Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Richmond Refinery Expansion Update, July 2009


Richmond Refinery Expansion Update, July 2009

Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN), Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) and West County Toxics Coalition (WCTC)








What does the community want?
Richmond residents say NO to more pollution from Chevron. Chevron has proposed a project that would expand the refinery to process dirtier oil which would cause more pollution. The judge agreed with us that the environmental review was flawed. No expansion of Chevron facilities should be allowed without a thorough analysis of what the effects of processing lower quality oil will be on a community where children are already hospitalized for asthma at almost twice the rate of children in the rest of the county—and what can and will be done to prevent those health impacts.

What did the court decide? The court decided that the City’s Environmental Impact Report for Chevron’s Expansion Project was inadequate. First, it was unclear whether the project would allow Chevron to process heavier crude. Second, the City illegally delayed its plan to reduce greenhouse gases. Specifically, the City improperly decided to wait a year after Chevron started construction to create a plan to mitigate significant impacts from the project, or analyze whether those impacts could be mitigated. This project would emit upwards of roughly a million tons of additional CO2 each year. Third, the expansion project failed to disclose that it included a major, additional component: a pipeline that would travel from the new hydrogen plant at Chevron to ConocoPhillips and Shell oil refineries. And it failed to analyze the impacts of that part of the project. The court decided that the City has to redo its EIR to disclose the impacts of the project to address the issues above, and only then reissue the permits.

What does the court’s order mean for workers and jobs?
Chevron makes its own hiring and firing decisions and is trying to make the community choose between jobs and our health. We know this is a false choice. We must have both. Short-term, Chevron can and should reassign work instead of laying people off. Chevron should guarantee the community that the project will not refine dirtier oil that will result in more pollution so that the project can move forward and the workers can get back to work.

Are CBE, APEN, and West County Toxics Coalition still open to settling the case, since we’ve won now? Yes. We made a detailed proposal to Chevron and the city before we filed the lawsuit and we are still open to and still awaiting Chevron’s detailed public response.


What do we want from Chevron?

- Prevent any increase in pollution from the project and implement the maximum feasible reductions in pollution through equipment replacements at the refinery.

-Reduce annual GHG emissions from the refinery by a millions tons concurrent with the startup of the proposed new hydrogen plant.

- Reinstate Chevron's Community Benefits Agreement with the City without any strings attached and drop Chevron's lawsuit against Measure T, which Richmond voters approved last year.


Background

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 whether the project will allow Chevron to process dirtier oil or disclose the harm that pollution on Richmond residents. On July 1, Judge Zuniga ordered that the expansion project be put on hold until a new, valid EIR is prepared and approved. Chevron, while knowing that the EIR was being challenged in court, rushed ahead with its project.

After the court decision, Chevron launched a PR campaign in conjunction with layoffs in an attempt to drive a wedge between the community interests of jobs and health.
Today, residents of Richmond who have been the victims of industrial pollution from the Chevron Refinery for decades are speaking up to say “enough is enough.” We need to retool the refinery to replace dangerous and aging equipment but we need to have guarantees that heavier, dirtier crude will not lead to worse air pollution.



Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Chevron Defeated in CEQA Lawsuit; Richmond Refinery Plans in Doubt - Berkeley Daily Planet June 11, 2009

By Richard Brenneman
Thursday June 11, 2009
Chevron’s environmental study of a proposed expansion of their Richmond refinery received a fatal blow Friday at the hands of a Martinez judge.

Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga struck down the environmental impact report (EIR), declaring that the document’s “project description is unclear and inconsistent as to whether (the) project will enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing.”

The court also struck down a decision by the city to allow Chevron to wait a year after the EIR was completed to prepare a plan to mitigate the refinery’s globe-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

Judge Zuniga ruled that Chevron had failed to meet a fundamental requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). “An accurate, stable and finite project description is sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR,” she wrote.

Crucially, the judge ruled, the EIR “is unclear and inconsistent as to whether the project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing.”

Heavier oils can produce larger emissions of greenhouse gases than the lighter “sweet” crudes, and the oil company did acknowledge the refinery might be processing oils with a higher sulfur content.

The city was at fault, Judge Zuniga ruled, by failing to state how the refinery would meet the city’s goal of requiring no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and “by simply requiring Chevron to prepare a mitigation plan and submit it to city staff up to a year after approval of the conditional use permit” allowing construction to begin.

The city also erred in allowing Chevron to “piece-meal” its project, the judge declared. That term refers to a process in which developers attempt to minimize the impacts of a large project by seeking environmental approval in stages, rather than as a whole.

The piece-mealing fault found in the Chevron EIR was its failure to include a hydrogen pipeline planned as part of a hydrogen generation facility planned as part of the expansion.

Will Rostov, an Oakland attorney for Earthjustice, one of the four plaintiff organizations in the lawsuit, said that as a result of Judge Zuniga’s decision—and absent a reversal by an appellate court—Chevron and the city will be forced to redraft the EIR in accordance with the ruling.

“Chevron is disappointed with the court decision regarding the adequacy of the environmental review conducted by the City of Richmond related to the Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project,” said corporate spokesperson Brent Tippen.

“Chevron believes that the Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project was properly permitted and that the benefits of the project are identified in the thorough environmental review conducted by the City of Richmond staff and the city’s environmental consultants,” he said. “We will be reviewing the specifics of the court’s decision and will then be determining a course of action in cooperation with the City of Richmond.”

Other plaintiffs included Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE), the Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN) and the West County Toxics Coalition.

“This is a great victory for environmental justice,” said Dr. Henry Clark of the West County Toxics Coalition. “It proves that not all judges are in the pockets of Chevron and other corporations.”

Jessica Tovar of CBE said her organization had filed suit because “the people were demanding the truth from Chevron and the city. We’ve been going through this process for three years now.”

One of CBE’s major concerns was the hydrogen pipeline, which would carry the highly flammable gas to the ConocoPhillips refinery in Rodeo and Shell’s Martinez refinery, where, she said, it could be used to help those installations refine their own heavy crude oils.

Tovar said the proposed expansion was “designed to retool the refinery so it could process the heavier crude, and several scientists submitted data supporting our claim,” including one hired by state Attorney General Jerry Brown.

Torm Nompraseurt of APEN said his organization was concerned “that the city had conducted a process that was not very protective of the population.” Praising the judge’s decision, he said, “I think it’s time for Chevron to find a way to help make a greener and cleaner community.”

Nompraseurt also said that despite inconsistent reports to the community, Chevron had told its shareholders that the company did plan to refine heavy crude after the improvements.

Rostov said the next step in the legal process is preparation of a final order, which should occur within the next week or so.

One major question remaining is whether work on the project already under way will have to cease while the new EIR is prepared, or even whether work already completed will have to be removed.

Another CEQA suit against the refinery is also underway, this one involving a challenge to the state’s renewal in January of a 30-year lease for the refinery’s long pier.

That action was filed in March by Oakland attorney Stephan Volker on behalf of the Trails for Richmond Action Committee and Citizens for East Shore Parks.

Chevron is Richmond’s largest employer, and Richmond voters indicated last November that they felt the city should be contributing more to the community when they passed Measure T, a new business license fee structure which mandates that the refinery pay on the basis of the value of crude oil processed.

The company financed a campaign opposing the measure, but the measure passed and two members of the three-person progressive slate who backed it were elected to the City Council, replacing two Chevron supporters.

Judge deals setback to Chevron refinery plan - SF Chronicle June 9, 2009

David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/09/BA1F1834QF.DTL

Chevron Corp.'s long-planned, highly contentious project to revamp its Richmond oil refinery has been thrown into doubt, with company executives and local officials unsure what will happen after a recent court ruling.

Judge Barbara Zuniga of the Contra Costa County Superior Court has thrown out a key environmental report on the project, siding with activists who sued to stop the project after the Richmond City Council narrowly approved it last year.

In her brief ruling, Zuniga said the report was too vague on a key question: whether the project will allow the 107-year-old refinery to process heavier grades of crude oil than it currently does. The report, she said, also did not analyze a significant piece of the project - new hydrogen pipelines.

Finally, Zuniga criticized the city for giving Chevron a needed permit before the company submitted a plan for limiting greenhouse gases after the upgrade.

The judge's ruling did not, however, say whether work on the project must stop. After winning the City Council's approval in July, Chevron started the renovations in September.

The project has long been the subject of protests and heated debate. Environmentalists and community activists call it a major expansion of a refinery that already sickens Richmond residents.

Chevron representatives call the project an upgrade, one that will modernize the aging plant. The refinery, one of California's largest, will process the same amount of oil after the renovations are finished, said company spokesman Sean Comey. But the changes will allow Chevron to make more gasoline from that oil, increasing gasoline production by roughly 7 percent.

Environmentalists who have fought the project for years want work halted immediately.

"My understanding is they're supposed to stop and dismantle any construction built so far," said Jessica Tovar, a community organizer for Communities for a Better Environment. The organization was one of four groups that sued to stop the project.

A Chevron spokesman, however, said the San Ramon company is still studying the ruling and isn't certain that construction must stop. And Richmond's city attorney said the city is awaiting clarification from the judge.

"I presume there will be a further order from the court that addresses that issue," City Attorney Randy Riddle said.

Critics say the project will allow Chevron to process heavier grades of crude oil, containing higher levels of toxins such as mercury, that could increase air pollution.

Chevron insists that the refinery will still use the same types of crude oil that it does now. Once the four-year upgrade is finished, however, the refinery will be able to process larger amounts of the heavier grades of crude already used there, Comey said.

But that distinction wasn't clear in the project's environmental report, Zuniga wrote in her decision released Friday. The report "is unclear and inconsistent as to whether (the) project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing," she wrote. As a result, the report does not adequately assess the project's effects on the environment and "fails as an informational document," she wrote.
At a glance

What happened: A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge threw out a key environmental report on Chevron's project to revamp its Richmond oil refinery.

What it means: The decision throws the project into doubt. Opponents say must Chevron stop and dismantle any construction built so far. The company says it isn't sure construction must stop.

What's next: Richmond's city attorney expects a clarification from the judge.

E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com.

Chevron Richmond Refinery Expansion Halted - East Bay Express June 9, 2009

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/blogs/chevron_richmond_refinery_expansion_halted/Content?oid=1000181

A Contra Costa County judge has thrown out the environmental impact report for the massive Chevron Richmond oil refinery expansion, according to the Chron. Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga sided with activists and environmentalists who sued to stop the controversial project, ruling that the EIR was too vague on whether Chevron would be allowed to start refining dirty crude oil. Such refining could cause significant environmental problems. The judge's decision puts the future of the project in doubt, because it may force the city to redo parts of the EIR and re-approve it. But that could be a big problem for Chevron, because it no longer controls a majority of the Richmond City Council. After last November's election, progressives now have a 4-3 majority on the council with the addition of Jeff Ritterman, a physician who ran specifically against the Chevron refinery expansion plan. — Robert Gammon

Calif. law linking land use, greenhouse gas emissions passes court test - NYT June 8, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/08/08greenwire-calif-law-linking-land-use-greenhouse-gas-emiss-4398.html

SAN FRANCISCO -- A California law aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from land-use changes has survived its first court challenge.

Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga tossed out an environmental impact report Friday for a proposed Chevron Corp. refinery expansion in Richmond, Calif., saying the analysis failed to account for the project's greenhouse gas emissions as is required by the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.

Zuniga said Chevron and the city had ignored greenhouse gas mitigation measures in approving a plan to expand the refinery, as required under CEQA. The judge also dismissed Chevron's contention that the expansion is not intended to enable the refinery to process a heavier form of crude oil.

"The [environmental analysis] project description is unclear and inconsistent as to whether [the] project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing," Zuniga wrote.

The case represents the first time a major oil company has had to cope with CEQA's greenhouse gas requirements. Early court battles over the law's new climate provisions, which require developers to plan mitigation for carbon-dioxide emissions, have been limited primarily to municipalities looking to upgrade urban plans.

Earthjustice, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network and several community groups had filed a lawsuit against Chevron and the Richmond City Council last September seeking a rejection of the environmental impact report.

In oral arguments last month, William Rostov, a staff attorney at Earthjustice, charged Chevron with trying to defer its CEQA obligation to some unspecified future date. He urged the court to reject the project's approval and send a signal to other developers that the law has teeth needed to force a carbon analysis (ClimateWire, May 21).

Rostov said the project would let Chevron, which is based in San Ramon, Calif., switch to processing dirtier oils that would increase carbon dioxide emissions and toxics. He said Richmond officials glossed over the issue in the environmental impact report approved by the City Council.

Attorneys for Chevron and the city countered that the oil giant had completed the work required by CEQA. Ronald Van Buskirk, who had argued on Chevron's behalf before Zuniga, insisted that the environmental groups had ignored the CEQA documents approved by the Richmond City Council in the name of blocking any development.

Chevron is expected to revise its analysis and resubmit its project application to the city.

Copyright 2009 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

Environmental Report On Richmond Refinery Rejected - June 8, 2009 CBS5

http://cbs5.com/local/chevron.richmond.refinery.2.1036837.html

RICHMOND (BCN) ―

[Click to zoom.] Click to enlarge
1 of 1
Chevron Refinery in Richmond.

AP

Close

numSlides of totalImages
A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge ruled Friday that an environmental impact report on Chevron's proposed upgrade to its Richmond refinery failed to disclose whether the project would enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil.

The ruling voids the environmental impact report on the refinery's Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project, which was approved in July by a divided Richmond City Council, Jessica Tovar with Communities for a Better Environment said Monday.

The project included replacing the refinery's 1960s-era hydrogen plant and its 1930s-era power plant.

Refinery officials said that the upgrade would increase the refinery's flexibility to process a larger variety of crude oil and improve the plant's energy efficiency and reliability.

In September, three environmental justice groups filed a lawsuit challenging the city's approval of the project.

Experts at Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network and the West County Toxics Coalition - plaintiffs in the lawsuit - said that the upgrade would allow the refinery to process heavier crude oil, which would result in increased pollution and increased risk of explosion at the plant.

Heavier crude oil can contain higher amounts of contaminants such as mercury and selenium, which can cause serious health problems, according to Communities for a Better Environment.

"Communities in Richmond, particularly low-income communities of color, already suffer from industrial pollution-related health problems, including high rates of asthma and cancer. Chevron's refinery is the largest industrial polluter in the region," plaintiffs said in a news release issued Monday.

Processing heavier crude also takes higher temperatures, which increases the likelihood of upset or explosion, Tovar said.

Tovar said that the proposed project is similar to an upgrade at a Chevron refinery in Mississippi that has allegedly enabled that plant to process heavier crude oil.

In her ruling, Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga wrote that under the California Environmental Quality Act, the environmental impact report should enable the public, interested parties and public agencies to weigh the proposed project against its environmental costs and consider appropriate mitigation measures.

The ruling went on to state that the environmental impact report "is unclear and inconsistent as to whether the project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing" and therefore "fails as an informational document."

Also at issue in the lawsuit was the refinery's plan to mitigate increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Plaintiffs argued that the refinery had not submitted a plan to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions during the environmental review process, but instead deferred the mitigation plans to a later date, which excluded the public from the process.

In her ruling, Zuniga found that under state Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred to a later date. She found that the "city has improperly deferred formulation of greenhouse gas mitigation measures."

Plaintiffs also alleged that the environmental impact report failed to analyze a proposed pipeline that would transport hydrogen from the new hydrogen processing plant to the Shell refinery in Martinez and the ConocoPhillips refinery in Rodeo.

The ruling stated that because the pipeline is an integral part of the project, it should have been addressed in the environmental impact report.

Tovar said that if Chevron decides to pursue its plans to upgrade the refinery, it will have to begin the environmental review process over again and include all of the information that was missing in the current environmental impact report.

"Chevron is disappointed and believes that the Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project was properly permitted and that the benefits of the project are identified in the thorough environmental review conducted by the city of Richmond staff and the city's environmental consultant," Chevron spokesman Brent Tippen said Monday.

Tippen said Chevron officials were reviewing the specifics of the court's decision and would be determining a course of action in consultation with the city.

(© CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Bay City News contributed to this report.)

Environmentalists Claim Major Victory in Chevron Decision - KCBS June 8, 2009

Environmentalists Claim Major Victory in Chevron Decision

RICHMOND, Calif. (KCBS) -- East Bay environmentalists are claiming a major victory in a battle with Chevron's Refinery in Richmond over its expansion plans.

A Contra Costa Superior Court judge has ruled that the environmental document covering Chevron's bid to replace equipment to refine a wider range of crude is insufficient and vague.

Chevron already has begun construction on its project, which replaces the hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude with higher sulfur content.

Listen KCBS' Dave Padilla reports

The West County Toxics Coalition of Richmond and Communities for a Better Environment and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, both of Oakland, sued the city and Chevron in September. The groups have argued the project could increase pollution in the area and endanger locals.

"This is a huge victory for the environmental justice movement in terms of health of the community," said Jessica Tovar of Communities for a Better Environment. "Not just in Richmond but regionally."

Brent Tippen, spokesman for the refinery, says the report was through.

"Chevron is disappointed with the decision regarding the adequacy of the environmental review conducted by the city of Richmond related to the energy and hydrogen renewal project," Tippen said.

Tippen added officials at the refinery will review the decision to determine their next move.

Judge Disallows Environmental Review of Chevron Refinery Expansion - Environmental News Svc 7/7/2009

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2009/2009-06-07-091.asp

RICHMOND, California, June 7, 2009 (ENS) - The Environmental Impact Report for a major expansion at the Chevron Refinery in Richmond, California is inadequate, a Contra Costa County Superior Court judge has ruled in a case brought by environmental, community, and public health groups.

In her decision Friday, Judge Barbara Zuniga decided that the environmental review failed to disclose that the proposed expansion would allow Chevron to process heavier crude oil than the facility processes now.

Three groups sued the City of Richmond for accepting a flawed Environmental Impact Report that did not fully analyze the project's health and environmental impacts.

The groups claimed that heavier crude oil can contain higher amounts of contaminants, such as mercury and selenium, which can cause serious health problems.

Judge Zuniga wrote, "The [Final Environmental Impact Report] project description is unclear and inconsistent as to whether [the] project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing."

The court also held that the city improperly allowed Chevron to wait a year after the Environmental Impact Report process was completed before developing a plan to mitigate its greenhouse gases.

This is one of the first decisions addressing the deferral of greenhouse gas mitigations under the California Environmental Quality Act, says Earthjustice attorney Will Rostov, who argued the case for the plaintiff groups.
Chevron's oil refinery in Richmond, California (Photo by Todd Port)

Finally, the court agreed with plaintiffs that the Environmental Impact Report had omitted an important component of the expansion, a hydrogen pipeline. The pipeline would attach to a newly approved hydrogen plant - one of the project's four key components - and stretch to the ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery and Shell's Martinez refinery.

"The City of Richmond signed off on an oil refinery expansion plan that likely would have opened the gates for Chevron to refine heavier, dirtier crude oil," said Rostov. "This could have increased pollution in Richmond and surrounding areas."

"The decision is a victory for the community," said Koy Seng Saechao, a community leader with the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, one of the plaintiff groups. "We need green and healthy solutions from Chevron and our city, not more pollution. The decision protects my family and neighbors from even more pollution and allows us to plan for a healthier future."

Chevron's Richmond Refinery is one of the largest and oldest refineries on the West Coast, producing petroleum products since the early 20th century. It covers 2,900 acres, has 5,000 miles of pipelines, and hundreds of large tanks that can hold up to 15 million barrels of crude, gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, lube oil, wax, and other chemicals produced by the refinery.

Chevron first approached the the City of Richmond about the expansion project in October 2004.

In 2008, the city issued a permit to Chevron to expand the refinery, allowing it to process low-quality crude oil, including tar sands, and export hydrogen to four other Bay Area oil refineries.

According to the Expert Report of G.E. Dolbear & Associates, Inc. prepared for the California Attorney General, the increased refinery capacity "will allow Chevron to process increased levels of heavier crudes, and, if it does so, the refinery will likely increase its emissions of pollutants."

The Dolbear report also states, "If this Project enables Chevron to use a different, dirtier crude mix with greater polluting potential, this fact is not disclosed in the FEIR and the FEIR is legally deficient under CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act] on this issue."

The Chevron expansion project has been subject of a two year campaign by the nonprofit group Communities for a Better Environment, which is demanding no net pollution increase, a fund for Richmond's future, and public involvement, including recirculation of the Environmental Impact Report.

In September 2008, Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, and West County Toxics filed the lawsuit to force the city to revise and recirculate the EIR, disclosing, analyzing and mitigating the project's environmental health and justice impacts.

Communities in Richmond, particularly low-income and communities of color, already suffer from industrial pollution-related health problems, including high rates of asthma and cancer. The Chevron refinery is the largest industrial polluter in the region.

"Chevron must stop its toxic assault on poor people of color," said Dr. Henry Clark of the plaintiff West County Toxics Coalition. "This is a significant environmental justice victory for Richmond and the country."

"Protecting our communities from additional toxic and global warming pollution is a huge victory," said Jessica Tovar, a community organizer with Communities for a Better Environment. "This is an opportunity to invest in clean green energy as a solution, instead of compromising our health by locking in a generation of refining dirtier crude oil."

Friday, May 22, 2009

Chevron environmental report 'unclear,' judge rules

Chevron environmental report 'unclear,' judge rules
By Katherine Tam
Contra Costa Times:http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_12411270?nclick_check=1
CBS 5:http://cbs5.com/localwire/22.0.html?type=bcn&item=CHEVRON-HEARING-baglm
San Jose Mercury News:http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12411270
Posted: 05/20/2009 09:56:11 AM PDT
Updated: 05/20/2009 07:47:52 PM PDT


Environmental activists gained ground this week in their legal challenge of Chevron's plan to replace decades-old equipment at its Richmond refinery, a plan the activists say could increase pollution in the area and pose a public health risk.

Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga issued a tentative ruling, stating that a city-approved environmental impact report is "unclear and inconsistent" on whether the project enables Chevron to process heavier crude. The city also "improperly" deferred developing measures to deal with greenhouse gas emissions for up to a year, she said.

"With respect to other issues raised by petitioners, given that EIR is already in need of revision, addressing additional issue [sic] seems to be rather moot," Zuniga wrote.

The tentative ruling comes eight months after the West County Toxics Coalition of Richmond and Communities for a Better Environment and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, both of Oakland, filed a lawsuit against the city of Richmond and Chevron in state Superior Court. The environmental groups argue that the city's environmental review was flawed and failed to disclose, analyze and mitigate all the potential impacts.

The city and the oil giant dispute these claims.

Chevron's plan to replace its hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude with higher sulfur content has been one of the most hotly contested and polarizing issues in Richmond, drawing standing-room-only crowds to hearings and sparking dozens of protests.

The oil giant contends it will continue to refine light to intermediate crudes and insists its project is not a public health risk. But opponents say the project would allow the processing of heavier crude, which could increase pollutants by 5 to 50 times, and demanded the city limit the amount and kind of oil Chevron can refine.

Last summer, a divided Richmond City Council certified the environmental report and approved the project with about 70 provisions, including monitoring requirements and a limit on the amount of crude running through a piece of equipment considered key to refining. Opponents said the provisions aren't extensive enough to protect the public, and they made good on their promise to sue.

On Wednesday morning, the parties gathered in Superior Court in Martinez to make arguments, focusing mainly on the crude and how greenhouse gases would be mitigated.

Will Rostov, an Earthjustice attorney representing the environmental groups, said, "The EIR did fail as an informative document," adding that the city and Chevron "masked the crude switch."

The city and Chevron countered the charge. Ellen Garber, an attorney with San Francisco-based Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, representing the city, said: "The city believes the process was at all times as transparent as it can be. To say the city tried to trick the public cannot be found anywhere in the record and need not have been said."

Zuniga said she would take the information into consideration, and she recessed the hearing about 11:30 a.m. Wednesday. It is unclear when the hearing will resume or when a final ruling might be issued.

The parties milled around on the steps of the courthouse afterward. Rostov said the environmental groups would wait to hear the outcome of Zuniga's deliberation. Refinery spokesman Dean O'Hair said the hearing was a chance for Chevron to clarify its project for Zuniga and said the city's environmental review had been thorough.

Chevron has begun constructing part of the project, but two of the components — the power plant replacement and the new continuous catalyst reformer — are delayed indefinitely.

Legally, the permit the city issued gives Chevron until July 2013 to build these components, officials said.

The delay does not affect payouts from a $61 million community benefits agreement, a deal in which Chevron promised to fund police, job training, health care and other programs, they said. The agreement was approved the same day as the Chevron project.

Reach Katherine Tam at 510-262-2787 or ktam@bayareanewsgroup.com.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Groups Unhappy With Chevron Expansion: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=6823884





allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"
src="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/static/flash/embeddedPlayer/swf/otvEmLoader.swf?version=&station=kgo§ion=&mediaId=6823884&cdnRoot=http://cdn.abclocal.go.com&webRoot=http://abclocal.go.com&site=">

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Eco-Justice Groups Sue Over Chevron Refinery Expansion

Chicago News - September 8, 2008.

RICHMOND, California, September 8, 2008 (ENS) - Environmental justice groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the Richmond City Council's approval of Chevron's refinery expansion project. At issue is an environmental review that the groups claim concealed the fact that the expanded refinery would process heavier, dirtier oil, resulting in higher levels of air pollution and increased risks of accidents and oil spills.

"The City Council failed its legal and moral obligation to protect our health," said Richmond resident Torm Nompraseurt of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, one of the plaintiff groups. "Those dangerous chemicals are going to endanger me, my family, and my neighbors but the city didn't even look at what Chevron is really going to be doing."

Communities in Richmond, particularly low-income and communities of color, are overburdened with health problems related to exposure to industrial pollution, including high rates of asthma and cancer. The Chevron refinery, located on San Francisco Bay, is the largest industrial polluter in the area.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Contra Costa County Superior Court on behalf of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Communities for a Better Environment, and the West County Toxics Coalition.

The Richmond Refinery is one of the largest and oldest refineries on the West Coast. It covers 2,900 acres, has 5,000 miles of pipelines, and hundreds of large tanks that can hold up to 15 million barrels of crude oil, gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, lube oil, wax, and other chemicals produced by the refinery.

The expansion would allow heavier and dirtier crude oil to be processed at the refinery, which would increase releases of mercury, selenium, toxic sulfur compounds, and greenhouse gases, the groups point out.

"Chevron's project would lock in a fundamental switch to dirtier oil refining that increases toxic and climate-poisoning pollution drastically when avoiding these impacts is feasible," said Greg Karras, a senior scientist with Communities for a Better Environment. "The city violated the community's right to know about and act on this information."

Hundreds of residents jammed the City Council hearings in July demanding the City Council limit the refinery from processing dirtier crude oils and re-do the environmental impact report to consider what Chevron actually plans to build.

Instead, the groups complain, Chevron made a multi-million dollar offer of funding for local projects in exchange for the city's approval of the refinery expansion with weakened environmental protections and less public review of future refinery projects. Chevron valued its offer at about $61 million.

City and Chevron officials negotiated a proposed contract to execute the deal without public input, and presented it at the City Council's hearing on the project without the public notice required by state open government laws, the groups claim in their lawsuit.

"Chevron must stop its toxic assault on poor people of color in Richmond," said Henry Clark, executive director of the West County Toxics Coalition. "The City Council is selling out our community, but our health is not for sale. We will fight this until we achieve environmental justice."

"The California Environmental Quality Act requires government agencies to look before they leap by analyzing and mitigating all significant environmental impacts" said Will Rostov, an attorney for Earthjustice, who represents the environmental justice groups in court. "The city's environmental review fails in its most basic purpose."

A poll conducted by David Binder Research indicated that 73 percent of Richmond voters opposed the approval of the Chevron expansion until the environmental and health impacts of refining heavier crude oil were fully reviewed in a revised Environmental Impact Statement.

In addition, 75 percent of voters polled said it was very important or extremely important that any projects or funding between Chevron and the City Council be determined in an open public process.

A 56 percent majority of respondents have heard "nothing at all" about the negotiation between the City Council and Chevron to provide funding for local projects, while the City Council was voting on the refinery expansion project.

David Binder Research surveyed 400 likely voters in the city of Richmond between July 8 and 10, 2008, with a margin of error of ±4.9 percent.

Richmond Council OKs Chevron Refinery Plan

SF Chronicle - July 18, 2008.

A sharply divided Richmond City Council approved on Thursday Chevron's controversial plan for a major upgrade of its century-old refinery and accepted $61 million from the oil company for community programs.

The council voted 5-4 to approve a conditional use permit for Chevron to replace a hydrogen plant, install new hydrogen-purifying equipment, build a new cogeneration power plant and replace other antiquated machinery.

"We're pleased with the vote and look forward to moving ahead with construction," said Dean O'Hair, a Chevron spokesman. "This project will make us more efficient and reliable than we already are."

The council also agreed to Chevron's offer of $61 million to help the community in the next decade, including funds to extend the Bay Trail and build solar and wind energy plants on Chevron property, and to support violence prevention, community health, job training and other programs.

After hearing often-heated public comment and staff testimony Tuesday and Wednesday nights before deliberating early Thursday, council members Nathaniel Bates, Ludmyrna Lopez, Harpreet Sandhu, John Marquez and Maria Viramontes voted to grant Chevron the permit.

Tom Butt, Jim Rogers, Tony Thurmond and Mayor Gayle McLaughlin voted against it.

Chevron's Richmond refinery is the largest in Northern California and provides about 25 percent of all the gasoline in Northern California. The new equipment will allow it to process about 1,000 extra barrels of gasoline a day.

Environmental and community groups fought the plan, saying it would lead to more emissions and allow Chevron to process heavier grades of crude oil.

"We still believe there's going to be a huge increase in pollution. We still have to stop this project and we're now looking at all our legal options," said Greg Karras, senior scientist for Communities for a Better Environment, one of the groups opposing the plan. "This fight is only getting started."

Much of the controversy centered on sulfur emissions, which Karras said cause respiratory and nervous system disorders when inhaled. Chevron's new equipment would allow the refinery to process crude oil that has 3 percent more sulfur than the oil it currently handles, refinery officials said.

But because the new facility would be more efficient and cleaner than the current plant, the refinery's overall emissions would actually decrease, O'Hair said.

Chevron hopes to begin construction on the refinery in August and finish in about four years. Labor unions have been ardent supporters of Chevron's plans because of the 1,200 construction jobs the project will create.

Critics blasted the package of benefits Chevron promised the city, saying the details are vague and that Chevron had agreed to several of them already. O'Hair said the refinery will hammer out details with city staff in the coming months.

The package of about 15 projects and programs includes $11 million for violence prevention and public safety programs; $10 million for the Richmond Community Fund; $6.7 million for job training, high school tutoring and other classes; and $5 million for the Bay Trail link.

Some council members complained about the lengthy permit process and environmental review, which lasted four years.

"It seems like everyone involved did everything they can to thwart what this community wants," said Butt at Wednesday's meeting. "I'm extremely disappointed with the way this process went. I don't know how it's going to end up, but I have a bad feeling about it."

Richmond City Council approves Chevron's plan to upgrade refinery by 5-4 vote

Katherine Tam - San Jose Mercury News, July 17, 2008.

A divided Richmond City Council early Thursday morning approved Chevron's contentious plan to replace decades-old equipment at the local refinery, as well as a separate agreement for the oil company to provide $61.6 million for public safety, low-income healthcare and other services.

Environmental activists, who say Chevron's plans pose a public health risk that has not been fully studied, immediately shouted 'Shame on you!' from the audience and vowed to vote councilmembers out of office.

Councilwoman Ludmyrna Lopez defended the decision, saying a series of measures will require Chevron to cut emissions and other impacts.

"We are reducing the pollution that would otherwise be created by this project," Lopez said. "This is a responsible project."

The council voted 5-4 to approve Chevron's plan, with Mayor Gayle McLaughlin and councilmen Tom Butt, Jim Rogers and Tony Thurmond dissenting.

"This process has been an extreme disappointment," Butt said. "The EIR (environmental impact report) is an extreme disappointment. I found it to be shoddy, incomplete and characterized by incompetence."

The decision came at the end of a seven-hour meeting that adjourned at 2:10 a.m. Thursday. About 80 people both for and against the project remained in the audience when the vote was taken.

The City Council is the final authority on projects at City Hall, meaning anyone who disagrees with the decision would appeal through a court of law. City officials already are bracing for a potential lawsuit.

Proposed about four years ago, Chevron's bid to replace its power plant, hydrogen plant and reformer with newer equipment quickly became one of the most heated and emotional issues in Richmond. After multiple packed meetings, the Planning Commission on June 19 approved the project with about 70 provisions, including a restriction on the crude running through one piece of equipment regarded as critical in the refining process.

Neither Chevron nor its opponents were satisfied with the ruling and appealed it to the City Council, though for different reasons. The appeal began on Tuesday night with five hours of presentations and public testimony. It adjourned early Wednesday morning and resumed Wednesday night.

Refinery representatives say upgrading antiquated equipment would mean a safer, more efficient facility. It would allow the processing of a wider range of crude with higher sulfur content, while still processing the same light to intermediate crudes that is handled now.

"This project does not make a change with the crude we process at the refinery," said Tery Lizarraga, the refinery's health, environment and safety manager. "We will not process heavy crude. We are not configured to process heavy crude."

But opponents don't believe Chevron. A coalition of environmental activists argue that the project would allow the refining of heavier crude that would increase pollutants by 5 to 50 times. The state Attorney General's Office has raised similar concerns. The environmental impact report fails to address that and must be redone, critics said.

"There are so many unanswered questions," said Greg Karras, scientist with Communities for a Better Environment. "There's a lot more information we need. There's a lot more analysis we need."

While the crude oil was a major focus of the discussion, the 'community benefits agreement' also generated much debate. Under a proposed agreement submitted to the city Tuesday, Chevron offered to give $6.8 million for job training and placement; $11.3 million for public safety; $6 million to Brookside Health Clinic; $10 million in financial aid to local nonprofit groups; $5 million for the Bay Trail; $14.6 million for alternative energy projects; and $5 million for other environmental mitigations. The agreement would be contingent on approval of Chevron's upgrade project.

Butt and McLaughlin blasted the document. Some of the dollar amounts would not sustain services long term, they said, and others are crafted in a way that the community benefit is questionable. In addition, they said the agreement was negotiated between Chevron and some city leaders without full council or public input.

'It first came to public light 20 hours ago,' Butt said. McLaughlin described it as 'totally unacceptable.'

The council voted 6-1 to approve the community benefits agreement. McLaughlin voted no and Thurmond abstained. Butt, who grabbed his papers and walked out of the meeting just before the vote, was absent.

Opponents of Chevron Upgrade Promise Lawsuit

KCBS, July 17, 2008.

Environmentalists have vowed to fight the Richmond city council’s decision to allow Chevron to upgrade equipment at its refinery.

After an emotional city council meeting that lasted until 2 a.m., the council on Thursday voted 5 – 4 in favor of an upgrade that Chevron officials said would allow them to generate less pollution and refine a wider range of oil.

Jessica Tovar of Communities for a Better Environment asserted that the environmental impact report submitted to the city was incomplete.

“The whole point of having an environmental impact report is to understand the whole scope and impact of the project,” she said. “Because that EIR was flawed and missing all kinds of data, we still don’t know what this project is all about.”

Chevron spokesman Dean O'Hare said the company’s goal is to modernize a power plant built in the 1930s, a reformer built in the 60s and a hydrogen plant that dates to the 70s.

The city council debated the upgrade project for two nights before the vote.

Tovar said her group would file its lawsuit within the next 30 days.

More Richmond Council Hearings on Chevron Upgrade

CBS 5, July 16, 2008.

Richmond officials continued holding hearings Wednesday night into a request by Chevron to upgrade a refinery it operates in the city.

Hundreds of people on both sides of the issue jammed into Richmond City Council meetings on both Tuesday and Wednesday nights.

Chevron wants to upgrade its facility by building a new power plant, hydrogen plant and reformer.

Representatives of the oil giant said the improvements would allow the refining of a wider range of oil.

But environmental groups argued the project would allow the company to refine heavier crude oil that would increase pollutants in the area.

The Planning Commission approved a permit for the project last month, but included in its approval about 70 provisions.

Both Chevron and environmental activists appealed that ruling to the city council, though for different reasons.

Chevron Offers Richmond $61 Million To Approve Refinery Expansion

Roger Kym - Indymedia, July 16, 2008.

Richmond Residents and Bay Area Community say, “Our Health is Not for Sale.” In a last minute effort to lock-in City Council approval for Chevron’s refinery expansion, yesterday Chevron presented the City of Richmond with a $61 million dollar ‘Community Benefit Agreement’ (CBA). The Agreement, submitted to the city council in closed session immediately before the public council hearing, would reportedly include $6.75 million for jobs and education programs, $6 million for community health programs, and requires the City Council’s approval of the expansion project. Other elements of Chevron’s proposal include requiring the City to propose the implementation of standards that would exempt Chevron projects from design review and would result in changes to the City’s land-use process for Chevron projects.

Richmond, CA—Over 500 Bay Area residents attended a Richmond City Council public hearing last night on Chevron’s bid to expand the Richmond refinery to process dirtier crude oil. The plant expansion is seen as a dramatic step in the wrong direction in the effort to decrease pollution-related health risks and climate change in Richmond and the Bay Area. The City Council is expected to issue a final vote today in what has been a 4-year permitting process.

In a last minute effort to lock-in City Council approval for Chevron’s refinery expansion, yesterday Chevron presented the City of Richmond with a $61 million dollar ‘Community Benefit Agreement’ (CBA). The Agreement, submitted to the city council in closed session immediately before the public council hearing, would reportedly include $6.75 million for jobs and education programs, $6 million for community health programs, and requires the City Council’s approval of the expansion project. Other elements of Chevron’s proposal include requiring the City to propose the implementation of standards that would exempt Chevron projects from design review and would result in changes to the City’s land-use process for Chevron projects.

“$61 million over a decade in comparison to the $50 million a day Chevron spends on oil expansion is insulting – these are Chevron’s crumbs,” said Jessica Tovar of the Community for a Better Environment. “Our health is more important than Chevron’s wealth.”

As indicated by a poll released earlier this week, conducted by David Binder Research and commissioned by the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, an overwhelming majority (73 %) of voters support the City Council delaying a decision on the Chevron expansion until the environmental and health impacts of refining heavier, dirtier crude oil is fully reviewed by the City. In anticipation of Chevron’s effort to pressure the City Council with the CBA, the poll also showed that 75% of Richmond voters think that it is important that potential projects be determined in an open public process, which the CBA undermines.

“Of course Richmond needs resources for schools, safety, and public health. But if the City Council approves Chevron’s dirty oil refining project in exchange for $61 million, it is condemning another generation of kids in Richmond to a future of asthma, cancer, and other pollution-related health problems,” said Roger Kim, Associate Director of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, in response to Chevron’s CBA. “This looks like a last-ditch effort to induce the City Council to approve Chevron’s dirty oil refining project and we hope the council knows better than to take it.”

The Richmond Alliance for Environmental Justice— a coalition of community groups that represent thousands of Richmond families—is demanding the city council establish a ‘comprehensive crude cap’ to ensure the Chevron refinery is limited from processing dirtier crude oils. In addition, the Alliance is demanding Chevron pay into the “Fund for Richmond’s Future” – a community-controlled fund to support the development of a cleaner and greener economy in Richmond.

“Chevron’s pay-off is an insult to the residents of Richmond,” said Dr. Henry Clark of the West County Toxics Coalition. “Chevron should pay more than $61 million for decades of poisoning our communities.”

Richmond Alliance for Environmental Justice includes: Atchison Village Environment Committee, Communities for a Better Environment, West County Toxics Coalition, Laotian Organizing Project/Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Richmond Progressive Alliance, Richmond Greens, Richmond Vision 2000, ACORN Contra Costa County, Richmond Equitable Development Initiative, Urban Habitat, Faithworks!, East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, Rainforest Action Network, Amazon Watch, Direct Action to Stop the War, Greenaction, and Genesis (partial list).
Add Your Comments

Lively Meeting Expected on Chevron Expansion

Carolyn Jones - SFGate, July 16, 2008.

More than 1,000 people jammed a Richmond City Council meeting Tuesday night to make impassioned pleas for and against Chevron's plan to expand its waterfront refinery.

The City Council is expected to meet again tonight to vote on the issue, which has galvanized environmentalists, community groups and labor unions.

"We're driving to the hospital while Chevron goes to the bank," said Rev. Kenneth Davis, a Richmond resident. "My health is not for sale."

Chevron wants to build a new power plant and crude-oil refining facility at its 3,000-acre plant. Material processed at the new facility would contain higher levels of sulfur and other contaminants, city officials have said.

The Richmond Planning Commission initially approved the plan, with a limit on the amount of heavy crude oil the refinery can process. But on June 19, the commission reversed its decision, lifting the cap after a city-hired consultant said the refinery's emissions are already limited so a cap isn't necessary.

Chevron and environmental groups both appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council.

"I'm swayed by those who've asked for a more comprehensive crude-oil cap," City Councilman Tony Thurmond said. "My concerns are what the environmental, health and safety impacts will be, especially in a community with such a high rate of asthma and other illness."

Chevron has said that the new facility would produce an insignificant increase in air pollution, and that the project would actually decrease overall emissions.

"This project has no significant environmental impacts. That's a remarkable achievement for a project of this magnitude," said Bob Chamberlin, an environmental specialist for Chevron. "In fact, this project makes things even better."

Labor groups have been pushing for the expansion because of the new jobs that would be created during construction.

But environmental groups have decried Chevron's plan, saying it would unleash dangerous amounts of mercury, selenium and sulfur into the air and water.

"The potential for more emissions is enormous. Because this facility will allow them to process lower-quality crude," said Adrienne Bloch, a senior attorney with Communities for a Better Environment.

Before the meeting, Chevron told the city it would give $61 million in health, education, environmental and alternative energy programs to mitigate for the project.

Environmental groups said that it wasn't enough, and that Chevron was required to do many of those programs anyway.

City Councilman Tom Butt said he would like to see Chevron do more for Richmond residents, such as offering health, education and employment programs, and reduce its emissions overall.

"My No. 1 priority is, I want to be sure this project is not going to cause any increase in air or water pollutants. It's pretty simple," he said. "A lot of us believe this project is going to have an adverse impact on the community, and that's something Chevron should mitigate."