510-595-4661
Greens@richmondgreens.net

Children Asthma Rates in Richmond among the Highest in the State

See the full story and pictures in the San Francisco Chronicle

"Asthma epidemic sickens thousands of Bay Area kids - An ill wind blows across industrial neighborhoods "

Jason B. Johnson, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, February 11, 2003

Richmond -- Since she moved to North Richmond, in the shadow of a refinery and several chemical plants, Dorothy Reid has watched as six of her children, five grandchildren and a great-grandchild have developed asthma.

"There's nothing worse than sitting up with a new baby that's sick," said Reid, 55, who herself got the disease as an adult. "My great-grandson, we had to take him to the hospital for three days when he was 4 months old."

In Reid's neighborhood and throughout the industrial belt in Contra Costa and Solano counties, asthma rates are among the highest in the state, according to a report released Monday by a children's advocacy group.

Children are particularly susceptible to asthma attacks, which can be triggered by dust, mold, cigarette smoke and air pollution, health experts say.

Community groups and health officials in the two counties are beginning to attack the problem with programs to teach parents and children how to deal with the debilitating symptoms.

Advocates also want schools with zero-tolerance drug rules to allow students to carry inhalers with them, rather than being forced to wait until they get home and risk having a serious attack. And some activists eventually want to force industry to cut pollution.

Asthma is the leading cause of chronic disease and absenteeism among schoolchildren in California and the nation, according to Contra Costa and Solano county health officials.

While other Bay Area counties have asthma rates exceeding the state average, the problem is particularly concentrated in the Bay Area's industrial northeast, according to a survey by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research included in Monday's report by the Solano group.

While Contra Costa's asthma rate among children is 9 percent, according to the UCLA study, sufferers are highly concentrated in Richmond, San Pablo and Bay Point, areas where neighborhoods border refineries and chemical plants, figures from the county and state Department of Public Health show.

Some residents in those areas are so used to the shrill cry of refinery warning systems for hazardous releases that they sometimes ignore the sirens during an emergency.

In Contra Costa, 181 residents, 11 of them children, died from asthma from 1992 to 2000. From 1995 to 1997, 3,219 Contra Costa residents were hospitalized for asthma, 1,105 of them children, the California Department of Health Services reports.

While recent hospitalization rates were not available in Solano County, 285 children under age 15 were diagnosed with asthma in 1998, according to the report issued Monday. Contra Costa has the highest concentration of industrial facilities in the state and the highest number of major refinery and chemical plants outside of Los Angeles County.

"Asthma is an epidemic," said Chuck McKetney, a Contra Costa health department specialist.

Advocates, some of whom blame the large plants and refineries whose smokestacks dominate the region's skyline, recently began organizing with industry to attack the problem.

But some activists also want to force industry concessions concerning pollution. They complain that health problems in the predominantly poor and minority neighborhoods have been ignored for decades.

Bonie Mackey of North Richmond thinks it was a 1999 chemical spill from the Chevron refinery, about a mile from her home, that triggered her asthma. The accident sent hundreds of people to hospital emergency rooms, complaining of breathing problems and eye irritation.

"It was detected just last year," said Mackey. "They said 'asthma' and I couldn't believe it."

After being diagnosed, Mackey joined the Greater Richmond Social Service Corporation, a nonprofit group that helps children with asthma.

Chevron spokesman Dean O'Hair said his company wants to help children afflicted with asthma, but rejects claims that industry is to blame for their conditions. O'Hair said the Chevron refinery has reduced emissions by 65 percent in the past two decades.

"All five refineries (only) account for somewhere between 2 and 5 percent of all emissions in the Bay Area," said O'Hair.

Chevron also supports community health centers and is joining a new effort by the county to deal with the problem of asthma, O'Hair said.

But Henry Clark, executive director of the West County Toxics Coalition, said the problem won't be solved until industry is forced to change the way it operates.

Clark said refineries have used their political and economic influence to take the spotlight off their misdeeds, including releases that spew tons of chemicals into the atmosphere each year. Refineries must invest in production methods that release less waste into the air, he said.

Clark said poor people in the industrial corridor, who also suffer from elevated levels of lung cancer, have little influence and have traditionally been disorganized politically.

"In the final end it comes down to a disrespect for us," said Clark. "We're not recognized as human beings. You can dump garbage on them, you can dump waste on them."

For Reid, the most important thing is for the community to stay focused on helping the children. She hopes one day her 1-year-old great-grandson, Jeremey, will no longer have asthma attacks.

"It's very frustrating, and it's scary, too," said Reid. "I know how scared I am when my body contracts and I get the mucus and the wheezing, and I can just imagine how he and my grandchildren feel."

When she feels an attack coming on, Reid said it feels as though she's going to die.

"I never know," she said, "if it's going to be my last one."

E-mail Jason B. Johnson at jbjohnson@sfchronicle.com.

We fought and defeated a City-Chevron proposed 500 MW fossil fuel burning power plant."

San Francisco Chronicle / East Bay and the Region, Tuesday June 5, 2001

Richmond Power Plant Plan Yanked, City manager reverses position. Richmond Residents Cheer Rejection of Power Plant by Pia Sarkar, Chronicle staff writer

Richmond officials pulled the plug yesterday on a 500-megawatt power plant that would be built next to the Chevron refinery, saying they would explore wind and solar alternatives to cut the city's energy costs.

City Mnager Isiah Turner said he was approached by a consultant in Februaryabout the city teaming with the refinery to operate the plant - an idea that Turner welcomed than as a chance to boost the city's revenues as well as meet its energy needs.

But just as the City Council energy committee was to consider whether to authorize a $3 million study of the oil-fire plant yesterday, Turner asked that the proposal be abandoned.

"I recommend we put this plant on the back burner," he told the four-membercommittee, to the cheers of dozens of Richmond residents who came to oppose the plant.

Committee members - Vice Mayor Nathaniel Bates, and councilmen Tom Butt, Gary Bell, and Richard Griffin agreed with Turner to drop the power plant idea and redirect their attention to alternatives such as wind and solar power, as well as energy conservation measures. "It sounds dead to me," said Butt, who along with the rest of the committee voted to reject the power plant proposal.

A 500-megawatt plant would provide enough electricity to supply 50,000 customers. Much of the power could be sold, generating $3 million to $20 million in revenue for the city, according to city staff report

Richmond residents, who showed up at the meeting ready to battle it out with the committee, ended up praising the city for backing off.

"I'm very glad to hear the proposal's been withdrawn," said resident Virginia Harrison. Despite yesterday's vote, the residents lined up one by one with their prepared speeches and protest signs to remind officials to be wary of any proposal that could pump pollutants into the air.

"It is time to take the air quality in Richmond seriously" said resident Michelle McGeoy. "We need to take care of our children"

Turner said that he has already told Bill Roth, the consultant who approached him about the project, that Richmond will not moveforward with the plant.

"I've done my homework in and outside my community and I thought it wasn't appropriate to go down this road" Turner said.

Bates said he is still open to talking to other residents about all possibilities. "We have 100,000 residents in Richmond and many of them were not here today," he said.

Butt said that he had been skeptical about the power plant from the very beginning. "There were a lot of questions and none of them were answered," he said, but added, "I'm glad to see this put to rest."

Saturday, February 15, 2003 (SF Chronicle)
Refinery pollution report a shock/Bay Area plants belching 30% more gases than realized
Jason B. Johnson, Chronicle Staff Writer

Bay Area air-quality regulators may force the region's five oil refineries to reduce emissions after finding the plants are belching 30 percent more pollutants than previously known as a result of the frequent flaring of gases. While one of the refineries has purchased new equipment designed to cut the emissions, an industry association representing the others is disputing a report by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District that agency officials say could lead to new rules for refineries nationwide.
Health advocates, meanwhile, are demanding that emissions be reduced from the plants along the Contra Costa and Solano counties' shorelines, saying the pollution contributes to asthma rates in surrounding communities that are among the highest in the state.
"I was astounded to see how much pollution was being released from the flares," said Contra Costa Health Director Wendel Brunner, who has expressed serious concern about their impact on public health. "It was an amount that was much greater than I had imagined."
The agency's draft report found that refinery flares occur almost daily and contribute 22 tons a day in addition to the 76 tons of emissions already known to be spewing from the plants. Flares are used to burn volatile liquid and gas hydrocarbons.
The bursts, which can send flames 100 feet into the air, are supposed to be used only during accidents at the plant or to prevent damage to equipment. Regulators had not monitored flares previously because they were thought to be used infrequently, during emergencies.
'IT'S A BIG ONE'
"It's a public health issue -- it's a big one," said Teresa Lee, spokeswoman for the air district, which covers seven Bay Area counties and the southern parts of Solano and Sonoma counties. "We have found, frankly to our surprise, that the emissions from flares are a source of air pollution emissions that have not gotten a close look throughout the country," Lee said. After the final report is released, the agency's board of directors is expected to vote in April on whether to impose stricter emissions standards on the region's refineries. Officials said agency staff members were likely to recommend requiring refineries to reduce emissions.
"We want certain action taken to prevent the use of flares," said Mark DeSaulnier, a Contra Costa County supervisor and air board member. "We're going to be much more proactive." Companies could be forced to buy compressors, which cost from $1 million to $8 million each, to sharply reduce the number of flares. If approved, the new rules could spread to other districts and states, officials said. There are about 100 refineries nationwide, including one in Bakersfield and seven in Southern California.
MOST TROUBLING REPORT
DeSaulnier said the report on flare emissions was the most troubling he'd seen in the 10 years he's been involved in air quality management. He suspects the industry has been misleading regulators. "Either they were misleading them through mistakes or they were doing it deliberately," said DeSaulnier. "Either way, the effect is the same." But Dennis Bolt, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, which represents a majority of petroleum interests in the United States, says the district's findings are wrong.
"The district has yet to provide us with any actual scientific data for their estimates," Bolt said. "We believe the emissions are but a fraction of what the district estimated."
A flare is a highly efficient and effective combustion device that destroys all gases sent to the flame, Bolt said. Flares are primarily used in emergencies, or during maintenance, not routinely, as the agency's report suggests, he said. "A flare is a good thing," said Bolt.
But health advocates fear the additional pollution cited in the agency's report exacerbates the region's asthma rates, which are among the highest in the state, according to a report released last week by a Solano County children's advocacy group.
CHILDREN VULNERABLE
Children are particularly susceptible to asthma attacks, which can be triggered by dust, mold, cigarette smoke and air pollution.
"This is of grave concern," said Janice Tunder, a health educator with the American Lung Association, noting that chemicals released from refineries can contribute to lung disease. "It's far dirtier than we thought before."
Even with higher than expected releases from flares, refineries account for less than one-fifth of the 600 tons of emissions created each day within the district, Bolt said. Automobiles contribute by far the largest share of air pollutants. Flares have been an essential part of the refining process for decades. Even with their use, refineries have reduced overall emissions by more than 50 percent in the past 24 years, Bolt said. "If the dispute continues, we'll call for a third-party independent review of the data, because it's important," said Bolt. "Understand that when these gases are sent to the flame, they're virtually destroyed."
But one refinery -- shown to contribute more than half of the pollution from flares, according to the report -- is acknowledging the problem. The Tesoro Golden Eagle refinery near Martinez bought two new compressors for
$7.9 million as part of a $120 million plant upgrade.
The equipment has been in place for two weeks and is still being tested, said Tesoro spokesman James Darnell. The machinery takes flare gases -- hydrogen, methane, nitrogen and other hydrocarbons -- compresses them and sends them back into the refinery for use as fuel.
Plant officials daily are taking samples of gas flow to measure compressor effectiveness. "We hope it'll capture 100 percent of the flare gases," Darnell said.

To read the report on refinery flares, go to
www.baaqmd.gov/enf/refineryfsm/Flares/FlaresTAD.pdf.

E-mail Jason B. Johnson at jbjohnson@sfchronicle.com.

POLLUTING FLARES
Emissions from open-air burning of excess gases at five Bay Area refineries were thought to be negligible. But new data show that so-called "flares" contribute as much as 30 percent to air pollution coming from the plants in Contra Costa and Solano counties.

Copyright 2003 SF Chronicle

REFINERY FLARE POLLUTION UNDERESTIMATED BY A FACTOR OF OVER 100
A jarring article in the Jan 5, 2003 West County Times concludes that the Bay Area Air Quality Control District has been grossly underestimating pollution from refinery flaring for years. The actual level of pollution is over 100 times what had previously been reported by refineries and accepted by the Air Board, whose staff, according to County Supervisor Mark Desaulnier, are way too cozy with refinery officials.
According to the article, "The largest Bay Area refinery, ChevronTexaco in Richmond, so poorly monitored flows into its flares that air district engineers did not include the plant in its estimates. A spokesman for the company could not be reached last week."
For years, every time a CUP is required for a project in Richmond that has significant pollution potential, our City staff has routinely emphasized that we should defer to state or Federal regulatory bodies for regulation. A few people and organizations, including CBE and the West County Toxics Coalition, have maintained that these regulatory bodies cannot necessarily be trusted to look out for Richmond residents' best interests, and that we should be more proactive and independent in making our own assessments and including our own regulations into CUP's.
A recent example is the Western Research Center negative declaration involving the issue of potential radioactivity contamination (See Richmond Planning Department - A Negative Declaration Mill? http://www.tombutt.com/forum/021221.htm) In that case, the Planning Department deferred to the applicant's verbal description of a regulatory agency's conclusions.
***
Posted on Sun, Jan. 05, 2003
Flares spew pollutants by the ton
Regulators once estimated Bay Area refineries vent 200 pounds of emissions daily; now, the figure is 22 tons
By Mike Taugher
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
For years, people living near Bay Area refineries have complained that gases from unregulated stacks fouled the air they breathe, only to be assured that what they were seeing was insignificant.
Those assurances, it turns out, were wrong.
In a major oversight, Bay Area air quality regulators are finding that gas-venting flares that they historically said had only a negligible impact on air quality may rank as the largest sources of air pollution in the region's five refineries, according to a new report.
In effect, a draft report confirms the gravest suspicions of refinery neighbors -- regulators so badly underestimated flare emissions that they almost entirely ignored what may be the biggest air quality problem at refineries.
The enormity of the error is mind-boggling. Until recently, regulators estimated Bay Area refinery flares -- burnoffs of excess gases -- vented about 200 pounds of gaseous hydrocarbons daily.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District's engineers now believe the correct figure is more than 22 tons a day.
If that figure holds, the flares would be considered a bigger source of smog-forming pollutants than all the other known refinery sources combined, according to the district's statistics. That includes emissions towers, leaking valves, evaporation from storage tanks and every other source of pollution that regulators track.
Even the new figures for flares -- which refinery officials dispute -- could be low because they do not include the area's largest refinery and because engineers conducting the study conservatively estimated that only 2 percent of the gases vented through the flares escape unburned, air district officials say.
"There's got to be two questions asked," said Mark DeSaulnier, an air district board member who in 2001 sought the study as part of a smog-reduction plan. "One is going to be a rulemaking (to begin reducing flare emissions). But there's got to be a look back at how the district miscalculated."
"It does strain credibility that this could go on, both at the air district and in the industry," he said.
An air district critic said the findings highlight a larger problem - that regulators are grossly underestimating pollution from refineries as a whole. In other words, flares may be bad, but refinery emissions may be so badly underestimated that there may be bigger sources still to be discovered.
In fact, the flare study is one of several that are showing surprising levels of pollution from refinery pressure relief devices, tankers, waste water systems and others, said Julia May, senior scientist at Communities for a Better Environment in Oakland.
"They're finding big, unregulated emissions from many sources. The flares are just the worst," May said.
The flare report is nearing a final version and could change. Air district officials said the emissions are difficult to estimate because of poor monitoring of what goes into, and comes out of, flares.
Refinery officials say the district's figures are inflated or that flares are being used properly.
"We are engaged in some ongoing dialogue concerning the flares," said Mark Hughes, spokesman for the Tesoro Golden Eagle refinery at Avon. It was cited in the report as venting more gases from flares -- 14 tons a day -- than any of the other three refineries for which estimates were developed.
Hughes said the Tesoro refinery gave incorrect data to the air district, which led engineers to overestimate the actual amount of gas vented from Tesoro's flares.
Nevertheless, the refinery is taking steps to reduce flaring in the coming months, Hughes said. "You're soon going to see dramatic reductions in our flare emissions," he said.
Refinery flares are meant to safely vent gases when there is a problem at a refinery. But after reviewing operations at 28 flare stacks, the air district found that they are in fact "routinely used as gas disposal systems."
Mary Jen Beach, a spokeswoman for the ConocoPhillips, said its refinery uses its flares properly.
"At Rodeo, we use our flares as a safety control device and not on a routine basis," she said. Refinery officials at this point neither dispute nor agree with the district's flare emissions figures, she said.
The largest Bay Area refinery, ChevronTexaco in Richmond, so poorly monitored flows into its flares that air district engineers did not include the plant in its estimates.
A spokesman for the company could not be reached last week. A West County resident who tracks the refineries was incredulous.
"We've always been told the flares are a very insignificant source of emissions and the flares are not a worry except in case of a problem -- and in that case it's a good thing" because venting through a flare is better than venting straight to the atmosphere, said Henry Clark, director of the West County Toxics Coalition. His organization has repeatedly complained about "excessive" flaring at the Chevron refinery.
"Now, we're being told the flaring is 22 tons per day, which is incredible," he added. "How could there be such a wide gap in their calculations?"
One answer to Clark's question is that regulators uncritically accepted that flares were being used as they were supposed to be used, said Jim Karas, an air district engineer who is overseeing the report.
"I think traditionally - if you look at any publication - that's what they train people to think," Karas said. Instead, Karas said, refiners use the flares as a cheap way to dispose of gas.
DeSaulnier had another answer. He said regulators and refinery officials have been too cozy.
"I think the board and the staff were too close to the industry for years," DeSaulnier said. "We're much more serious about it now than we have ever been before, and we're going to hold these guys accountable."
DeSaulnier, a Contra Costa County supervisor, said air district employees resisted his request for the flare study. "Staff was saying the same things that industry was saying, that there wasn't much there," DeSaulnier said. "People weren't listening to people from the communities that were most affected. (But) they were right."
It was only at the insistence of environmentalist May and other activists that the air district agreed in 2001 to undertake the flare study and tentatively to raise its estimate of refinery flare emissions from 0.11 tons per day to 13 tons a day, noting that flare pollution "could be as high" as that figure.
Few in the district suspected that the actual number would be higher.
"I think the facilities are amazed themselves," said Karas, the district engineer. "I don't think they realized how much flow they had going on."
Karas said the report is consistent with new information from around the country and in Canada where air quality officials are finding far more pollution coming from flares than was believed.