.     Sutter Coast Hospital, Crescent City, Del Norte County: The hospital failed to ensure the health and safety of a patient when it did not develop, maintain and implement a fire prevention policy and procedure. The penalty is $10,000. This is the hospital’s first administrative penalty.

11.     UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco, San Francisco County: The hospital failed to ensure the health and safety of a patient when it did not follow established policies and procedures for safe distribution and administration of medication. The penalty is $75,000.  This is the hospital’s sixth administrative penalty.

           Administrative penalties are issued under authority granted by Health and Safety Code section 1280.1. Incidents that occurred prior to 2009 carry a fine of $25,000. New legislation took effect January 1, 2009, that increased fines for incidents that occurred in 2009 or later. Under the new provisions, an administrative penalty carries a fine of $50,000 for the first violation, $75,000 for the second, and $100,000 for the third or subsequent violation by the licensee. Incidents that occurred prior to 2009 are not counted when determining the fine amounts. CDPH also has the authority to reduce the amount of a penalty issued to a rural hospital.

           When hospitals receive their survey findings, they are required to provide CDPH with a plan of correction to prevent future incidents. Hospitals can appeal an administrative penalty by requesting a hearing within ten calendar days of notification. If a hearing is requested and the penalty upheld following an appeal, the penalties must be paid.

All hospitals in California are required to be in compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations governing general acute care hospitals, acute psychiatric hospitals, and special hospitals. The hospitals are required to comply with these standards to ensure quality of care.

Information provided by a CDPH press release.

Nuclear Plant Possibly Restarting Despite Needing Repairs

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons)

A nuclear plant about 50 miles away from Wilmington residents is gambling with the safety of millions of lives by proposing to restart despite it needing $317 million in repairs.

The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is a nuclear power plant located on the Pacific coast of California near San Clemente.

The plant was shut down in January after discovering a small radioactive steam leak at one of its two reactors that indicated accelerated degradation of tubes in the plant's new steam generators, reported Reuters.

Last month the owner submitted an experimental plan to restart one of its reactors, Unit 2. The leak occurred in the Unit 3 reactor, which is closed indefinitely.

Edison has topped $317 million in repairs and their efforts to restart the reactor faces opposition from environmental groups and community members who say the plan could endanger eight million nearby residents.

Community members and environmentalist are demanding a public hearing and the Los Angeles City Council has until this Friday to act before the year is through to urge a resolution.

“Edison is pushing hard to get Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval for what amounts to a reckless experiment with the lives and livelihoods of the 8.4 million people who live within 50 miles of San Onofre,” said Damon Moglen, energy and climate director for Friends of the Earth.

“This critical matter should not be considered in another informal meeting, in which the audience is silenced and removed from the real process despite their demands for independent public input and oversight,” he said in a press release. 

Environmentalist are demanding this matter be considered in NRC proceedings to examine the dangers this can pose to many families.

In the event of a massive accident or a natural disaster that harshly impacts the reactors at this plant a big population of Los Angeles would be put at risk. Parts of L.A. are within the 50 mile radius that NRC recommended be the evacuation zone after Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power during last year’s tsunami. 

When Japan was hit by the deadly tsunami farms up to 90 miles away from the Fukushima plant were tainted with dangerous levels of radioactivity.

A massive nuclear accident in Southern California can cause long-term radiation in contamination well beyond the 50-mile radius as proven in Japan.

Wilmington residents along with other L.A. community members are asked to contact their councilman or councilwoman and President Wesson with their support for the Koretz/Rosendahl resolution on San Onofre safety. To contact Councilman Joe Buscaino who represents L.A.'s 15th council district click here to voice your concerns.