User:Mjefflo10/sandbox

Coordinates: 37°56′32″N 122°23′43″W / 37.94222°N 122.39528°W / 37.94222; -122.39528
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chevron Richmond Refinery
Image showing the refinery and the marshlands in the background; Point Richmond in the foreground.
Mjefflo10/sandbox is located in California
Mjefflo10/sandbox
Location of the Chevron Richmond Refinery in California
CountryUnited States
CityRichmond, California
Coordinates37°56′32″N 122°23′43″W / 37.94222°N 122.39528°W / 37.94222; -122.39528
Refinery details
Owner(s)Chevron Corporation
Commissioned1902
Capacity240,000 bbl/d (38,000 m3/d)

The Chevron Richmond Refinery is a 2,900-acre (1,200 ha) petroleum refinery in Richmond, California, on San Francisco Bay.[1] It is owned and operated by Chevron Corporation and employs more than 1,200 workers,[1] making it the city's largest employer. The refinery processes approximately 240,000 barrels (38,000 m3) of crude oil a day in the manufacture of petroleum products and other chemicals. The refinery's primary products are motor gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel and lubricants.[2]


History[edit]

Beginnings[edit]

When the Chevron Richmond Refinery first opened in 1902 it only had 80 employees, some were engineers, mechanics, technicians, inspectors, and managers. Most of the employees migrated from the South where there was poverty, also the lack of educational facilities for the children, rigid segregation and discrimination, and limited opportunities were all among the reasons that led people to places such as Richmond, CA. In 1905, when Richmond was finally incorporated as a city, the population was 2,150. When 1914 came around, the population grew to 7,500 and the employee number went all the way to 1,615, and as time went on those numbers increased tremendously. According to historian Gerald White the beginning of the Richmond refinery on the west coast was “colossus”. The refinery was built in the city of Richmond, on a peninsula near the San Francisco Bay. It was finally completed in July 1902. At the beginning it was only a complex of red brick buildings, the new refinery could process “10,000 barrels of crude a day and had a tank-age capacity of 185,000 barrels in its first year of operation”. Chevron's earliest predecessor, the Pacific Coast Oil Company (PCO), was looking to build a refinery to develop its fuel capacity of processing light as well as heavy crudes from Southern California fields, which was PCO's main facility. Supervisor William Rheem was the one who found the location for a new refinery and pipeline terminal. The site which he had located was a country road that terminated near a railroad station called East Yards. At Rheem's urging, PCO acquired the property on September 14, 1901. The East Yards station then became the center of the Pacific Coast refining industry. It also changed its name to Point Richmond. [3] [4]

By summer of 1902, PCO's S.S. George Loomis steamed into San Francisco Bay to deliver its cargo of crude oil to the Richmond wharf. The first steel oil tanker built and operated on the Pacific Coast, the 641-deadweight-ton Loomis would become a major supplier of crude oil for the newly constructed refinery. By July 3, 1902, the refinery came to life as the first oil flowed into the new stills and the fires were fully lit. From the beginning, the Richmond refinery was a leader in the production of highly refined products and the refinery processed 3,317,000 barrels of crude oil. The Richmond refinery started off with 80 employees but this number began to grow at an extremely fast rate and started to have a significant impact on the city of Richmond. By 1907, Standard Oil Co. (California) began to take over most of the operation of the PCO and started to develop Zerolene motor oil. Also by this time the Richmond Refinery was one of the largest refineries in the world, as crude runs rose to an average of about 25,000 barrels a day.

Growth[edit]

One of the most important things which affected the growth of Chevron was the invention of the car. The number of cars grew at an extremely fast rate from 1914 to 1918. It is estimated that the number of passenger cars in the United States rose from 1.6 million to 5.6 million. It is because of this that the transformation and demand for gasoline, and other petroleum products began to increase. It is because of this demand that the Richmond Refinery saw major growth in this period. Standard Oil Co. (California) increased its product base to help the growing popularity of the automobile and other means of transportation. Because of this increase in demand Richmond Refinery began to hire more people and build more structures on the land. The next major growth happened in 1917 when the United States entered the first World War. It is now because of the war that more fuel dependent vehicles became needed such as trucks, tanks, tankers, trains, and planes. The Richmond refinery also began to produce items that were necessary for the use of dynamite during the war. The next major growth period happened with the beginning of World War II. Even though many of the employees joined the war effort, the refinery, like in World War I was busy producing items and products to help the war. It is also at this time that many African Americans from the South began to migrate to Richmond to find jobs at the refinery and on the ship yards. [5]

Modernization[edit]

After World War II the Richmond refinery began to go through a process of modernization and expansion of the facilities. As a result of this modernization, they began to produce higher-value, higher-volume gasolines, lubricants, and petroleum chemicals. One of the things that they did was to create 50,000-barrel residuum stripper, which converted heavy residual fuel oil into lighter products and also started to change crude oils to a higher grade. In 1959, the Richmond refinery developed a new way of changing high-octane gasoline into modern high compression automobiles gasolines. In 1965, the refinery opened the world's largest Isomer hydrocracking complex to convert heavy petroleum oils to lighter stocks for gasoline and other higher valued products. This process increased the gasoline output by 40% while reducing production of less valuable heavy fuels. In 1951, they began to manufacture paraxylene, a basic material for making synthetic fibers, becoming the first of its kind to extract this material from petroleum. Also in 1954, they began to manufacture lubricating oil additives, resins and plastic, and plywood adhesives. In 1960, they were the number one source of petroleum chemicals in the United States and also produced such things as "soft" detergents, lubricant additives, plastics and plasticize-rs. [6] [7] [8]

Recent history[edit]

Since 2002, which marked the 100th anniversary of the refinery, the company had over 1,300 employees, was the complex on 2,900 acres of land, it had 30 operating plants, two Cogen Plants, five boilers and the ability to move 340,000 barrels a day of raw materials. In 2006, it had a capacity to produce over 225,000 barrels a day. The Richmond Refinery by the mid 2000’s had become one of the major refineries in the United States. The refinery has also done a lot to fix the environment which has been victim to many of the refineries process. They have invested more than $286 million to install major emissions-control equipment, improve its waste-treatment processes, dispose with refinery wastes, produce unleaded gasolines that meet stringent federal and state standards, reduce the amount of energy required to process each barrel of crude, and improve the plant's treatment of its effluent. They also have done much in trying to fix the natural ecosystems. Even though the Richmond Refinery says that it has been respecting the environment and safe for so many years there have been major problems of fires and leakage. [9]

Chevron expansion[edit]

Chevron has recently decided to create more expansions in 2013. The expansion project was expected to be around one billion dollars and would also create hundreds of new jobs. The reason for the expansion was to not only upgrade and fix many problems at the 100 year old refinery but also start to produce a much wider array of crude oils. Many people in the city of Richmond saw this expansion as positive because not only would it bring jobs and economic growth to the city but it would also be a solution to many of the health issues which the residents have complained about over the recent years. Interestingly, some environmental activists think that the expansion would be problematic because the refinery is already causing pollution and this expansion would only make things worse.

In 2009, Chevron attempted to propose the expansion notion to the court. The ruling declared Chevron's environmental report fell short in explaining the changes in crude oil that would be processed and outlining plans to mitigate greenhouse gases. Chevron’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to the city was not comprehensive enough to disclose that the expansion would enable the refining of heavier and more contaminated oil. [10] According to Global Community Monitor, the expansion could be detrimental.[11] Denny Larson, a community organizer at Global Community Monitor, discusses concerns of the expansion stating that if the refinery expands then it would pollute more and begin to endanger the local residents. Clayton Thomas-Muller of the Indigenous Environmental Network's Tar Sands Campaign agrees with this statement, he says "to reverse this trend, we need a paradigm shift that empowers sophisticated, multi-pronged strategies of litigation, direct action, and advocacy.[12] Advocacy groups, organizations and communities went ahead and began advocating against the Chevron expansion in California, one in particular is the Communities for a Better Environment (CBE). CBE is a community based organization established in 1978 and is one of the preeminent environmental justice organizations in the nation. With the mission to build people’s power in California’s communities of color and low income communities such as Richmond [13], CBE has become one of many organizations advocating for unjust industrial hazardous pollution. Air Pollution Organizations such as West County Toxics Coalition ran by Richmond citizen Henry Clark, Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN) and CBE brought a lawsuit against Chevron and the City of Richmond to stop the refinery’s expansion project, which was in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).[10] However, Chevron makes the argument that “many jobs were lost because of the halt on the expansion project.” As the debates go on many continue to go back and forth on the issue of air pollution and ways to create environmental protection. With all the advocating going on, Chevron makes the argument that “many jobs were lost because of the halt on the expansion project"[14] Chevron believes that all the advocating going on is only hindering job availability to people.

Employees[edit]

Chevron is the largest employer in the city of Richmond. Chevron provides jobs for about 2,700 company employees and 850 contract workers[15] However, there is still an unemployment rate of 18% as of 2010. There is not an exact number provided that informs anyone on how many people that work at the refinery are Richmond residents[16].

Environmental and health impacts[edit]

Demographics of Richmond residents[edit]

During World War II, Black people were allowed to only move to Richmond, while people from other racial backgrounds moved to the areas throughout the Bay Area. [17]

The total population of Richmond city in 2010 was 103,701 with the breakdown of the population being 31.4% Caucasian, 26.6% being African Americans, 13.5% Asian, and 39.5% Hispanic/Latino. A majority of the families living near the Chevron Refinery are from African American and Hispanic background. These families living in the neighboring cities are the ones most affected by the refinery. Even though Chevron is the largest employer in Richmond, still 18% of the community is unemployed [18]. 26% of the residents that live in Richmond are living below the poverty line and more than 85% of the residents are listed as “minorities” by the U.S. census [17] 79% of the people that live one mile away from the refinery are people of color and 25% of them live below the nation's poverty line[12] . A disproportionate amount of people exposed to toxins are Blacks and Latinos, 63% of people of color are living right next to the refinery.

Air quality monitoring[edit]

There are about two million pounds of waste that is being produced by the refinery. According to an EPA report, the release or disposal of more than 600,000 pounds of toxic waste was from the refinery in 2009. The Environmental Protection Agency has categorized the refinery’s pollution as a high priority violation (HPV), “HPV is the most serious level of violation noted by the EPA".[12]. In April of 2009 Chevron paid the EPA $6,000 in penalties for reporting violations and for exceeding limitations on released selenium[17]

The foundation of the Clean Air Act of 1970 was created by the EPA and developed by Congress to set standards for industries like Chevron to improve air quality within the environment it is located in. Critics state that as regulators use the Clean Air Act to address a more ambitious agenda—dealing with greenhouse-gas emissions that many scientists say contribute to global warming—longstanding problems with the law are being put into focus such as cost-effectiveness and whether the 1970-era environmental laws are suited to today's problems.

Chevron is currently implementing an Air Quality Monitoring program in the surrounding neighborhoods of North Richmond, Point Richmond and Atchison Village. This program is part of the Richmond Community Benefits Agreement (RCBA, Section 2.F(2))[19] for the Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project. The Air Quality Monitoring Program will sample air quality using testing methods similar to those used by government agencies and publish these results on a community-accessible website.[20]

Some citizens routinely patrol the area with air collection bins to measure the chemical content of the air.[21]

Effects of exposure[edit]

A Brown University study showed that the air inside of the Richmond residents is more toxic than that outside due to harmful pollutants from the refinery being trapped indoors. "Inside levels of particulate matter, which can cause respiratory disease linked to premature death, in Richmond homes and known to come from oil refining exceeded both outside levels and California’s air quality standards.”[17] There are many effects due to the exposure to the amount of pollution that is being emitted in the air. Particularly, asthma as a significant environmental justice issue with 28.5% asthma diagnosis’ in children which is over four times the national average of 7%.[12]. In a separate study, out of 440 adults and 282 children surveyed, 46% percent of the adults had asthma and 17% of the children suffered from asthma from polluted air and polluted water that contaminated the area [22] . The longer one lives in Richmond the more likely they will suffer from asthma. In addition to problems with breathing, some people reported symptoms of sore throats and watery eyes from the exposure to the toxins from the fire[23]. A company study of 14,179 Chevron’s employees was conducted. Out of all the disease possibilities studied, the one that showed an uncommon pattern of increase was lymphopoietic cancer, which confirms employees are being exposed and affected by unhealthy toxins [24]. There are more than “3,800 pounds of benzene, a known human carcinogen, and over 235,000 pounds of ammonia repeated exposure to which can cause an asthma-like allergy and lead to lung damage. In 2009 Chevron was penalized for exceeding limitations on released selenium, “acute exposure to which can result in harm such as nosebleeds, bronchitis, pneumonia and vomiting. Levels of chemicals known for coming from oil refiners such as sulfates and vanadium, a heavy metal known to cause cancer and respiratory problems were found in a Brown University toxic study. “Richmond had the third highest number of deaths from cancer in 2003 and 2007 of any city in the county.”[17] “Health reports confirm that death rates from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases are higher in the Contra Costa County than statewide rates and are rising.”[23] Among the 15 most populous countries in California, Contra Costa ranked second in incidence rates for breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers. Richmond’s rate of hospitalization for female reproductive cancer is more than double the county’s overall rate.” In October 2010, County Asthma Profile found that Contra Costa residents, as compared to all Californians, are hospitalized for asthma at higher rates; having higher death rates due to asthma, particularly among adults ages 65 and older; and have higher rates of visits to the emergency doctor, particularly for children aged 0 to 4 years old.” [25]

1999 explosion and fire[edit]

On March 25, 1999 Chevron Refinery experienced a fire because of the leak in a units piping system. The fire occurred because a valve failed. The valve was 30 years old according to Chevron but there were 60 similar valves operating in the Richmond Refinery. Chevron was issued four citations because of the failed valve by the CAL/OSHA . Chevron then installed devices to help not over pressuring the valve. Chevron failed to properly report and update the valves that ultimately failed according to CAL/OSHA. The unit where the valve failed was out of operation for the remainder of the year.[26][27]

2012 explosion and fire[edit]

The pipe burst, releasing flammable “hydrocarbon process fluid which partially vaporized into a large vapor cloud” that endangered 19 employees who were in jeopardy of serious injury. The employees only had two minutes before the vapor cloud burst into flames. The by products of the explosion continued in a large plume across the Richmond California area the contents and size of the plume could not be determined. A test from CSB and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) figured the pipe burst because of “thinning caused by sulfidation corrosion, a common damage mechanism in refineries.” [28].[29]. Although it was a common damage, Chevron Refinery received 25 citations. Chevron was handed the 25 citations and fined $963,200 by the state due to violations such as Chevron’s failure to institute emergency procedures to shut down the unit, the ordering of workers into the “hazardous incident zone” without proper equipment, and failing to recognize the “potential for catastrophic release of ignitable diesel fuel.”[28] According to the lawsuit, the explosion could have been “preventable” because they knew about the pipeline for 10 years and chose to spend their money on “executive salaries”.[28]

Controversies[edit]

Tax rates[edit]

In 2006, a local referendum (Measure T) proposed to raise the business tax. Chevron vehemently opposed the initiative and funded a massive flyer campaign, suggesting it would lead to evictions of seniors and closing of small businesses.[30] The measure failed by 54%. However, in 2008 the measure was revived, modified to tax only large manufacturers; it passed by 51.5%.[30]

Unpaid taxes[edit]

In 2009, the Chevron refinery agreed to pay the city of Richmond $28 million in back utility taxes.[31]

In 2011, Chevron unsuccessfully sued Contra Costa County for 73$ million dollars claiming its property taxes were too high.[32][33] The company's lawyers stated that the refinery was not worth $3 billion in 2007 and 2009 as assessed, but instead only worth $1.8 and $1.15 billion respectively.[33] During the hearings, Gayle McGlaughlin, Mayor of Richmond, stated "If Chevron wins this appeal, it will mean layoffs, major cutbacks in services and would push us virtually to the edge of bankruptcy. Cities are suffering and Chevron is making billions of dollars."[34] Kevin Lally, attorney acting for Richmond during the appeal, stated that Chevron had manipulated data, refused to give the assessor's staff necessary information, and falsely characterized the nature of the county's assessment process, stating that Chevron's analysis was "fraught with materials that don’t satisfy evidentiary standards.”[33][34] Around fifty protestors organized by the Richmond Progressive Alliance including Richmond mayor Gayle McGlaughlin and city councilmember Jovanka Beckels protested at the hearings, silently holding signs.[33]

The Assessment Appeals Board eventually found against Chevron's appeal, found that the county assessor had actually undervalued Chevron's refinery, and ordered Chevron to pay an additional $26.7 million in taxes, rather than receiving the $73 million refund Chevron sought.[32]

Bay Trail[edit]

A portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail from Point Molate through to Point San Pablo crosses oil pipelines that connect the Chevron refinery with the Richmond Long Wharf.[35][31] Chevron opposed the construction of this segment of the Bay Trail, citing security concerns, and stating that post-September 11th security requirements posed an issue.[35] Supporters of the Bay Trail along with then California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi pushed Chevron in to accepting the construction of the Bay Trail in exchange for allowing the company to renew its 30-year lease on state tidelands that lie at the site of its port.[35] In addition, the Richmond city council passed a resolution 8-1 directing mayor Gayle McLaughlin to ask the California State Land Use Commission to persuade Chevron to permit the trail.[1]

Chevron claimed that its total commitment in the Bay Trail amounted to $12.5 million, with $3 million being taken from Chevron's backtaxes, and $7.5 million worth of land being committed to the project.[31] A Chevron spokesperson stated that these numbers had been arrived at using Chevron assessors.[31] Bruce Beyaert, head of the Trails for Richmond Action Committee (and former Chevron environmental executive)[36] disagreed with Chevron's stated figures, saying that they were heavily inflated and amounted to "smoke and mirrors."[31] Beyaert pointed to a 2001 joint trail study finding the trail easement south of I-580 worth $280,000, not the three million dollars Chevron assessed it at.[31] Beyaert also states that there had previously been discussions to give land north of I-580 for free under an East Bay rails to trails project, land which Chevron's internal assessors valued at $4.5 million upon agreeing to the Bay Trail's construction.[31] The portion of the trail in question has since been completed.

Cap and trade[edit]

A protest for climate justice at Chevron's refinery in Richmond.

As a means of addressing climate change and a way to decrease air pollution by oil refineries, power plants, and large factories, the California Legislature, passed the Assembly Bill 32(AB 32), also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The bill was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sept. 27, 2006. AB 32 is a cap-and-trade/emissions trading approach, and represents the most aggressive greenhouse gas control regime implemented by any of the states and imposes a vast array of controls on the use of energy. The cap-and-trade uses market mechanisms by distributing allowances, tradable permits, to large companies for figuring out ways to reduce its California statewide greenhouse gas emissions(GHG) to 1990 levels by 2020.[37] Chevron refinery is one that would be effected by the AB 32 passing because it is seen, by various environmental communities as a heavy polluter.

On the topic of cap and trade, Dr. Henry Clark, president of the Richmond-based West County Toxics Coalition discusses his concerns of the possible loopholes within the cap and trade system. As a method for decreasing the amount of pollution emitted into the air, large companies are essentially growing trees that consume the pollutants. Dr. Clark claims “Cap and Trade allows major polluters like Richmond’s Chevron to avoid reducing its pollution by buying pollution ‘offsets.’ In other words, under Cap and Trade, Chevron could continue emitting the same amount of greenhouse gases and toxic air pollution while it buys credits from a tree planting operation in Chiapas, Mexico, or a clear-cut logger who replants the forest to cut again later, or an industrial-style dairy that captures methane from massive lagoons of cow waste.”[38] California environmental justice leaders and organizations, continue to expose the existing flaw within the emissions trading system, with the hope for an alternative climate change method feasible for everyone.

Controversies with AB 32[edit]

The passing of the AB 32 has created controversy for both the Chevron Refinery and the communities of people around it. For the Chevron Refinery Company, it affects their profit speed due to the fact that they use petroleum. This new law forces Chevron to minimize the use of petroleum, which is their main oil supply.[39] Chevron uses petroleum as their main source, which is very detrimental to earth’s ecosystem. Like the Chevron Refinery Company, communities oppose it as well. It has been discovered that by applying these principles of using low-carbon fuel it will put people out of jobs. According to American Enterprise Institute the Boston Consulting group study, “They found that under full implementation of low-carbon fuel standards, California could lose 28,000 to 51,000 jobs – that's a net 2,500 to 5,000 jobs created due to investments in energy efficiency. They also found California will lose up to $4.4 billion in tax revenue per year by 2020, a majority of which will come from lost excise taxes on fuels.”[40]

Community opposition[edit]

Environmental justice[edit]

The concept behind the term "environmental justice" is that all people – regardless of their race, color, nation or origin or income – are able to enjoy equally high levels of environmental protection.[41] Equally high levels of environmental protection is the major issue when discussing air pollution in Richmond. There have been many arguments raised by not only Richmond City but the citizens as well; stating that Chevron is the mere example of a rich industrial company deciding to place their refineries on the cheapest land, with only thoughts of production/profit on their minds, simply overlooking the families living in that neighborhood. The term Environmental Racism is defined as "racial discrimination in environmental policy making, the enforcement of regulations and laws, the deliberate targeting of communities of color for toxic waste facilities, the official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in our communities, and the history of excluding people of color from leadership of the ecology movements.”[42]

Continued presence of the refinery[edit]

Chevron's refinery was present before Richmond was incorporated, but its continued presence has severely polluted the city that grew up around it. Although the Chevron Refinery was placed in this neighborhood before it even became a neighborhood there is still an issue of why it is allowed to continue to pollute Richmond and its population. The land cost falling below the national average would suggest that both corporate construction, such as the Chevron Refinery, and poor communities, like the ones in Richmond, would be drawn to this area. Similar to untangling race and class, the issues of race and economic status, which ultimately effects who is making decisions, are too complicated to separate. Author Irwin Weintraub, of article “Fighting Environmental Racism a Selected Annotated Bibliography“ introduces the concept of environmental racism as it pertains to large companies like Chevron oil refinery over many years polluting communities whom are majority of ethnic background. The Wientraub article states that one of the first steps toward addressing the problem of environmental racism was the establishment of the Conference on Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards held at the University of Michigan in January 1990.[43] This conference gave national visibility to the public debate on environmental racism and served as a catalyst for residents of polluted communities, such as the Chevron Refinery, to organize. Chevron Refinery was placed before the communities in the case of Richmond city yet local communities still question Chevron's integrity as the company continues to pollute the air in which they breathe on a day to day basis.

Chevron’s defense[edit]

In the case of the Chevron refinery in Richmond, as well as all the other Chevron refineries, their principal argument is that the industries are not intentionally discriminating against racial groups but instead they try and "maximize profits"[42] and "reduce the cost of doing business"[42]. This economic explanation is a market approach. The company’s decision to build in areas similar Richmond is to ultimately save money on land costs.

Major industrial companies, like the Chevron Refinery in Richmond, use economic explanation as a means of reasoning, and with a sense of reasoning comes proof; according to the Environment Protection agency, there is proof of the major difficulties when assessing the impact of environmental hazards on low income and minority communities. The EPA acknowledges that the neighboring families do suffer a disproportionate share of the air toxins, however, “there appears to be a general lack of data on the health effects of pollutants in those communities.”[43] A report done by the EPA states that environmental and health data are not routinely collected and analyzed by categories of income and race. Critics on the other hand oppose that claim, stating the information is available but the EPA considers it a public relations issue, not a civil rights issue, and, therefore, does not take the claims seriously enough to gather the necessary data by income and race. In regards to the controversial debate on the issue of data relevancy, the Chevron oil Refinery has not been held accountable for intentional discrimination, due to lack of sufficient evidence.

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c Chevron Access Needed for Richmond Bay Trail Link, by Geneviève Duboscq, The Berkeley Daily Planet, 27-03-2007, access date 06-04-2009
  2. ^ What We Do: The Refining Process, Chevron website, access date 05-16-2009
  3. ^ "History". Chevron Corporation. Retrieved 2001-214. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. ^ "The Early Years: 1902 - 1914". Chevron Corporation. Retrieved 2001-2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  5. ^ "Growth Through Research & Innovation: 1915 - 1945". Chevron Corporation. Retrieved 2001-2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  6. ^ Juhasz, Antonia. "Chevron's refinery, Richmond's peril". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 14, 2012.
  7. ^ Arabe, Katrina C. "How Oil Refining Transformed U.S. History & Way of Life". Thomas Publishing Company. Retrieved January 17th, 2003. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  8. ^ Velasco, Lina. "Home Proposed Modernization Project". Chevron Refinery Modernization Project. Retrieved 2005. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  9. ^ Cuff, Denis. "Chevron refinery has history of fires and pollution releases, but that's par for industry". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 08/10/2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  10. ^ a b Choy, Ellen. "Chevron in Richmond". Reimagine!.
  11. ^ Choy, Ellen; Orozco, Ana (2009). "Chevron in Richmond: Community-Based Strategies for Climate Justice". Race, Poverty & the Environment. 2. 16 (2): 43–46. JSTOR 41555169.
  12. ^ a b c d Lopez, Andrea (June 2009). "Richmond Health Survey Report" (PDF). Communities for a Better Environment: 19. Retrieved 30 April 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  13. ^ "Communities for a Better Environment: Building community Power to Achieve Environmental Justice, Clean Energy and Healthy Communities".
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference cleanair was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference aboutchev was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference residents was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference truecost was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ "United States Census Bureau". Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  19. ^ Charter Document for the Richmond Community Benefits Advisory Committee, Richmond Community Benefits Advisory Committee, access date 05-16-2009
  20. ^ Neighborhood Air Quality Monitoring, Chevron website, access date 05-16-2009
  21. ^ Taking the Toxic Tour, Common Ground Magazine (note: contains inaccuracies), access date 05-16-2009
  22. ^ Cite error: The named reference asthma was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  23. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference healthimpacts was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  24. ^ Cite error: The named reference epidemiological was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  25. ^ Juhasz, Antonia (May 2009). "The True Cost of Chevron" (PDF). An Alternative Annual Report: 45. Retrieved 30 April 2014. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  26. ^ "Chevron Continues Probe Inyo March Refinery Fire". Chevron Corporation. Retrieved 30 April 2014.
  27. ^ Tansey, Bernadette (March 26, 1999). "Chevron Oil Refinery Blast Rocks Richmond". SFGate. Retrieved 30 April 2014.
  28. ^ a b c "Interim Investigation Report" (PDF). Chevron Richmond Refinery Fire: 63. August 6, 2012. Retrieved 30 April 2014.
  29. ^ Brown, Jerry (July 2013). "Improving Public and Workers Safety at Oil Refineries". Interagency Working Groups on Refinery Saftery: 34. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.396.5925. Retrieved 30 April 2014.
  30. ^ a b Historic local victory points the way forward, by Bob Patenaude, People's Weekly World Newspaper, 19-02-2009, access date 19-02-2009
  31. ^ a b c d e f g Chevron, Richmond Strike $28 Million Deal for Refinery Utility Taxes, by Katherine Tam, Oakland Tribune, 18-02-2009, access date 19-02-2009
  32. ^ a b Vorderbrueggen, Lisa (2 April 2012). "Chevron Loses Tax Appeal in Contra Costa County". Oakland Tribune. Retrieved 15 April 2014.
  33. ^ a b c d Protesters descend on Chevron tax hearings, Robert Rogers, Richmond Confidential, 15-12-2011, access date 25-12-2011
  34. ^ a b Vorderbrueggen, Lisa (24 October 2011). "Chevron, Contra Costa County square off on property values". Oakland Tribune. Retrieved 15 April 2014.
  35. ^ a b c http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-19811302.html Richmond Commits to Funding for Bay Trail at Refinery], by Katerine Tam, Oakland Tribune, 01-28-2009, access date 14-04-2014
  36. ^ Cuff, Dennis (1 April 2014). "Trail Champion Bruce Beyaert Leads Effort to Expand Shoreline Trail in Richmond". Oakland Tribune. Retrieved 15 April 2014.
  37. ^ Hall, Dana. "13 things to know about California's cap-and-trade program". San Jose Mercury News.
  38. ^ Newell, Brent. "Cap and Trade Violates Californians' Civil and Environmental Rights" (PDF). CRPE Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment.
  39. ^ Hanemann, Michael. "How California Came to Pass AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006". California Agricultural Experiment Station Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  40. ^ P. Green, Kenneth. "Viewpoints: Implementing AB 32 will increase unemployment, household expenses". American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
  41. ^ "Environmental Justice". California Energy Commision. ca.gov.
  42. ^ a b c Mohai, Paul; Pellow, David; Roberts, J. Timmons (November 2009). "Environmental Justice". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 34 (1): 405–430. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348.
  43. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference irwin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mjefflo10/sandbox&oldid=1168316617"