B Gallegos, New American Media, July 8, 2008.
On July 15 the Richmond, California City Council has a chance to make history. On that day it could be the first city in the United States to decide to protect the health of its residents and stand up to the Chevron oil company and impose a cap on its plans for further expansion.
To do that the council will have to turn down Chevron Richmond's proposed "Energy & Hydrogen Renewal" project to process thicker, dirtier crude oil. On the other hand, if the council approved it, it would expand some of the Chevron refinery's most polluting processes. It will increase Chevron's emissions of toxins, heavy metals and greenhouse gases; there is the potential to increase releases of some chemicals by 5 to 50 times current levels.
While many Californians are trying to reduce their contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and slow down global warming, Chevron will be doing the opposite and thereby put public health at greater risk.
Hundreds of residents have turned out to oppose the expansion project, fearing that it will further damage their neighborhood and their health. They've expressed their opposition at public hearings. Hundreds more have signed a petition opposing the project. On June 5, when the planning commission heard the application for expansion local residents lined up for hours waiting to raise their objections.
As a result, the Richmond Planning Commission voted 3-2 to impose a "crude cap" on refining dirty crude oil. That means that the company must strictly limit the emissions of certain pollutants that result from the refining process. A week later, however, the commission changed its mind, preferring a very weak crude cap. They refused to re-circulate an environmental impact report. The reversal was based on a report from an independent consultant who advised that a strict cap on dirty crude was unnecessary. The consultant admitted that his conclusion was based on data from Chevron, data that could not be revealed to either the commission or the public.
Yet a review of Chevron's emissions data and proposed expansion plans by MacArthur prize-winning chemist Wilma Subra determined that if the refinery processes heavier and more contaminated oil, this "will increase the number and severity of accidental releases." The increase in air pollution will hurt not only refinery workers but also those who live near the refinery.
People in Richmond still remember the 1993 spill from Chevron's sulfuric acid plant, which serves the refinery. That spill sent 20,000 people to the hospital. They already suffer from pollution created by some 350 other industrial polluting facilities in the city. Given these high levels of pollution it is not surprising that the city has the highest rate of hospitalization for asthma in Contra Costa County. Two of Richmond's neighborhoods, directly upwind from the refinery, have some of the highest rates of hospitalization for asthma in the entire state.
Even more alarming, with this expansion, Chevron may be creating a model for the entire oil industry. Chevron wants to have the competitive advantage of refining dirty crude and if approved, this will lock that process into place for up to 50 years. Oil companies across the country are watching to see if this is the future of their industry.
Chevron seems driven by the sole goal of making bigger profits from high gas prices. It has large reserves of high quality oil, but growing global demand makes low quality contaminated crude oils substantially cheaper for refiners. They can achieve price discounts of more than $5 per barrel, which would generate $400 million in yearly profits for a refinery the size of the Richmond operation.
There is now a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to respond to the alarming data about the rate and impact of climate change. For Chevron to add to the problem is unconscionable.
When it meets July 15, the City Council is not bound by the cowardly acquiescence of the Planning Commission. It can send the report back with an order to strengthen the recommendations on the crude cap and environmental impact report.
As they discuss their choice, they will face the Richmond Alliance for Environmental Justice, a coalition that includes Communities for a Better Environment, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, the West County Toxics Coalition, Atchison Village Environmental Committee, Richmond Greens and Richmond Progressive Alliance, which collectively represents thousands of people.
These organizations will urge the Richmond City Council to stop Chevron from further exposing residents to harmful toxics and pollution that cause premature death, cancer, and other health ailments. They will suggest that Chevron invest instead in a clean and green economy in Richmond and that Richmond residents have a transparent and meaningful public process to participate in decision-making about Chevron's operations. They can decide to support the community's demands for a for a clean environment and public health; or they can choose infamy by supporting obscene oil industry profits and ignoring global warming. The people of Richmond and the world will be watching.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Chevron Richmond proposal moves on to City Council
Katherine Tam - Oakland Tribune, July 2, 2008.
Chevron's bid to upgrade equipment at its Richmond refinery is scheduled to reach the City Council for a ruling July 15.
No one is satisfied with the city's June 19 decision to grant a permit for the project along with about 70 provisions. Chevron filed a formal appeal the next day, stating that some requirements are not related to the company's plan to replace its hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude.
Environmental activists followed up this week with their own appeal. The approval lacks sufficient safeguards to prevent Chevron from processing heavier crude that could increase pollution and hurt public health, the opponents said. They have lobbied for tougher restrictions.
"The city should reject Chevron's project application and require equipment design to enable the project it described, or impose conditions that ensure that Chevron does not use the project beyond what has been disclosed, analyzed and mitigated," according to the appeal filed by Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, the West County Toxics Coalition, Richmond Greens, Richmond Progressive Alliance and the Atchison Village Environmental Committee.
That the issue would eventually reach the City Council is no surprise and was a direction many predicted. Some anticipate lawsuits will follow, no matter what the council decides.
Appeals also were filed on a related issue. Both Chevron and opponents are appealing the Planning Commission's June 5 decision to certify the project's environmental impact report, though for different reasons. The report is key because officials could not have granted a permit without approving the document.
The City Council plans to begin the July 15 appeal with a presentation from city planners, followed by arguments by appellants. The public hearing will open, and residents will be allowed to testify. The public comment portion of the meeting will then be closed, and the council expects to continue the hearing to another date, possibly July 16.
A council minority disagreed with that schedule because they fear a repeat of what happened at the Planning Commission's first hearing on Chevron when residents waited three to four hours after presentations and opening arguments to testify.
The meeting room was so crowded that more than 100 listened to the proceedings from a tent outside. Many had gone home by the time it was their turn to speak, in part because of the late hour and because it was cold outside.
Chevron's bid to upgrade equipment at its Richmond refinery is scheduled to reach the City Council for a ruling July 15.
No one is satisfied with the city's June 19 decision to grant a permit for the project along with about 70 provisions. Chevron filed a formal appeal the next day, stating that some requirements are not related to the company's plan to replace its hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude.
Environmental activists followed up this week with their own appeal. The approval lacks sufficient safeguards to prevent Chevron from processing heavier crude that could increase pollution and hurt public health, the opponents said. They have lobbied for tougher restrictions.
"The city should reject Chevron's project application and require equipment design to enable the project it described, or impose conditions that ensure that Chevron does not use the project beyond what has been disclosed, analyzed and mitigated," according to the appeal filed by Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, the West County Toxics Coalition, Richmond Greens, Richmond Progressive Alliance and the Atchison Village Environmental Committee.
That the issue would eventually reach the City Council is no surprise and was a direction many predicted. Some anticipate lawsuits will follow, no matter what the council decides.
Appeals also were filed on a related issue. Both Chevron and opponents are appealing the Planning Commission's June 5 decision to certify the project's environmental impact report, though for different reasons. The report is key because officials could not have granted a permit without approving the document.
The City Council plans to begin the July 15 appeal with a presentation from city planners, followed by arguments by appellants. The public hearing will open, and residents will be allowed to testify. The public comment portion of the meeting will then be closed, and the council expects to continue the hearing to another date, possibly July 16.
A council minority disagreed with that schedule because they fear a repeat of what happened at the Planning Commission's first hearing on Chevron when residents waited three to four hours after presentations and opening arguments to testify.
The meeting room was so crowded that more than 100 listened to the proceedings from a tent outside. Many had gone home by the time it was their turn to speak, in part because of the late hour and because it was cold outside.
Federal District Court Opinions - Communities for a Better Environment v. EPA
Lioslaw Federal District Court Opinions, June 24, 2008.
Ruling reversed for Chevron: No cap on types of crude oil at refinery
SFGate - June 20, 2008.
Richmond's planning commissioners on Thursday reversed a decision to limit the kind of crude oil that Chevron can process at its refinery in the city, a move decried by environmental groups concerned that a planned expansion of the plant would increase air pollution.
Chevron wants to expand its 3,000-acre plant on Richmond's waterfront to add a new power plant and crude oil refining facility. The material processed at the new facility would have higher contents of sulfur and other impurities, city officials said.
The commission on June 6 approved a limit on the amount of heavier crude the refinery can process and also OKd an environmental impact report for the project.
But Thursday, a consultant hired by the city to study the proposed plant expansion testified that the limit was unnecessary because there are already restrictions on the refinery's emissions. After hearing from the consultant, Ron Sahu, the commission voted 4-1 to reject the "comprehensive crude cap" advocated by environmental groups. Commissioner Charles Duncan was the lone dissenting vote.
Members of several environmental groups said a cap is necessary to restrict Chevron from processing dirtier, heavier crude oil that could pose additional harm to the health of plant neighbors and they vowed to appeal the commission's decision.
"Pollution will increase as a result of this," said Greg Karras of Communities for a Better Environment. "We are going to appeal this decision to the City Council and we will win."
About 80 people filled the council chambers at Richmond City Hall Thursday night, where the Planning Commission heard public comment.
Chevron spokesman Dean O'Hair said company officials were pleased by Thursday's decision.
The city paid for a highly detailed environmental impact report, which concluded that the expansion would increase air pollution in a "less than significant" way.
"The environmental impact report concluded this renewal project will result in an overall emissions reduction," O'Hair said. "Now we can move forward ... toward building a more reliable refinery."
Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, who attended Thursday's meeting, said she supports a limit on the kind of crude oil Chevron can process. "We need the fullest amount of protection possible," she said.
The matter will probably go before the full City Council during the summer.
Richmond's planning commissioners on Thursday reversed a decision to limit the kind of crude oil that Chevron can process at its refinery in the city, a move decried by environmental groups concerned that a planned expansion of the plant would increase air pollution.
Chevron wants to expand its 3,000-acre plant on Richmond's waterfront to add a new power plant and crude oil refining facility. The material processed at the new facility would have higher contents of sulfur and other impurities, city officials said.
The commission on June 6 approved a limit on the amount of heavier crude the refinery can process and also OKd an environmental impact report for the project.
But Thursday, a consultant hired by the city to study the proposed plant expansion testified that the limit was unnecessary because there are already restrictions on the refinery's emissions. After hearing from the consultant, Ron Sahu, the commission voted 4-1 to reject the "comprehensive crude cap" advocated by environmental groups. Commissioner Charles Duncan was the lone dissenting vote.
Members of several environmental groups said a cap is necessary to restrict Chevron from processing dirtier, heavier crude oil that could pose additional harm to the health of plant neighbors and they vowed to appeal the commission's decision.
"Pollution will increase as a result of this," said Greg Karras of Communities for a Better Environment. "We are going to appeal this decision to the City Council and we will win."
About 80 people filled the council chambers at Richmond City Hall Thursday night, where the Planning Commission heard public comment.
Chevron spokesman Dean O'Hair said company officials were pleased by Thursday's decision.
The city paid for a highly detailed environmental impact report, which concluded that the expansion would increase air pollution in a "less than significant" way.
"The environmental impact report concluded this renewal project will result in an overall emissions reduction," O'Hair said. "Now we can move forward ... toward building a more reliable refinery."
Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, who attended Thursday's meeting, said she supports a limit on the kind of crude oil Chevron can process. "We need the fullest amount of protection possible," she said.
The matter will probably go before the full City Council during the summer.
Richmond planners near vote on Chevron plan
Christopher Heredia - SFGate - June 6, 2008.
The Richmond Planning Commission was expected Thursday to vote on whether to allow Chevron to expand its Richmond refinery, a proposal that set off intense community protest over potential increased pollution from the plant.
More Bay Area News
Chevron officials want to expand their 3,000-acre refinery on Richmond's waterfront to add a new power plant and crude oil processing facility. The material processed at the new facility would have higher contents of sulfur and other impurities, city officials said.
Environmental groups including Communities for a Better Environment, the Richmond Alliance for Environmental Justice and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network have protested the plan saying it would worsen already fouled air in the East Bay city.
"The community has a right to clean air and a right to full disclosure of Chevron's project," Jessica Tovar of Communities for a Better Environment said in a statement before Thursday night's meeting.
Tovar and other activists demanded that the city conduct a more aggressive review of potential health and environmental impact from the project before approving it. Opponents said the studies to date have not adequately vetted whether the project would increase greenhouse gases and other volatile organic compounds - factors contributing to global warming.
Richmond commissioned a highly detailed environmental impact report, which concluded that the expansion would increase air pollution in a "less than significant" way.
Chevron officials have said the project "meets or exceeds" state and federal regulations.
But others, including Councilman Tom Butt, disagree with the conclusions of Chevron or city staff's recommendation to approve the project with conditions.
The commission's decision, if appealed, will go before the full City Council at a future date.
"My overarching concern is that this project is going to result in increased emissions from a refinery that already has substantial toxic emissions," Butt said in an interview Thursday. "Those need to be reduced. You add one more molecule and it's significant."
Butt said he believes the company could reconfigure its refining processes to reduce toxic emissions, which are associated with higher than average asthma rates and other respiratory diseases in Richmond and neighboring communities.
Environmental groups demanded that the city limit the amount of crude oil that is refined at Chevron and ensure that all future expansion plans are examined in public.
State Attorney General Jerry Brown's office has stepped into the debate. In March, his office wrote a letter to Richmond officials indicating that the city's environmental impact report is inadequate.
Lawyers from Brown's office said the document failed to assess the project's impact on greenhouse gases or rule out that added emissions from the new part of the plant would not be significant. Brown's office also said the city provided no evidence it would adequately monitor or enforce air quality standards.
The Richmond Planning Commission was expected Thursday to vote on whether to allow Chevron to expand its Richmond refinery, a proposal that set off intense community protest over potential increased pollution from the plant.
More Bay Area News
Chevron officials want to expand their 3,000-acre refinery on Richmond's waterfront to add a new power plant and crude oil processing facility. The material processed at the new facility would have higher contents of sulfur and other impurities, city officials said.
Environmental groups including Communities for a Better Environment, the Richmond Alliance for Environmental Justice and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network have protested the plan saying it would worsen already fouled air in the East Bay city.
"The community has a right to clean air and a right to full disclosure of Chevron's project," Jessica Tovar of Communities for a Better Environment said in a statement before Thursday night's meeting.
Tovar and other activists demanded that the city conduct a more aggressive review of potential health and environmental impact from the project before approving it. Opponents said the studies to date have not adequately vetted whether the project would increase greenhouse gases and other volatile organic compounds - factors contributing to global warming.
Richmond commissioned a highly detailed environmental impact report, which concluded that the expansion would increase air pollution in a "less than significant" way.
Chevron officials have said the project "meets or exceeds" state and federal regulations.
But others, including Councilman Tom Butt, disagree with the conclusions of Chevron or city staff's recommendation to approve the project with conditions.
The commission's decision, if appealed, will go before the full City Council at a future date.
"My overarching concern is that this project is going to result in increased emissions from a refinery that already has substantial toxic emissions," Butt said in an interview Thursday. "Those need to be reduced. You add one more molecule and it's significant."
Butt said he believes the company could reconfigure its refining processes to reduce toxic emissions, which are associated with higher than average asthma rates and other respiratory diseases in Richmond and neighboring communities.
Environmental groups demanded that the city limit the amount of crude oil that is refined at Chevron and ensure that all future expansion plans are examined in public.
State Attorney General Jerry Brown's office has stepped into the debate. In March, his office wrote a letter to Richmond officials indicating that the city's environmental impact report is inadequate.
Lawyers from Brown's office said the document failed to assess the project's impact on greenhouse gases or rule out that added emissions from the new part of the plant would not be significant. Brown's office also said the city provided no evidence it would adequately monitor or enforce air quality standards.
Judge Orders EPA to Hurry on Carbon Monoxide
SFGate - May 8, 2008.
The Bush administration has violated legal deadlines for updating the nation's clean-air standards on carbon monoxide, a federal judge in San Francisco has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White told the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday to follow a schedule that would allow a full scientific review, public comment and any proposed changes in the standard to take place by May 2011. The EPA had proposed a timetable that would extend through October 2012.
Carbon monoxide, an odorless and invisible by-product of incomplete combustion in auto exhaust, refinery fumes and other emissions of fossil fuels, is lethal at high levels and can cause health problems and birth defects at lower levels. It is one of the pollutants for which the EPA sets a nationwide standard, requiring states to devise their own plans for compliance.
The current national standard was set in 1971. Federal law requires a reassessment every five years, but the EPA last reviewed the standard in 1994 and made no changes, said Shana Lazerow, a lawyer for Communities for a Better Environment, one of the groups that sued the federal agency.
Environmental groups in the lawsuit said recent scientific studies have found that carbon monoxide is dangerous at levels that were previously considered safe. They said two reports in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, published in 2001 and 2005, both found low birth weights among children born to women who were exposed to carbon monoxide at levels far below those allowed by the 1971 standard.
"Current health standards allow our children to be exposed to dangerous levels of carbon monoxide across the country," said Jeremy Nichols, director of Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action, another plaintiff in the case.
Lazerow said studies also show that poor and minority children are most at risk.
Environmental advocates and officials in California and other states have accused President Bush's EPA of foot-dragging in regulating pollutants, including greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, and ignoring scientific recommendations.
The EPA says it has come up with a new approach to clean-air regulation that will streamline the process while incorporating the latest scientific information. But White, in his ruling, noted that the agency's own advisory panel of independent scientists called the new procedures "entirely unsuitable" in January, saying they failed to provide timely information about the contents of proposed regulations.
The judge said the EPA conceded it had missed the deadline for reassessing the carbon monoxide standard but argued that it should now have five years from the time the suit was filed in 2007, shortly before the agency took the first steps in the review process. White disagreed, saying the evidence showed a thorough review could be completed 17 months earlier.
There was no immediate comment from the EPA.
The Bush administration has violated legal deadlines for updating the nation's clean-air standards on carbon monoxide, a federal judge in San Francisco has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White told the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday to follow a schedule that would allow a full scientific review, public comment and any proposed changes in the standard to take place by May 2011. The EPA had proposed a timetable that would extend through October 2012.
Carbon monoxide, an odorless and invisible by-product of incomplete combustion in auto exhaust, refinery fumes and other emissions of fossil fuels, is lethal at high levels and can cause health problems and birth defects at lower levels. It is one of the pollutants for which the EPA sets a nationwide standard, requiring states to devise their own plans for compliance.
The current national standard was set in 1971. Federal law requires a reassessment every five years, but the EPA last reviewed the standard in 1994 and made no changes, said Shana Lazerow, a lawyer for Communities for a Better Environment, one of the groups that sued the federal agency.
Environmental groups in the lawsuit said recent scientific studies have found that carbon monoxide is dangerous at levels that were previously considered safe. They said two reports in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, published in 2001 and 2005, both found low birth weights among children born to women who were exposed to carbon monoxide at levels far below those allowed by the 1971 standard.
"Current health standards allow our children to be exposed to dangerous levels of carbon monoxide across the country," said Jeremy Nichols, director of Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action, another plaintiff in the case.
Lazerow said studies also show that poor and minority children are most at risk.
Environmental advocates and officials in California and other states have accused President Bush's EPA of foot-dragging in regulating pollutants, including greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, and ignoring scientific recommendations.
The EPA says it has come up with a new approach to clean-air regulation that will streamline the process while incorporating the latest scientific information. But White, in his ruling, noted that the agency's own advisory panel of independent scientists called the new procedures "entirely unsuitable" in January, saying they failed to provide timely information about the contents of proposed regulations.
The judge said the EPA conceded it had missed the deadline for reassessing the carbon monoxide standard but argued that it should now have five years from the time the suit was filed in 2007, shortly before the agency took the first steps in the review process. White disagreed, saying the evidence showed a thorough review could be completed 17 months earlier.
There was no immediate comment from the EPA.
Chevron Defends Richmond Refinery Upgrade Project
KTVU - March 5, 2008.
RICHMOND -- A spokeswoman for Chevron's Richmond refinery Wednesday defended a proposed project to upgrade some of the plant's equipment, saying the project would not enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil than it currently processes.
"It's not an expansion project, it's an upgrade," refinery spokeswoman Camille Priselac said. "The refinery is going to continue using the same types of crude and the same amount of crude."
The refinery currently processes light and medium crude oil. The proposed upgrades, referred to as the Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project, would not enable it to process heavy crude oil, Priselac said.
Greg Karras, a senior scientist with Communities for a Better Environment, an environmental justice organization, however, alleged during a press conference in Richmond this morning that the proposed project would enable the refinery to process dirtier, cheaper crude oil that could result in five to 50 times more pollution, including increased mercury, sulfur and greenhouse gas emissions.
Karras went on to allege that refinery officials lied to the city when it certified that the final environmental impact report was correct in stating that it would not enable the plant to process dirtier crude oil.
The environmental impact report states that the only pollution increase would be a 1 percent increase in sulfur emissions.
Priselac said the refinery has proposed to replace its 1930s power plant with a new power plant that would allow the refinery to become independent from the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. power grid. It has also proposed to replace its 1960s gasoline reformer with a new gasoline reformer.
The proposed project would reduce overall emissions and make the refinery more efficient and energy independent, Priselac said.
According to Karras, however, the proposed upgrades would give the refinery the capacity to refine dirtier crude oil, and, according to his experience with the oil industry, refineries have always used the capacity they have built for.
"Why would they go to cheaper, dirtier oil? (Because) price discounts can exceed $5 per barrel, which, for a refinery Chevron's size, could be about $400 million per year," Karras said.
He added that those price discounts would not necessarily translate into cheaper prices at the pump.
Communities for a Better Environment uncovered the refinery's alleged plan to switch to dirtier oil after looking at the final environmental impact report and finding that "it didn't make sense," Karras said.
They then looked at documents submitted to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board and found that the project was similar to one proposed in 2001 in which the refinery applied for a permit to upgrade its refining capacity to be able to refine dirtier oil, Karras alleged.
The air district did not approve the project, Karras said.
Karras also said refinery officials have not agreed to limit the quality of crude oil they would be permitted to bring into the refinery.
"This project is about refining cheap and dirty crude at a cheap and dirty refinery," said Jessica Tovar, a community organizer for Communities for a Better Environment and a resident of Atchison Village, a neighborhood seated along the fence line of the refinery.
Sylvia Hopkins, another Atchison Village resident, said children in her neighborhood had extremely high rates of asthma hospitalizations and that she personally needed to use a machine to help her breathe every night.
Hopkins also said that residents in her neighborhood had unusually high rates of cancer.
According to Hopkins, elevated levels of sulfur, heavy metals and particulate matter were found inside and outside her house.
If the refinery were to begin processing dirtier crude oil, it would need to process that oil at higher temperatures, which could lead to more flaring, fires and explosions, Tovar said.
In some areas of west Contra Costa County, residents have double the asthma rate than the county's average rate, according to a 2005 report issued by Contra Costa Health Services Department.
Carla Perez, executive director of Communities for a Better Environment, said that while there are no published scientific studies that have been able to measure the damage done to people's health after breathing in chemicals from refinery flaring, anecdotal evidence has suggested that the pollutants may cause lung disease, cancer and other health problems.
"We know flares emit certain chemicals," Perez said. "We know what health effects those chemicals tend to cause. And we know what symptoms people are experiencing."
People living near the Chevron refinery frequently experience severe asthma attacks, dizziness, migraine headaches and rashes, Perez said.
One study showed that people living downwind from the Chevron refinery have the highest rates of hospitalization due to asthma attacks in California, Perez said.
Women living in west Contra Costa County also have some of the highest rates of breast cancer in the state and some of the worst breast cancer mortality rates, Perez said.
Henry Clark, executive director of the West County Toxics Coalition, said his organization has been "waging a struggle against Chevron for the past 20 years."
"Communities like mine, like North Richmond, have already taken more than their fair share of pollution," Clark said. "We've already suffered more than our fair share from asthma and death. For them to come back and say it's OK because it only adds a little more injustice ... this here is environmental racism."
Clark blasted the refinery for committing environmental crimes against the primarily low-income minority communities near the refinery.
"There's been a thorough review of the project" by the city of Richmond, its consultants and other government agencies, including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Priselac said, noting that although the permitting process was only supposed to take one year, it has dragged on for three.
The refinery must receive permits from the city of Richmond and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District before it can begin construction.
RICHMOND -- A spokeswoman for Chevron's Richmond refinery Wednesday defended a proposed project to upgrade some of the plant's equipment, saying the project would not enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil than it currently processes.
"It's not an expansion project, it's an upgrade," refinery spokeswoman Camille Priselac said. "The refinery is going to continue using the same types of crude and the same amount of crude."
The refinery currently processes light and medium crude oil. The proposed upgrades, referred to as the Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project, would not enable it to process heavy crude oil, Priselac said.
Greg Karras, a senior scientist with Communities for a Better Environment, an environmental justice organization, however, alleged during a press conference in Richmond this morning that the proposed project would enable the refinery to process dirtier, cheaper crude oil that could result in five to 50 times more pollution, including increased mercury, sulfur and greenhouse gas emissions.
Karras went on to allege that refinery officials lied to the city when it certified that the final environmental impact report was correct in stating that it would not enable the plant to process dirtier crude oil.
The environmental impact report states that the only pollution increase would be a 1 percent increase in sulfur emissions.
Priselac said the refinery has proposed to replace its 1930s power plant with a new power plant that would allow the refinery to become independent from the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. power grid. It has also proposed to replace its 1960s gasoline reformer with a new gasoline reformer.
The proposed project would reduce overall emissions and make the refinery more efficient and energy independent, Priselac said.
According to Karras, however, the proposed upgrades would give the refinery the capacity to refine dirtier crude oil, and, according to his experience with the oil industry, refineries have always used the capacity they have built for.
"Why would they go to cheaper, dirtier oil? (Because) price discounts can exceed $5 per barrel, which, for a refinery Chevron's size, could be about $400 million per year," Karras said.
He added that those price discounts would not necessarily translate into cheaper prices at the pump.
Communities for a Better Environment uncovered the refinery's alleged plan to switch to dirtier oil after looking at the final environmental impact report and finding that "it didn't make sense," Karras said.
They then looked at documents submitted to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board and found that the project was similar to one proposed in 2001 in which the refinery applied for a permit to upgrade its refining capacity to be able to refine dirtier oil, Karras alleged.
The air district did not approve the project, Karras said.
Karras also said refinery officials have not agreed to limit the quality of crude oil they would be permitted to bring into the refinery.
"This project is about refining cheap and dirty crude at a cheap and dirty refinery," said Jessica Tovar, a community organizer for Communities for a Better Environment and a resident of Atchison Village, a neighborhood seated along the fence line of the refinery.
Sylvia Hopkins, another Atchison Village resident, said children in her neighborhood had extremely high rates of asthma hospitalizations and that she personally needed to use a machine to help her breathe every night.
Hopkins also said that residents in her neighborhood had unusually high rates of cancer.
According to Hopkins, elevated levels of sulfur, heavy metals and particulate matter were found inside and outside her house.
If the refinery were to begin processing dirtier crude oil, it would need to process that oil at higher temperatures, which could lead to more flaring, fires and explosions, Tovar said.
In some areas of west Contra Costa County, residents have double the asthma rate than the county's average rate, according to a 2005 report issued by Contra Costa Health Services Department.
Carla Perez, executive director of Communities for a Better Environment, said that while there are no published scientific studies that have been able to measure the damage done to people's health after breathing in chemicals from refinery flaring, anecdotal evidence has suggested that the pollutants may cause lung disease, cancer and other health problems.
"We know flares emit certain chemicals," Perez said. "We know what health effects those chemicals tend to cause. And we know what symptoms people are experiencing."
People living near the Chevron refinery frequently experience severe asthma attacks, dizziness, migraine headaches and rashes, Perez said.
One study showed that people living downwind from the Chevron refinery have the highest rates of hospitalization due to asthma attacks in California, Perez said.
Women living in west Contra Costa County also have some of the highest rates of breast cancer in the state and some of the worst breast cancer mortality rates, Perez said.
Henry Clark, executive director of the West County Toxics Coalition, said his organization has been "waging a struggle against Chevron for the past 20 years."
"Communities like mine, like North Richmond, have already taken more than their fair share of pollution," Clark said. "We've already suffered more than our fair share from asthma and death. For them to come back and say it's OK because it only adds a little more injustice ... this here is environmental racism."
Clark blasted the refinery for committing environmental crimes against the primarily low-income minority communities near the refinery.
"There's been a thorough review of the project" by the city of Richmond, its consultants and other government agencies, including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Priselac said, noting that although the permitting process was only supposed to take one year, it has dragged on for three.
The refinery must receive permits from the city of Richmond and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District before it can begin construction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
