Christopher Heredia - 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 OK'd 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.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Will Richmond, California Stand Up To Chevron?
B Gallegos - Bay Area Indymedia, July 6, 2008.
Editor’s note: The City of Richmond may be the first to stand up to the Chevron Corp. this month if it turns down the company’s effort to refine dirty crude oil. If not, the city will be far more polluted than it already is, creating serious health problems, for all. NAM contributor Bill Gallegos is executive director of Communities for a Better Environment.
RICHMOND, Calif. -- On July 15 the Richmond 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.
Editor’s note: The City of Richmond may be the first to stand up to the Chevron Corp. this month if it turns down the company’s effort to refine dirty crude oil. If not, the city will be far more polluted than it already is, creating serious health problems, for all. NAM contributor Bill Gallegos is executive director of Communities for a Better Environment.
RICHMOND, Calif. -- On July 15 the Richmond 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.
Residents Wary of Chevron Proposal: 29 of 30 Speakers at...
"...29 of 30 speakers at Planning Commission meeting oppose plan for hydrogen plant to refine crude oil"
John Geluardi - Contra Costa Times, June 9 2007.
The public had its first chance this week to comment on Chevron's plans to install a hydrogen plant for refining poor-quality crude oil.
The inexpensive "dirty" crude will increase refinery profit margins but also increase dangerous emissions from the Richmond refinery by about 800 tons a year, according to the project's draft environmental report. In 2004, Chevron exceeded state limits for toxic emissions by 475,000 pounds, according to a Bay Area Air Quality Management District emissions inventory.
But Chevron officials say the project will make the refinery safer and reduce overall emissions by improving efficiency.
About 30 people commented on the project's draft environmental report during a city Planning Commission meeting Thursday night. All but one of the speakers opposed the project, saying it would have negative health impacts on nearby low-income communities such as North Richmond, Achenston Village, the Iron Triangle and Parchester Village.
"If this plan goes forward, it will lock Richmond into refining dirty crude for the next 30 years," said Carla Perez, a project director with the Oakland-based Communities for a Better Environment. "It will exacerbate health impacts on already heavily impacted neighborhoods and increase the risk of a catastrophic incident."
The Richmond Planning Department will accept comments on the two-volume report until June 25. The Planning Commission is expected to approve or reject the report by August.
The larger project would consist of four component projects, which are considered in the environmental impact report. The components include the replacement of an outmoded steam boiler plant with a gas turbine "cogeneration" plant, a new gasoline reformer and hydrogen purity improvements.
Chevron has an opportunity to develop a less-polluting project by making hydrogen from water instead of fossil fuels and by generating power for the refinery by developing a green-energy structure that relies on solar and wind power sources, said Better Environment scientist Greg Karras.
"Chevron says it has to rebuild, replace and upgrade," Karras said. "And it's true they do, but they also have an opportunity to do that in a way that puts us on a course toward renewable refining."
But effective technology for producing hydrogen from water does not exist, Chevron spokesman Dean O'Hair said.
"I don't know of any technology like that that's available," O'Hair said. "This project is using the latest and most up-to-date technology available, which will make us one of the most efficient refineries in the United States."
Mayor Gayle McLaughlin remains skeptical of the refinery's arguments and wants to make sure the health of Richmond residents comes first.
"I'm very, very dedicated to the health of this community here in Richmond and making sure no further impact on an already-overburdened community is effected," McLaughlin said. "The pollution we've endured for decades has got to end."
Ruth Gilman, who lives near the refinery in Achenston Village, said she does not like the project.
"We had 30 people go to the hospital after Chevron's last accident in January, so why should we approve this expansion so they can produce hydrogen?" Gilman said. "Don't they pollute enough already?"
Comments on the draft environmental impact report for Chevron's plans to install a hydrogen plant must be received by 5 p.m. June 25. Address comments to Lamont Thompson, senior planner, city of Richmond, Planning and Building Regulations Department, 1401 Marina Way S., Richmond, CA 94804.
John Geluardi - Contra Costa Times, June 9 2007.
The public had its first chance this week to comment on Chevron's plans to install a hydrogen plant for refining poor-quality crude oil.
The inexpensive "dirty" crude will increase refinery profit margins but also increase dangerous emissions from the Richmond refinery by about 800 tons a year, according to the project's draft environmental report. In 2004, Chevron exceeded state limits for toxic emissions by 475,000 pounds, according to a Bay Area Air Quality Management District emissions inventory.
But Chevron officials say the project will make the refinery safer and reduce overall emissions by improving efficiency.
About 30 people commented on the project's draft environmental report during a city Planning Commission meeting Thursday night. All but one of the speakers opposed the project, saying it would have negative health impacts on nearby low-income communities such as North Richmond, Achenston Village, the Iron Triangle and Parchester Village.
"If this plan goes forward, it will lock Richmond into refining dirty crude for the next 30 years," said Carla Perez, a project director with the Oakland-based Communities for a Better Environment. "It will exacerbate health impacts on already heavily impacted neighborhoods and increase the risk of a catastrophic incident."
The Richmond Planning Department will accept comments on the two-volume report until June 25. The Planning Commission is expected to approve or reject the report by August.
The larger project would consist of four component projects, which are considered in the environmental impact report. The components include the replacement of an outmoded steam boiler plant with a gas turbine "cogeneration" plant, a new gasoline reformer and hydrogen purity improvements.
Chevron has an opportunity to develop a less-polluting project by making hydrogen from water instead of fossil fuels and by generating power for the refinery by developing a green-energy structure that relies on solar and wind power sources, said Better Environment scientist Greg Karras.
"Chevron says it has to rebuild, replace and upgrade," Karras said. "And it's true they do, but they also have an opportunity to do that in a way that puts us on a course toward renewable refining."
But effective technology for producing hydrogen from water does not exist, Chevron spokesman Dean O'Hair said.
"I don't know of any technology like that that's available," O'Hair said. "This project is using the latest and most up-to-date technology available, which will make us one of the most efficient refineries in the United States."
Mayor Gayle McLaughlin remains skeptical of the refinery's arguments and wants to make sure the health of Richmond residents comes first.
"I'm very, very dedicated to the health of this community here in Richmond and making sure no further impact on an already-overburdened community is effected," McLaughlin said. "The pollution we've endured for decades has got to end."
Ruth Gilman, who lives near the refinery in Achenston Village, said she does not like the project.
"We had 30 people go to the hospital after Chevron's last accident in January, so why should we approve this expansion so they can produce hydrogen?" Gilman said. "Don't they pollute enough already?"
Comments on the draft environmental impact report for Chevron's plans to install a hydrogen plant must be received by 5 p.m. June 25. Address comments to Lamont Thompson, senior planner, city of Richmond, Planning and Building Regulations Department, 1401 Marina Way S., Richmond, CA 94804.
Richmond Planners Near Vote on Chevron Plan
Christopher Heredia - SFGate June 6, 2008.
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.
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.
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.
Chevron Pleads Case to Revamp Refinery
Matthai Kuruvila - SFGate March 21, 2008.
Four hundred Richmond residents, many skeptical and disbelieving, listened to Chevron executives attempt to persuade the city planners in Richmond on Thursday to sign off on a controversial plan to remodel their 106-year-old refinery.
"The health risks are insignificant," Bob Chamberlin, the permit manager for the refinery, told the commission, while spectators in the audience groaned in disbelief. "We are the most tightly controlled refinery in the country, if not the world."
Four hundred Richmond residents, many skeptical and disbelieving, listened to Chevron executives attempt to persuade the city planners in Richmond on Thursday to sign off on a controversial plan to remodel their 106-year-old refinery.
"The health risks are insignificant," Bob Chamberlin, the permit manager for the refinery, told the commission, while spectators in the audience groaned in disbelief. "We are the most tightly controlled refinery in the country, if not the world."
Chevron is asking to "upgrade" its 3,000-acre refinery with a new power plant and new production facility that will enable it to process crude oil with larger amounts of sulfur and other impurities. Opponents say the changes would rain more pollution and toxic chemicals on Richmond. They were asking for the planning commission to delay the expansion pending further study of how the changes will impact the area.
It was not immediately clear how or when the commission would decide on Chevron's request. After the Chevron presentation, two environmental groups opposing the plan got a chance to address the commission.
Greg Karras of Communities for a Better Environment called the commission's vote a "momentous decision" with a "potential for irreversible impacts."
Henry Clark of the West County Toxics Coalition criticized Chevron for not fully investigating current health problems in Richmond and said its residents were "living on the front lines of (Chevron's) chemical assault."
Members of the public, along with two environmental groups, were awaiting their turn to speak as the evening wore on. Several members of the public said they had plenty to say.
"We're already breathing a toxic load from a century of heavy industry in this town. We can't take any more," said Tarnel Abbot, 55, a longtime Richmond resident.
During the refinery executives' testimony, Abbot stood silently at the rear of the chamber and held up a sign that said, "Chevron Lies."
Resident Lillie Mae Jones, 78, said she is skeptical, too.
"If it produces jobs and cleans up the air, it will be great, but as usual, there will be a lot of lies (and) there's going to be games," she said.
At the center of the controversy is the environmental impact report for the project. The city is required to look at the project's expected emissions of volatile organic compounds as well as greenhouse gases, the latter of which contributes to global warming. But the city's report concluded that the greenhouse gas impact would be "speculative."
Chevron issued a statement Thursday saying that the project "meets or exceeds" regulatory requirements. California Attorney General Jerry Brown's office disagreed.
Brown's office sent a letter March 6 to the city of Richmond saying that the final environmental impact report was inadequate and cited a number of oversights. Among other things, the attorney general's office said the city's report "relies on a document that does not yet exist."
Brown's office said the report ignored the impact of some greenhouse gas emissions, while failing to support claims that other volatile organic compound emissions were not significant. Compounding those problems, Brown's office said the city had put out an inadequate plan for monitoring and enforcing air quality standards - possibly putting residents at much greater risk.
In addition, Brown's office said Richmond officials did not require Chevron to do any emission mitigation efforts inside the city limits, where the project's impact would be most severely felt.
"As written, the measures actually adopted could occur anywhere in the state and literally could be anything," the attorney general's office wrote about the proposed mitigation efforts.
Brown's office noted that some of the city's proposed solutions may be harmful as well, but that the city had not laid out a plan for looking at that either.
The attorney general's office pointedly noted that California law requires that such projects "not disproportionately impact low-income communities," a definition that presumably includes impoverished Richmond.
Richmond Hearing on Chevron Refinery Plan Draws Protest
Mavis Scanlon - Sacramento Business Journal, March 21, 2008.
Before an overflow crowd at Richmond's City Hall on Thursday night, Chevron refinery officials described their plans for a nearly $1 billion renovation project, then listened to hours of criticism from a skeptical audience.
The Richmond Planning Commission, after hearing testimony on the environmental impact report for Chevron Corp.'s contentious upgrade project for its Richmond refinery, scheduled a special meeting April 10 to continue fielding comments before it considers whether to approve the final report.
The commission heard more than five hours of testimony at the Thursday night hearing, where a standing-room-only crowd filled council chambers. About a hundred more, including dozens of Chevron employees and protesters, watched the proceedings on TV inside a large tent set up outside City Hall.
Refinery manager Mike Coyle and others described the project and tried to dispel objections and what they called misperceptions about the project, which would replace aging equipment, improve energy efficiency and give the refinery more flexibility in the "slate" of crude oil it can process.
Opponents said the dangers from pollution connected with the upgrade are far graver than Chevron contends, and that the company needs to supply more information. The project's opponents, including Communities for a Better Environment, the West County Toxics Coalition, and the Service Employees International Union, would like to see the city recirculate all or portions of the environmental impact report (EIR).
Approval of the report would pave the way for a conditional use permit for Chevron to go ahead with the upgrade, which is reported to cost $800 million to $1 billion.
The city's California Environmental Quality Act attorney, Ellen Garber of Shute Mihaly & Weinberger, explained that under CEQA the city could recirculate all or a portion of the EIR based on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions, which are considered a major cause of global warming.
In the final EIR, the city said it did not make a legal finding of the significance of greenhouse gases from the project because it did not have a baseline or an applicable threshold from which to work. Instead, the city decided to disclose that the five main project components would generate total new greenhouse gas emissions of 898,000 metric tons per year.
"The conservative approach would be to recirculate" the EIR, Garber said.
Chevron contends that the project would emit that total emission number only if one large component of the project, a new hydrogen plant that is to be built and operated by the Connecticut specialty gases company Praxair Inc., operated at full capacity 24/7, rather than producing only the amount of hydrogen necessary to run the refinery operation. Post-project, the hydrogen plant would account for 698,000 metric tons of new greenhouse gas emission per year, according to the final EIR. Praxair is planning to produce excess hydrogen and export it through an as-yet unbuilt 21-mile pipeline that would connect to other area refineries.
Some of the mitigations proposed by Chevron, including smaller furnaces and domes on storage tanks, will reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds to less than significant levels, Coyle said. The EIR states Chevron will mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to net zero. But it gives the company a year following approval of its conditional use permit to hire an expert to make an inventory of greenhouse gases at the plant and for the refinery to submit to the city a plan for achieving complete reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the measures that could be approved in the plan include measures outlined for refineries by the California Air Resources Board under AB 32; identifying energy savings through energy efficiency; replacing certain diesel engines; retrofitting certain other equipment such as process heaters with higher efficiency burners; and initiating carbon capture and sequestration measures.
Another big issue of the night was the sulfur and pollutant content of the slate of crude oil the upgrades would allow Chevron to process. Chevron contends the refinery cannot process the heaviest grades of crude oil that are the most polluting, and the upgrade will not enable it to do so.
Greg Karras, staff scientist with Communities for a Better Environment, asked the planning commission to impose a condition on Chevron that would place an enforceable limit on the types of crude oil it can process. CBE would like to see Chevron supply more-specific data about the current types of crude oils it processes so the planning commission can make a better-informed decision about the ultimate and cumulative effects of the project, including more information about the exact slate of crude oils that are being processed and that will be processed, the sulfur content of those crude oils, and direct measurements of certain other pollutants.
"Chevron has not given us the most fundamental, basic information to determine how much pollution would increase," he said.
Protests Against War and Oil at Chevron's Gate
Anastasia Ustinova - SFGate, March 16, 2008.
More than 300 people marched from downtown Point Richmond to the Chevron refinery Saturday to protest the company they say is profiting from the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
More than 300 people marched from downtown Point Richmond to the Chevron refinery Saturday to protest the company they say is profiting from the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Twenty-four demonstrators were arrested for trespassing late in the afternoon after removing a police barricade, entering refinery property and linking arms, said Lt. Mark Gagan, a Richmond police spokesman. He said they cooperated with the arresting officers.
The protesters were marching against the war in Iraq - Wednesday will mark the fifth anniversary - as well as a proposal to upgrade the refinery's processing capability. They accused Chevron of profiteering from the oil obtained by the U.S. invasion, which has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
Kayla Starr, 66, from Ashland, Ore., said she was participating because of her 2-year-old granddaughter, Dahlia.
"I don't want her to get asthma and cancer from breathing the polluted air, and I don't want her to live in the world where we're killing innocent people," she said.
The demonstrators arrived at the refinery around 1:30 p.m. About 50 formed human chains at the entrance while others held banners, sang and danced.
Gopal Dayaneni of Berkeley, a spokesman for the organizers, said some protesters decided about four hours later to "take it closer to Chevron" and enter company property. Gagan, the police spokesman, said no property was damaged.
Chevron spokeswoman Camille Priselac said that operations at the refinery were not disrupted by the protests and that alternative means existed for vehicles needing to enter and leave the facility.
"We have also taken steps to ensure the safety of our employees," she said, adding that because of the safety measures, those steps would not be disclosed.
Chevron has said in the past that the proposed refinery upgrade will not cause additional pollution.
About 45 Richmond police officers in helmets were at the scene.
Two young women were cited for trying to hang a banner on a pole.
The protest at the refinery was preceded by a two-hour rally at the Judge G. Carroll Park in Richmond. Speaking at the gathering, Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin said, "It's time to clear the smoke of lies, the smoke of pollution and the smoke of war."
The protest was co-sponsored by Direct Action to Stop the War, Greenaction, West County Toxics Coalition, Amazon Watch, Richmond Progressive Alliance, Richmond Greens, Community Health Initiative, Communities for a Better Environment, Global Exchange and Rainforest Action Network.
The action coincided with several other anti-war protests Saturday in the Bay Area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
