tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70008300266149549582024-03-14T11:08:49.475-07:00Communities for a Better Environment NewsAddressing climate change, green economy, public health, environmental justice and solutions to strengthen our communities.Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-75858521374677479222010-04-27T14:57:00.000-07:002010-04-27T16:28:43.681-07:00Environmental and Climate Justice Victory in Richmond!On Monday, April 26, the California State Court of Appeals rejected Chevron's appeal on the refinery expansion in Richmond. The court ruled that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project violated state environmental law. The court ruled that the EIR was "far from informative," that the project description was inconsistent and vague, and that it was entirely unclear whether Chevron was going to use this project to process dirtier crude oil. The Court also held that the "EIR completely fails to properly establish, analyze, and consider an environmental baseline." The court also cites CBE's recent, March 2010, groundbreaking Supreme Court victory against ConocoPhillips involving CEQA, as direction as to how this baseline must be established.<br /><br /><br />This is a <span style="font-weight:bold;">major victory for our communities</span> and it would not have been possible without the coalition support of our co-plaintiffs Asian Pacific Environmental Network, West County Toxics Coalition and our legal co-counsel Earthjustice and CBE's very own Senior Attorney. Together, we showed that we can hold Chevron-the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the state of California-accountable to environmental health and justice standards. The court made it loud and clear that oil giants and major corporations are not above the law.<br /><a href="https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=503"><br />Donate and support CBE!</a><br /><br />For the past year, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Chevron has blamed community groups for lost jobs</span>; the accusation is unjustified since it is clear from the court decision that this project was in violation of the law. Chevron could have resolved these issues during the EIR process, or after the trial court decision, but it chose not to. Throughout this legal process, Chevron has used jobs to hold our communities hostage and the threat of leaving Richmond to force us to choose between our family's health and having jobs when the reality is, we need both.<br /><br />CBE and allies have consistently throughout this lawsuit called on Chevron to negotiate an agreement that protects community health and gets people back to work. We all know times are tough but we need good jobs and clean air to sustain our families, communities, our youth and the next generation. We continue to support Chevron to expand and/or upgrade its refinery in a way that's legal and won't harm the health of residents living near the refinery.<br /><br />For decades, Chevron has pumped toxics into backyards of Richmond's residents and our children's air every day. Black, Latino, and Asian communities already have more than their fair share of cancer, asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Richmond's poor air quality is financially affecting our community. Children in Richmond are already hospitalized for asthma at almost twice the rate of children in the rest of Contra Costa County.<br /><br /><a href="https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=503">Donate and support CBE!</a><br /><br />If this current project were to go forward and Chevron processed lower quality crude, the refinery would likely emit significantly more toxic pollution. This pollution would include chemicals linked to cancer and respiratory ailments, according to the groups' expert. The EPA reported nearly 100,000 pounds of toxic waste from the site in 2007, including more than 4,000 pounds of benzene (a known human carcinogen) and 455,000 pounds of ammonia, repeated exposure to which can cause an asthma-like illness and lead to lung damage. This project also would create an additional 900,000 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions, not taking into account a switch to dirtier crude.<br /><br />The implications of this community victory reach far beyond the City of Richmond. Chevron is using its expansion project to also attack the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The law requires companies to disclose greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts of proposed projects. The state goes even further, requiring companies to reduce significant environmental impacts. We have a right to know what pollution is going to impact us. Communities across California will continue to suffer from weakened health and environmental standards.<br /><br />Thank you to our community members, Richmond residents, Bay Area and international allies who have been supportive throughout the campaign and this lawsuit. Among many others, we thank City of Richmond workers' SEIU union local 1021 for its unwavering support. We thank Mayor Gayle McLaughlin for her leadership on this issue, and Richmond City Councilmembers and staff who have supported finding a resolution to the case. We thank State Attorney General Jerry Brown and his staff for their attempt to craft an alternative proposal for resolution of the lawsuit. We thank Nancy Skinner, Loni Hancock, George Miller and Mark Desaulnier of the state and federal legislatures for their letters, time and commitment in working with us to seek such a resolution. We thank Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, and Assemblymember John Perez for meeting with us toward that end.<br /><br />For more information and/or become a volunteer, contact Ana Orozco at aorozco@cbecal.org, 510-302-0430x12.<br /><br />In the news:<br />http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/04/26/18645789.php<br />http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14963441<br />http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201004262140dowjonesdjonline000400&title=calif-court-orders-new-environmental-review-for-chevron-refinery<br />http://cbs13.com/wireapnewsca/California.appeals.court.2.1658023.htmlCommunities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-36373471091041477562010-04-27T13:17:00.000-07:002010-04-27T13:19:33.480-07:00Appeals Court Upholds Environmental Justice in RichmondFor Immediate Release Monday, April 26, 2010<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Environmental Impact Report for refinery expansion ruled inadequate </span><br /><br />Richmond, April 26, 2010 — In an unprecedented victory for the community, the California State Court of Appeals has upheld the majority of findings in a lower court decision that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the expansion of the Chevron Corporation's refinery in Richmond California violated state environmental law. The Community members have been campaigning to fight the proposed switch to refining dirtier, heavier oil for several years.<br /><br />"This decision is a significant victory for environmental justice in the city of Richmond and beyond," said Dr. Henry Clark, executive director of West County Toxics Coalition. “African American, Latino and Asian communities near the refinery have borne a disproportionate burden of exposure to pollution from the refinery for decades. And the community has been fighting back for decades – this victory is huge.”<br /><br />"The court agrees that the people of Richmond have a right to know just how dirty the crude oil processed in this refinery will be," said Earthjustice attorney Will Rostov. "The court pointed out the legal deficiencies in Chevron's refinery expansion plan and tells Chevron the simple steps it needs to expand their refinery in a legal way that won't harm the neighbors." <br /><br />Environmental justice groups Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN), and West County Toxics Coalition (WCTC), represented by Earthjustice, had sued the City of Richmond over its approval of the refinery expansion in 2008, on the basis that the inadequacies in the EIR rendered approval illegal under the California Environmental Quality Act. Last year, a California Superior Court in Contra Costa County agreed, tossing out that EIR and issuing an injunction preventing further work on the refinery expansion. <br /><br />“In this difficult economic climate, Chevron has used jobs to hold our communities hostage,” said James Walker, member of Service Employees International Union Local 1021 and local city equipment services worker. “As a Richmond resident and union worker, I shouldn’t have to choose between jobs and my family’s health. Times are tough. We’re all struggling to pay bills and put food on the table. It’s time for Chevron to come to the table and negotiate an agreement that protects community health and gets people back to work.”<br /><br />The appellate court found today that the EIR should have addressed changes in the grade of crude oil the refinery would process after the expansion. The expansion project would increase the refinery's ability to process dirtier grades of crude oil according to experts hired by the community, the State Attorney General’s office and the trade unions, all of whom independently reviewed Chevron’s proposed plans. <br />The groups charge that the refinery would likely emit significantly more toxic pollution if it begins refining dirtier crude. This pollution would include chemicals linked to cancer and respiratory ailments, according to the groups’ expert. The EPA reported nearly 100,000 pounds of toxic waste from the site in 2007, including more than 4,000 pounds of benzene (a known human carcinogen) and 455,000 pounds of ammonia, repeated exposure to which can cause an asthma-like illness and lead to lung damage. <br />"This is a good decision," said Socorro Garcia, a ten-year Richmond resident and neighbor of the refinery. "There are people like me living very close to the refinery. The refinery has damaged our health and our community. Our health is our future."<br /><br />In a precedent-setting decision on one issue, the Court also found fault with the EIR for failing to include specific and proven plans to mitigate a projected increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the expansion and for allowing Chevron itself (not the City) to come up with a mitigation plan later, outside the publicly involved CEQA process. The Chevron Richmond refinery is the single largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the state, according to data released by the California Air Resources Board in 2009. The EIR indicated that the expansion could generate almost 900,000 tons of additional greenhouse gases.<br /><br />“It’s a double whammy," said Sandy Saeteurn, Lead Organizer with APEN and a Richmond resident. "Chevron is hurting Richmond residents like my family with its toxic pollution and hurting the planet with its greenhouse gases. I grew up in Richmond doing Chevron refinery accident drills instead of fire drills. I don’t want my 9-yr old son Nicky to keep doing the same. Accurate public information about the proposed refinery expansion will allow better decisions for protecting our environmental and economic health.” <br />Chevron’s plan to expand the Richmond refinery — allowing the facility to refine heavier crude oil than it can now process — could significantly increase the facility's greenhouse gas emissions, according to CBE scientist Greg Karras. "Refineries that have begun the switch to heavier, dirtier crude oil emit up to 58 percent more greenhouse gases per barrel refined as compared with the average U.S. refinery," said Karras.<br /><br />"Asthma rates in Richmond are already twice the national average," said Richmond resident Kay Wallis, a health educator with the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at UCSF. "For decades, Richmond families have paid a steep price for living near Chevron's refinery. Now there's evidence that the impact of Chevron's pollution extends well beyond our beleaguered local neighborhoods – the damage is worldwide."<br /><br />"Richmond doesn't need dirtier crude," said Greg Karras. "Now we can move onto the task of creating healthy, green jobs that put people to work weatherizing buildings, expanding public transit, and moving Richmond toward economic and climate sustainability. Chevron could be a leader in this change. It can't continue with business as usual — not for long."Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-76031816749037498012009-07-21T17:13:00.000-07:002009-07-21T17:32:28.158-07:00Richmond Refinery Expansion Update, July 2009<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihaD2-86S_9_om9PTMyDwUlXI4DOrmfOXdBFiZRWRJuDhPnvR-eU6JDPLih1YXIiFX9SR6Wy6iHocJutuUivUiQW0cBLHXo9s5os3PWHFBfxnwt_IvLDkuRaLZt1xh_NkN7o5XZViNsNo0/s1600-h/CBE+constant+contact.bmp"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 268px; height: 223px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihaD2-86S_9_om9PTMyDwUlXI4DOrmfOXdBFiZRWRJuDhPnvR-eU6JDPLih1YXIiFX9SR6Wy6iHocJutuUivUiQW0cBLHXo9s5os3PWHFBfxnwt_IvLDkuRaLZt1xh_NkN7o5XZViNsNo0/s320/CBE+constant+contact.bmp" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5361072773803923858" border="0" /></a>
<br /></div><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: verdana;font-size:100%;" >Richmond Refinery Expansion Update, July 2009</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> <span style="font-family:verdana;">
<br />
<br />Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN), Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) and West County Toxics Coalition (WCTC)</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:verdana;" >
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />What does the community want?</span> <span style="font-family:verdana;">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.
<br /></span>
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:verdana;" >What did the court decide? </span> <span style="font-family:verdana;">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. </span> <span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:verdana;" >
<br />
<br />What does the court’s order mean for workers and jobs?</span> <span style="font-family:verdana;">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.</span>
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:verdana;" >Are CBE, APEN, and West County Toxics Coalition still open to settling the case, since we’ve won now? </span> <span style="font-family:verdana;">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. </span> </span><meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><link style="font-family: verdana;" rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Cnmalloy%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:smarttagtype style="font-family: verdana;" namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype style="font-family: verdana;" namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype></span><link style="font-family: verdana;" rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Cnmalloy%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link style="font-family: verdana;" rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Cnmalloy%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" name="annotation text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p.MsoCommentText, li.MsoCommentText, div.MsoCommentText {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-link:"Comment Text Char"; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.CommentTextChar {mso-style-name:"Comment Text Char"; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:"Comment Text"; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --</style><span style="font-family: verdana;">
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">What do we want from Chevron?</span>
<br />
<br />- Prevent any increase in pollution from the project and implement the maximum feasible reductions in pollution through equipment replacements at the refinery.
<br />
<br />-Reduce annual GHG emissions from the refinery by a millions tons concurrent with the startup of the proposed new hydrogen plant.
<br />
<br />- 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. </span>
<br /><meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Cnmalloy%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype></span><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Cnmalloy%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Cnmalloy%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" name="annotation text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} p.MsoCommentText, li.MsoCommentText, div.MsoCommentText {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-link:"Comment Text Char"; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.CommentTextChar {mso-style-name:"Comment Text Char"; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:"Comment Text"; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--><p class="MsoCommentText" style="font-family:verdana;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >
<br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoCommentText" style="font-family:verdana;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Background</span>
<br /></span></p><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">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.</span> <span style="font-family:verdana;">Chevron, while knowing that the EIR was being challenged in court, rushed ahead with its project.
<br />
<br />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.</span> <span style="font-family:verdana;">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.</span></span>
<br />
<br /><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span>
<br />Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-18968319281842544792009-06-23T12:26:00.000-07:002009-06-23T12:27:31.198-07:00Chevron Defeated in CEQA Lawsuit; Richmond Refinery Plans in Doubt - Berkeley Daily Planet June 11, 2009By Richard Brenneman<br />Thursday June 11, 2009<br />Chevron’s environmental study of a proposed expansion of their Richmond refinery received a fatal blow Friday at the hands of a Martinez judge.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />“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.<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />Other plaintiffs included Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE), the Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN) and the West County Toxics Coalition.<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Rostov said the next step in the legal process is preparation of a final order, which should occur within the next week or so.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-48294413748719056242009-06-23T12:22:00.000-07:002009-06-23T12:24:08.516-07:00Judge deals setback to Chevron refinery plan - SF Chronicle June 9, 2009David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/09/BA1F1834QF.DTL<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Finally, Zuniga criticized the city for giving Chevron a needed permit before the company submitted a plan for limiting greenhouse gases after the upgrade.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Environmentalists who have fought the project for years want work halted immediately.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"I presume there will be a further order from the court that addresses that issue," City Attorney Randy Riddle said.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br />At a glance<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />What's next: Richmond's city attorney expects a clarification from the judge.<br /><br />E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com.Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-17845364087859014922009-06-23T12:18:00.000-07:002009-06-23T12:20:24.252-07:00Chevron Richmond Refinery Expansion Halted - East Bay Express June 9, 2009http://www.eastbayexpress.com/blogs/chevron_richmond_refinery_expansion_halted/Content?oid=1000181<br /><br />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 GammonCommunities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-37095233953799040432009-06-23T12:16:00.000-07:002009-06-23T12:17:19.228-07:00Calif. law linking land use, greenhouse gas emissions passes court test - NYT June 8, 2009http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/08/08greenwire-calif-law-linking-land-use-greenhouse-gas-emiss-4398.html<br /><br />SAN FRANCISCO -- A California law aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from land-use changes has survived its first court challenge.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Chevron is expected to revise its analysis and resubmit its project application to the city.<br /><br />Copyright 2009 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-6295612021082992482009-06-23T12:12:00.000-07:002009-06-23T12:14:12.315-07:00Environmental Report On Richmond Refinery Rejected - June 8, 2009 CBS5http://cbs5.com/local/chevron.richmond.refinery.2.1036837.html<br /><br />RICHMOND (BCN) ―<br /><br />[Click to zoom.] Click to enlarge<br />1 of 1<br /> Chevron Refinery in Richmond.<br /><br /> AP<br /><br />Close<br /><br />numSlides of totalImages<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The project included replacing the refinery's 1960s-era hydrogen plant and its 1930s-era power plant.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In September, three environmental justice groups filed a lawsuit challenging the city's approval of the project.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />Processing heavier crude also takes higher temperatures, which increases the likelihood of upset or explosion, Tovar said.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />Also at issue in the lawsuit was the refinery's plan to mitigate increased greenhouse gas emissions.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The ruling stated that because the pipeline is an integral part of the project, it should have been addressed in the environmental impact report.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />(© CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Bay City News contributed to this report.)Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-75734521004942847082009-06-23T12:10:00.000-07:002009-06-23T12:11:10.660-07:00Environmentalists Claim Major Victory in Chevron Decision - KCBS June 8, 2009Environmentalists Claim Major Victory in Chevron Decision<br /><br />RICHMOND, Calif. (KCBS) -- East Bay environmentalists are claiming a major victory in a battle with Chevron's Refinery in Richmond over its expansion plans.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Listen KCBS' Dave Padilla reports<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Brent Tippen, spokesman for the refinery, says the report was through.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />Tippen added officials at the refinery will review the decision to determine their next move.Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-82211968280204069892009-06-23T12:01:00.000-07:002009-06-23T12:09:11.571-07:00Judge Disallows Environmental Review of Chevron Refinery Expansion - Environmental News Svc 7/7/2009http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2009/2009-06-07-091.asp<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The groups claimed that heavier crude oil can contain higher amounts of contaminants, such as mercury and selenium, which can cause serious health problems.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br />Chevron's oil refinery in Richmond, California (Photo by Todd Port)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Chevron first approached the the City of Richmond about the expansion project in October 2004.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />"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."Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-16196511096493723822009-05-22T11:14:00.000-07:002009-05-22T11:15:16.181-07:00Chevron environmental report 'unclear,' judge rulesChevron environmental report 'unclear,' judge rules<br />By Katherine Tam<br />Contra Costa Times:http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_12411270?nclick_check=1<br />CBS 5:http://cbs5.com/localwire/22.0.html?type=bcn&item=CHEVRON-HEARING-baglm<br />San Jose Mercury News:http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12411270<br />Posted: 05/20/2009 09:56:11 AM PDT<br />Updated: 05/20/2009 07:47:52 PM PDT<br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />The city and the oil giant dispute these claims.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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."<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Legally, the permit the city issued gives Chevron until July 2013 to build these components, officials said.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Reach Katherine Tam at 510-262-2787 or ktam@bayareanewsgroup.com.Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-23562954634735274862009-05-21T10:15:00.000-07:002009-05-21T10:16:08.308-07:00Groups Unhappy With Chevron Expansion: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=6823884<object id="otvPlayer" width="400" height="268"><br /><param name="movie" value="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=" /><br /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"/><br /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"/><br /><embed id="otvPlayer" width="400" height="268" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" <br /> allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" <br /> 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="><br /></embed><br /></object>Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-13610162547614136962009-01-14T12:11:00.000-08:002009-01-14T12:12:40.249-08:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzN-cyaNYjbaxKSQ3aHl2XrFxPe5Ir7Uh9dMMb7YBSPJ_k7gmTCR26F12v0KhXjfnzHvKUpWHUipg_daw7aEsWBRBECu2RorsdxA5xmUihlgk7KdsNjuV4eO-3N0RP9yC4K25Gi6JXU23R/s1600-h/summer08+001.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzN-cyaNYjbaxKSQ3aHl2XrFxPe5Ir7Uh9dMMb7YBSPJ_k7gmTCR26F12v0KhXjfnzHvKUpWHUipg_daw7aEsWBRBECu2RorsdxA5xmUihlgk7KdsNjuV4eO-3N0RP9yC4K25Gi6JXU23R/s320/summer08+001.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5291244866184803730" /></a>Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-57122004723395473272009-01-14T12:08:00.000-08:002009-01-14T12:10:25.611-08:00Eco-Justice Groups Sue Over Chevron Refinery ExpansionChicago News - September 8, 2008. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-57521645218474312152009-01-14T11:59:00.000-08:002009-01-14T12:04:34.819-08:00Richmond Council OKs Chevron Refinery PlanSF Chronicle - July 18, 2008.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Tom Butt, Jim Rogers, Tony Thurmond and Mayor Gayle McLaughlin voted against it.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Environmental and community groups fought the plan, saying it would lead to more emissions and allow Chevron to process heavier grades of crude oil.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Some council members complained about the lengthy permit process and environmental review, which lasted four years.<br /><br />"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."Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-24487711065337566082009-01-14T11:57:00.000-08:002009-01-14T11:59:34.586-08:00Richmond City Council approves Chevron's plan to upgrade refinery by 5-4 voteKatherine Tam - San Jose Mercury News, July 17, 2008.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Councilwoman Ludmyrna Lopez defended the decision, saying a series of measures will require Chevron to cut emissions and other impacts.<br /><br />"We are reducing the pollution that would otherwise be created by this project," Lopez said. "This is a responsible project."<br /><br />The council voted 5-4 to approve Chevron's plan, with Mayor Gayle McLaughlin and councilmen Tom Butt, Jim Rogers and Tony Thurmond dissenting.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />'It first came to public light 20 hours ago,' Butt said. McLaughlin described it as 'totally unacceptable.'<br /><br />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.Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-85102284711905337362009-01-14T11:56:00.000-08:002009-01-14T11:57:20.218-08:00Opponents of Chevron Upgrade Promise LawsuitKCBS, July 17, 2008.<br /><br />Environmentalists have vowed to fight the Richmond city council’s decision to allow Chevron to upgrade equipment at its refinery.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Jessica Tovar of Communities for a Better Environment asserted that the environmental impact report submitted to the city was incomplete.<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The city council debated the upgrade project for two nights before the vote.<br /><br />Tovar said her group would file its lawsuit within the next 30 days.Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-82208807320899502392009-01-14T11:54:00.000-08:002009-01-14T11:56:00.939-08:00More Richmond Council Hearings on Chevron UpgradeCBS 5, July 16, 2008.<br /><br />Richmond officials continued holding hearings Wednesday night into a request by Chevron to upgrade a refinery it operates in the city.<br /><br />Hundreds of people on both sides of the issue jammed into Richmond City Council meetings on both Tuesday and Wednesday nights.<br /><br />Chevron wants to upgrade its facility by building a new power plant, hydrogen plant and reformer.<br /><br />Representatives of the oil giant said the improvements would allow the refining of a wider range of oil.<br /><br />But environmental groups argued the project would allow the company to refine heavier crude oil that would increase pollutants in the area.<br /><br />The Planning Commission approved a permit for the project last month, but included in its approval about 70 provisions.<br /><br />Both Chevron and environmental activists appealed that ruling to the city council, though for different reasons.Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-24391845508330670312009-01-14T11:50:00.000-08:002009-01-14T11:54:17.952-08:00Chevron Offers Richmond $61 Million To Approve Refinery ExpansionRoger Kym - Indymedia, July 16, 2008. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />“$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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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).<br />Add Your CommentsCommunities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-62514522102814869922009-01-14T11:48:00.000-08:002009-01-14T11:50:32.468-08:00Lively Meeting Expected on Chevron ExpansionCarolyn Jones - SFGate, July 16, 2008.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The City Council is expected to meet again tonight to vote on the issue, which has galvanized environmentalists, community groups and labor unions.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Chevron and environmental groups both appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Chevron has said that the new facility would produce an insignificant increase in air pollution, and that the project would actually decrease overall emissions.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Labor groups have been pushing for the expansion because of the new jobs that would be created during construction.<br /><br />But environmental groups have decried Chevron's plan, saying it would unleash dangerous amounts of mercury, selenium and sulfur into the air and water.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Environmental groups said that it wasn't enough, and that Chevron was required to do many of those programs anyway.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-39567719973363644552009-01-14T11:41:00.000-08:002009-01-14T11:47:57.413-08:00Ruling Reversed for Chevron: No Cap on Types of Crude Oil At RefineryChristopher Heredia - SFGate, June 20, 2008. <br /><br />Richmond's planning commissioners on Thursday reversed a decision to limit the kind of crude oil that Chevron can process at its refinery in the city, a move decried by environmental groups concerned that a planned expansion of the plant would increase air pollution.<br /><br />Chevron wants to expand its 3,000-acre plant on Richmond's waterfront to add a new power plant and crude oil refining facility. The material processed at the new facility would have higher contents of sulfur and other impurities, city officials said.<br /><br />The commission on June 6 approved a limit on the amount of heavier crude the refinery can process and also OK'd an environmental impact report for the project.<br /><br />But Thursday, a consultant hired by the city to study the proposed plant expansion testified that the limit was unnecessary because there are already restrictions on the refinery's emissions. After hearing from the consultant, Ron Sahu, the commission voted 4-1 to reject the "comprehensive crude cap" advocated by environmental groups. Commissioner Charles Duncan was the lone dissenting vote.<br /><br />Members of several environmental groups said a cap is necessary to restrict Chevron from processing dirtier, heavier crude oil that could pose additional harm to the health of plant neighbors and they vowed to appeal the commission's decision.<br /><br />"Pollution will increase as a result of this," said Greg Karras of Communities for a Better Environment. "We are going to appeal this decision to the City Council and we will win."<br /><br />About 80 people filled the council chambers at Richmond City Hall Thursday night, where the Planning Commission heard public comment.<br /><br />Chevron spokesman Dean O'Hair said company officials were pleased by Thursday's decision.<br /><br />The city paid for a highly detailed environmental impact report, which concluded that the expansion would increase air pollution in a "less than significant" way.<br /><br />"The environmental impact report concluded this renewal project will result in an overall emissions reduction," O'Hair said. "Now we can move forward ... toward building a more reliable refinery."<br /><br />Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, who attended Thursday's meeting, said she supports a limit on the kind of crude oil Chevron can process. "We need the fullest amount of protection possible," she said.<br /><br />The matter will probably go before the full City Council during the summer.Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-49867938419219128942009-01-14T11:39:00.000-08:002009-01-14T11:41:05.814-08:00Will Richmond, California Stand Up To Chevron?B Gallegos - Bay Area Indymedia, July 6, 2008.<br /><br />Editor’s note: The City of Richmond may be the first to stand up to the Chevron Corp. this month if it turns down the company’s effort to refine dirty crude oil. If not, the city will be far more polluted than it already is, creating serious health problems, for all. NAM contributor Bill Gallegos is executive director of Communities for a Better Environment.<br /><br />RICHMOND, Calif. -- On July 15 the Richmond City Council has a chance to make history. On that day it could be the first city in the United States to decide to protect the health of its residents and stand up to the Chevron oil company and impose a cap on its plans for further expansion.<br /><br />To do that the council will have to turn down Chevron Richmond’s proposed “Energy & Hydrogen Renewal” project to process thicker, dirtier crude oil. On the other hand, if the council approved it, it would expand some of the Chevron refinery’s most polluting processes. It will increase Chevron’s emissions of toxins, heavy metals and greenhouse gases; there is the potential to increase releases of some chemicals by 5 to 50 times current levels.<br /><br />While many Californians are trying to reduce their contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and slow down global warming, Chevron will be doing the opposite and thereby put public health at greater risk.<br /><br />Hundreds of residents have turned out to oppose the expansion project, fearing that it will further damage their neighborhood and their health. They’ve expressed their opposition at public hearings. Hundreds more have signed a petition opposing the project. On June 5, when the planning commission heard the application for expansion local residents lined up for hours waiting to raise their objections.<br /><br />As a result, the Richmond Planning Commission voted 3-2 to impose a “crude cap” on refining dirty crude oil. That means that the company must strictly limit the emissions of certain pollutants that result from the refining process. A week later, however, the commission changed its mind, preferring a very weak crude cap. They refused to re-circulate an environmental impact report. The reversal was based on a report from an independent consultant who advised that a strict cap on dirty crude was unnecessary. The consultant admitted that his conclusion was based on data from Chevron, data that could not be revealed to either the commission or the public.<br /><br />Yet a review of Chevron’s emissions data and proposed expansion plans by MacArthur prize-winning chemist Wilma Subra determined that if the refinery processes heavier and more contaminated oil, this “will increase the number and severity of accidental releases.” The increase in air pollution will hurt not only refinery workers but also those who live near the refinery.<br /><br />People in Richmond still remember the 1993 spill from Chevron’s sulfuric acid plant, which serves the refinery. That spill sent 20,000 people to the hospital. They already suffer from pollution created by some 350 other industrial polluting facilities in the city. Given these high levels of pollution it is not surprising that the city has the highest rate of hospitalization for asthma in Contra Costa County. Two of Richmond’s neighborhoods, directly upwind from the refinery, have some of the highest rates of hospitalization for asthma in the entire state.<br /><br />Even more alarming, with this expansion, Chevron may be creating a model for the entire oil industry. Chevron wants to have the competitive advantage of refining dirty crude and if approved, this will lock that process into place for up to 50 years. Oil companies across the country are watching to see if this is the future of their industry.<br /><br />Chevron seems driven by the sole goal of making bigger profits from high gas prices. It has large reserves of high quality oil, but growing global demand makes low quality contaminated crude oils substantially cheaper for refiners. They can achieve price discounts of more than $5 per barrel, which would generate $400 million in yearly profits for a refinery the size of the Richmond operation.<br /><br />There is now a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to respond to the alarming data about the rate and impact of climate change. For Chevron to add to the problem is unconscionable.<br /><br />When it meets July 15, the City Council is not bound by the cowardly acquiescence of the Planning Commission. It can send the report back with an order to strengthen the recommendations on the crude cap and environmental impact report.<br /><br />As they discuss their choice, they will face the Richmond Alliance for Environmental Justice, a coalition that includes Communities for a Better Environment, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, the West County Toxics Coalition, Atchison Village Environmental Committee, Richmond Greens and Richmond Progressive Alliance, which collectively represents thousands of people.<br /><br />These organizations will urge the Richmond City Council to stop Chevron from further exposing residents to harmful toxics and pollution that cause premature death, cancer, and other health ailments. They will suggest that Chevron invest instead in a clean and green economy in Richmond and that Richmond residents have a transparent and meaningful public process to participate in decision-making about Chevron’s operations. They can decide to support the community’s demands for a for a clean environment and public health; or they can choose infamy by supporting obscene oil industry profits and ignoring global warming. The people of Richmond and the world will be watching.Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-14091079019698471892009-01-14T11:34:00.000-08:002009-01-14T11:38:28.719-08:00Residents Wary of Chevron Proposal: 29 of 30 Speakers at..."...29 of 30 speakers at Planning Commission meeting oppose plan for hydrogen plant to refine crude oil"<br /><br />John Geluardi - Contra Costa Times, June 9 2007.<br />The public had its first chance this week to comment on Chevron's plans to install a hydrogen plant for refining poor-quality crude oil.<br /><br />The inexpensive "dirty" crude will increase refinery profit margins but also increase dangerous emissions from the Richmond refinery by about 800 tons a year, according to the project's draft environmental report. In 2004, Chevron exceeded state limits for toxic emissions by 475,000 pounds, according to a Bay Area Air Quality Management District emissions inventory.<br /><br />But Chevron officials say the project will make the refinery safer and reduce overall emissions by improving efficiency.<br /><br />About 30 people commented on the project's draft environmental report during a city Planning Commission meeting Thursday night. All but one of the speakers opposed the project, saying it would have negative health impacts on nearby low-income communities such as North Richmond, Achenston Village, the Iron Triangle and Parchester Village.<br /><br />"If this plan goes forward, it will lock Richmond into refining dirty crude for the next 30 years," said Carla Perez, a project director with the Oakland-based Communities for a Better Environment. "It will exacerbate health impacts on already heavily impacted neighborhoods and increase the risk of a catastrophic incident."<br /><br />The Richmond Planning Department will accept comments on the two-volume report until June 25. The Planning Commission is expected to approve or reject the report by August.<br /><br />The larger project would consist of four component projects, which are considered in the environmental impact report. The components include the replacement of an outmoded steam boiler plant with a gas turbine "cogeneration" plant, a new gasoline reformer and hydrogen purity improvements.<br /><br />Chevron has an opportunity to develop a less-polluting project by making hydrogen from water instead of fossil fuels and by generating power for the refinery by developing a green-energy structure that relies on solar and wind power sources, said Better Environment scientist Greg Karras.<br /><br />"Chevron says it has to rebuild, replace and upgrade," Karras said. "And it's true they do, but they also have an opportunity to do that in a way that puts us on a course toward renewable refining."<br /><br />But effective technology for producing hydrogen from water does not exist, Chevron spokesman Dean O'Hair said.<br /><br />"I don't know of any technology like that that's available," O'Hair said. "This project is using the latest and most up-to-date technology available, which will make us one of the most efficient refineries in the United States."<br /><br />Mayor Gayle McLaughlin remains skeptical of the refinery's arguments and wants to make sure the health of Richmond residents comes first.<br /><br />"I'm very, very dedicated to the health of this community here in Richmond and making sure no further impact on an already-overburdened community is effected," McLaughlin said. "The pollution we've endured for decades has got to end."<br /><br />Ruth Gilman, who lives near the refinery in Achenston Village, said she does not like the project.<br /><br />"We had 30 people go to the hospital after Chevron's last accident in January, so why should we approve this expansion so they can produce hydrogen?" Gilman said. "Don't they pollute enough already?"<br /><br />Comments on the draft environmental impact report for Chevron's plans to install a hydrogen plant must be received by 5 p.m. June 25. Address comments to Lamont Thompson, senior planner, city of Richmond, Planning and Building Regulations Department, 1401 Marina Way S., Richmond, CA 94804.Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-68038935227710605282009-01-14T11:29:00.000-08:002009-01-14T11:33:28.046-08:00Richmond Planners Near Vote on Chevron PlanChristopher Heredia - SFGate June 6, 2008.<br /><br /><div id="bodytext_top" class="bodytext bodytext_top"><div id="fontprefs_top" class="georgia md"><p>The Richmond Planning Commission was expected Thursday to vote on whether to allow Chevron to expand its Richmond refinery, a proposal that set off intense community protest over potential increased pollution from the plant.</p><p></p></div></div> <div id="articlebox"><div class="hr"><hr /><ul><li style="display: none;" id="rl_news_bay_area_rl_last_row"><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/BA5A159L1A.DTL&type=newsbayarea">S.F.: Blinking traffic light fixed</a> <span>01.14.09</span></li></ul> //<<br />Chevron officials want to expand their 3,000-acre refinery on Richmond's waterfront to add a new power plant and crude oil processing facility. The material processed at the new facility would have higher contents of sulfur and other impurities, city officials said.</div> </div><!--/articlebox --> <p>Environmental groups including Communities for a Better Environment, the Richmond Alliance for Environmental Justice and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network have protested the plan saying it would worsen already fouled air in the East Bay city.</p> <p>"The community has a right to clean air and a right to full disclosure of Chevron's project," Jessica Tovar of Communities for a Better Environment said in a statement before Thursday night's meeting.</p> <p>Tovar and other activists demanded that the city conduct a more aggressive review of potential health and environmental impact from the project before approving it. Opponents said the studies to date have not adequately vetted whether the project would increase greenhouse gases and other volatile organic compounds - factors contributing to global warming.</p> <p>Richmond commissioned a highly detailed environmental impact report, which concluded that the expansion would increase air pollution in a "less than significant" way.</p> <p>Chevron officials have said the project "meets or exceeds" state and federal regulations.</p> <p>But others, including Councilman Tom Butt, disagree with the conclusions of Chevron or city staff's recommendation to approve the project with conditions.</p> <p>The commission's decision, if appealed, will go before the full City Council at a future date. </p> <p>"My overarching concern is that this project is going to result in increased emissions from a refinery that already has substantial toxic emissions," Butt said in an interview Thursday. "Those need to be reduced. You add one more molecule and it's significant."</p> <p>Butt said he believes the company could reconfigure its refining processes to reduce toxic emissions, which are associated with higher than average asthma rates and other respiratory diseases in Richmond and neighboring communities.</p> <p>Environmental groups demanded that the city limit the amount of crude oil that is refined at Chevron and ensure that all future expansion plans are examined in public.</p> <p>State Attorney General Jerry Brown's office has stepped into the debate. In March, his office wrote a letter to Richmond officials indicating that the city's environmental impact report is inadequate.</p> <p>Lawyers from Brown's office said the document failed to assess the project's impact on greenhouse gases or rule out that added emissions from the new part of the plant would not be significant. Brown's office also said the city provided no evidence it would adequately monitor or enforce air quality standards.</p>Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7000830026614954958.post-61332249950014676832009-01-14T11:25:00.000-08:002009-01-14T11:28:39.741-08:00Chevron Pleads Case to Revamp RefineryMatthai Kuruvila - SFGate March 21, 2008.<br /><br />Four hundred Richmond residents, many skeptical and disbelieving, listened to Chevron executives attempt to persuade the city planners in Richmond on Thursday to sign off on a controversial plan to remodel their 106-year-old refinery. <div id="articlebox"> <div class="hr"><br />"The health risks are insignificant," Bob Chamberlin, the permit manager for the refinery, told the commission, while spectators in the audience groaned in disbelief. "We are the most tightly controlled refinery in the country, if not the world."</div> </div><!--/articlebox --> <p> Chevron is asking to "upgrade" its 3,000-acre refinery with a new power plant and new production facility that will enable it to process crude oil with larger amounts of sulfur and other impurities. Opponents say the changes would rain more pollution and toxic chemicals on Richmond. They were asking for the planning commission to delay the expansion pending further study of how the changes will impact the area.</p> <p>It was not immediately clear how or when the commission would decide on Chevron's request. After the Chevron presentation, two environmental groups opposing the plan got a chance to address the commission.</p> <p>Greg Karras of Communities for a Better Environment called the commission's vote a "momentous decision" with a "potential for irreversible impacts."</p> <p>Henry Clark of the West County Toxics Coalition criticized Chevron for not fully investigating current health problems in Richmond and said its residents were "living on the front lines of (Chevron's) chemical assault."</p> <p>Members of the public, along with two environmental groups, were awaiting their turn to speak as the evening wore on. Several members of the public said they had plenty to say.</p> <p>"We're already breathing a toxic load from a century of heavy industry in this town. We can't take any more," said Tarnel Abbot, 55, a longtime Richmond resident.</p> <p>During the refinery executives' testimony, Abbot stood silently at the rear of the chamber and held up a sign that said, "Chevron Lies."</p> <p>Resident Lillie Mae Jones, 78, said she is skeptical, too.</p> <p>"If it produces jobs and cleans up the air, it will be great, but as usual, there will be a lot of lies (and) there's going to be games," she said.</p> <p>At the center of the controversy is the environmental impact report for the project. The city is required to look at the project's expected emissions of volatile organic compounds as well as greenhouse gases, the latter of which contributes to global warming. But the city's report concluded that the greenhouse gas impact would be "speculative."</p> <p>Chevron issued a statement Thursday saying that the project "meets or exceeds" regulatory requirements. California Attorney General Jerry Brown's office disagreed.</p> <p>Brown's office sent a letter March 6 to the city of Richmond saying that the final environmental impact report was inadequate and cited a number of oversights. Among other things, the attorney general's office said the city's report "relies on a document that does not yet exist." </p> <p>Brown's office said the report ignored the impact of some greenhouse gas emissions, while failing to support claims that other volatile organic compound emissions were not significant. Compounding those problems, Brown's office said the city had put out an inadequate plan for monitoring and enforcing air quality standards - possibly putting residents at much greater risk.</p> <p>In addition, Brown's office said Richmond officials did not require Chevron to do any emission mitigation efforts inside the city limits, where the project's impact would be most severely felt. </p> <p>"As written, the measures actually adopted could occur anywhere in the state and literally could be anything," the attorney general's office wrote about the proposed mitigation efforts. </p> <p>Brown's office noted that some of the city's proposed solutions may be harmful as well, but that the city had not laid out a plan for looking at that either. </p> <p>The attorney general's office pointedly noted that California law requires that such projects "not disproportionately impact low-income communities," a definition that presumably includes impoverished Richmond. </p>Communities for a Better Environment Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08920986742018739442noreply@blogger.com0