The Chevron Modernization Project

1. The Chevron Modernization Project What we’ve learned from the Environmental Impact Report Jeff Kilbreth jeffrey.kilbreth@gmail.com 415 656-7617

2. Definition of terms • GHG = Greenhouse Gas = CO2 • Reducing CO2 is about avoiding disastrous climate change, not about human health • CAP = Criteria Air Pollutants = high volume emissions that have local health impacts: • CO, NOX, SOX, VOC & PM • TACs = Toxic Air Contaminants that have local health risks • Emissions such as nickel, arsenic, hydrogen sulfide, formaldehyde, diethanolamine, naphthalene, ethylene and ammonia

3. Key Points • Chevron’s project goal is to “increase business flexibility” by creating the ability to refine higher sulfur crude and gas oil. • We assume that high sulfur oil is cheaper. If it’s $5/barrel cheaper, Chevron Richmond makes an additional $500 mil/year • Chevron is much more serious about safety than emissions reduction • We have good reasons to be concerned about the quality of emissions measurement and monitoring • Over 75% of the individual emissions aren’t measured outside of the refinery • The health risk models and health studies used by the BAAQMD are inadequate • Over 75% of TACs have no associated chronic health risks

4. Key Points • Chevron proposes to increase pollution significantly. • Claiming “no net increase” or “cleaner” is a complete misrepresentation of the facts – GHG would go up 16%, CO by 9% and VOC by 3%. TAC emissions even more • Chevron proposes to increase Toxic Air Contaminant emissions much more than GHG and CAP emissions • the 21 with known chronic health impacts would be increased by 46 tons per year • The most dangerous 15 would go up an average of 58% • Over 75% of the roughly 90 TACs would increase • Chevron can probably reduce emissions by 25-30% if they modernize the entire refinery and don’t increase the sulfur content of the oil they refine so much • This would be modernization done right • This would be Chevron acting Richmond Proud

5. Key Points • There is a core legal question here – can a corporation in California increase pollution as much as they want if they can buy credits and allowances for CAP and GHG increases? The AG says • the GHG increases requested are too great and would prevent the state from meeting its goals for GHG reduction (80% of 1990 levels by 2050 – a roughly 50% decrease from today) • Cap and Trade GHG allowances can’t be used to bring increased CAP and TAC emissions to highly polluted communities • The Attorney General is recommending we certify the EIR and proceed with a new “alternative project” which would not increase pollution and would improve safety. We know Chevron is unhappy with this, and thinks this alternative doesn’t achieve their goal of business flexibility

6. Key Points • Examples of non-disruptive but high-impact things Chevron could easily commit to doing to reduce emissions • Dome all 30 tanks in 7-10 years, not just 3 • Bring electricity to the Wharf and have the ships use shore power instead of running their engines – like they are required to do in Oakland and Long Beach • Upgrade all 6 of the tugs within 3 or 4 years • Increase the parcel delivery sizes to reduce the number of ship visits • Replace old pumps and replace pipes with clamps

7. Key Points • Chevron can make the refinery safer by replacing all of the old carbon steel pipes that carry 450 degree oil • It is important that the City set strong conditions and seriously manage the relationship with Chevron. • Many things depend on reports and actions in the future. Who will really know whether Chevron is fulfilling its obligations on safety improvements and emission reductions? How competent will the oversight process be? Do we need a dedicated commission? • We need binding emission limits, with high fines for exceeding agreed targets