APEN members speak out for better health and jobs

Richmond, CA, July 14, 2009 - Standing in front of the North Richmond Center for Health, a range of Richmond residents spoke up about the Chevron refinery expansion’s threat to community health, challenged Chevron to follow through on its promise and cap crude oil production, and asserted a vision for healthy, green, just communities where health and jobs are not pitted against each other.

On June 4, Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga ruled that the Environmental Impact Report supported by Chevron and approved by the City of Richmond was illegal because it did not disclose to what extent the project will allow Chevron to process dirtier oil and the harm that pollution could impose on the residents of Richmond. On July 1, she ordered that the expansion project be put on hold until a new, valid EIR is done. The management of Chevron, though they knew for more than a year that this EIR would be challenged in court, rushed ahead with the project. After the court decision, Chevron launched a PR campaign in conjunction with layoffs to drive a wedge between the community interests of jobs and health.

Chevron made over $23 BILLON in profits last year, yet Chevron has not taken simple steps like replacing their 1930’s boilers. “There are plenty of jobs in true upgrades to the refinery to create cleaner jobs.,” says Jessica Tovar of Communities for a Better Environment. “But instead, Chevron is just trying to retool the refinery to process this dirtier grade of crude oil. We say ‘stop the layoffs’ - the workers and community members should not pay for Chevron’s high-risk gambling.”

“Chevron and the oil industry are dinosaur industries facing extinction,” states Kay Wallis, a resident of Richmond and a healthcare worker with UCSF. “But in its last gasp in this project, Chevron wants to extract dirtier and dirtier crude and put Richmond’s health even MORE in jeopardy. I’ve seen first hand all the respiratory challenges community members face.”

The Chevron refinery in Richmond is the largest industrial polluter in the region. The EPA reported nearly 100,000 pounds of toxic waste from the site in 2007, including at least 38 different toxic substances, including more than 4,000 pounds of benzene (a known human carcinogen) and 455,000 pounds of ammonia, repeated exposure to which can cause an asthma-like allergy and lead to lung damage. The refinery is now and has been listed as in “high priority violation” of air compliance standards, among other violations, by the EPA every year since 2006.

Asthma rates in Richmond are twice as high as the national average. Children living in Richmond are already hospitalized for asthma at almost twice the rate of children in the rest of the county due to the impacts of toxic refinery flares emissions from Chevron. The local community, composed primarily of low-income people of color, suffers from disproportionately high rates of asthma, cancers, and health problems related to the refinery.

Long Samphalan, a Laotian immigrant and member of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, had no prior asthma conditions, but after 10 years in Richmond he contracted asthma and now rarely leaves his house because of his dependence on a respirator. “I came from to the U.S. in hope of health, but instead, myself, my son, and my 5-year-old granddaughter can’t breathe because of what Chevron’s done to the air.”

“Chevron stole my health,” said Marleen Quint, member of Communities for a Better Environment. In 1990, Marleen was diagnosed with thyroid disease followed by breast cancer less than two years later. She lost both breasts and her thyroid with no family history that would predispose her to either disease.

Chevron has promised the community that they will not refine heavier crude as part of this project, but refuses to agree to a cap on heavier crude oil production at the site.

“Look, all we’re saying is, ‘Chevron, simply DO as you SAY,’” asserted Sandy Saeteurn, of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network. “Everyone else knows that we can and must have good jobs and community health. The City Council needs to take responsibility and make the neighborhood bully, Chevron, keep its word and cap the crude.”

For more information, take a look at this
fact sheet.

Come and Celebrate with CBE, APEN, and WCTC!

WE WON THE LAWSUIT! On June 4th 2009, Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga tossed out the Environmental Impact Report for a major expansion at the Chevron Refinery, in Richmond, California. This is a significant victory over U.S. oil refinery expansions happening across the country!

Since the Spring of 2007, Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, and West County Toxics Coalition have worked to stop the expansion of the Chevron oil refinery in Richmond. We have accomplished the first step towards achieving this goal. Come and celebrate with us!

MONDAY JUNE 22nd
5pm—8pm
FOOD, MUSIC, AND COMMUNITY CELEBRATION!

Laotian Organizing Project
3727 Barrett Avenue and 38th Street
Richmond, CA 94805

To RSVP and for more information, contact:
Ana Orozco (CBE)……………(510) 302-0430 x12
Sandy Saeteurn (APEN) …………(510) 691-6236

Chevron among top 3 polluters in Bay Area

Refineries are top polluters in Bay Area
By Mike Taugher
02/21/2008

Tesoro's Golden Eagle refinery near Martinez was again the Bay Area's top polluter in 2006, according to data on toxic releases made available Thursday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The refinery, which is the second largest in the region, reported releases of 1.8 million pounds of toxic chemicals to air, water or land. That figure was down from 2.5 million pounds in 2005.

Overall, the EPA said toxic releases in 2006 from 1,357 facilities in California were down 2.8 percent to 45.2 million pounds from the previous year.

Tesoro's refinery has historically lagged behind the other refineries in installing upgrades. It was the region's biggest polluter every year since at least 2003, according to an EPA toxics database.

Mike Marcy, a Tesoro spokesman, said most of the toxic material reported by the refinery was ammonia that air quality regulators require to control smog.

A $575 million upgrade that is scheduled to be done this year will slash toxic pollution from the Tesoro refinery to about 500,000 pounds a year, according to Marcy.

"This is replacing 1950s technology that was here when Tesoro bought the refinery in 2002," he said.

The second largest polluter in the Bay Area was Valero's refinery in Benicia, which released 1.7 million pounds of toxic chemicals last year. That refinery, with a 144,000 barrel-per-day capacity, is the fourth largest of the Bay Area's five refineries.

Valero spokesman Chris Howe said most of the increase in reported emissions in 2006 -- double the figure reported the previous year -- were due to revisions that were made after tests of ammonia releases from some stacks showed higher emissions. He also said the refinery reported higher releases of nitrates to the water. The refinery also disposed of lead and other metals as part of routine maintenance done in 2006, which inflated the number.

Asked why the region's fourth largest refinery would have the second highest emissions, Howe said it was difficult to say but suggested the possibility that the other refineries might have more recent upgrades.

The Benicia refinery, at nearly 30 years old, is the newest of the five. The older refineries have had to perform upgrades, and when those upgrades are done newer pollution control equipment is installed. He said the Benicia plant "is just now coming up to be able to do," those upgrades.

Chevron's Richmond refinery, meanwhile, is by far the largest in the Bay Area with a capacity of nearly 243,000 barrels a day. It is also the oldest. It reported 1.2 million pounds of toxic releases in 2006, making it the third largest polluter in the region.

"We're one of the most energy efficient refineries in the U.S.," said Chevron spokeswoman Camille Priselac.

The Toxics Release Inventory is a database of emissions from large industrial sources. The EPA has collected the data since 1987 as part of a law that was passed after a Union Carbide chemical chemical plant in 1984 leaked poisonous gas and killed thousands of people in Bhopal, India.

Mike Taugher covers natural resources. Reach him at 925-943-8257 or mtaugher@bayareanewsgroup.com.

Bay Area top 10 toxic polluters in 2006:
Tesoro refinery, Martinez, 1.8 million pounds
Valero refinery, Benicia, 1.7 million pounds
Chevron refinery, Richmond, 1.2 million pounds
Shell refinery, Martinez, 772,000 pounds
ConocoPhillips refinery, Rodeo, 595,000 pounds
Clean Harbors, San Jose, 371,000 pounds
New United Motor Manufacturing, Fremont, 370,000 pounds
United State Pipe & Foundry, Union City, 337,000 pounds
Criterion Catalysts & Technologies, Pittsburg, 240,000 pounds
Tyco Electronics, Menlo Park, 217,000 pounds

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_8327467?source=email

A SF Chronicle column on Chevron profits and Richmond

Time for Richmond to stand up to Chevron

Chip Johnson

Friday, February 8, 2008

Roll on, Big Oil.

In the 30 years since California voters limited property tax increases by passing Proposition 13, the Chevron oil refinery in Richmond has negotiated a lower tax rate at least a half-dozen times - rolling over any opposition from local government.

To this day, the oil company has always gotten its way, said Gus Kramer, the tax assessor in Contra Costa County.

"They do a $150 million addition and we run the numbers, calculate the added value and send them a bill - and in November they file an appeal," he said of the company's practices. "Heavy industry has the best lobbyists money can buy, and over the years they have changed the tax codes and made it harder to assess the value of a modernized plant."

The company has used the tax appeals - and legal system - to argue that replacing obsolete systems is more akin to replacing a crumbling garage with a new, upgraded structure, Kramer said.

Consequently, the tax windfalls that some county officials had hoped to reap from the upgrade were not to be.

"There will be a slight increase in their tax base, but it's not going to be anything to write home about," Kramer said.

After negotiating its tax rates with county officials in the past, Chevron for the first time has gone to a county tax appeals board, which is scheduled to hear the case next month.

At the same time, the company is seeking Richmond's approval of its latest upgrade, which would allow the refinery to produce about 5 percent more gasoline. The company cleared its first hurdle last week, with the city's approval of the project's design.

The next step is the approval of a permit from the city's planning commission, which is expected to list the item on its agenda next month. If the commission approves the project, only an appeal to the City Council - a near certainty - can derail it.

Historically, council members have been a bunch of pushovers for the oil company, which has done everything from entering sweetheart deals with them to buying them off individually to win their support.

In one county tax appeal case, Chevron officials cut a side deal with Richmond city officials to keep paying the portion of property taxes that went directly to the city - if city officials would stay out of the county tax fight. They did.

In 1994, the city's planning commission approved another retrofit at the plant, with a requirement that the company put $50 million into a fund to pay claims from a refinery disaster. Chevron appealed the decision and picked off individual council members with $6 million to pay for pet projects.

Nearly 14 years later, the council has new leadership and a messy recent history with the company that has left some council members fed up with Chevron dictating the rules to the city.

A little more than a year ago, Chevron officials told the city that the company had recalculated its utility-user tax rate - and began paying the city about $4 million a year less.

"Things have changed - they have angered everyone on the council," said longtime Councilman Tom Butt. "If we can just hold the council together, we have an opportunity to get the absolute maximum in mitigations to the community."

Meanwhile, state Attorney General Jerry Brown has notified the city that any Chevron project it approves will also require a reduction in greenhouse gases emitted by the plant, Butt said.

Dean O'Hair, a Chevron spokesman, says the company is only acting within the law to protect its rights just as any citizen would. But that doesn't place the issue in proper context. The difference between most citizens and Chevron is that most citizens don't have an unlimited legal war chest belonging to one of the most profitable companies in the history of the world.

It's just tough to watch Chevron, which posted a record profit of $18.7 billion last year, pulling the purse strings tight at a time when it's doing so well and its host city is in such dire straits.

Richmond's homicide rate is already so high this year that officials have called in officers from the California Highway Patrol to help patrol the city at night.

Chevron isn't responsible - or accountable - for the social ills in Richmond or any other city where it operates facilities, but finding tax loopholes while making more profit than ever just looks bad.

From every viewpoint other than that of the corporation, such tactics can't help but promote the notion that giant companies make the rules and anyone without the spirit, resources or organization to fight back is an easy target for manipulation.

Over the century that the plant has operated on the city's waterfront, it has spewed emissions, spilled toxic substances that require people to evacuate their homes and presented an environmental challenge to everyone living around it.

In order for Richmond citizens to finally receive their fair share of funding from Chevron - something like a community mitigation fund would be a good start - the council needs to stand up to the pressure like it's never done before.

"The question is whether the council will hang together, hang tough," Butt said, "or just sell out individually like the council has in the past."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/08/BAQ9UUIGQ.DTL