By Richard Brenneman
Thursday June 11, 2009
Chevron’s environmental study of a proposed expansion of their Richmond refinery received a fatal blow Friday at the hands of a Martinez judge.
Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga struck down the environmental impact report (EIR), declaring that the document’s “project description is unclear and inconsistent as to whether (the) project will enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing.”
The court also struck down a decision by the city to allow Chevron to wait a year after the EIR was completed to prepare a plan to mitigate the refinery’s globe-warming greenhouse gas emissions.
Judge Zuniga ruled that Chevron had failed to meet a fundamental requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). “An accurate, stable and finite project description is sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR,” she wrote.
Crucially, the judge ruled, the EIR “is unclear and inconsistent as to whether the project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing.”
Heavier oils can produce larger emissions of greenhouse gases than the lighter “sweet” crudes, and the oil company did acknowledge the refinery might be processing oils with a higher sulfur content.
The city was at fault, Judge Zuniga ruled, by failing to state how the refinery would meet the city’s goal of requiring no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and “by simply requiring Chevron to prepare a mitigation plan and submit it to city staff up to a year after approval of the conditional use permit” allowing construction to begin.
The city also erred in allowing Chevron to “piece-meal” its project, the judge declared. That term refers to a process in which developers attempt to minimize the impacts of a large project by seeking environmental approval in stages, rather than as a whole.
The piece-mealing fault found in the Chevron EIR was its failure to include a hydrogen pipeline planned as part of a hydrogen generation facility planned as part of the expansion.
Will Rostov, an Oakland attorney for Earthjustice, one of the four plaintiff organizations in the lawsuit, said that as a result of Judge Zuniga’s decision—and absent a reversal by an appellate court—Chevron and the city will be forced to redraft the EIR in accordance with the ruling.
“Chevron is disappointed with the court decision regarding the adequacy of the environmental review conducted by the City of Richmond related to the Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project,” said corporate spokesperson Brent Tippen.
“Chevron believes that the Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project was properly permitted and that the benefits of the project are identified in the thorough environmental review conducted by the City of Richmond staff and the city’s environmental consultants,” he said. “We will be reviewing the specifics of the court’s decision and will then be determining a course of action in cooperation with the City of Richmond.”
Other plaintiffs included Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE), the Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN) and the West County Toxics Coalition.
“This is a great victory for environmental justice,” said Dr. Henry Clark of the West County Toxics Coalition. “It proves that not all judges are in the pockets of Chevron and other corporations.”
Jessica Tovar of CBE said her organization had filed suit because “the people were demanding the truth from Chevron and the city. We’ve been going through this process for three years now.”
One of CBE’s major concerns was the hydrogen pipeline, which would carry the highly flammable gas to the ConocoPhillips refinery in Rodeo and Shell’s Martinez refinery, where, she said, it could be used to help those installations refine their own heavy crude oils.
Tovar said the proposed expansion was “designed to retool the refinery so it could process the heavier crude, and several scientists submitted data supporting our claim,” including one hired by state Attorney General Jerry Brown.
Torm Nompraseurt of APEN said his organization was concerned “that the city had conducted a process that was not very protective of the population.” Praising the judge’s decision, he said, “I think it’s time for Chevron to find a way to help make a greener and cleaner community.”
Nompraseurt also said that despite inconsistent reports to the community, Chevron had told its shareholders that the company did plan to refine heavy crude after the improvements.
Rostov said the next step in the legal process is preparation of a final order, which should occur within the next week or so.
One major question remaining is whether work on the project already under way will have to cease while the new EIR is prepared, or even whether work already completed will have to be removed.
Another CEQA suit against the refinery is also underway, this one involving a challenge to the state’s renewal in January of a 30-year lease for the refinery’s long pier.
That action was filed in March by Oakland attorney Stephan Volker on behalf of the Trails for Richmond Action Committee and Citizens for East Shore Parks.
Chevron is Richmond’s largest employer, and Richmond voters indicated last November that they felt the city should be contributing more to the community when they passed Measure T, a new business license fee structure which mandates that the refinery pay on the basis of the value of crude oil processed.
The company financed a campaign opposing the measure, but the measure passed and two members of the three-person progressive slate who backed it were elected to the City Council, replacing two Chevron supporters.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Judge deals setback to Chevron refinery plan - SF Chronicle June 9, 2009
Chevron Corp.'s long-planned, highly contentious project to revamp its Richmond oil refinery has been thrown into doubt, with company executives and local officials unsure what will happen after a recent court ruling.
Judge Barbara Zuniga of the Contra Costa County Superior Court has thrown out a key environmental report on the project, siding with activists who sued to stop the project after the Richmond City Council narrowly approved it last year.
In her brief ruling, Zuniga said the report was too vague on a key question: whether the project will allow the 107-year-old refinery to process heavier grades of crude oil than it currently does. The report, she said, also did not analyze a significant piece of the project - new hydrogen pipelines.
Finally, Zuniga criticized the city for giving Chevron a needed permit before the company submitted a plan for limiting greenhouse gases after the upgrade.
The judge's ruling did not, however, say whether work on the project must stop. After winning the City Council's approval in July, Chevron started the renovations in September.
The project has long been the subject of protests and heated debate. Environmentalists and community activists call it a major expansion of a refinery that already sickens Richmond residents.
Chevron representatives call the project an upgrade, one that will modernize the aging plant. The refinery, one of California's largest, will process the same amount of oil after the renovations are finished, said company spokesman Sean Comey. But the changes will allow Chevron to make more gasoline from that oil, increasing gasoline production by roughly 7 percent.
Environmentalists who have fought the project for years want work halted immediately.
"My understanding is they're supposed to stop and dismantle any construction built so far," said Jessica Tovar, a community organizer for Communities for a Better Environment. The organization was one of four groups that sued to stop the project.
A Chevron spokesman, however, said the San Ramon company is still studying the ruling and isn't certain that construction must stop. And Richmond's city attorney said the city is awaiting clarification from the judge.
"I presume there will be a further order from the court that addresses that issue," City Attorney Randy Riddle said.
Critics say the project will allow Chevron to process heavier grades of crude oil, containing higher levels of toxins such as mercury, that could increase air pollution.
Chevron insists that the refinery will still use the same types of crude oil that it does now. Once the four-year upgrade is finished, however, the refinery will be able to process larger amounts of the heavier grades of crude already used there, Comey said.
But that distinction wasn't clear in the project's environmental report, Zuniga wrote in her decision released Friday. The report "is unclear and inconsistent as to whether (the) project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing," she wrote. As a result, the report does not adequately assess the project's effects on the environment and "fails as an informational document," she wrote.
At a glance
What happened: A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge threw out a key environmental report on Chevron's project to revamp its Richmond oil refinery.
What it means: The decision throws the project into doubt. Opponents say must Chevron stop and dismantle any construction built so far. The company says it isn't sure construction must stop.
What's next: Richmond's city attorney expects a clarification from the judge.
E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com.
Judge Barbara Zuniga of the Contra Costa County Superior Court has thrown out a key environmental report on the project, siding with activists who sued to stop the project after the Richmond City Council narrowly approved it last year.
In her brief ruling, Zuniga said the report was too vague on a key question: whether the project will allow the 107-year-old refinery to process heavier grades of crude oil than it currently does. The report, she said, also did not analyze a significant piece of the project - new hydrogen pipelines.
Finally, Zuniga criticized the city for giving Chevron a needed permit before the company submitted a plan for limiting greenhouse gases after the upgrade.
The judge's ruling did not, however, say whether work on the project must stop. After winning the City Council's approval in July, Chevron started the renovations in September.
The project has long been the subject of protests and heated debate. Environmentalists and community activists call it a major expansion of a refinery that already sickens Richmond residents.
Chevron representatives call the project an upgrade, one that will modernize the aging plant. The refinery, one of California's largest, will process the same amount of oil after the renovations are finished, said company spokesman Sean Comey. But the changes will allow Chevron to make more gasoline from that oil, increasing gasoline production by roughly 7 percent.
Environmentalists who have fought the project for years want work halted immediately.
"My understanding is they're supposed to stop and dismantle any construction built so far," said Jessica Tovar, a community organizer for Communities for a Better Environment. The organization was one of four groups that sued to stop the project.
A Chevron spokesman, however, said the San Ramon company is still studying the ruling and isn't certain that construction must stop. And Richmond's city attorney said the city is awaiting clarification from the judge.
"I presume there will be a further order from the court that addresses that issue," City Attorney Randy Riddle said.
Critics say the project will allow Chevron to process heavier grades of crude oil, containing higher levels of toxins such as mercury, that could increase air pollution.
Chevron insists that the refinery will still use the same types of crude oil that it does now. Once the four-year upgrade is finished, however, the refinery will be able to process larger amounts of the heavier grades of crude already used there, Comey said.
But that distinction wasn't clear in the project's environmental report, Zuniga wrote in her decision released Friday. The report "is unclear and inconsistent as to whether (the) project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing," she wrote. As a result, the report does not adequately assess the project's effects on the environment and "fails as an informational document," she wrote.
At a glance
What happened: A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge threw out a key environmental report on Chevron's project to revamp its Richmond oil refinery.
What it means: The decision throws the project into doubt. Opponents say must Chevron stop and dismantle any construction built so far. The company says it isn't sure construction must stop.
What's next: Richmond's city attorney expects a clarification from the judge.
E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com.
Chevron Richmond Refinery Expansion Halted - East Bay Express June 9, 2009
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/blogs/chevron_richmond_refinery_expansion_halted/Content?oid=1000181
A Contra Costa County judge has thrown out the environmental impact report for the massive Chevron Richmond oil refinery expansion, according to the Chron. Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga sided with activists and environmentalists who sued to stop the controversial project, ruling that the EIR was too vague on whether Chevron would be allowed to start refining dirty crude oil. Such refining could cause significant environmental problems. The judge's decision puts the future of the project in doubt, because it may force the city to redo parts of the EIR and re-approve it. But that could be a big problem for Chevron, because it no longer controls a majority of the Richmond City Council. After last November's election, progressives now have a 4-3 majority on the council with the addition of Jeff Ritterman, a physician who ran specifically against the Chevron refinery expansion plan. — Robert Gammon
A Contra Costa County judge has thrown out the environmental impact report for the massive Chevron Richmond oil refinery expansion, according to the Chron. Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga sided with activists and environmentalists who sued to stop the controversial project, ruling that the EIR was too vague on whether Chevron would be allowed to start refining dirty crude oil. Such refining could cause significant environmental problems. The judge's decision puts the future of the project in doubt, because it may force the city to redo parts of the EIR and re-approve it. But that could be a big problem for Chevron, because it no longer controls a majority of the Richmond City Council. After last November's election, progressives now have a 4-3 majority on the council with the addition of Jeff Ritterman, a physician who ran specifically against the Chevron refinery expansion plan. — Robert Gammon
Calif. law linking land use, greenhouse gas emissions passes court test - NYT June 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/08/08greenwire-calif-law-linking-land-use-greenhouse-gas-emiss-4398.html
SAN FRANCISCO -- A California law aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from land-use changes has survived its first court challenge.
Skip to next paragraph
Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga tossed out an environmental impact report Friday for a proposed Chevron Corp. refinery expansion in Richmond, Calif., saying the analysis failed to account for the project's greenhouse gas emissions as is required by the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.
Zuniga said Chevron and the city had ignored greenhouse gas mitigation measures in approving a plan to expand the refinery, as required under CEQA. The judge also dismissed Chevron's contention that the expansion is not intended to enable the refinery to process a heavier form of crude oil.
"The [environmental analysis] project description is unclear and inconsistent as to whether [the] project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing," Zuniga wrote.
The case represents the first time a major oil company has had to cope with CEQA's greenhouse gas requirements. Early court battles over the law's new climate provisions, which require developers to plan mitigation for carbon-dioxide emissions, have been limited primarily to municipalities looking to upgrade urban plans.
Earthjustice, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network and several community groups had filed a lawsuit against Chevron and the Richmond City Council last September seeking a rejection of the environmental impact report.
In oral arguments last month, William Rostov, a staff attorney at Earthjustice, charged Chevron with trying to defer its CEQA obligation to some unspecified future date. He urged the court to reject the project's approval and send a signal to other developers that the law has teeth needed to force a carbon analysis (ClimateWire, May 21).
Rostov said the project would let Chevron, which is based in San Ramon, Calif., switch to processing dirtier oils that would increase carbon dioxide emissions and toxics. He said Richmond officials glossed over the issue in the environmental impact report approved by the City Council.
Attorneys for Chevron and the city countered that the oil giant had completed the work required by CEQA. Ronald Van Buskirk, who had argued on Chevron's behalf before Zuniga, insisted that the environmental groups had ignored the CEQA documents approved by the Richmond City Council in the name of blocking any development.
Chevron is expected to revise its analysis and resubmit its project application to the city.
SAN FRANCISCO -- A California law aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from land-use changes has survived its first court challenge.
Skip to next paragraph
Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga tossed out an environmental impact report Friday for a proposed Chevron Corp. refinery expansion in Richmond, Calif., saying the analysis failed to account for the project's greenhouse gas emissions as is required by the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.
Zuniga said Chevron and the city had ignored greenhouse gas mitigation measures in approving a plan to expand the refinery, as required under CEQA. The judge also dismissed Chevron's contention that the expansion is not intended to enable the refinery to process a heavier form of crude oil.
"The [environmental analysis] project description is unclear and inconsistent as to whether [the] project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing," Zuniga wrote.
The case represents the first time a major oil company has had to cope with CEQA's greenhouse gas requirements. Early court battles over the law's new climate provisions, which require developers to plan mitigation for carbon-dioxide emissions, have been limited primarily to municipalities looking to upgrade urban plans.
Earthjustice, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network and several community groups had filed a lawsuit against Chevron and the Richmond City Council last September seeking a rejection of the environmental impact report.
In oral arguments last month, William Rostov, a staff attorney at Earthjustice, charged Chevron with trying to defer its CEQA obligation to some unspecified future date. He urged the court to reject the project's approval and send a signal to other developers that the law has teeth needed to force a carbon analysis (ClimateWire, May 21).
Rostov said the project would let Chevron, which is based in San Ramon, Calif., switch to processing dirtier oils that would increase carbon dioxide emissions and toxics. He said Richmond officials glossed over the issue in the environmental impact report approved by the City Council.
Attorneys for Chevron and the city countered that the oil giant had completed the work required by CEQA. Ronald Van Buskirk, who had argued on Chevron's behalf before Zuniga, insisted that the environmental groups had ignored the CEQA documents approved by the Richmond City Council in the name of blocking any development.
Chevron is expected to revise its analysis and resubmit its project application to the city.
Environmental Report On Richmond Refinery Rejected - June 8, 2009 CBS5
http://cbs5.com/local/chevron.richmond.refinery.2.1036837.html
RICHMOND (BCN) ―
[Click to zoom.] Click to enlarge
1 of 1
Chevron Refinery in Richmond.
AP
Close
numSlides of totalImages
A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge ruled Friday that an environmental impact report on Chevron's proposed upgrade to its Richmond refinery failed to disclose whether the project would enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil.
The ruling voids the environmental impact report on the refinery's Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project, which was approved in July by a divided Richmond City Council, Jessica Tovar with Communities for a Better Environment said Monday.
The project included replacing the refinery's 1960s-era hydrogen plant and its 1930s-era power plant.
Refinery officials said that the upgrade would increase the refinery's flexibility to process a larger variety of crude oil and improve the plant's energy efficiency and reliability.
In September, three environmental justice groups filed a lawsuit challenging the city's approval of the project.
Experts at Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network and the West County Toxics Coalition - plaintiffs in the lawsuit - said that the upgrade would allow the refinery to process heavier crude oil, which would result in increased pollution and increased risk of explosion at the plant.
Heavier crude oil can contain higher amounts of contaminants such as mercury and selenium, which can cause serious health problems, according to Communities for a Better Environment.
"Communities in Richmond, particularly low-income communities of color, already suffer from industrial pollution-related health problems, including high rates of asthma and cancer. Chevron's refinery is the largest industrial polluter in the region," plaintiffs said in a news release issued Monday.
Processing heavier crude also takes higher temperatures, which increases the likelihood of upset or explosion, Tovar said.
Tovar said that the proposed project is similar to an upgrade at a Chevron refinery in Mississippi that has allegedly enabled that plant to process heavier crude oil.
In her ruling, Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga wrote that under the California Environmental Quality Act, the environmental impact report should enable the public, interested parties and public agencies to weigh the proposed project against its environmental costs and consider appropriate mitigation measures.
The ruling went on to state that the environmental impact report "is unclear and inconsistent as to whether the project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing" and therefore "fails as an informational document."
Also at issue in the lawsuit was the refinery's plan to mitigate increased greenhouse gas emissions.
Plaintiffs argued that the refinery had not submitted a plan to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions during the environmental review process, but instead deferred the mitigation plans to a later date, which excluded the public from the process.
In her ruling, Zuniga found that under state Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred to a later date. She found that the "city has improperly deferred formulation of greenhouse gas mitigation measures."
Plaintiffs also alleged that the environmental impact report failed to analyze a proposed pipeline that would transport hydrogen from the new hydrogen processing plant to the Shell refinery in Martinez and the ConocoPhillips refinery in Rodeo.
The ruling stated that because the pipeline is an integral part of the project, it should have been addressed in the environmental impact report.
Tovar said that if Chevron decides to pursue its plans to upgrade the refinery, it will have to begin the environmental review process over again and include all of the information that was missing in the current environmental impact report.
"Chevron is disappointed and believes that the Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project was properly permitted and that the benefits of the project are identified in the thorough environmental review conducted by the city of Richmond staff and the city's environmental consultant," Chevron spokesman Brent Tippen said Monday.
Tippen said Chevron officials were reviewing the specifics of the court's decision and would be determining a course of action in consultation with the city.
(© CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Bay City News contributed to this report.)
RICHMOND (BCN) ―
[Click to zoom.] Click to enlarge
1 of 1
Chevron Refinery in Richmond.
AP
Close
numSlides of totalImages
A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge ruled Friday that an environmental impact report on Chevron's proposed upgrade to its Richmond refinery failed to disclose whether the project would enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil.
The ruling voids the environmental impact report on the refinery's Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project, which was approved in July by a divided Richmond City Council, Jessica Tovar with Communities for a Better Environment said Monday.
The project included replacing the refinery's 1960s-era hydrogen plant and its 1930s-era power plant.
Refinery officials said that the upgrade would increase the refinery's flexibility to process a larger variety of crude oil and improve the plant's energy efficiency and reliability.
In September, three environmental justice groups filed a lawsuit challenging the city's approval of the project.
Experts at Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network and the West County Toxics Coalition - plaintiffs in the lawsuit - said that the upgrade would allow the refinery to process heavier crude oil, which would result in increased pollution and increased risk of explosion at the plant.
Heavier crude oil can contain higher amounts of contaminants such as mercury and selenium, which can cause serious health problems, according to Communities for a Better Environment.
"Communities in Richmond, particularly low-income communities of color, already suffer from industrial pollution-related health problems, including high rates of asthma and cancer. Chevron's refinery is the largest industrial polluter in the region," plaintiffs said in a news release issued Monday.
Processing heavier crude also takes higher temperatures, which increases the likelihood of upset or explosion, Tovar said.
Tovar said that the proposed project is similar to an upgrade at a Chevron refinery in Mississippi that has allegedly enabled that plant to process heavier crude oil.
In her ruling, Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga wrote that under the California Environmental Quality Act, the environmental impact report should enable the public, interested parties and public agencies to weigh the proposed project against its environmental costs and consider appropriate mitigation measures.
The ruling went on to state that the environmental impact report "is unclear and inconsistent as to whether the project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing" and therefore "fails as an informational document."
Also at issue in the lawsuit was the refinery's plan to mitigate increased greenhouse gas emissions.
Plaintiffs argued that the refinery had not submitted a plan to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions during the environmental review process, but instead deferred the mitigation plans to a later date, which excluded the public from the process.
In her ruling, Zuniga found that under state Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred to a later date. She found that the "city has improperly deferred formulation of greenhouse gas mitigation measures."
Plaintiffs also alleged that the environmental impact report failed to analyze a proposed pipeline that would transport hydrogen from the new hydrogen processing plant to the Shell refinery in Martinez and the ConocoPhillips refinery in Rodeo.
The ruling stated that because the pipeline is an integral part of the project, it should have been addressed in the environmental impact report.
Tovar said that if Chevron decides to pursue its plans to upgrade the refinery, it will have to begin the environmental review process over again and include all of the information that was missing in the current environmental impact report.
"Chevron is disappointed and believes that the Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project was properly permitted and that the benefits of the project are identified in the thorough environmental review conducted by the city of Richmond staff and the city's environmental consultant," Chevron spokesman Brent Tippen said Monday.
Tippen said Chevron officials were reviewing the specifics of the court's decision and would be determining a course of action in consultation with the city.
(© CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Bay City News contributed to this report.)
Environmentalists Claim Major Victory in Chevron Decision - KCBS June 8, 2009
RICHMOND, Calif. (KCBS) -- East Bay environmentalists are claiming a major victory in a battle with Chevron's Refinery in Richmond over its expansion plans.
A Contra Costa Superior Court judge has ruled that the environmental document covering Chevron's bid to replace equipment to refine a wider range of crude is insufficient and vague.
Chevron already has begun construction on its project, which replaces the hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude with higher sulfur content.
Listen KCBS' Dave Padilla reports
The West County Toxics Coalition of Richmond and Communities for a Better Environment and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, both of Oakland, sued the city and Chevron in September. The groups have argued the project could increase pollution in the area and endanger locals.
"This is a huge victory for the environmental justice movement in terms of health of the community," said Jessica Tovar of Communities for a Better Environment. "Not just in Richmond but regionally."
Brent Tippen, spokesman for the refinery, says the report was through.
"Chevron is disappointed with the decision regarding the adequacy of the environmental review conducted by the city of Richmond related to the energy and hydrogen renewal project," Tippen said.
Tippen added officials at the refinery will review the decision to determine their next move.
A Contra Costa Superior Court judge has ruled that the environmental document covering Chevron's bid to replace equipment to refine a wider range of crude is insufficient and vague.
Chevron already has begun construction on its project, which replaces the hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude with higher sulfur content.
Listen KCBS' Dave Padilla reports
The West County Toxics Coalition of Richmond and Communities for a Better Environment and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, both of Oakland, sued the city and Chevron in September. The groups have argued the project could increase pollution in the area and endanger locals.
"This is a huge victory for the environmental justice movement in terms of health of the community," said Jessica Tovar of Communities for a Better Environment. "Not just in Richmond but regionally."
Brent Tippen, spokesman for the refinery, says the report was through.
"Chevron is disappointed with the decision regarding the adequacy of the environmental review conducted by the city of Richmond related to the energy and hydrogen renewal project," Tippen said.
Tippen added officials at the refinery will review the decision to determine their next move.
Judge Disallows Environmental Review of Chevron Refinery Expansion - Environmental News Svc - June 7, 2009
RICHMOND, California, June 7, 2009 (ENS) - The Environmental Impact Report for a major expansion at the Chevron Refinery in Richmond, California is inadequate, a Contra Costa County Superior Court judge has ruled in a case brought by environmental, community, and public health groups.
In her decision Friday, Judge Barbara Zuniga decided that the environmental review failed to disclose that the proposed expansion would allow Chevron to process heavier crude oil than the facility processes now.
Three groups sued the City of Richmond for accepting a flawed Environmental Impact Report that did not fully analyze the project's health and environmental impacts.
The groups claimed that heavier crude oil can contain higher amounts of contaminants, such as mercury and selenium, which can cause serious health problems.
Judge Zuniga wrote, "The [Final Environmental Impact Report] project description is unclear and inconsistent as to whether [the] project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing."
The court also held that the city improperly allowed Chevron to wait a year after the Environmental Impact Report process was completed before developing a plan to mitigate its greenhouse gases.
This is one of the first decisions addressing the deferral of greenhouse gas mitigations under the California Environmental Quality Act, says Earthjustice attorney Will Rostov, who argued the case for the plaintiff groups.
Chevron's oil refinery in Richmond, California (Photo by Todd Port)
Finally, the court agreed with plaintiffs that the Environmental Impact Report had omitted an important component of the expansion, a hydrogen pipeline. The pipeline would attach to a newly approved hydrogen plant - one of the project's four key components - and stretch to the ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery and Shell's Martinez refinery.
"The City of Richmond signed off on an oil refinery expansion plan that likely would have opened the gates for Chevron to refine heavier, dirtier crude oil," said Rostov. "This could have increased pollution in Richmond and surrounding areas."
"The decision is a victory for the community," said Koy Seng Saechao, a community leader with the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, one of the plaintiff groups. "We need green and healthy solutions from Chevron and our city, not more pollution. The decision protects my family and neighbors from even more pollution and allows us to plan for a healthier future."
Chevron's Richmond Refinery is one of the largest and oldest refineries on the West Coast, producing petroleum products since the early 20th century. It covers 2,900 acres, has 5,000 miles of pipelines, and hundreds of large tanks that can hold up to 15 million barrels of crude, gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, lube oil, wax, and other chemicals produced by the refinery.
Chevron first approached the the City of Richmond about the expansion project in October 2004.
In 2008, the city issued a permit to Chevron to expand the refinery, allowing it to process low-quality crude oil, including tar sands, and export hydrogen to four other Bay Area oil refineries.
According to the Expert Report of G.E. Dolbear & Associates, Inc. prepared for the California Attorney General, the increased refinery capacity "will allow Chevron to process increased levels of heavier crudes, and, if it does so, the refinery will likely increase its emissions of pollutants."
The Dolbear report also states, "If this Project enables Chevron to use a different, dirtier crude mix with greater polluting potential, this fact is not disclosed in the FEIR and the FEIR is legally deficient under CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act] on this issue."
The Chevron expansion project has been subject of a two year campaign by the nonprofit group Communities for a Better Environment, which is demanding no net pollution increase, a fund for Richmond's future, and public involvement, including recirculation of the Environmental Impact Report.
In September 2008, Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, and West County Toxics filed the lawsuit to force the city to revise and recirculate the EIR, disclosing, analyzing and mitigating the project's environmental health and justice impacts.
Communities in Richmond, particularly low-income and communities of color, already suffer from industrial pollution-related health problems, including high rates of asthma and cancer. The Chevron refinery is the largest industrial polluter in the region.
"Chevron must stop its toxic assault on poor people of color," said Dr. Henry Clark of the plaintiff West County Toxics Coalition. "This is a significant environmental justice victory for Richmond and the country."
"Protecting our communities from additional toxic and global warming pollution is a huge victory," said Jessica Tovar, a community organizer with Communities for a Better Environment. "This is an opportunity to invest in clean green energy as a solution, instead of compromising our health by locking in a generation of refining dirtier crude oil."
In her decision Friday, Judge Barbara Zuniga decided that the environmental review failed to disclose that the proposed expansion would allow Chevron to process heavier crude oil than the facility processes now.
Three groups sued the City of Richmond for accepting a flawed Environmental Impact Report that did not fully analyze the project's health and environmental impacts.
The groups claimed that heavier crude oil can contain higher amounts of contaminants, such as mercury and selenium, which can cause serious health problems.
Judge Zuniga wrote, "The [Final Environmental Impact Report] project description is unclear and inconsistent as to whether [the] project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing."
The court also held that the city improperly allowed Chevron to wait a year after the Environmental Impact Report process was completed before developing a plan to mitigate its greenhouse gases.
This is one of the first decisions addressing the deferral of greenhouse gas mitigations under the California Environmental Quality Act, says Earthjustice attorney Will Rostov, who argued the case for the plaintiff groups.
Chevron's oil refinery in Richmond, California (Photo by Todd Port)
Finally, the court agreed with plaintiffs that the Environmental Impact Report had omitted an important component of the expansion, a hydrogen pipeline. The pipeline would attach to a newly approved hydrogen plant - one of the project's four key components - and stretch to the ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery and Shell's Martinez refinery.
"The City of Richmond signed off on an oil refinery expansion plan that likely would have opened the gates for Chevron to refine heavier, dirtier crude oil," said Rostov. "This could have increased pollution in Richmond and surrounding areas."
"The decision is a victory for the community," said Koy Seng Saechao, a community leader with the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, one of the plaintiff groups. "We need green and healthy solutions from Chevron and our city, not more pollution. The decision protects my family and neighbors from even more pollution and allows us to plan for a healthier future."
Chevron's Richmond Refinery is one of the largest and oldest refineries on the West Coast, producing petroleum products since the early 20th century. It covers 2,900 acres, has 5,000 miles of pipelines, and hundreds of large tanks that can hold up to 15 million barrels of crude, gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, lube oil, wax, and other chemicals produced by the refinery.
Chevron first approached the the City of Richmond about the expansion project in October 2004.
In 2008, the city issued a permit to Chevron to expand the refinery, allowing it to process low-quality crude oil, including tar sands, and export hydrogen to four other Bay Area oil refineries.
According to the Expert Report of G.E. Dolbear & Associates, Inc. prepared for the California Attorney General, the increased refinery capacity "will allow Chevron to process increased levels of heavier crudes, and, if it does so, the refinery will likely increase its emissions of pollutants."
The Dolbear report also states, "If this Project enables Chevron to use a different, dirtier crude mix with greater polluting potential, this fact is not disclosed in the FEIR and the FEIR is legally deficient under CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act] on this issue."
The Chevron expansion project has been subject of a two year campaign by the nonprofit group Communities for a Better Environment, which is demanding no net pollution increase, a fund for Richmond's future, and public involvement, including recirculation of the Environmental Impact Report.
In September 2008, Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, and West County Toxics filed the lawsuit to force the city to revise and recirculate the EIR, disclosing, analyzing and mitigating the project's environmental health and justice impacts.
Communities in Richmond, particularly low-income and communities of color, already suffer from industrial pollution-related health problems, including high rates of asthma and cancer. The Chevron refinery is the largest industrial polluter in the region.
"Chevron must stop its toxic assault on poor people of color," said Dr. Henry Clark of the plaintiff West County Toxics Coalition. "This is a significant environmental justice victory for Richmond and the country."
"Protecting our communities from additional toxic and global warming pollution is a huge victory," said Jessica Tovar, a community organizer with Communities for a Better Environment. "This is an opportunity to invest in clean green energy as a solution, instead of compromising our health by locking in a generation of refining dirtier crude oil."
Friday, May 22, 2009
Chevron environmental report 'unclear,' judge rules
Chevron environmental report 'unclear,' judge rules
By Katherine Tam
Contra Costa Times:http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_12411270?nclick_check=1
CBS 5:http://cbs5.com/localwire/22.0.html?type=bcn&item=CHEVRON-HEARING-baglm
San Jose Mercury News:http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12411270
Posted: 05/20/2009 09:56:11 AM PDT
Updated: 05/20/2009 07:47:52 PM PDT
Environmental activists gained ground this week in their legal challenge of Chevron's plan to replace decades-old equipment at its Richmond refinery, a plan the activists say could increase pollution in the area and pose a public health risk.
Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga issued a tentative ruling, stating that a city-approved environmental impact report is "unclear and inconsistent" on whether the project enables Chevron to process heavier crude. The city also "improperly" deferred developing measures to deal with greenhouse gas emissions for up to a year, she said.
"With respect to other issues raised by petitioners, given that EIR is already in need of revision, addressing additional issue [sic] seems to be rather moot," Zuniga wrote.
The tentative ruling comes eight months after the West County Toxics Coalition of Richmond and Communities for a Better Environment and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, both of Oakland, filed a lawsuit against the city of Richmond and Chevron in state Superior Court. The environmental groups argue that the city's environmental review was flawed and failed to disclose, analyze and mitigate all the potential impacts.
The city and the oil giant dispute these claims.
Chevron's plan to replace its hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude with higher sulfur content has been one of the most hotly contested and polarizing issues in Richmond, drawing standing-room-only crowds to hearings and sparking dozens of protests.
The oil giant contends it will continue to refine light to intermediate crudes and insists its project is not a public health risk. But opponents say the project would allow the processing of heavier crude, which could increase pollutants by 5 to 50 times, and demanded the city limit the amount and kind of oil Chevron can refine.
Last summer, a divided Richmond City Council certified the environmental report and approved the project with about 70 provisions, including monitoring requirements and a limit on the amount of crude running through a piece of equipment considered key to refining. Opponents said the provisions aren't extensive enough to protect the public, and they made good on their promise to sue.
On Wednesday morning, the parties gathered in Superior Court in Martinez to make arguments, focusing mainly on the crude and how greenhouse gases would be mitigated.
Will Rostov, an Earthjustice attorney representing the environmental groups, said, "The EIR did fail as an informative document," adding that the city and Chevron "masked the crude switch."
The city and Chevron countered the charge. Ellen Garber, an attorney with San Francisco-based Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, representing the city, said: "The city believes the process was at all times as transparent as it can be. To say the city tried to trick the public cannot be found anywhere in the record and need not have been said."
Zuniga said she would take the information into consideration, and she recessed the hearing about 11:30 a.m. Wednesday. It is unclear when the hearing will resume or when a final ruling might be issued.
The parties milled around on the steps of the courthouse afterward. Rostov said the environmental groups would wait to hear the outcome of Zuniga's deliberation. Refinery spokesman Dean O'Hair said the hearing was a chance for Chevron to clarify its project for Zuniga and said the city's environmental review had been thorough.
Chevron has begun constructing part of the project, but two of the components — the power plant replacement and the new continuous catalyst reformer — are delayed indefinitely.
Legally, the permit the city issued gives Chevron until July 2013 to build these components, officials said.
The delay does not affect payouts from a $61 million community benefits agreement, a deal in which Chevron promised to fund police, job training, health care and other programs, they said. The agreement was approved the same day as the Chevron project.
Reach Katherine Tam at 510-262-2787 or ktam@bayareanewsgroup.com.
By Katherine Tam
Contra Costa Times:http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_12411270?nclick_check=1
CBS 5:http://cbs5.com/localwire/22.0.html?type=bcn&item=CHEVRON-HEARING-baglm
San Jose Mercury News:http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12411270
Posted: 05/20/2009 09:56:11 AM PDT
Updated: 05/20/2009 07:47:52 PM PDT
Environmental activists gained ground this week in their legal challenge of Chevron's plan to replace decades-old equipment at its Richmond refinery, a plan the activists say could increase pollution in the area and pose a public health risk.
Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga issued a tentative ruling, stating that a city-approved environmental impact report is "unclear and inconsistent" on whether the project enables Chevron to process heavier crude. The city also "improperly" deferred developing measures to deal with greenhouse gas emissions for up to a year, she said.
"With respect to other issues raised by petitioners, given that EIR is already in need of revision, addressing additional issue [sic] seems to be rather moot," Zuniga wrote.
The tentative ruling comes eight months after the West County Toxics Coalition of Richmond and Communities for a Better Environment and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, both of Oakland, filed a lawsuit against the city of Richmond and Chevron in state Superior Court. The environmental groups argue that the city's environmental review was flawed and failed to disclose, analyze and mitigate all the potential impacts.
The city and the oil giant dispute these claims.
Chevron's plan to replace its hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude with higher sulfur content has been one of the most hotly contested and polarizing issues in Richmond, drawing standing-room-only crowds to hearings and sparking dozens of protests.
The oil giant contends it will continue to refine light to intermediate crudes and insists its project is not a public health risk. But opponents say the project would allow the processing of heavier crude, which could increase pollutants by 5 to 50 times, and demanded the city limit the amount and kind of oil Chevron can refine.
Last summer, a divided Richmond City Council certified the environmental report and approved the project with about 70 provisions, including monitoring requirements and a limit on the amount of crude running through a piece of equipment considered key to refining. Opponents said the provisions aren't extensive enough to protect the public, and they made good on their promise to sue.
On Wednesday morning, the parties gathered in Superior Court in Martinez to make arguments, focusing mainly on the crude and how greenhouse gases would be mitigated.
Will Rostov, an Earthjustice attorney representing the environmental groups, said, "The EIR did fail as an informative document," adding that the city and Chevron "masked the crude switch."
The city and Chevron countered the charge. Ellen Garber, an attorney with San Francisco-based Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, representing the city, said: "The city believes the process was at all times as transparent as it can be. To say the city tried to trick the public cannot be found anywhere in the record and need not have been said."
Zuniga said she would take the information into consideration, and she recessed the hearing about 11:30 a.m. Wednesday. It is unclear when the hearing will resume or when a final ruling might be issued.
The parties milled around on the steps of the courthouse afterward. Rostov said the environmental groups would wait to hear the outcome of Zuniga's deliberation. Refinery spokesman Dean O'Hair said the hearing was a chance for Chevron to clarify its project for Zuniga and said the city's environmental review had been thorough.
Chevron has begun constructing part of the project, but two of the components — the power plant replacement and the new continuous catalyst reformer — are delayed indefinitely.
Legally, the permit the city issued gives Chevron until July 2013 to build these components, officials said.
The delay does not affect payouts from a $61 million community benefits agreement, a deal in which Chevron promised to fund police, job training, health care and other programs, they said. The agreement was approved the same day as the Chevron project.
Reach Katherine Tam at 510-262-2787 or ktam@bayareanewsgroup.com.
MARTINEZ: JUDGE HEARS ARGUMENTS IN CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUIT
http://cbs5.com/localwire/22.0.html?type=bcn&item=CHEVRON-HEARING-baglm
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge heard arguments this morning on an environmental lawsuit brought against Chevron and the city of Richmond challenging the city's approval of the oil company's planned upgrade of its Richmond refinery.
In September, three environmental justice groups filed a lawsuit challenging the city's approval of Chevron's Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project. The lawsuit seeks to have the environmental impact report for the project voided.
The project, which was approved by a divided Richmond City Council in July, includes replacing the refinery's 1960s-era hydrogen plant and its 1930s-era power plant.
Refinery officials have stated that the upgrade will increase the refinery's flexibility to process a larger variety of crude oil and improve the plant's energy efficiency and reliability.
Experts at Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network and the West County Toxics Coalition - the three plaintiffs - have said that the upgrade will allow the refinery to process heavier crude oil, which will result in increased pollution.
Roger Kim, executive director of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, said after the hearing that low-income communities near the refinery are already subjected to disproportionately high levels of industrial pollution and that the Chevron refinery is the largest source of that pollution. He also said residents in neighborhoods near the refinery have "skyrocketing" rates of cancer, asthma and other respiratory illnesses.
The lawsuit claims that the environmental impact report for the project failed to state whether the refinery was planning to process heavier crude oil and failed to propose mitigations for the alleged increased pollution.
In a tentative ruling, Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga wrote that under the California Environmental Quality Act, the environmental impact report should enable the public, interested parties and public agencies to weigh the proposed project against its environmental costs and consider appropriate mitigation measures.
The tentative ruling went on to state that the environmental impact report "is unclear and inconsistent as to whether the project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing" and therefore "fails as an informational document."
Refinery officials have said repeatedly that the project will not increase overall emissions at the plant.
However, the environmental impact report used data from the 1990s to establish a baseline for the types of crude oil it would be processing in the future, according to William Rostov, an attorney with Earthjustice representing the plaintiffs.
Rostov said that Chevron had upgraded the plant in the 1990s and had since been processing lighter and lighter crude oil. He said the new project would enable the plant to go back to processing heavier crude and return to 1990s level pollution.
Ellen Garber, representing the city of Richmond, argued during the hearing today that the city found that the project would not enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil and that the upgrade would decrease many harmful emissions from the plant.
"The city concluded there would be no crude oil heaviness switch," said Ronald Van Buskirk, an attorney representing Chevron.
He said it is "reasonably foreseeable" that future emissions would remain in their current range. Buskirk also said the upgrade would actually reduce emissions from the refinery.
Rostov said the public deserves to know whether the refinery plans to process heavier crude oil.
He said that while the environmental impact report claimed that the crude slate would not change, a statement Chevron officials made to investors said specifically that the upgrade would enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil.
Experts from Communities for a Better Environment and an expert hired by state Attorney General Jerry Brown found that the upgrade would enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil, Rostov said.
Buskirk said the environmental impact report was clear when it stated that "It is reasonably foreseeable that Chevron would run a crude slate similar to that which is currently processed at the refinery - but in a mixture that has higher sulfur levels."
Zuniga's tentative ruling, however, said that the statement seemed to say that the only difference in the crude slate would be increased sulfur content, but that the terms "reasonably foreseeable" and "similar" "detract from any certainty this statement would have generated."
Also at issue in the lawsuit is the refinery's plan to mitigate increased greenhouse gas emissions.
Plaintiffs argued that the refinery had not submitted a plan to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions during the environmental review process, but instead deferred the mitigation plans to a later date, which excluded the public from the process, Rostov said.
Garber argued that the California Environmental Quality Act allows for deferred mitigation measures and that the City Council would be able to ensure that the Chevron's future plan to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions was appropriate.
In her tentative ruling, however, Zuniga found that under CEQA guidelines, the formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred to a later date.
Plaintiffs also alleged that the environmental impact report failed to analyze a proposed pipeline that would transport hydrogen from the new hydrogen processing plant.
Garber argued that the city did not have jurisdiction over the pipeline project. Contra Costa County supervisors will have to review the proposed pipeline project because it traverses the entire county, she said.
Zuniga's tentative ruling, however, stated that because the pipeline is an integral part of the project, it should have been addressed in the environmental impact report.
After the hearing, Zuniga said she would review her tentative ruling once more before making a final ruling, but did not say when she planned to make the final ruling.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge heard arguments this morning on an environmental lawsuit brought against Chevron and the city of Richmond challenging the city's approval of the oil company's planned upgrade of its Richmond refinery.
In September, three environmental justice groups filed a lawsuit challenging the city's approval of Chevron's Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project. The lawsuit seeks to have the environmental impact report for the project voided.
The project, which was approved by a divided Richmond City Council in July, includes replacing the refinery's 1960s-era hydrogen plant and its 1930s-era power plant.
Refinery officials have stated that the upgrade will increase the refinery's flexibility to process a larger variety of crude oil and improve the plant's energy efficiency and reliability.
Experts at Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network and the West County Toxics Coalition - the three plaintiffs - have said that the upgrade will allow the refinery to process heavier crude oil, which will result in increased pollution.
Roger Kim, executive director of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, said after the hearing that low-income communities near the refinery are already subjected to disproportionately high levels of industrial pollution and that the Chevron refinery is the largest source of that pollution. He also said residents in neighborhoods near the refinery have "skyrocketing" rates of cancer, asthma and other respiratory illnesses.
The lawsuit claims that the environmental impact report for the project failed to state whether the refinery was planning to process heavier crude oil and failed to propose mitigations for the alleged increased pollution.
In a tentative ruling, Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga wrote that under the California Environmental Quality Act, the environmental impact report should enable the public, interested parties and public agencies to weigh the proposed project against its environmental costs and consider appropriate mitigation measures.
The tentative ruling went on to state that the environmental impact report "is unclear and inconsistent as to whether the project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing" and therefore "fails as an informational document."
Refinery officials have said repeatedly that the project will not increase overall emissions at the plant.
However, the environmental impact report used data from the 1990s to establish a baseline for the types of crude oil it would be processing in the future, according to William Rostov, an attorney with Earthjustice representing the plaintiffs.
Rostov said that Chevron had upgraded the plant in the 1990s and had since been processing lighter and lighter crude oil. He said the new project would enable the plant to go back to processing heavier crude and return to 1990s level pollution.
Ellen Garber, representing the city of Richmond, argued during the hearing today that the city found that the project would not enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil and that the upgrade would decrease many harmful emissions from the plant.
"The city concluded there would be no crude oil heaviness switch," said Ronald Van Buskirk, an attorney representing Chevron.
He said it is "reasonably foreseeable" that future emissions would remain in their current range. Buskirk also said the upgrade would actually reduce emissions from the refinery.
Rostov said the public deserves to know whether the refinery plans to process heavier crude oil.
He said that while the environmental impact report claimed that the crude slate would not change, a statement Chevron officials made to investors said specifically that the upgrade would enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil.
Experts from Communities for a Better Environment and an expert hired by state Attorney General Jerry Brown found that the upgrade would enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil, Rostov said.
Buskirk said the environmental impact report was clear when it stated that "It is reasonably foreseeable that Chevron would run a crude slate similar to that which is currently processed at the refinery - but in a mixture that has higher sulfur levels."
Zuniga's tentative ruling, however, said that the statement seemed to say that the only difference in the crude slate would be increased sulfur content, but that the terms "reasonably foreseeable" and "similar" "detract from any certainty this statement would have generated."
Also at issue in the lawsuit is the refinery's plan to mitigate increased greenhouse gas emissions.
Plaintiffs argued that the refinery had not submitted a plan to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions during the environmental review process, but instead deferred the mitigation plans to a later date, which excluded the public from the process, Rostov said.
Garber argued that the California Environmental Quality Act allows for deferred mitigation measures and that the City Council would be able to ensure that the Chevron's future plan to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions was appropriate.
In her tentative ruling, however, Zuniga found that under CEQA guidelines, the formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred to a later date.
Plaintiffs also alleged that the environmental impact report failed to analyze a proposed pipeline that would transport hydrogen from the new hydrogen processing plant.
Garber argued that the city did not have jurisdiction over the pipeline project. Contra Costa County supervisors will have to review the proposed pipeline project because it traverses the entire county, she said.
Zuniga's tentative ruling, however, stated that because the pipeline is an integral part of the project, it should have been addressed in the environmental impact report.
After the hearing, Zuniga said she would review her tentative ruling once more before making a final ruling, but did not say when she planned to make the final ruling.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Chevron environmental report 'unclear,' judge rules
By Katherine Tam
West County Times
Posted: 05/20/2009 09:56:11 AM PDT
Updated: 05/20/2009 07:47:52 PM PDT
Environmental activists gained ground this week in their legal challenge of Chevron's plan to replace decades-old equipment at its Richmond refinery, a plan the activists say could increase pollution in the area and pose a public health risk.
Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga issued a tentative ruling, stating that a city-approved environmental impact report is "unclear and inconsistent" on whether the project enables Chevron to process heavier crude. The city also "improperly" deferred developing measures to deal with greenhouse gas emissions for up to a year, she said.
"With respect to other issues raised by petitioners, given that EIR is already in need of revision, addressing additional issue [sic] seems to be rather moot," Zuniga wrote.
The tentative ruling comes eight months after the West County Toxics Coalition of Richmond and Communities for a Better Environment and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, both of Oakland, filed a lawsuit against the city of Richmond and Chevron in state Superior Court. The environmental groups argue that the city's environmental review was flawed and failed to disclose, analyze and mitigate all the potential impacts.
The city and the oil giant dispute these claims.
Chevron's plan to replace its hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude with higher sulfur content has been one of the most hotly contested and polarizing issues in Richmond,
drawing standing-room-only crowds to hearings and sparking dozens of protests.
The oil giant contends it will continue to refine light to intermediate crudes and insists its project is not a public health risk. But opponents say the project would allow the processing of heavier crude, which could increase pollutants by 5 to 50 times, and demanded the city limit the amount and kind of oil Chevron can refine.
Last summer, a divided Richmond City Council certified the environmental report and approved the project with about 70 provisions, including monitoring requirements and a limit on the amount of crude running through a piece of equipment considered key to refining. Opponents said the provisions aren't extensive enough to protect the public, and they made good on their promise to sue.
On Wednesday morning, the parties gathered in Superior Court in Martinez to make arguments, focusing mainly on the crude and how greenhouse gases would be mitigated.
Will Rostov, an Earthjustice attorney representing the environmental groups, said, "The EIR did fail as an informative document," adding that the city and Chevron "masked the crude switch."
The city and Chevron countered the charge. Ellen Garber, an attorney with San Francisco-based Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, representing the city, said: "The city believes the process was at all times as transparent as it can be. To say the city tried to trick the public cannot be found anywhere in the record and need not have been said."
Zuniga said she would take the information into consideration, and she recessed the hearing about 11:30 a.m. Wednesday. It is unclear when the hearing will resume or when a final ruling might be issued.
The parties milled around on the steps of the courthouse afterward. Rostov said the environmental groups would wait to hear the outcome of Zuniga's deliberation. Refinery spokesman Dean O'Hair said the hearing was a chance for Chevron to clarify its project for Zuniga and said the city's environmental review had been thorough.
Chevron has begun constructing part of the project, but two of the components — the power plant replacement and the new continuous catalyst reformer — are delayed indefinitely.
Legally, the permit the city issued gives Chevron until July 2013 to build these components, officials said.
The delay does not affect payouts from a $61 million community benefits agreement, a deal in which Chevron promised to fund police, job training, health care and other programs, they said. The agreement was approved the same day as the Chevron project.
Reach Katherine Tam at 510-262-2787 or ktam@bayareanewsgroup.com.
West County Times
Posted: 05/20/2009 09:56:11 AM PDT
Updated: 05/20/2009 07:47:52 PM PDT
Environmental activists gained ground this week in their legal challenge of Chevron's plan to replace decades-old equipment at its Richmond refinery, a plan the activists say could increase pollution in the area and pose a public health risk.
Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga issued a tentative ruling, stating that a city-approved environmental impact report is "unclear and inconsistent" on whether the project enables Chevron to process heavier crude. The city also "improperly" deferred developing measures to deal with greenhouse gas emissions for up to a year, she said.
"With respect to other issues raised by petitioners, given that EIR is already in need of revision, addressing additional issue [sic] seems to be rather moot," Zuniga wrote.
The tentative ruling comes eight months after the West County Toxics Coalition of Richmond and Communities for a Better Environment and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, both of Oakland, filed a lawsuit against the city of Richmond and Chevron in state Superior Court. The environmental groups argue that the city's environmental review was flawed and failed to disclose, analyze and mitigate all the potential impacts.
The city and the oil giant dispute these claims.
Chevron's plan to replace its hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude with higher sulfur content has been one of the most hotly contested and polarizing issues in Richmond,
drawing standing-room-only crowds to hearings and sparking dozens of protests.
The oil giant contends it will continue to refine light to intermediate crudes and insists its project is not a public health risk. But opponents say the project would allow the processing of heavier crude, which could increase pollutants by 5 to 50 times, and demanded the city limit the amount and kind of oil Chevron can refine.
Last summer, a divided Richmond City Council certified the environmental report and approved the project with about 70 provisions, including monitoring requirements and a limit on the amount of crude running through a piece of equipment considered key to refining. Opponents said the provisions aren't extensive enough to protect the public, and they made good on their promise to sue.
On Wednesday morning, the parties gathered in Superior Court in Martinez to make arguments, focusing mainly on the crude and how greenhouse gases would be mitigated.
Will Rostov, an Earthjustice attorney representing the environmental groups, said, "The EIR did fail as an informative document," adding that the city and Chevron "masked the crude switch."
The city and Chevron countered the charge. Ellen Garber, an attorney with San Francisco-based Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, representing the city, said: "The city believes the process was at all times as transparent as it can be. To say the city tried to trick the public cannot be found anywhere in the record and need not have been said."
Zuniga said she would take the information into consideration, and she recessed the hearing about 11:30 a.m. Wednesday. It is unclear when the hearing will resume or when a final ruling might be issued.
The parties milled around on the steps of the courthouse afterward. Rostov said the environmental groups would wait to hear the outcome of Zuniga's deliberation. Refinery spokesman Dean O'Hair said the hearing was a chance for Chevron to clarify its project for Zuniga and said the city's environmental review had been thorough.
Chevron has begun constructing part of the project, but two of the components — the power plant replacement and the new continuous catalyst reformer — are delayed indefinitely.
Legally, the permit the city issued gives Chevron until July 2013 to build these components, officials said.
The delay does not affect payouts from a $61 million community benefits agreement, a deal in which Chevron promised to fund police, job training, health care and other programs, they said. The agreement was approved the same day as the Chevron project.
Reach Katherine Tam at 510-262-2787 or ktam@bayareanewsgroup.com.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Now It’s Official: The Poor and People of Color Get the Dirty Air
RaceWire Colorlines Blog, May 6, 2009:
http://www.racewire.org/archives/2009/05/now_its_official_the_poor_and.html
Last week, researchers at the University of Massachusetts and the University of Southern California released a study that confirms what many people are all too familiar with: toxic pollution falls disproportionately on lower-income neighborhoods and communities of color. The 28-page report, entitled “Justice in the Air”, is one of the first to examine the disparities between the health risk from industrial air toxins faced by people of color and the poor and their proportion of the population.
Birmingham, Alabama ranks first among metropolitan areas in the race-based rankings: people of color are burdened by 65% of the health risk but only make up 34% of the population. Baton Rouge, Memphis and Chicago follow closely behind. Birmingham also tops the class-based rankings: low-income individuals account for 24% of the health risk but make up 13% of the population (PDF). Baton Rouge, Tacoma, Gary, and Milwaukee-Waukesha are metropolitan areas that are featured in both top-ten rankings. This suggests that while there is some correlation between income, race, and environmental injustice, there must also be distinct racial and socio-economic examinations of how communities are impacted by environmental hazards.
Another unique component of the report is its study of industrial companies whose pollution has disproportionately affected low-income communities or communities of color. These results are particularly significant because they allow race and class to be taken into consideration when assessing corporate environmental responsibility. National Oilwell Varco, ExxonMobil and the Hess Corporation are among the top ten in both racial and socioeconomic toxic rankings. More than 50% of the health risk falls on people of color for each corporation.
While "Justice in the Air" highlights how medium-sized cities with heavy industry face the highest race and socioeconomic disparities with regards to air pollution, it also correlates with the conclusions that have been made from more general studies. The American Lung Association recently released a study containing a list of the most polluted cities, which include Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Sacramento, Dallas, and Houston. The power plants, refineries, industrial waste facilities, and freeways that pollute cities like Los Angeles are predominantly in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. Across the board, research is pointing to an important conclusion: if policymakers and organizations intend to work towards healthier and cleaner communities, they must recognize the existence of systemic environmental racism and classism. An effective environmental justice movement will consider the intersections of race, culture, class and geography in its creation and implementation of laws, regulations and policies.
For a wonderful and brief account of environmental justice activism happening in the Los Angeles area, check out this short film from the Sundance Channel about the work being done by Communities For A Better Environment (CBE). It interviews Executive Director Bill Gallegos and community organizer Roberto Cabrales about their work in fighting for cleaner air in Southeast LA.
part one:
(Sundance Film is Embedded Here)
http://www.racewire.org/archives/2009/05/now_its_official_the_poor_and.html
Last week, researchers at the University of Massachusetts and the University of Southern California released a study that confirms what many people are all too familiar with: toxic pollution falls disproportionately on lower-income neighborhoods and communities of color. The 28-page report, entitled “Justice in the Air”, is one of the first to examine the disparities between the health risk from industrial air toxins faced by people of color and the poor and their proportion of the population.
Birmingham, Alabama ranks first among metropolitan areas in the race-based rankings: people of color are burdened by 65% of the health risk but only make up 34% of the population. Baton Rouge, Memphis and Chicago follow closely behind. Birmingham also tops the class-based rankings: low-income individuals account for 24% of the health risk but make up 13% of the population (PDF). Baton Rouge, Tacoma, Gary, and Milwaukee-Waukesha are metropolitan areas that are featured in both top-ten rankings. This suggests that while there is some correlation between income, race, and environmental injustice, there must also be distinct racial and socio-economic examinations of how communities are impacted by environmental hazards.
Another unique component of the report is its study of industrial companies whose pollution has disproportionately affected low-income communities or communities of color. These results are particularly significant because they allow race and class to be taken into consideration when assessing corporate environmental responsibility. National Oilwell Varco, ExxonMobil and the Hess Corporation are among the top ten in both racial and socioeconomic toxic rankings. More than 50% of the health risk falls on people of color for each corporation.
While "Justice in the Air" highlights how medium-sized cities with heavy industry face the highest race and socioeconomic disparities with regards to air pollution, it also correlates with the conclusions that have been made from more general studies. The American Lung Association recently released a study containing a list of the most polluted cities, which include Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Sacramento, Dallas, and Houston. The power plants, refineries, industrial waste facilities, and freeways that pollute cities like Los Angeles are predominantly in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. Across the board, research is pointing to an important conclusion: if policymakers and organizations intend to work towards healthier and cleaner communities, they must recognize the existence of systemic environmental racism and classism. An effective environmental justice movement will consider the intersections of race, culture, class and geography in its creation and implementation of laws, regulations and policies.
For a wonderful and brief account of environmental justice activism happening in the Los Angeles area, check out this short film from the Sundance Channel about the work being done by Communities For A Better Environment (CBE). It interviews Executive Director Bill Gallegos and community organizer Roberto Cabrales about their work in fighting for cleaner air in Southeast LA.
part one:
(Sundance Film is Embedded Here)
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Earth Day & EJ Close to Home
http://www.caramelbella.com/2009/04/23/earth-day-and-environmental-justice-close-to-home/ April 23, 2009
Be green, buy hybrids and recycle are all a part of the Earth Day hype and overall environmental awareness. But what about environmental justice and environmental racism.
In honor of Earth Day, I spoke with Bill Gallegos, the Executive Director of Communities for a Better Environment (CBE). This nonprofit is “a social justice organization with a focus on environmental health and justice that organizes in working class communities of color because those communities suffer the most from environmental pollution and toxics. CBE works in urban communities in Northern and Southern California among low-income African Americans, Latinos and other nationalities who are bombarded by pollution from freeways, power plants, oil refineries, seaports, airports, and chemical manufacturers. “
Communities for a Better Environment
Communities for a Better Environment
During my host interview on Annenberg Radio News Tuesday, Gallegos and I discussed the environmental conditions in Southeast Los Angeles. Listen below!
Be green, buy hybrids and recycle are all a part of the Earth Day hype and overall environmental awareness. But what about environmental justice and environmental racism.
In honor of Earth Day, I spoke with Bill Gallegos, the Executive Director of Communities for a Better Environment (CBE). This nonprofit is “a social justice organization with a focus on environmental health and justice that organizes in working class communities of color because those communities suffer the most from environmental pollution and toxics. CBE works in urban communities in Northern and Southern California among low-income African Americans, Latinos and other nationalities who are bombarded by pollution from freeways, power plants, oil refineries, seaports, airports, and chemical manufacturers. “
Communities for a Better Environment
Communities for a Better Environment
During my host interview on Annenberg Radio News Tuesday, Gallegos and I discussed the environmental conditions in Southeast Los Angeles. Listen below!
Celebrating Earth Day Oakland-Style
http://oaklandnorth.net/2009/04/28/celebrating-earth-day-oakland-style/, April 28, 2009
Celebrating Earth Day, Oakland-style
Submitted by dkerr on April 28, 2009 – 4:49 pmNo Comment
Preparing to march for environmental justice
Preparing to march for environmental justice
By Dara Kerr/Oakland North
In easy view of crisscrossing highways and towering industrial parks, dozens of people marched through East Oakland’s flatlands wearing white surgical masks on Saturday. Families pushing strollers, men in suits, and kids with skateboards walked from Tassafaronga Recreation Center to Acorn Woodland Elementary School to celebrate ‘Love Yo Mama’ Earth Day and to call attention to environmental degradation in inner city neighborhoods.
As one boy suctioned the surgical mask to his face, he quickly lifted it back off saying, “Ew, my breath stank.” But, regardless of his breath, he put the mask back on and marched in solidarity with the crowd.
Last fall, Communities for a Better Environment-one of the march organizers — released a study showing that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the California Air Resource Board have major regional gaps in their emissions inventory. This means that, according to CBE, large parts of East Oakland are not being regulated, controlled or monitored for hazardous pollution, even in neighborhoods where people live.
Woman marches with sleeping child
Woman marches with sleeping child
“Children in the East Oakland area are hospitalized for asthma one and a half times more than children in the rest of Alameda County,” said Ana Orozco, a community organizer with CBE.
On nearby San Leandro Street diesel trucks sit and idle while waiting for their goods from the port, adding to the pollution she said. CBE says this is a national trend and often toxic and polluting sites are concentrated in low-income communities of color.
Marchers placed informational pamphlets in Spanish and English on several tables lining the entrance to Acorn Elementary School, the radio station 93.3 La Raza blared Banda in the background, and volunteers stood on call to talk about the need for East Oakland residents to be aware of the environment and their right to live in a healthy community. On the opposite side of the school, on the outdoor basketball courts, a hip-hop DJ played old school jams while kids rushed from the march to sign up for a skateboard contest. The volunteer DJ, Ryan Espinoza, was happy to spend his day helping out this cause. “I schedule my work around these events,” he said.
Teens dance at the 'Love Yo Mama' Earth Day event
Teens dance at the 'Love Yo Mama' Earth Day event
More than 500 people came to the ‘Love Yo Mama’ Earth Day event at the school. “I think the day was a success,” Orozco said. “It was the first time we had an event on that scale and it was right in the heart of the Hegenberger corridor, where there are so many polluting facilities.”
For more information on the environmental justice movement in Oakland, visit Communities for a Better Environment, HOPE Collaborative and Green for All.
Celebrating Earth Day, Oakland-style
Submitted by dkerr on April 28, 2009 – 4:49 pmNo Comment
Preparing to march for environmental justice
Preparing to march for environmental justice
By Dara Kerr/Oakland North
In easy view of crisscrossing highways and towering industrial parks, dozens of people marched through East Oakland’s flatlands wearing white surgical masks on Saturday. Families pushing strollers, men in suits, and kids with skateboards walked from Tassafaronga Recreation Center to Acorn Woodland Elementary School to celebrate ‘Love Yo Mama’ Earth Day and to call attention to environmental degradation in inner city neighborhoods.
As one boy suctioned the surgical mask to his face, he quickly lifted it back off saying, “Ew, my breath stank.” But, regardless of his breath, he put the mask back on and marched in solidarity with the crowd.
Last fall, Communities for a Better Environment-one of the march organizers — released a study showing that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the California Air Resource Board have major regional gaps in their emissions inventory. This means that, according to CBE, large parts of East Oakland are not being regulated, controlled or monitored for hazardous pollution, even in neighborhoods where people live.
Woman marches with sleeping child
Woman marches with sleeping child
“Children in the East Oakland area are hospitalized for asthma one and a half times more than children in the rest of Alameda County,” said Ana Orozco, a community organizer with CBE.
On nearby San Leandro Street diesel trucks sit and idle while waiting for their goods from the port, adding to the pollution she said. CBE says this is a national trend and often toxic and polluting sites are concentrated in low-income communities of color.
Marchers placed informational pamphlets in Spanish and English on several tables lining the entrance to Acorn Elementary School, the radio station 93.3 La Raza blared Banda in the background, and volunteers stood on call to talk about the need for East Oakland residents to be aware of the environment and their right to live in a healthy community. On the opposite side of the school, on the outdoor basketball courts, a hip-hop DJ played old school jams while kids rushed from the march to sign up for a skateboard contest. The volunteer DJ, Ryan Espinoza, was happy to spend his day helping out this cause. “I schedule my work around these events,” he said.
Teens dance at the 'Love Yo Mama' Earth Day event
Teens dance at the 'Love Yo Mama' Earth Day event
More than 500 people came to the ‘Love Yo Mama’ Earth Day event at the school. “I think the day was a success,” Orozco said. “It was the first time we had an event on that scale and it was right in the heart of the Hegenberger corridor, where there are so many polluting facilities.”
For more information on the environmental justice movement in Oakland, visit Communities for a Better Environment, HOPE Collaborative and Green for All.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Huntington Park Communities Recognized for a Better Environment by EPA
Imperial Valley News - October 23, 2008.
San Diego, California - Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency honors two southern California environmental organizations with the agency’s first annual Environmental Justice Achievement Awards: San Diego County’s Negocio Verde Environmental Justice Task Force, and the Huntington Park-based Communities for a Better Environment.
“We all have a stake in ensuring that our air is cleaner, our water is purer, and our land is better protected,” said Granta Nakayama, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “These organizations are making a positive impact in their communities by promoting a clean and healthy environment for all people.”
San Diego’s Negocio Verde Environmental Justice Task Force provides free, bilingual compliance assistance and pollution prevention training, primarily in the county’s communities that face the greatest environmental justice concerns. Since 2003, the Task Force has trained over 6,500 individuals and promoted interaction between small businesses, local agencies, and community members on issues of environmental justice.
Susan Hahn with the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, a member of the Task Force, accepted the award. The Chair of Diego’s Negocio Verde Environmental Justice Task Force, Kacey Christie, said, “We’re very excited to receive this honor from the EPA. It will energize us so we can go forward and present more environmental workshops."
Huntington Park’s Communities for a Better Environment focuses on environmental health and justice within working class communities of color through organizing, scientific and policy research, and legal assistance.
“Communities for a Better Environment is very proud to receive this award from the EPA,” said Bill Gallegos, executive director, Communities for a Better Environment. “It goes out to all of our African-American and Latino neighbors who are on the front line for environmental justice and climate change; this is really their award.”
The EPA’s Environmental Justice Achievement Awards recognizes organizations for their distinguished accomplishments in addressing environmental justice issues. Award recipients include representatives from community-based organizations; academic institutions; state and local governments; tribal governments and indigenous organizations; and non-governmental organizations and environmental groups.
In addition to San Diego’s Negocio Verde Environmental Justice Task Force and Huntington Park’s Communities for a Better Environment, at today’s ceremony in Atlanta, Ga., the EPA honored:
* Anahola Homesteaders Council (Anahola, Kauai, HI)
* Center for Environmental and Economic Justice (Biloxi, Miss.)
* Citizens for Environmental Justice (Savannah, Ga.)
* Dillard University, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice (New Orleans, La.)
* Duke University, Children’s Environmental Health Initiative (Durham, N.C.)
* Medical University of South Carolina (Charleston, S.C.)
* New Mexico Environment Department (Santa Fe, N.M.)
* Safer Pest Control Project (Chicago, Ill.)
* South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (Columbia, S.C.)
* West End Revitalization Association (Mebane, N.C.)
San Diego, California - Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency honors two southern California environmental organizations with the agency’s first annual Environmental Justice Achievement Awards: San Diego County’s Negocio Verde Environmental Justice Task Force, and the Huntington Park-based Communities for a Better Environment.
“We all have a stake in ensuring that our air is cleaner, our water is purer, and our land is better protected,” said Granta Nakayama, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “These organizations are making a positive impact in their communities by promoting a clean and healthy environment for all people.”
San Diego’s Negocio Verde Environmental Justice Task Force provides free, bilingual compliance assistance and pollution prevention training, primarily in the county’s communities that face the greatest environmental justice concerns. Since 2003, the Task Force has trained over 6,500 individuals and promoted interaction between small businesses, local agencies, and community members on issues of environmental justice.
Susan Hahn with the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, a member of the Task Force, accepted the award. The Chair of Diego’s Negocio Verde Environmental Justice Task Force, Kacey Christie, said, “We’re very excited to receive this honor from the EPA. It will energize us so we can go forward and present more environmental workshops."
Huntington Park’s Communities for a Better Environment focuses on environmental health and justice within working class communities of color through organizing, scientific and policy research, and legal assistance.
“Communities for a Better Environment is very proud to receive this award from the EPA,” said Bill Gallegos, executive director, Communities for a Better Environment. “It goes out to all of our African-American and Latino neighbors who are on the front line for environmental justice and climate change; this is really their award.”
The EPA’s Environmental Justice Achievement Awards recognizes organizations for their distinguished accomplishments in addressing environmental justice issues. Award recipients include representatives from community-based organizations; academic institutions; state and local governments; tribal governments and indigenous organizations; and non-governmental organizations and environmental groups.
In addition to San Diego’s Negocio Verde Environmental Justice Task Force and Huntington Park’s Communities for a Better Environment, at today’s ceremony in Atlanta, Ga., the EPA honored:
* Anahola Homesteaders Council (Anahola, Kauai, HI)
* Center for Environmental and Economic Justice (Biloxi, Miss.)
* Citizens for Environmental Justice (Savannah, Ga.)
* Dillard University, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice (New Orleans, La.)
* Duke University, Children’s Environmental Health Initiative (Durham, N.C.)
* Medical University of South Carolina (Charleston, S.C.)
* New Mexico Environment Department (Santa Fe, N.M.)
* Safer Pest Control Project (Chicago, Ill.)
* South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (Columbia, S.C.)
* West End Revitalization Association (Mebane, N.C.)
Your request is being processed... Daphne Zuniga Daphne Zuniga Posted October 14, 2008 | 05:02 PM (EST) BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' I
The Huffington Post - October 14, 2008.
These days, pretty much everyone seems to know about the energy crisis. And, by now, most people also know a little something about Global Warming. But despite the increasingly vocal green movement, far too few know anything at all about Environmental Justice and the communities it aims to serve.
The time is now to raise awareness, to make a difference, and to -- literally -- save people's lives.
Environmental justice is about the people who live next to our power plants, oil refineries, manufacturing plants, incinerators, and waste treatment facilities.
It's about the poor neighborhoods where mountains of empty, hydrofluorocarbon emitting, cargo containers are piled high on residential city blocks...
And it's about the communities near ports like the Port of Los Angeles, Long Beach and others, where hundreds of thousands of ships, trains and diesel trucks travel every day, hauling everything from fruit to furniture to our Toyota Priuses.
It's in these places that childhood asthma is epidemic and lower test scores are the result of deadly toxic fumes children inhale regularly.
Thankfully, it's also in these places that eco-heroes like Bill Gallegos, Hilda Solis, Majora Carter, Van Jones and others are hard at work winning incredible battles -- battles that make a difference for all of us.
For example, in Southern California, when Bill Gallegos and Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) prevented the City of Vernon from opening a massive new fossil fuel power plant we all won.
The CBE's recent court victory (won with the help of the California Environmental Rights Alliance and the National Resources Defense Council) stopped 11 new power plants from going online, keeping 2.8 million tons of greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants from being emitted into our air annually.
But unfortunately, despite all the media attention focused on green these days, the grassroots activists who lead the movement against global warming and power plants in these communities simply do not get the publicity they deserve.
And the challenges they face remain significant.
In the San Gabriel valley, Congresswoman Hilda Solis, recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award for her work on environmental justice issues, represents a district burdened with rocket fuel tainted drinking water, granite quarries that leave gaping canyons miles in diameter, and air so thick with life threatening particulates that the EPA refuses to come in and measure them.
This media neglect wouldn't happen if it were the Pacific Palisades - but of course it would never be the Palisades.
When Majora Carter, founder of Sustainable South Bronx, asked Al Gore how Environmental Justice communities could play a part in his coalition, she made clear that she wasn't looking for just a grant. "Don't waste me," she said.
(It's not that Sustainable South Bronx couldn't use the funding, because of course they could. One clear outcome of the media inattention to Environmental Justice efforts is the lack of support and funding they receive.)
Majora and other EJ leaders don't want to, and shouldn't be, wasted because they bring so much to the table. They are organized, motivated (they have to be when at least 66% of Hispanics in the US live in communities where the air quality does not meet federal standards), and they do daily battle with corporations that are betting the rest of us will just keep avoiding, or pretending we don't see, the injustice.
By working with communities that may sound far away but aren't, we will find that our fight against global warming, and civil rights becomes much more effective. Solutions are fortified by our collective power.
"We get people involved. That's the tradition in this country. That's the civil rights tradition, the farm workers tradition, the women's suffrage tradition. Because we know that when people get involved they make change," says Bill Gallegos.
One of the most compelling, frightening, ways to become aware and to get involved is to take a Toxic Tour. Most EJ organizations offer them, and I recently went on one with CBE.
On one street in the LA Southland, I watched as an elderly woman walked out of her small house to her mailbox. She never looked at the massive Conoco oil refinery that loomed behind her at the street's end. Nor did she take notice of the freeway racing by at the other end of her block.
But I sure did. And it's changed me. It'll change you too.
These days, pretty much everyone seems to know about the energy crisis. And, by now, most people also know a little something about Global Warming. But despite the increasingly vocal green movement, far too few know anything at all about Environmental Justice and the communities it aims to serve.
The time is now to raise awareness, to make a difference, and to -- literally -- save people's lives.
Environmental justice is about the people who live next to our power plants, oil refineries, manufacturing plants, incinerators, and waste treatment facilities.
It's about the poor neighborhoods where mountains of empty, hydrofluorocarbon emitting, cargo containers are piled high on residential city blocks...
And it's about the communities near ports like the Port of Los Angeles, Long Beach and others, where hundreds of thousands of ships, trains and diesel trucks travel every day, hauling everything from fruit to furniture to our Toyota Priuses.
It's in these places that childhood asthma is epidemic and lower test scores are the result of deadly toxic fumes children inhale regularly.
Thankfully, it's also in these places that eco-heroes like Bill Gallegos, Hilda Solis, Majora Carter, Van Jones and others are hard at work winning incredible battles -- battles that make a difference for all of us.
For example, in Southern California, when Bill Gallegos and Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) prevented the City of Vernon from opening a massive new fossil fuel power plant we all won.
The CBE's recent court victory (won with the help of the California Environmental Rights Alliance and the National Resources Defense Council) stopped 11 new power plants from going online, keeping 2.8 million tons of greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants from being emitted into our air annually.
But unfortunately, despite all the media attention focused on green these days, the grassroots activists who lead the movement against global warming and power plants in these communities simply do not get the publicity they deserve.
And the challenges they face remain significant.
In the San Gabriel valley, Congresswoman Hilda Solis, recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award for her work on environmental justice issues, represents a district burdened with rocket fuel tainted drinking water, granite quarries that leave gaping canyons miles in diameter, and air so thick with life threatening particulates that the EPA refuses to come in and measure them.
This media neglect wouldn't happen if it were the Pacific Palisades - but of course it would never be the Palisades.
When Majora Carter, founder of Sustainable South Bronx, asked Al Gore how Environmental Justice communities could play a part in his coalition, she made clear that she wasn't looking for just a grant. "Don't waste me," she said.
(It's not that Sustainable South Bronx couldn't use the funding, because of course they could. One clear outcome of the media inattention to Environmental Justice efforts is the lack of support and funding they receive.)
Majora and other EJ leaders don't want to, and shouldn't be, wasted because they bring so much to the table. They are organized, motivated (they have to be when at least 66% of Hispanics in the US live in communities where the air quality does not meet federal standards), and they do daily battle with corporations that are betting the rest of us will just keep avoiding, or pretending we don't see, the injustice.
By working with communities that may sound far away but aren't, we will find that our fight against global warming, and civil rights becomes much more effective. Solutions are fortified by our collective power.
"We get people involved. That's the tradition in this country. That's the civil rights tradition, the farm workers tradition, the women's suffrage tradition. Because we know that when people get involved they make change," says Bill Gallegos.
One of the most compelling, frightening, ways to become aware and to get involved is to take a Toxic Tour. Most EJ organizations offer them, and I recently went on one with CBE.
On one street in the LA Southland, I watched as an elderly woman walked out of her small house to her mailbox. She never looked at the massive Conoco oil refinery that loomed behind her at the street's end. Nor did she take notice of the freeway racing by at the other end of her block.
But I sure did. And it's changed me. It'll change you too.
Suit challenges Richmond’s Approval of Chevron’s Refinery Project
San Francisco Business Times - September 5, 2008.
Three community groups sued the city of Richmond and Chevron Corp. and its subsidiary Chevron Products Co. to try and force the city to throw out the environmental impact report it conducted for a substantial upgrade project at Chevron’s Richmond refinery.
The groups, Communities for a Better Environment, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, and the West County Toxics Coalition, asked the court to have the city withdraw the approvals and project permits it issued in July for the project.
The plaintiffs allege the city illegally certified the environmental impact report, or EIR, and issued a conditional use permit and a design review permit to Chevron Products Co. that will allow the refinery to process lower-quality heavy oil that is more polluting than the grade of oil currently processed there.
The plaintiffs allege 11 violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, including failure to provide an adequate project description, failure to provide a proper baseline for measuring polluting emissions, and failure to evaluate the project’s significant environmental impacts.
“We want a brand new EIR,” said William Rostov, an attorney with Earthjustice representing the community groups. “We want the project to be fully studied and the environmental impacts from the project mitigated.”
The multi-year, $1 billion refinery upgrade, dubbed the Energy and Hydrogen Renewal project, includes four major components and many smaller components. The main pieces of the upgrade include replacing a hydrogen plant, replacing a power plant, hydrogen purity improvements, and a new catalytic reformer. It would include replacing and building new storage tanks, new maintenance facilities and a new central control room.
The draft EIR did not address greenhouse gas emissions at all. The final EIR did include the fact that the project will increase greenhouse gas emissions by at least 898,000 metric tons per year, but gave the oil company a year to develop a plan to mitigate that increase in emissions.
A spokesman for the Chevron refinery could not be reached immediately to comment. Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin could not be reached immediately to comment.
In a succession of hearings before the city planning commission and City Council, Chevron officials denied that pollution will increase as a result of the changes planned at the refinery.
After the city certified the EIR and issued conditional use and design review permits, both Communities for a Better Environment and Chevron appealed. Chevron challenged a number of conditions of approval that the city placed on the company as it issued the permits, saying some of the conditions were infeasible. Communities for a Better Environment, in its appeal, challenged the EIR as inadequate.
During a July 15 hearing of the appeals, Chevron presented a so-called Community Benefits Agreement under which it agreed to give the city $61 million over a number of years on the condition that the city issued it the necessary permits to go ahead with the project.
The terms of that agreement, signed on July 31, call for the money Chevron gives to the city to fund jobs, safety and education initiatives in Richmond. Some of the funding would go to hiring new police officers, and $14 million in funding would be provided for alternative-energy projects within Richmond over a five-year period, including alternative-energy projects at the refinery.
The suit challenging the city’s approval of the renewal project puts the community benefits agreement at risk, according to the agreement.
One provision of the agreement states that if a court sets aside the city’s approval of the renewal project for any reason except for a challenge by Chevron, then the agreement will be null and void and Chevron will owe no funding obligations to the city. During the length of the court challenge, however, the agreement will be deferred.
Three community groups sued the city of Richmond and Chevron Corp. and its subsidiary Chevron Products Co. to try and force the city to throw out the environmental impact report it conducted for a substantial upgrade project at Chevron’s Richmond refinery.
The groups, Communities for a Better Environment, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, and the West County Toxics Coalition, asked the court to have the city withdraw the approvals and project permits it issued in July for the project.
The plaintiffs allege the city illegally certified the environmental impact report, or EIR, and issued a conditional use permit and a design review permit to Chevron Products Co. that will allow the refinery to process lower-quality heavy oil that is more polluting than the grade of oil currently processed there.
The plaintiffs allege 11 violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, including failure to provide an adequate project description, failure to provide a proper baseline for measuring polluting emissions, and failure to evaluate the project’s significant environmental impacts.
“We want a brand new EIR,” said William Rostov, an attorney with Earthjustice representing the community groups. “We want the project to be fully studied and the environmental impacts from the project mitigated.”
The multi-year, $1 billion refinery upgrade, dubbed the Energy and Hydrogen Renewal project, includes four major components and many smaller components. The main pieces of the upgrade include replacing a hydrogen plant, replacing a power plant, hydrogen purity improvements, and a new catalytic reformer. It would include replacing and building new storage tanks, new maintenance facilities and a new central control room.
The draft EIR did not address greenhouse gas emissions at all. The final EIR did include the fact that the project will increase greenhouse gas emissions by at least 898,000 metric tons per year, but gave the oil company a year to develop a plan to mitigate that increase in emissions.
A spokesman for the Chevron refinery could not be reached immediately to comment. Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin could not be reached immediately to comment.
In a succession of hearings before the city planning commission and City Council, Chevron officials denied that pollution will increase as a result of the changes planned at the refinery.
After the city certified the EIR and issued conditional use and design review permits, both Communities for a Better Environment and Chevron appealed. Chevron challenged a number of conditions of approval that the city placed on the company as it issued the permits, saying some of the conditions were infeasible. Communities for a Better Environment, in its appeal, challenged the EIR as inadequate.
During a July 15 hearing of the appeals, Chevron presented a so-called Community Benefits Agreement under which it agreed to give the city $61 million over a number of years on the condition that the city issued it the necessary permits to go ahead with the project.
The terms of that agreement, signed on July 31, call for the money Chevron gives to the city to fund jobs, safety and education initiatives in Richmond. Some of the funding would go to hiring new police officers, and $14 million in funding would be provided for alternative-energy projects within Richmond over a five-year period, including alternative-energy projects at the refinery.
The suit challenging the city’s approval of the renewal project puts the community benefits agreement at risk, according to the agreement.
One provision of the agreement states that if a court sets aside the city’s approval of the renewal project for any reason except for a challenge by Chevron, then the agreement will be null and void and Chevron will owe no funding obligations to the city. During the length of the court challenge, however, the agreement will be deferred.
'Toxic Tour' takes in Los Angeles' Dirty Little Secrets
AFP - August 14, 2008.
LOS ANGELES (AFP) — Whether you want to see the multi-million dollar home of a Hollywood celebrity or the scene of an infamous crime, Los Angeles has a guided tour to suit almost every taste.
But away from the well-worn tourist routes of Beverly Hills and Hollywood, Robert Cabrales is preparing to take a bus-load of sightseers on a journey that he says aims to expose the city's "dirty little secrets".
Organized by the advocacy group Communities for a Better Environment (CBECAL), the "Toxic Tour" takes eco-tourists through the sights and smells of some of Los Angeles' most notorious environmental black spots.
"The purpose is mainly to let people know that there is something going on here, which is the dirty little secrets that pretty much most people don't know about," Cabrales says. "When we talk about tourism and people coming over to visit Los Angeles they're not going to see the nasty parts."
Launched in 2007, the tour departs several times a month, ferrying anyone from environmentally conscious tourists to schoolchildren, activists and even government officials.
Cabrales said the tour aims to shine a light on the "environmental injustices" of Los Angeles, where residents in poorer neighborhoods live in close proximity to heavy industry.
Among the tour's stops are the former site of "La Montana" -- a vast mountain of concrete rubble left over from the 1994 Los Angeles earthquake that for several years was deposited next to a strip of family homes.
It was nearly a decade before the rubble mountain -- blamed for worsening air quality and a spike in respiratory illnesses in the adjacent neighborhood -- was removed, and only then after a city council member called on to inspect the site had suffered a severe asthma attack and a collapsed lung as a result.
Cabrales says Huntington Park is known as "Asthma Town" because of its high asthma rates amongst children.
He says the community suffers because it is surrounded on three sides by the Vernon, which is almost exclusively an industrial district.
One of the tour's most striking stops is the Suva Elementary School in the Bell Gardens neighborhood, scene of a public health scandal caused by pollution from nearby chrome plating facilities.
From 1987 to 1988, seven out of 11 students at Suva who became pregnant miscarried, and of the seven miscarriages, four involved deformed fetuses.
Worried by the rash of failed pregnancies, school officials began conducting their own inquiries and discovered that the high rates of miscarriage and cancer were mirrored in the broader community.
An air monitor later revealed high levels of hexavalent chromium in the atmosphere, which was later linked to chrome plating facilities -- one of which had a smoke stack pointing directly at the school's playground.
Elsewhere on the tour, the bus stops in a quiet residential road which could be anywhere in America, if it wasn't for the metal towers and columns of a vast oil refinery just over the fence at the end of the street.
For tour group member Patrick Becknell, a 23-year-old Los Angeles musician, the stop is the most startling aspect of the tour.
"The juxtaposition of an oil refinery and a neighborhood was the biggest eye-opener for me," Becknell told AFP. "Just knowing that their backyard was literally an oil refinery. It's inspiring and awing at the same time.
"If your average tourist or Los Angeles resident saw what we saw I think they'd have more of an appreciation, and also of what organized community action can do."
LOS ANGELES (AFP) — Whether you want to see the multi-million dollar home of a Hollywood celebrity or the scene of an infamous crime, Los Angeles has a guided tour to suit almost every taste.
But away from the well-worn tourist routes of Beverly Hills and Hollywood, Robert Cabrales is preparing to take a bus-load of sightseers on a journey that he says aims to expose the city's "dirty little secrets".
Organized by the advocacy group Communities for a Better Environment (CBECAL), the "Toxic Tour" takes eco-tourists through the sights and smells of some of Los Angeles' most notorious environmental black spots.
"The purpose is mainly to let people know that there is something going on here, which is the dirty little secrets that pretty much most people don't know about," Cabrales says. "When we talk about tourism and people coming over to visit Los Angeles they're not going to see the nasty parts."
Launched in 2007, the tour departs several times a month, ferrying anyone from environmentally conscious tourists to schoolchildren, activists and even government officials.
Cabrales said the tour aims to shine a light on the "environmental injustices" of Los Angeles, where residents in poorer neighborhoods live in close proximity to heavy industry.
Among the tour's stops are the former site of "La Montana" -- a vast mountain of concrete rubble left over from the 1994 Los Angeles earthquake that for several years was deposited next to a strip of family homes.
It was nearly a decade before the rubble mountain -- blamed for worsening air quality and a spike in respiratory illnesses in the adjacent neighborhood -- was removed, and only then after a city council member called on to inspect the site had suffered a severe asthma attack and a collapsed lung as a result.
Cabrales says Huntington Park is known as "Asthma Town" because of its high asthma rates amongst children.
He says the community suffers because it is surrounded on three sides by the Vernon, which is almost exclusively an industrial district.
One of the tour's most striking stops is the Suva Elementary School in the Bell Gardens neighborhood, scene of a public health scandal caused by pollution from nearby chrome plating facilities.
From 1987 to 1988, seven out of 11 students at Suva who became pregnant miscarried, and of the seven miscarriages, four involved deformed fetuses.
Worried by the rash of failed pregnancies, school officials began conducting their own inquiries and discovered that the high rates of miscarriage and cancer were mirrored in the broader community.
An air monitor later revealed high levels of hexavalent chromium in the atmosphere, which was later linked to chrome plating facilities -- one of which had a smoke stack pointing directly at the school's playground.
Elsewhere on the tour, the bus stops in a quiet residential road which could be anywhere in America, if it wasn't for the metal towers and columns of a vast oil refinery just over the fence at the end of the street.
For tour group member Patrick Becknell, a 23-year-old Los Angeles musician, the stop is the most startling aspect of the tour.
"The juxtaposition of an oil refinery and a neighborhood was the biggest eye-opener for me," Becknell told AFP. "Just knowing that their backyard was literally an oil refinery. It's inspiring and awing at the same time.
"If your average tourist or Los Angeles resident saw what we saw I think they'd have more of an appreciation, and also of what organized community action can do."
SoCal Power Plants On Hold
How do you build 11 new gas-fired power plants in Southern California when you already exceed federal standards for unhealthful air? Under the U.S. Clean Air Act, the local governments that make up the South Coast Air Quality Management District can allow more pollution in one place only if they reduce soot and cancer-causing airborne particles somewhere else in the same region through a complex system of pollution credits, also known as offsets.
Given how dirty the air is, such pollution credits are scarce and expensive--which is why the AQMD, years ago, set some aside for such public projects as hospitals and police stations. Then, last year, it voted to sell these "Priority Reserve" credits to power plant developers at about half their market value.
Not so fast, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled today.
In a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council, California Communities Against Toxics and other groups, Judge Ann I. Jones told the air quality district in a 32-page decision that it could not subsidize the plants until it fully reported on the environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Community activists rejoiced, saying that the decision delays for at least one to two years the construction of power plants that had been proposed for Vernon, Grand Terrace and other largely poor and minority parts of the Los Angeles and Mojave air districts. "It is the air district's job to clean up the air in places like Southeast L.A.," said Darryl Molina, an organizer at Communities for a Better Environment. "The court understands: Creating new pollution credits meant that new power plants like Vernon's will make the air dirtier for people in low-income communities of color."
Angela Johnson Meszaros, an attorney for California Communities Against Toxics, a group of 70 local organizations, said, "This case is about the district trying to change its rules to help fossil fuel energy developers. As if that's not bad enough, the district insisted that it didn't need to undertake environmental review before changing its rules."
LA Times, July 29, 2009.
But Barry Wallerstein, AQMD's executive officer, said the decision "could make it extremely difficult to build new, low-emission power plants needed in California. Ultimately this could lead to power brownouts or blackouts, which, in turn, could greatly affect public health and safety, as seen during the state's 2000-01 power crisis."
Will the decision mean fewer electricity plants for the state's burgeoning population? Not necessarily, said V. John White of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies. "It will require South Coast to look at alternatives to more fossil fuel plants, which they failed to do in granting these blanket waivers from air quality protections. Hopefully, this will lead to more focus on energy efficiency and solar power." Dozens of new solar and wind plants have been proposed for Southern California, and to meet the state's goals to reduce greenhouse gases, utilities must get a third of their energy from renewable resources, according to the state Air Resources Board.
Given how dirty the air is, such pollution credits are scarce and expensive--which is why the AQMD, years ago, set some aside for such public projects as hospitals and police stations. Then, last year, it voted to sell these "Priority Reserve" credits to power plant developers at about half their market value.
Not so fast, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled today.
In a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council, California Communities Against Toxics and other groups, Judge Ann I. Jones told the air quality district in a 32-page decision that it could not subsidize the plants until it fully reported on the environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Community activists rejoiced, saying that the decision delays for at least one to two years the construction of power plants that had been proposed for Vernon, Grand Terrace and other largely poor and minority parts of the Los Angeles and Mojave air districts. "It is the air district's job to clean up the air in places like Southeast L.A.," said Darryl Molina, an organizer at Communities for a Better Environment. "The court understands: Creating new pollution credits meant that new power plants like Vernon's will make the air dirtier for people in low-income communities of color."
Angela Johnson Meszaros, an attorney for California Communities Against Toxics, a group of 70 local organizations, said, "This case is about the district trying to change its rules to help fossil fuel energy developers. As if that's not bad enough, the district insisted that it didn't need to undertake environmental review before changing its rules."
LA Times, July 29, 2009.
But Barry Wallerstein, AQMD's executive officer, said the decision "could make it extremely difficult to build new, low-emission power plants needed in California. Ultimately this could lead to power brownouts or blackouts, which, in turn, could greatly affect public health and safety, as seen during the state's 2000-01 power crisis."
Will the decision mean fewer electricity plants for the state's burgeoning population? Not necessarily, said V. John White of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies. "It will require South Coast to look at alternatives to more fossil fuel plants, which they failed to do in granting these blanket waivers from air quality protections. Hopefully, this will lead to more focus on energy efficiency and solar power." Dozens of new solar and wind plants have been proposed for Southern California, and to meet the state's goals to reduce greenhouse gases, utilities must get a third of their energy from renewable resources, according to the state Air Resources Board.
Suit prevents new polluting power plants in low-income neighborhoods
NRDC - July 30, 2008.
Finding for a coalition of community, health and environmental groups, the Honorable Ann I. Jones’ decision today forbids the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) from subsidizing new power plants in the Southland at the expense of air quality without a full analysis of the environmental impacts. Today’s court decision confirms that AQMD’s environmental study failed to admit the nature of the project AQMD proposed: to create new credits and distribute them for use by fossil-fueled power plants. The study also failed to disclose impacts to air quality and public health, or explore alternatives and protections that could minimize those harms. Power plants are proposed in Vernon, Grand Terrace, and other parts of the Los Angeles and Mohave air basins.
“Millions of people living in Southern California are currently living with the worst air quality in the nation,” said David Pettit, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “It’s possible to meet Southern California’s energy demand without poisoning ourselves in the process. It’s taken decades to slowly improve the air quality in Southern California and today’s decision not only protects those gains, but sets us on a path to breathing cleaner air.”
“It’s the air district’s job to clean up the air in places like South East LA, where the Vernon Power Plant wants to build,” said Darryl Molina, an organizer at Communities for a Better Environment. “That plant alone would result in between 3 and 11 deaths every year it operates. Ordering the district to consider and address the rules’ impacts shows that the court understands: creating new pollution credits means that new fossil fuel power plants like Vernon will make the air people in low income communities of color breathe dirtier.”
Today’s decision rescinds two AQMD rules allowing power plant developers to purchase air quality credits from the “Priority Reserve” account, which is an internal reservoir of pollution credits usually reserved for essential public services like schools and hospitals. Although it offered credits at below-market rates, AQMD stood to profit roughly $420 million by selling Priority Reserve air credits to power plant developers.
“The District’s effort to ensure that the Basin’s energy needs are met with fossil fuels instead of clean-renewables is outrageous in light of global climate change and the negative health impacts on every person living in this air basin,” said Angela Johnson Meszaros, attorney for California Communities Against Toxics. “We call upon the District’s Governing Board to take the negative health and environmental impacts of fossil fuel seriously.”
Federal law requires developers to purchase emission credits prior to power plant operation to confirm no net increase in future pollution, ensuring the South Coast Air Basin progresses toward federal air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. AQMD is trying to create air credits from emission reductions that occurred in the past – up to 18 years ago – to stock the Priority Reserve.
The coalition includes Natural Resources Defense Council, Communities for a Better Environment, Coalition for a Safe Environment, and California Communities Against Toxics.
Finding for a coalition of community, health and environmental groups, the Honorable Ann I. Jones’ decision today forbids the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) from subsidizing new power plants in the Southland at the expense of air quality without a full analysis of the environmental impacts. Today’s court decision confirms that AQMD’s environmental study failed to admit the nature of the project AQMD proposed: to create new credits and distribute them for use by fossil-fueled power plants. The study also failed to disclose impacts to air quality and public health, or explore alternatives and protections that could minimize those harms. Power plants are proposed in Vernon, Grand Terrace, and other parts of the Los Angeles and Mohave air basins.
“Millions of people living in Southern California are currently living with the worst air quality in the nation,” said David Pettit, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “It’s possible to meet Southern California’s energy demand without poisoning ourselves in the process. It’s taken decades to slowly improve the air quality in Southern California and today’s decision not only protects those gains, but sets us on a path to breathing cleaner air.”
“It’s the air district’s job to clean up the air in places like South East LA, where the Vernon Power Plant wants to build,” said Darryl Molina, an organizer at Communities for a Better Environment. “That plant alone would result in between 3 and 11 deaths every year it operates. Ordering the district to consider and address the rules’ impacts shows that the court understands: creating new pollution credits means that new fossil fuel power plants like Vernon will make the air people in low income communities of color breathe dirtier.”
Today’s decision rescinds two AQMD rules allowing power plant developers to purchase air quality credits from the “Priority Reserve” account, which is an internal reservoir of pollution credits usually reserved for essential public services like schools and hospitals. Although it offered credits at below-market rates, AQMD stood to profit roughly $420 million by selling Priority Reserve air credits to power plant developers.
“The District’s effort to ensure that the Basin’s energy needs are met with fossil fuels instead of clean-renewables is outrageous in light of global climate change and the negative health impacts on every person living in this air basin,” said Angela Johnson Meszaros, attorney for California Communities Against Toxics. “We call upon the District’s Governing Board to take the negative health and environmental impacts of fossil fuel seriously.”
Federal law requires developers to purchase emission credits prior to power plant operation to confirm no net increase in future pollution, ensuring the South Coast Air Basin progresses toward federal air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. AQMD is trying to create air credits from emission reductions that occurred in the past – up to 18 years ago – to stock the Priority Reserve.
The coalition includes Natural Resources Defense Council, Communities for a Better Environment, Coalition for a Safe Environment, and California Communities Against Toxics.
Our Lungs Are Not For Sale
David Pettit, NRDC - July 31, 2008.
NRDC and its allies Communities for a Better Environment, Coalition for a Safe Environment, and California Communities Against Toxics won a huge victory on July 28, 2008, when the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled in their favor in a CEQA case challenging the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s “Priority Reserve” rules.
Here is the context for this win. Because the LA area is in “non-attainment” under the federal Clean Air Act for PM2.5 particulate matter (the really small stuff), a new facility can’t be built that emits PM2.5 particles unless it can buy credits on the open market for the amount particulate matter that it plans to emit. The credits typically come from existing, polluting companies that shut down or that are emitting less than they are permitted to do. Credits for PM2.5 have become hugely expensive in this market as a result of small supply and huge demand. The SCAQMD became concerned that facilities like hospitals and police stations might not get built because of this, and so created a “bank” for PM 2.5 credits that SCAQMD would give away for free to these public uses. This was called the “Priority Reserve.”
What the lawsuit is about is that SCAQMD decided to open up the Priority Reserve to private, profit-making electricity generating facilities such as the proposed Vernon Powerplant, and sell PM 2.5 credits to such facilities at far below market value. This meant that communities like Boyle Heights would be subjected to many tons of pollutants by facilities situated literally next door. Selling these credits at a cut-rate price is also a subversion of the market-based system that is doing exactly what it is supposed to do: make credits expensive in order to incentivize conservation, innovation and non-fossil fuel sources of power. Moreover, SCAQMD stands to make over $400 million by selling these credits: that is the price (at below-market rates) of the PM 2.5 credits they hope to sell to electrical plants and, eventually, to oil companies.
This twist to this whole scenario is that SCAQMD is the agency that is supposed to protect us against air pollution, but by making these credits available, and on the cheap, we could actually end up with more air pollution. Their response is that we need more power in the LA area. That may or may not be so, but SCAQMD has exactly zero expertise in this area (that is the job of the California Energy Commission), and the shoddy environmental documents that SCAQMD produced did not back up their excuse.
So, NRDC and its allies sued SCAQMD under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), arguing that AQMD could not open its Priority Reserve to private entities such as the proposed Vernon Powerplant without doing full environmental review. Judge Jones of the LA Superior Court agreed in a decision issued on July 28, 2008. In her order, Judge Jones prohibited AQMD from “undertaking any action to further implement these rules” without complying with CEQA. It should take 1 to 2 years for AQMD to complete a decent environmental review.
In the mean time, projects such as the Vernon Powerplant cannot go forward unless they can buy credits on the open market, without governmental subsidies. That is as it should be. The health of the public cannot be priced and sold like a commodity.
NRDC and its allies Communities for a Better Environment, Coalition for a Safe Environment, and California Communities Against Toxics won a huge victory on July 28, 2008, when the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled in their favor in a CEQA case challenging the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s “Priority Reserve” rules.
Here is the context for this win. Because the LA area is in “non-attainment” under the federal Clean Air Act for PM2.5 particulate matter (the really small stuff), a new facility can’t be built that emits PM2.5 particles unless it can buy credits on the open market for the amount particulate matter that it plans to emit. The credits typically come from existing, polluting companies that shut down or that are emitting less than they are permitted to do. Credits for PM2.5 have become hugely expensive in this market as a result of small supply and huge demand. The SCAQMD became concerned that facilities like hospitals and police stations might not get built because of this, and so created a “bank” for PM 2.5 credits that SCAQMD would give away for free to these public uses. This was called the “Priority Reserve.”
What the lawsuit is about is that SCAQMD decided to open up the Priority Reserve to private, profit-making electricity generating facilities such as the proposed Vernon Powerplant, and sell PM 2.5 credits to such facilities at far below market value. This meant that communities like Boyle Heights would be subjected to many tons of pollutants by facilities situated literally next door. Selling these credits at a cut-rate price is also a subversion of the market-based system that is doing exactly what it is supposed to do: make credits expensive in order to incentivize conservation, innovation and non-fossil fuel sources of power. Moreover, SCAQMD stands to make over $400 million by selling these credits: that is the price (at below-market rates) of the PM 2.5 credits they hope to sell to electrical plants and, eventually, to oil companies.
This twist to this whole scenario is that SCAQMD is the agency that is supposed to protect us against air pollution, but by making these credits available, and on the cheap, we could actually end up with more air pollution. Their response is that we need more power in the LA area. That may or may not be so, but SCAQMD has exactly zero expertise in this area (that is the job of the California Energy Commission), and the shoddy environmental documents that SCAQMD produced did not back up their excuse.
So, NRDC and its allies sued SCAQMD under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), arguing that AQMD could not open its Priority Reserve to private entities such as the proposed Vernon Powerplant without doing full environmental review. Judge Jones of the LA Superior Court agreed in a decision issued on July 28, 2008. In her order, Judge Jones prohibited AQMD from “undertaking any action to further implement these rules” without complying with CEQA. It should take 1 to 2 years for AQMD to complete a decent environmental review.
In the mean time, projects such as the Vernon Powerplant cannot go forward unless they can buy credits on the open market, without governmental subsidies. That is as it should be. The health of the public cannot be priced and sold like a commodity.
Judge’s ruling throws Southern California Power Plant Plans into Disarray
Margot Roosevelt, LA Times - July 31, 2008.
Does Southern California need a dozen or so new gas-fired power plants – and if it does, can it build them? No one seems to know for sure.
The region’s long-term plans to generate electricity to serve a growing population and to replace decades-old dirty plants were thrown into disarray this week, when a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that local authorities had failed to do the necessary environmental and health analyses.
Officials from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which encompasses Orange County and large swaths of Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside counties, warned of likely “blackouts and brownouts” if the plants are not built.
Many of the plants, such as a 914-megawatt generator sponsored by the small industrial city of Vernon, would be in low-income, crowded areas that have high rates of asthma and other pollution-related diseases. Though they would be outfitted with the latest in pollution-control technology, the gas-fired generators would emit thousands of tons of fine soot particles, which are linked to cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.
The court decision is “a victory for the health of our children,” said Lucy Ramos, a Boyle Heights middle-school aide and president of Mothers of East L.A., a group that has been fighting the Vernon plant. “Our community is not a dumping ground.”
The proposed plants, which include 11 in the Los Angeles Basin and two in the outlying areas of Desert Hot Springs and Victorville, would be built by private companies, which would sell the power to Southern California Edison and other utilities. But under the federal Clean Air Act, no polluting facilities can be built unless soot and chemicals are reduced elsewhere in the region through a complex system of pollution credits, also known as offsets.
Years ago, the air district set aside what it called Priority Reserve credits so that projects such as hospitals and police stations could be built even if they added to the region’s pollution. Last year, the district, lobbied by a host of former politicians, decided to sell the credits to energy companies for $420 million: about half the market value, according to environmentalists’ calculations.
Environmental and community groups said Wednesday that they would sue in federal court to nullify such credits.
The decision, meanwhile, left air regulators perplexed at their next move.
“What’s the responsible action?” asked Barry Wallerstein, the air district’s executive officer. “Should we wait until we have brownouts and blackouts to build new power plants? We need lights in our schools and power for our factories and electricity in our homes.”
Wallerstein said the region needs about 2,000 megawatts of new capacity, and that sufficient offsets are unavailable on the open market.
The 32-page decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Communities for a Better Environment and other groups. In it, Judge Ann I. Jones told the air district it could not sell offsets to the plants without a fuller analysis under California’s Environmental Quality Act. In particular, the judge said, the district needed to analyze exactly how many tons of pollutants, including health-damaging soot and planet-heating greenhouse gases, each proposed plant would emit.
Wallerstein said the district is unlikely to appeal the ruling. “It will be a question of whether we proceed with a new rule, or whether we throw up our hands and say, someone else should figure this out because it is beyond our control.”
If the judge’s concerns “are beyond our ability to address, then there will be a permanent moratorium on power plant construction in Southern California.”
Environmentalists and many industry experts say that much of the region’s demand can be met through conservation and renewable energy.
But no one knows how much could be supplied by wind farms, geothermal energy, solar rooftop facilities or large solar plants, many of which are proposed in fragile desert areas.
Until the 1998 electricity deregulation, the state’s Energy Commission was responsible for determining needs. But later, the commission’s role was largely reduced to permitting the siting of plants, leaving the market to decide how much and what kind of generation is needed.
Southern California Edison has signed long-term power purchase agreements for 2,556 megawatts of power from new gas-fired generators, including proposed plants in Walnut Creek, Calif., and El Segundo. Spokesman Gil Alexander said Wednesday that the company had not assessed the effect of the judge’s decision.
“Obviously we believe new capacity is a critical energy planning issue for the region,” he said.
Under California law, private utilities, which produce 11% of their power from renewable sources, must boost their so-called “green” portfolio to 20% by 2010. But a recent plan released by the state Air Resources Board said the amount must increase to a third by 2020 for all utilities, if the state is to meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gases that are causing global warming.
Aides to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are negotiating with legislators to put the 33% requirement into law this year, a measure that could alter plans for many of the new gas-fired plants.
Does Southern California need a dozen or so new gas-fired power plants – and if it does, can it build them? No one seems to know for sure.
The region’s long-term plans to generate electricity to serve a growing population and to replace decades-old dirty plants were thrown into disarray this week, when a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that local authorities had failed to do the necessary environmental and health analyses.
Officials from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which encompasses Orange County and large swaths of Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside counties, warned of likely “blackouts and brownouts” if the plants are not built.
Many of the plants, such as a 914-megawatt generator sponsored by the small industrial city of Vernon, would be in low-income, crowded areas that have high rates of asthma and other pollution-related diseases. Though they would be outfitted with the latest in pollution-control technology, the gas-fired generators would emit thousands of tons of fine soot particles, which are linked to cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.
The court decision is “a victory for the health of our children,” said Lucy Ramos, a Boyle Heights middle-school aide and president of Mothers of East L.A., a group that has been fighting the Vernon plant. “Our community is not a dumping ground.”
The proposed plants, which include 11 in the Los Angeles Basin and two in the outlying areas of Desert Hot Springs and Victorville, would be built by private companies, which would sell the power to Southern California Edison and other utilities. But under the federal Clean Air Act, no polluting facilities can be built unless soot and chemicals are reduced elsewhere in the region through a complex system of pollution credits, also known as offsets.
Years ago, the air district set aside what it called Priority Reserve credits so that projects such as hospitals and police stations could be built even if they added to the region’s pollution. Last year, the district, lobbied by a host of former politicians, decided to sell the credits to energy companies for $420 million: about half the market value, according to environmentalists’ calculations.
Environmental and community groups said Wednesday that they would sue in federal court to nullify such credits.
The decision, meanwhile, left air regulators perplexed at their next move.
“What’s the responsible action?” asked Barry Wallerstein, the air district’s executive officer. “Should we wait until we have brownouts and blackouts to build new power plants? We need lights in our schools and power for our factories and electricity in our homes.”
Wallerstein said the region needs about 2,000 megawatts of new capacity, and that sufficient offsets are unavailable on the open market.
The 32-page decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Communities for a Better Environment and other groups. In it, Judge Ann I. Jones told the air district it could not sell offsets to the plants without a fuller analysis under California’s Environmental Quality Act. In particular, the judge said, the district needed to analyze exactly how many tons of pollutants, including health-damaging soot and planet-heating greenhouse gases, each proposed plant would emit.
Wallerstein said the district is unlikely to appeal the ruling. “It will be a question of whether we proceed with a new rule, or whether we throw up our hands and say, someone else should figure this out because it is beyond our control.”
If the judge’s concerns “are beyond our ability to address, then there will be a permanent moratorium on power plant construction in Southern California.”
Environmentalists and many industry experts say that much of the region’s demand can be met through conservation and renewable energy.
But no one knows how much could be supplied by wind farms, geothermal energy, solar rooftop facilities or large solar plants, many of which are proposed in fragile desert areas.
Until the 1998 electricity deregulation, the state’s Energy Commission was responsible for determining needs. But later, the commission’s role was largely reduced to permitting the siting of plants, leaving the market to decide how much and what kind of generation is needed.
Southern California Edison has signed long-term power purchase agreements for 2,556 megawatts of power from new gas-fired generators, including proposed plants in Walnut Creek, Calif., and El Segundo. Spokesman Gil Alexander said Wednesday that the company had not assessed the effect of the judge’s decision.
“Obviously we believe new capacity is a critical energy planning issue for the region,” he said.
Under California law, private utilities, which produce 11% of their power from renewable sources, must boost their so-called “green” portfolio to 20% by 2010. But a recent plan released by the state Air Resources Board said the amount must increase to a third by 2020 for all utilities, if the state is to meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gases that are causing global warming.
Aides to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are negotiating with legislators to put the 33% requirement into law this year, a measure that could alter plans for many of the new gas-fired plants.
Richmond Council OKs Chevron Refinery Plan
SFGate - Carolyn Jones, July 18, 2008.
A sharply divided Richmond City Council approved on Thursday Chevron's controversial plan for a major upgrade of its century-old refinery and accepted $61 million from the oil company for community programs.
More Bay Area News
The council voted 5-4 to approve a conditional use permit for Chevron to replace a hydrogen plant, install new hydrogen-purifying equipment, build a new cogeneration power plant and replace other antiquated machinery.
"We're pleased with the vote and look forward to moving ahead with construction," said Dean O'Hair, a Chevron spokesman. "This project will make us more efficient and reliable than we already are."
The council also agreed to Chevron's offer of $61 million to help the community in the next decade, including funds to extend the Bay Trail and build solar and wind energy plants on Chevron property, and to support violence prevention, community health, job training and other programs.
After hearing often-heated public comment and staff testimony Tuesday and Wednesday nights before deliberating early Thursday, council members Nathaniel Bates, Ludmyrna Lopez, Harpreet Sandhu, John Marquez and Maria Viramontes voted to grant Chevron the permit.
Tom Butt, Jim Rogers, Tony Thurmond and Mayor Gayle McLaughlin voted against it.
Chevron's Richmond refinery is the largest in Northern California and provides about 25 percent of all the gasoline in Northern California. The new equipment will allow it to process about 1,000 extra barrels of gasoline a day.
Environmental and community groups fought the plan, saying it would lead to more emissions and allow Chevron to process heavier grades of crude oil.
"We still believe there's going to be a huge increase in pollution. We still have to stop this project and we're now looking at all our legal options," said Greg Karras, senior scientist for Communities for a Better Environment, one of the groups opposing the plan. "This fight is only getting started."
Much of the controversy centered on sulfur emissions, which Karras said cause respiratory and nervous system disorders when inhaled. Chevron's new equipment would allow the refinery to process crude oil that has 3 percent more sulfur than the oil it currently handles, refinery officials said.
But because the new facility would be more efficient and cleaner than the current plant, the refinery's overall emissions would actually decrease, O'Hair said.
Chevron hopes to begin construction on the refinery in August and finish in about four years. Labor unions have been ardent supporters of Chevron's plans because of the 1,200 construction jobs the project will create.
Critics blasted the package of benefits Chevron promised the city, saying the details are vague and that Chevron had agreed to several of them already. O'Hair said the refinery will hammer out details with city staff in the coming months.
The package of about 15 projects and programs includes $11 million for violence prevention and public safety programs; $10 million for the Richmond Community Fund; $6.7 million for job training, high school tutoring and other classes; and $5 million for the Bay Trail link.
Some council members complained about the lengthy permit process and environmental review, which lasted four years.
"It seems like everyone involved did everything they can to thwart what this community wants," said Butt at Wednesday's meeting. "I'm extremely disappointed with the way this process went. I don't know how it's going to end up, but I have a bad feeling about it."
A sharply divided Richmond City Council approved on Thursday Chevron's controversial plan for a major upgrade of its century-old refinery and accepted $61 million from the oil company for community programs.
More Bay Area News
The council voted 5-4 to approve a conditional use permit for Chevron to replace a hydrogen plant, install new hydrogen-purifying equipment, build a new cogeneration power plant and replace other antiquated machinery.
"We're pleased with the vote and look forward to moving ahead with construction," said Dean O'Hair, a Chevron spokesman. "This project will make us more efficient and reliable than we already are."
The council also agreed to Chevron's offer of $61 million to help the community in the next decade, including funds to extend the Bay Trail and build solar and wind energy plants on Chevron property, and to support violence prevention, community health, job training and other programs.
After hearing often-heated public comment and staff testimony Tuesday and Wednesday nights before deliberating early Thursday, council members Nathaniel Bates, Ludmyrna Lopez, Harpreet Sandhu, John Marquez and Maria Viramontes voted to grant Chevron the permit.
Tom Butt, Jim Rogers, Tony Thurmond and Mayor Gayle McLaughlin voted against it.
Chevron's Richmond refinery is the largest in Northern California and provides about 25 percent of all the gasoline in Northern California. The new equipment will allow it to process about 1,000 extra barrels of gasoline a day.
Environmental and community groups fought the plan, saying it would lead to more emissions and allow Chevron to process heavier grades of crude oil.
"We still believe there's going to be a huge increase in pollution. We still have to stop this project and we're now looking at all our legal options," said Greg Karras, senior scientist for Communities for a Better Environment, one of the groups opposing the plan. "This fight is only getting started."
Much of the controversy centered on sulfur emissions, which Karras said cause respiratory and nervous system disorders when inhaled. Chevron's new equipment would allow the refinery to process crude oil that has 3 percent more sulfur than the oil it currently handles, refinery officials said.
But because the new facility would be more efficient and cleaner than the current plant, the refinery's overall emissions would actually decrease, O'Hair said.
Chevron hopes to begin construction on the refinery in August and finish in about four years. Labor unions have been ardent supporters of Chevron's plans because of the 1,200 construction jobs the project will create.
Critics blasted the package of benefits Chevron promised the city, saying the details are vague and that Chevron had agreed to several of them already. O'Hair said the refinery will hammer out details with city staff in the coming months.
The package of about 15 projects and programs includes $11 million for violence prevention and public safety programs; $10 million for the Richmond Community Fund; $6.7 million for job training, high school tutoring and other classes; and $5 million for the Bay Trail link.
Some council members complained about the lengthy permit process and environmental review, which lasted four years.
"It seems like everyone involved did everything they can to thwart what this community wants," said Butt at Wednesday's meeting. "I'm extremely disappointed with the way this process went. I don't know how it's going to end up, but I have a bad feeling about it."
Lively meeting expected on Chevron expansion
SF Chronicle - Carolyn Jones, July 16, 2008.
More than 1,000 people jammed a Richmond City Council meeting Tuesday night to make impassioned pleas for and against Chevron's plan to expand its waterfront refinery.
The City Council is expected to meet again tonight to vote on the issue, which has galvanized environmentalists, community groups and labor unions.
"We're driving to the hospital while Chevron goes to the bank," said Rev. Kenneth Davis, a Richmond resident. "My health is not for sale."
Chevron wants to build a new power plant and crude-oil refining facility at its 3,000-acre plant. Material processed at the new facility would contain higher levels of sulfur and other contaminants, city officials have said.
The Richmond Planning Commission initially approved the plan, with a limit on the amount of heavy crude oil the refinery can process. But on June 19, the commission reversed its decision, lifting the cap after a city-hired consultant said the refinery's emissions are already limited so a cap isn't necessary.
Chevron and environmental groups both appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council.
"I'm swayed by those who've asked for a more comprehensive crude-oil cap," City Councilman Tony Thurmond said. "My concerns are what the environmental, health and safety impacts will be, especially in a community with such a high rate of asthma and other illness."
Chevron has said that the new facility would produce an insignificant increase in air pollution, and that the project would actually decrease overall emissions.
"This project has no significant environmental impacts. That's a remarkable achievement for a project of this magnitude," said Bob Chamberlin, an environmental specialist for Chevron. "In fact, this project makes things even better."
Labor groups have been pushing for the expansion because of the new jobs that would be created during construction.
But environmental groups have decried Chevron's plan, saying it would unleash dangerous amounts of mercury, selenium and sulfur into the air and water.
"The potential for more emissions is enormous. Because this facility will allow them to process lower-quality crude," said Adrienne Bloch, a senior attorney with Communities for a Better Environment.
Before the meeting, Chevron told the city it would give $61 million in health, education, environmental and alternative energy programs to mitigate for the project.
Environmental groups said that it wasn't enough, and that Chevron was required to do many of those programs anyway.
City Councilman Tom Butt said he would like to see Chevron do more for Richmond residents, such as offering health, education and employment programs, and reduce its emissions overall.
"My No. 1 priority is, I want to be sure this project is not going to cause any increase in air or water pollutants. It's pretty simple," he said. "A lot of us believe this project is going to have an adverse impact on the community, and that's something Chevron should mitigate."
More than 1,000 people jammed a Richmond City Council meeting Tuesday night to make impassioned pleas for and against Chevron's plan to expand its waterfront refinery.
The City Council is expected to meet again tonight to vote on the issue, which has galvanized environmentalists, community groups and labor unions.
"We're driving to the hospital while Chevron goes to the bank," said Rev. Kenneth Davis, a Richmond resident. "My health is not for sale."
Chevron wants to build a new power plant and crude-oil refining facility at its 3,000-acre plant. Material processed at the new facility would contain higher levels of sulfur and other contaminants, city officials have said.
The Richmond Planning Commission initially approved the plan, with a limit on the amount of heavy crude oil the refinery can process. But on June 19, the commission reversed its decision, lifting the cap after a city-hired consultant said the refinery's emissions are already limited so a cap isn't necessary.
Chevron and environmental groups both appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council.
"I'm swayed by those who've asked for a more comprehensive crude-oil cap," City Councilman Tony Thurmond said. "My concerns are what the environmental, health and safety impacts will be, especially in a community with such a high rate of asthma and other illness."
Chevron has said that the new facility would produce an insignificant increase in air pollution, and that the project would actually decrease overall emissions.
"This project has no significant environmental impacts. That's a remarkable achievement for a project of this magnitude," said Bob Chamberlin, an environmental specialist for Chevron. "In fact, this project makes things even better."
Labor groups have been pushing for the expansion because of the new jobs that would be created during construction.
But environmental groups have decried Chevron's plan, saying it would unleash dangerous amounts of mercury, selenium and sulfur into the air and water.
"The potential for more emissions is enormous. Because this facility will allow them to process lower-quality crude," said Adrienne Bloch, a senior attorney with Communities for a Better Environment.
Before the meeting, Chevron told the city it would give $61 million in health, education, environmental and alternative energy programs to mitigate for the project.
Environmental groups said that it wasn't enough, and that Chevron was required to do many of those programs anyway.
City Councilman Tom Butt said he would like to see Chevron do more for Richmond residents, such as offering health, education and employment programs, and reduce its emissions overall.
"My No. 1 priority is, I want to be sure this project is not going to cause any increase in air or water pollutants. It's pretty simple," he said. "A lot of us believe this project is going to have an adverse impact on the community, and that's something Chevron should mitigate."
Big Oil's MTBE Cover-Up
Bill Walker - AlterNet - July 11, 2008.
Congress is considering legislation to strictly limit oil company liability for contaminating groundwater in at least 35 states with the toxic gasoline additive MTBE.
The industry's friends in Congress say it's only fair to shield MTBE makers from lawsuits, since, they claim, it was the government that mandated oil companies to reformulate gas with MTBE in the first place, to clean the air. But a different story has emerged from internal industry documents and depositions, made public in recent successful lawsuits brought by Oakland-based Communities For a Better Environment and the city of South lake Tahoe, CA, that have forced oil companies to pay to clean up water made undrinkable and unhealthy by MTBE.
The documents, provided to Environmental Working Group by CBE's lawyers, show that the oil industry itself lobbied hard for the MTBE mandate because they made the additive and stood to profit. A top ARCO executive admitted under oath, "The EPA did not initiate reformulated gasoline...." He clarified that "the oil industry... brought this [MTBE] forward as an alternative to what the EPA had initially proposed."
By 1986, the oil industry was adding 54,000 barrels of MTBE to gasoline each day. By 1991, one year before the EPA requirements went into effect, the industry was using more than 100,000 barrels of MTBE per day in reformulated gasoline. Yet secret oil company studies, conducted at least as early as 1980, showed the industry knew that MTBE contaminated ground water virtually everywhere it was used.
Oil companies are pressing Congress for liability protection because hundreds of communities have serious MTBE contamination problems, and company documents are coming back to haunt them in the courtroom. In April, the documents convinced a California jury to find Shell, Texaco, Tosco, Lyondell Chemical (ARCO Chemical), and Equilon Enterprises liable for selling a defective product (gasoline with MTBE) while failing to warn of its pollution hazard, forcing a $60 million settlement with the water district for South Lake Tahoe.
"The Government Made Us Do It"
MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, is an "oxygenate" that makes gasoline burn cleaner and more efficiently. Unfortunately, it is also a foul-tasting, nasty-smelling, probable carcinogen that spreads rapidly when gasoline escapes from leaky underground storage tanks, contaminating sources of groundwater and drinking water from New York to California. Once in soil or water, MTBE breaks down very slowly while it accelerates the spread of other contaminants in gasoline, such as benzene, a known carcinogen. Some communities, including Santa Monica and South Lake Tahoe, Calif., face tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in costs of cleaning up MTBE or replacing contaminated water supplies. At least 16 states already have passed measures to ban or significantly limit the use of MTBE in gasoline, and a federal ban is more a question of when than if.
In House-Senate negotiations to craft a compromise federal energy bill, pressure is building to follow the lead of many states and ban MTBE nationally by the year 2006. Members of Congress from corn-producing states support the phase out in part because ethanol made from corn is the primary MTBE substitute. Oil-state politicians, in turn, are demanding that any ban on MTBE shield its makers from product-defect liability. The proposal would not preclude suits against parties responsible for allowing MTBE to leak from storage tanks, but would provide immunity from suits claiming that MTBE itself was a defective product -- precisely the charge that won a $60 million settlement for the South Lake Tahoe Water District this year. The jury in that case found five oil and chemical companies liable for selling a defective product -- MTBE --while failing to warn of its pollution risks.
On Sept. 27, 2002, the Associated Press reported that the House proposal for liability relief has a good chance of being accepted by Senate negotiators: "Democrats and Republicans alike view it as a small price to pay in return for getting the politically popular ethanol provision into an energy bill only weeks before the upcoming elections." Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-LA, who is chairing the energy bill negotiations, said it's only fair that MTBE makers are shielded "when the government is responsible" for oil companies adopting the additive to meet federal air quality requirements. "We mandated MTBE to help the environment," Tauzin said. And lawyer who defends MTBE manufacturers told the AP, "You can't be held liable for just complying with the law."
The congressman and the lawyer aren't the only ones spreading the tale that oil companies were just following orders. Most news outlets have told the MTBE story as a lesson in the unintended consequences of efforts to reduce air pollution.
In 1997, the Los Angeles Times let stand without challenge the statement of a West Coast refiner: "[T]he issue of potential contamination of the state's water was not adequately considered prior to implementation of the federal and state reformulated gasoline regulations... Consequently, we find ourselves in a Catch-22, since the current regulatory framework effectively leaves us no choice but to use MTBE to meet clean fuel standards." This spin has traveled the high and low roads, reaching the editorial pages of The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Dallas Morning News, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Newsday and Denver Post, and providing California talk-show hosts with fuel for a belligerent populist campaign against overzealous environmental regulation.
The MTBE Papers
The paper trail, dating at least to 1980, tells a different story: How the oil companies took an unwanted byproduct of gasoline refining that was expensive to dispose of and created a profitable market for what they, until then, had been required to handle as toxic waste. Beginning in the mid-1980s, well in advance of the 1992 federal mandate to reformulate gasoline to meet the standards of the Clean Air Act, the petrochemical industry promoted MTBE to U.S. and state regulators as the additive of choice -- only much later admitting it doesn't do much to reduce air pollution after all.
Thousands of pages of internal documents and sworn depositions from the producers at Shell, Exxon, Mobil, ARCO, Chevron, Unocal, Texaco and Tosco (now Valero) have come to light through a lawsuit by Communities for a Better Environment. Many of the same documents were used in a suit by the South Lake Tahoe Water District against four oil companies and Lyondell Chemical Co. of Houston (ARCO Chemical Company), the nation's largest MTBE producer. In the CBE suit, several of the companies settled last year by agreeing to clean up MTBE spills at more than 1,300 California gas stations; the others continue to contest the case.
Earlier this year, a jury in the Tahoe case found Lyondell, Shell, Texaco, Equilon, and Tosco guilty of irresponsibly manufacturing and distributing a product they knew would contaminate water. In addition, the jury found by "clear and convincing evidence" that both Shell Oil Company and Lyondell Chemical Company acted with "malice" by failing to warn customers of the almost certain environmental dangers of MTBE water contamination.
In an interview with The Sacramento Bee, the jury foreman said he found the MTBE papers, which demonstrated the industry's early knowledge that MTBE would threaten water supplies "among the most compelling evidence he recorded in 635 pages of handwritten notes." The foreman stated that "[t]here were lessons to be learned, but (Shell) didn't (learn them) because it saw money to be made in selling the product." After the jury verdict establishing liability, but before the jury could assess monetary damages, the companies settled the case for $60 million.
Oil Companies Knew MTBE Was a Threat to Water Supplies
Even though MTBE was not classified as a probable cause of cancer in humans until 1995, refiners knew much earlier that its powerfully foul taste and smell meant that small concentrations could render water undrinkable, and that once it got into water supplies it was all but impossible to clean up. A Shell hydrogeologist testified in the South Lake Tahoe case that he first dealt with an MTBE spill in 1980 in Rockaway, N.J., where seven MTBE plumes were leaking from underground storage tanks. By 1981, when the Shell scientist wrote an internal report on the Rockaway plumes, the joke inside Shell was that MTBE really stood for "Most Things Biodegrade Easier." Later, other versions of the joke circulated, including "Menace Threatening Our Bountiful Environment," or apropos to the present attempt to limit liability, "Major Threat to Better Earnings."
In 1983, Shell was one of at least nine companies surveyed by a task force of the American Petroleum Institute on "the environmental fate and health effects" of MTBE and other oxygenates. Shell's Environmental Affairs department replied to the trade association: "In our spill situation the MTBE was detectable (by drinking) in 7 to 15 parts per billion so even if it were not a factor to health, it still had to be removed to below the detectable amount in order to use the water." (emphasis added). The survey, the results of which were later distributed to all API members, asked for information about the number and extent of spills, chemical analysis of the spill and the contaminated water, and health effects to people in the community.
Clearly, Shell was not the only company that knew about MTBE problems. An environmental engineer for ExxonMobil (the companies merged in 1999), testified that he learned of MTBE contamination from Exxon gasoline in 1980, when a tank leak in Jacksonville, Maryland, fouled wells for a planned subdivision. The ExxonMobil engineer said it was learned MTBE had also leaked into the subdivision's wells from a Gulf and an Amoco station.
Storage Tanks Were Known to be Leaking in the 1970s and 1980s
Refiners also knew that underground gasoline storage tanks were susceptible to leaks, a fact that would amplify the problem with MTBE. In 1973, an Exxon report on the problem said: "The subject of underground leaks at service stations is one of growing concern to gasoline marketers. Large sums of money, time, and effort are exhausted on a continuing basis in the location and detection of leaking tanks and lines."
In 1981, an ARCO memo said leaking tanks were "a major problem.... The issue is essentially a health/safety and environmental one. Escaping vapors can seep into basements, sewers and conduits, creating not only a nuisance but the danger of explosion and/or fire. Escaping gasoline also enters and pollutes the water table. (Groundwater is a major source of the U.S. water supply.) Certain chemicals in gasoline (namely the aromatics like benzene) may be carcinogenic or toxic in certain quantities."
By 1980, Exxon had an annual testing program for tanks and found that 27 percent were leaking; two years later the failure rate was up to 38 percent. In 1981, Shell and ARCO, the first refiners to add MTBE, estimated that 20 percent of all U.S. underground storage tanks were leaking. Five years later, in 1986, the EPA concurred. Prior knowledge of the extent of leaking gasoline storage tanks was a major part of South Lake Tahoe's case: Fully aware that tanks were leaking, the petrochemical industry nonetheless introduced an additive known to rapidly percolate down to groundwater from gasoline distribution systems with known leaks. Efforts were ongoing to upgrade storage tank systems, but when industry learned quickly that the new tanks were still leaking, it continued to expand the use of MTBE anyway.
The Industry, Not the EPA, Promoted MTBE as an Oxygenate
Recently disclosed court documents clearly show that the oil companies, not state or federal regulators, were the boosters of MTBE. The industry developed and promoted the concept of using reformulated gasoline to reduce air emissions, assuring the EPA that reformulated gasoline would be better than other options being considered. ARCO Chemical Co.'s Manager of Business Development from 1987 to 1998 testified: "What I recall is the EPA actually promoting using methanol blends... and the refining industry said here's another option... we can reformulate gasoline to reduce the emissions... that would be equal to or better than you would get by substituting or mandating the use of methanol vehicles... [T]he oil industry... brought this forward as an alternative to what the EPA had initially proposed." He continued, "The EPA did not initiate reformulated gasoline."
Well before the EPA mandated reformulated gasoline in 1992, the oil industry was aggressively promoting MTBE. According to the American Petroleum Institute, refiners were adding an average of 74,000 barrels of MTBE to gasoline per day from 1986 through 1991, roughly one third of the peak amount added to gasoline in 1998.
In 1987, a representative of ARCO Chemical (later absorbed by Lyondell), which was rapidly expanding its MTBE production, testified before the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission that the additive would reduce emissions and improve gas mileage, that supply and price were no barrier, and that consumers didn't need to be warned about the presence of MTBE in gasoline. Nothing was said about the leak and contamination problems that ARCO and the rest of the industry had known about for at least seven years. ARCO's representative testified that in the 1980s he played a similar role in "assisting" the states of Arizona and Nevada in the development of oxygenate programs -- programs that resulted in those states adopting MTBE.
The Industry Attacked Safety Studies and Withheld Information From Regulators
In 1986, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection published a report documenting extensive MTBE groundwater contamination in the state. The authors identified MTBE as a "rapidly spreading groundwater contaminant" and discussed the option that "MTBE could be abandoned as an additive in gasoline stored underground" or that gas with MTBE "be stored only in double-contained facilities." The Maine Paper was perhaps the earliest warning from government health officials about the dangers of MTBE. To the oil companies, it was a call to arms. Documents show that even as they were internally disseminating this study and treating its findings seriously, the oil companies joined forces to attack the study's authors and the article's "damage" in an effort to discredit their findings and downplay the risks of MTBE.
The industry disinformation effort began even before publication of the paper. A 1987 ARCO memo details the continued attack on the authors and their research:"We initially became involved with the Maine DEP prior to the presentation of their first version of this paper at the National Well Water Conference on November 13, 1986... Since the paper was presented last November, we have been working with API, the newly formed MTBE Committee [of the Oxygenated Fuels Association], and on our view to assess the potential impact of this paper on state policymakers [and] to contain the potential 'damage' from this paper...."
The memo goes on to explain how the Maine Petroleum Council, the state affiliate of the API, was preparing a paper claiming that MTBE didn't speed up the spread of benzene in water, that MTBE "only spreads slightly further" than benzene and other contaminants, and that MTBE could be easily removed from water with existing technology -- none of which is true. Internally, however, the industry admitted the Maine paper was a scientifically credible threat. A 1987 letter from an ARCO refining executive to his Unocal counterpart admits the MTBE task force didn't "have any data to refute comments made in the paper that MTBE may spread further in a plume or may be more difficult to remove/clean up than other gasoline constituents."
In 1987, at the same time that ARCO and API were leading the attack on the Maine Paper, the U.S. EPA issued a request to the industry for "more information on the presence and persistence of MTBE in groundwater." As reported last year by the San Francisco Chronicle and The Sacramento Bee, ARCO responded: "Where gasoline containing MTBE is stored at refineries, terminals or service stations, there is little information on MTBE in groundwater. We feel that there are no unique handling problems when gasoline containing MTBE is compared to hydrocarbon-only gasoline."
Internal Memos Warning Against MTBE Were Ignored
There were voices within the industry that warned against the use of MTBE, on grounds both of public health and cleanup costs from the inevitable leaks. A document dated April 3, 1984 from an Exxon employee said:
"[W]e have ethical and environmental concerns that are not too well defined at this point; e.g., (1) possible leakage of [storage] tanks into underground water systems of a gasoline component that is soluble in water to a much greater extent [than other chemicals], (2) potential necessity of treating water bottoms as a 'hazardous waste,' [and] (3) delivery of a fuel to our customers that potentially provides poorer fuel economy.... " (Emphasis added.)
That same year, an Exxon engineer wrote the first in a series of memos outlining "reasons MTBE could add to ground water incident costs and adverse public exposure:"
"Based on higher mobility and taste/odor characteristics of MTBE, Exxon's experiences with contaminations in Maryland and our knowledge of Shell's experience with MTBE contamination incidents, the number of well contamination incidents is estimated to increase three times following the widespread introduction of MTBE into Exxon gasoline...." Later, the document notes: "Any increase in potential groundwater contamination will also increase risk exposure to major incidents."
An Exxon memo from 1985 discusses MTBE's "much higher aqueous solubility" than benzene and other gasoline components:
"This can be a factor in instances where underground storage tanks develop a leak which ultimately may find its way to the underground aquifer. When these compounds dissolve in ground water and migrate through the soil matrix they separate into distinct plumes. MTBE creates the most mobile of the common gasoline plumes. MTBE is not a known carcinogen like Benzene, however we can be required by public health agencies to remove it based on its taste and odor characteristics."
Despite all the evidence pointing to its shameful neglect of public interest, the oil industry is poised to be free of any responsibility for environmental destruction.
Congress is considering legislation to strictly limit oil company liability for contaminating groundwater in at least 35 states with the toxic gasoline additive MTBE.
The industry's friends in Congress say it's only fair to shield MTBE makers from lawsuits, since, they claim, it was the government that mandated oil companies to reformulate gas with MTBE in the first place, to clean the air. But a different story has emerged from internal industry documents and depositions, made public in recent successful lawsuits brought by Oakland-based Communities For a Better Environment and the city of South lake Tahoe, CA, that have forced oil companies to pay to clean up water made undrinkable and unhealthy by MTBE.
The documents, provided to Environmental Working Group by CBE's lawyers, show that the oil industry itself lobbied hard for the MTBE mandate because they made the additive and stood to profit. A top ARCO executive admitted under oath, "The EPA did not initiate reformulated gasoline...." He clarified that "the oil industry... brought this [MTBE] forward as an alternative to what the EPA had initially proposed."
By 1986, the oil industry was adding 54,000 barrels of MTBE to gasoline each day. By 1991, one year before the EPA requirements went into effect, the industry was using more than 100,000 barrels of MTBE per day in reformulated gasoline. Yet secret oil company studies, conducted at least as early as 1980, showed the industry knew that MTBE contaminated ground water virtually everywhere it was used.
Oil companies are pressing Congress for liability protection because hundreds of communities have serious MTBE contamination problems, and company documents are coming back to haunt them in the courtroom. In April, the documents convinced a California jury to find Shell, Texaco, Tosco, Lyondell Chemical (ARCO Chemical), and Equilon Enterprises liable for selling a defective product (gasoline with MTBE) while failing to warn of its pollution hazard, forcing a $60 million settlement with the water district for South Lake Tahoe.
"The Government Made Us Do It"
MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, is an "oxygenate" that makes gasoline burn cleaner and more efficiently. Unfortunately, it is also a foul-tasting, nasty-smelling, probable carcinogen that spreads rapidly when gasoline escapes from leaky underground storage tanks, contaminating sources of groundwater and drinking water from New York to California. Once in soil or water, MTBE breaks down very slowly while it accelerates the spread of other contaminants in gasoline, such as benzene, a known carcinogen. Some communities, including Santa Monica and South Lake Tahoe, Calif., face tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in costs of cleaning up MTBE or replacing contaminated water supplies. At least 16 states already have passed measures to ban or significantly limit the use of MTBE in gasoline, and a federal ban is more a question of when than if.
In House-Senate negotiations to craft a compromise federal energy bill, pressure is building to follow the lead of many states and ban MTBE nationally by the year 2006. Members of Congress from corn-producing states support the phase out in part because ethanol made from corn is the primary MTBE substitute. Oil-state politicians, in turn, are demanding that any ban on MTBE shield its makers from product-defect liability. The proposal would not preclude suits against parties responsible for allowing MTBE to leak from storage tanks, but would provide immunity from suits claiming that MTBE itself was a defective product -- precisely the charge that won a $60 million settlement for the South Lake Tahoe Water District this year. The jury in that case found five oil and chemical companies liable for selling a defective product -- MTBE --while failing to warn of its pollution risks.
On Sept. 27, 2002, the Associated Press reported that the House proposal for liability relief has a good chance of being accepted by Senate negotiators: "Democrats and Republicans alike view it as a small price to pay in return for getting the politically popular ethanol provision into an energy bill only weeks before the upcoming elections." Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-LA, who is chairing the energy bill negotiations, said it's only fair that MTBE makers are shielded "when the government is responsible" for oil companies adopting the additive to meet federal air quality requirements. "We mandated MTBE to help the environment," Tauzin said. And lawyer who defends MTBE manufacturers told the AP, "You can't be held liable for just complying with the law."
The congressman and the lawyer aren't the only ones spreading the tale that oil companies were just following orders. Most news outlets have told the MTBE story as a lesson in the unintended consequences of efforts to reduce air pollution.
In 1997, the Los Angeles Times let stand without challenge the statement of a West Coast refiner: "[T]he issue of potential contamination of the state's water was not adequately considered prior to implementation of the federal and state reformulated gasoline regulations... Consequently, we find ourselves in a Catch-22, since the current regulatory framework effectively leaves us no choice but to use MTBE to meet clean fuel standards." This spin has traveled the high and low roads, reaching the editorial pages of The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Dallas Morning News, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Newsday and Denver Post, and providing California talk-show hosts with fuel for a belligerent populist campaign against overzealous environmental regulation.
The MTBE Papers
The paper trail, dating at least to 1980, tells a different story: How the oil companies took an unwanted byproduct of gasoline refining that was expensive to dispose of and created a profitable market for what they, until then, had been required to handle as toxic waste. Beginning in the mid-1980s, well in advance of the 1992 federal mandate to reformulate gasoline to meet the standards of the Clean Air Act, the petrochemical industry promoted MTBE to U.S. and state regulators as the additive of choice -- only much later admitting it doesn't do much to reduce air pollution after all.
Thousands of pages of internal documents and sworn depositions from the producers at Shell, Exxon, Mobil, ARCO, Chevron, Unocal, Texaco and Tosco (now Valero) have come to light through a lawsuit by Communities for a Better Environment. Many of the same documents were used in a suit by the South Lake Tahoe Water District against four oil companies and Lyondell Chemical Co. of Houston (ARCO Chemical Company), the nation's largest MTBE producer. In the CBE suit, several of the companies settled last year by agreeing to clean up MTBE spills at more than 1,300 California gas stations; the others continue to contest the case.
Earlier this year, a jury in the Tahoe case found Lyondell, Shell, Texaco, Equilon, and Tosco guilty of irresponsibly manufacturing and distributing a product they knew would contaminate water. In addition, the jury found by "clear and convincing evidence" that both Shell Oil Company and Lyondell Chemical Company acted with "malice" by failing to warn customers of the almost certain environmental dangers of MTBE water contamination.
In an interview with The Sacramento Bee, the jury foreman said he found the MTBE papers, which demonstrated the industry's early knowledge that MTBE would threaten water supplies "among the most compelling evidence he recorded in 635 pages of handwritten notes." The foreman stated that "[t]here were lessons to be learned, but (Shell) didn't (learn them) because it saw money to be made in selling the product." After the jury verdict establishing liability, but before the jury could assess monetary damages, the companies settled the case for $60 million.
Oil Companies Knew MTBE Was a Threat to Water Supplies
Even though MTBE was not classified as a probable cause of cancer in humans until 1995, refiners knew much earlier that its powerfully foul taste and smell meant that small concentrations could render water undrinkable, and that once it got into water supplies it was all but impossible to clean up. A Shell hydrogeologist testified in the South Lake Tahoe case that he first dealt with an MTBE spill in 1980 in Rockaway, N.J., where seven MTBE plumes were leaking from underground storage tanks. By 1981, when the Shell scientist wrote an internal report on the Rockaway plumes, the joke inside Shell was that MTBE really stood for "Most Things Biodegrade Easier." Later, other versions of the joke circulated, including "Menace Threatening Our Bountiful Environment," or apropos to the present attempt to limit liability, "Major Threat to Better Earnings."
In 1983, Shell was one of at least nine companies surveyed by a task force of the American Petroleum Institute on "the environmental fate and health effects" of MTBE and other oxygenates. Shell's Environmental Affairs department replied to the trade association: "In our spill situation the MTBE was detectable (by drinking) in 7 to 15 parts per billion so even if it were not a factor to health, it still had to be removed to below the detectable amount in order to use the water." (emphasis added). The survey, the results of which were later distributed to all API members, asked for information about the number and extent of spills, chemical analysis of the spill and the contaminated water, and health effects to people in the community.
Clearly, Shell was not the only company that knew about MTBE problems. An environmental engineer for ExxonMobil (the companies merged in 1999), testified that he learned of MTBE contamination from Exxon gasoline in 1980, when a tank leak in Jacksonville, Maryland, fouled wells for a planned subdivision. The ExxonMobil engineer said it was learned MTBE had also leaked into the subdivision's wells from a Gulf and an Amoco station.
Storage Tanks Were Known to be Leaking in the 1970s and 1980s
Refiners also knew that underground gasoline storage tanks were susceptible to leaks, a fact that would amplify the problem with MTBE. In 1973, an Exxon report on the problem said: "The subject of underground leaks at service stations is one of growing concern to gasoline marketers. Large sums of money, time, and effort are exhausted on a continuing basis in the location and detection of leaking tanks and lines."
In 1981, an ARCO memo said leaking tanks were "a major problem.... The issue is essentially a health/safety and environmental one. Escaping vapors can seep into basements, sewers and conduits, creating not only a nuisance but the danger of explosion and/or fire. Escaping gasoline also enters and pollutes the water table. (Groundwater is a major source of the U.S. water supply.) Certain chemicals in gasoline (namely the aromatics like benzene) may be carcinogenic or toxic in certain quantities."
By 1980, Exxon had an annual testing program for tanks and found that 27 percent were leaking; two years later the failure rate was up to 38 percent. In 1981, Shell and ARCO, the first refiners to add MTBE, estimated that 20 percent of all U.S. underground storage tanks were leaking. Five years later, in 1986, the EPA concurred. Prior knowledge of the extent of leaking gasoline storage tanks was a major part of South Lake Tahoe's case: Fully aware that tanks were leaking, the petrochemical industry nonetheless introduced an additive known to rapidly percolate down to groundwater from gasoline distribution systems with known leaks. Efforts were ongoing to upgrade storage tank systems, but when industry learned quickly that the new tanks were still leaking, it continued to expand the use of MTBE anyway.
The Industry, Not the EPA, Promoted MTBE as an Oxygenate
Recently disclosed court documents clearly show that the oil companies, not state or federal regulators, were the boosters of MTBE. The industry developed and promoted the concept of using reformulated gasoline to reduce air emissions, assuring the EPA that reformulated gasoline would be better than other options being considered. ARCO Chemical Co.'s Manager of Business Development from 1987 to 1998 testified: "What I recall is the EPA actually promoting using methanol blends... and the refining industry said here's another option... we can reformulate gasoline to reduce the emissions... that would be equal to or better than you would get by substituting or mandating the use of methanol vehicles... [T]he oil industry... brought this forward as an alternative to what the EPA had initially proposed." He continued, "The EPA did not initiate reformulated gasoline."
Well before the EPA mandated reformulated gasoline in 1992, the oil industry was aggressively promoting MTBE. According to the American Petroleum Institute, refiners were adding an average of 74,000 barrels of MTBE to gasoline per day from 1986 through 1991, roughly one third of the peak amount added to gasoline in 1998.
In 1987, a representative of ARCO Chemical (later absorbed by Lyondell), which was rapidly expanding its MTBE production, testified before the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission that the additive would reduce emissions and improve gas mileage, that supply and price were no barrier, and that consumers didn't need to be warned about the presence of MTBE in gasoline. Nothing was said about the leak and contamination problems that ARCO and the rest of the industry had known about for at least seven years. ARCO's representative testified that in the 1980s he played a similar role in "assisting" the states of Arizona and Nevada in the development of oxygenate programs -- programs that resulted in those states adopting MTBE.
The Industry Attacked Safety Studies and Withheld Information From Regulators
In 1986, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection published a report documenting extensive MTBE groundwater contamination in the state. The authors identified MTBE as a "rapidly spreading groundwater contaminant" and discussed the option that "MTBE could be abandoned as an additive in gasoline stored underground" or that gas with MTBE "be stored only in double-contained facilities." The Maine Paper was perhaps the earliest warning from government health officials about the dangers of MTBE. To the oil companies, it was a call to arms. Documents show that even as they were internally disseminating this study and treating its findings seriously, the oil companies joined forces to attack the study's authors and the article's "damage" in an effort to discredit their findings and downplay the risks of MTBE.
The industry disinformation effort began even before publication of the paper. A 1987 ARCO memo details the continued attack on the authors and their research:"We initially became involved with the Maine DEP prior to the presentation of their first version of this paper at the National Well Water Conference on November 13, 1986... Since the paper was presented last November, we have been working with API, the newly formed MTBE Committee [of the Oxygenated Fuels Association], and on our view to assess the potential impact of this paper on state policymakers [and] to contain the potential 'damage' from this paper...."
The memo goes on to explain how the Maine Petroleum Council, the state affiliate of the API, was preparing a paper claiming that MTBE didn't speed up the spread of benzene in water, that MTBE "only spreads slightly further" than benzene and other contaminants, and that MTBE could be easily removed from water with existing technology -- none of which is true. Internally, however, the industry admitted the Maine paper was a scientifically credible threat. A 1987 letter from an ARCO refining executive to his Unocal counterpart admits the MTBE task force didn't "have any data to refute comments made in the paper that MTBE may spread further in a plume or may be more difficult to remove/clean up than other gasoline constituents."
In 1987, at the same time that ARCO and API were leading the attack on the Maine Paper, the U.S. EPA issued a request to the industry for "more information on the presence and persistence of MTBE in groundwater." As reported last year by the San Francisco Chronicle and The Sacramento Bee, ARCO responded: "Where gasoline containing MTBE is stored at refineries, terminals or service stations, there is little information on MTBE in groundwater. We feel that there are no unique handling problems when gasoline containing MTBE is compared to hydrocarbon-only gasoline."
Internal Memos Warning Against MTBE Were Ignored
There were voices within the industry that warned against the use of MTBE, on grounds both of public health and cleanup costs from the inevitable leaks. A document dated April 3, 1984 from an Exxon employee said:
"[W]e have ethical and environmental concerns that are not too well defined at this point; e.g., (1) possible leakage of [storage] tanks into underground water systems of a gasoline component that is soluble in water to a much greater extent [than other chemicals], (2) potential necessity of treating water bottoms as a 'hazardous waste,' [and] (3) delivery of a fuel to our customers that potentially provides poorer fuel economy.... " (Emphasis added.)
That same year, an Exxon engineer wrote the first in a series of memos outlining "reasons MTBE could add to ground water incident costs and adverse public exposure:"
"Based on higher mobility and taste/odor characteristics of MTBE, Exxon's experiences with contaminations in Maryland and our knowledge of Shell's experience with MTBE contamination incidents, the number of well contamination incidents is estimated to increase three times following the widespread introduction of MTBE into Exxon gasoline...." Later, the document notes: "Any increase in potential groundwater contamination will also increase risk exposure to major incidents."
An Exxon memo from 1985 discusses MTBE's "much higher aqueous solubility" than benzene and other gasoline components:
"This can be a factor in instances where underground storage tanks develop a leak which ultimately may find its way to the underground aquifer. When these compounds dissolve in ground water and migrate through the soil matrix they separate into distinct plumes. MTBE creates the most mobile of the common gasoline plumes. MTBE is not a known carcinogen like Benzene, however we can be required by public health agencies to remove it based on its taste and odor characteristics."
Despite all the evidence pointing to its shameful neglect of public interest, the oil industry is poised to be free of any responsibility for environmental destruction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
