Fletcher Oil Gets OK From Carson for Asphalt Plant

After months of delay, Carson officials have issued construction permits for a controversial asphalt plant at the Fletcher Oil refinery--after the company complained that the city was treating it unfairly and had no right to withhold approval.

The action came as the city is considering undertaking a limited environmental study of the $16-million vacuum distillation project. The proposed study would focus on the project’s impact on air pollution and traffic congestion.

The project is now well under way and construction is expected to be completed in August. Nonetheless, city officials say that if an environmental study shows that the plant would add considerably to pollution, the city may request that Fletcher mitigate the problem.

Fears of Pollution

In packed council meetings, neighbors have recently voiced fears that the project will add to pollution in southwest Carson, which is already burdened with odors from the county sewage treatment facility and a nearby fertilizer plant.

The refinery is located on Figueroa Street north of Sepulveda Boulevard, less than a mile east of the Harbor Freeway.

Neighbors contend that the conditional-use permit issued in 1978 for an expansion program at Fletcher expired in 1981.

City Atty. Glenn Watson, who has maintained that the master permit for the project remains valid, told city engineering officials on May 30 to issue six construction permits for specific components of the project.

On May 31, Fletcher officials came to City Hall and picked up permits to construct a $40,000 pipe bridge, a $47,000 pipe rack, a $30,000 pipe support and a $24,000 condenser support structure, according to Carson’s chief engineering official, Gary Nehrenberg.

The two permits not yet issued are for a $25,000 pipe support and a $27,000 support structure for a selective catalytic reduction unit, which is used to reduce pollution from oxides of nitrogen. “Fletcher just hasn’t come in to pick them up,” Nehrenberg said.

A Bitter Letter

A week before the permits were issued, Fletcher President Mark Newgard wrote a bitter letter to Mayor Michael Mitoma, attacking neighborhood critics of the asphalt plant project as “opposed not only to our modernization program but to our very existence and continued operation.” He also complained that City Council members and city officials were being unfair.

“In at least one instance, the subject of Fletcher’s project was on the council agenda but no one from the city gave us the courtesy of a notice or invitation. . . . In another meeting, we were criticized for having too many Fletcher representatives attend, particularly because they were dressed in their normal business suits and included our attorney.

“In still other instances, the council meetings have taken on a carnival atmosphere where one resident has been allowed to browbeat council members with rude language, catchy slogans and numerous unfounded allegations against Fletcher, none of which were even challenged by the council.”

Newgard’s letter went on to say that the city had “no legal basis” for continuing to withhold the construction permits. “We have a right to know why this delay is happening.”

In an interview Tuesday, the Fletcher official said he was unsure if the letter is what prompted the city to release the permits.

‘Common Sense’

“I really don’t know what it is,” he said. “I don’t want to attribute it to the letter. . . . I would attribute it to common sense. What we are doing here is really not objectionable. There is misunderstanding about what we are doing which has been gradually cleared up over time.”

Watson said the letter was not a major factor in his decision.

“Naturally, you don’t disregard that kind of a letter,” he said. “Did that letter nudge me into rendering the opinion that the permits should be issued? No.

“On the merits, I examined the permits, looked at the conditional-use permit, the plans that were filed, went over it with (Community Development Director) Pat Brown, (and) concluded they . . . should be issued because, in my opinion, they were entitled to them.”

Mitoma said he supports an environmental study in the hope that it will “eliminate a lot of the misinformation, be it (on the part of) the residents or Fletcher Oil.”

Opponents Skeptical

Barbara Post, spokeswoman for the neighborhood opponents of the Fletcher project, said however, she is skeptical that a limited review of air pollution and traffic congestion will be sufficient.

“A focused Environmental Impact Report . . . would allow Fletcher to whitewash the issue,” she wrote in a letter to council members.

“Our concerns are and always have been the cumulative effects on the residents’ health, safety and property. . . . In order to protect the residents from any further environmental abuse, we are asking that the Carson City Council support the concerns of the residents by immediately initiating a new environmental impact report taking into consideration all sources of pollution and public safety in the area.”