Last month a bill that would define oil refinery
maintenance as public works passed the California state Assembly.
This means California taxpayer money could potentially be used for needed repairs at oil refineries if it passes the state
senate.
“Refineries don’t need anymore subsidies from the
public coffers,” said Alicia Rivera, organizer for Communities for a Better Environment. “If we
do not kill this bill in the senate, the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases
will get rewarded with public funds.”
The purpose of the bill is to reduce greenhouse
emissions but environmentalists fear that oil refineries will get waived from
paying their own repairs in addition to the high revenues they profit from
annually.
AB26 can also possibly jeopardize jobs from permanent refinery workers
and give them to temporary contract workers, said Rivera.
Assemblywoman Susan A.
Bonilla sponsored AB26, which will be introduced to the Environmental
Quality Committee this Wednesday. Various Senators sit on this committee
including Senator Ron Calderon from
Montebello.
Environmentalists are asking California residents
to contact legislators to oppose AB26 by faxing this letter to committee members.
Senate Majority Leader Ellen M. Corbett --916-327-2433
Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg -- 916-323-2263
Environment Committee Chair Senator Jerry Hill -- 916-324-0283
Environment Committee member Senator Fran Pavley-- 916-324-4823
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:
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.)
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.
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 LawCenter
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 BeachGay & LesbianCenter.
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!)
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)
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
carepolicies 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.
