Friday, May 22, 2009

Chevron environmental report 'unclear,' judge rules

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


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

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

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

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

The city and the oil giant dispute these claims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MARTINEZ: JUDGE HEARS ARGUMENTS IN CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUIT

http://cbs5.com/localwire/22.0.html?type=bcn&item=CHEVRON-HEARING-baglm
Wednesday, May 20, 2009

A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge heard arguments this morning on an environmental lawsuit brought against Chevron and the city of Richmond challenging the city's approval of the oil company's planned upgrade of its Richmond refinery.

In September, three environmental justice groups filed a lawsuit challenging the city's approval of Chevron's Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project. The lawsuit seeks to have the environmental impact report for the project voided.

The project, which was approved by a divided Richmond City Council in July, includes replacing the refinery's 1960s-era hydrogen plant and its 1930s-era power plant.

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

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

Roger Kim, executive director of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, said after the hearing that low-income communities near the refinery are already subjected to disproportionately high levels of industrial pollution and that the Chevron refinery is the largest source of that pollution. He also said residents in neighborhoods near the refinery have "skyrocketing" rates of cancer, asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

The lawsuit claims that the environmental impact report for the project failed to state whether the refinery was planning to process heavier crude oil and failed to propose mitigations for the alleged increased pollution.

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

The tentative 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."

Refinery officials have said repeatedly that the project will not increase overall emissions at the plant.

However, the environmental impact report used data from the 1990s to establish a baseline for the types of crude oil it would be processing in the future, according to William Rostov, an attorney with Earthjustice representing the plaintiffs.

Rostov said that Chevron had upgraded the plant in the 1990s and had since been processing lighter and lighter crude oil. He said the new project would enable the plant to go back to processing heavier crude and return to 1990s level pollution.

Ellen Garber, representing the city of Richmond, argued during the hearing today that the city found that the project would not enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil and that the upgrade would decrease many harmful emissions from the plant.

"The city concluded there would be no crude oil heaviness switch," said Ronald Van Buskirk, an attorney representing Chevron.

He said it is "reasonably foreseeable" that future emissions would remain in their current range. Buskirk also said the upgrade would actually reduce emissions from the refinery.

Rostov said the public deserves to know whether the refinery plans to process heavier crude oil.

He said that while the environmental impact report claimed that the crude slate would not change, a statement Chevron officials made to investors said specifically that the upgrade would enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil.

Experts from Communities for a Better Environment and an expert hired by state Attorney General Jerry Brown found that the upgrade would enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil, Rostov said.

Buskirk said the environmental impact report was clear when it stated that "It is reasonably foreseeable that Chevron would run a crude slate similar to that which is currently processed at the refinery - but in a mixture that has higher sulfur levels."

Zuniga's tentative ruling, however, said that the statement seemed to say that the only difference in the crude slate would be increased sulfur content, but that the terms "reasonably foreseeable" and "similar" "detract from any certainty this statement would have generated."

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

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

Garber argued that the California Environmental Quality Act allows for deferred mitigation measures and that the City Council would be able to ensure that the Chevron's future plan to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions was appropriate.

In her tentative ruling, however, Zuniga found that under CEQA guidelines, the formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred to a later date.

Plaintiffs also alleged that the environmental impact report failed to analyze a proposed pipeline that would transport hydrogen from the new hydrogen processing plant.

Garber argued that the city did not have jurisdiction over the pipeline project. Contra Costa County supervisors will have to review the proposed pipeline project because it traverses the entire county, she said.

Zuniga's tentative ruling, however, stated that because the pipeline is an integral part of the project, it should have been addressed in the environmental impact report.

After the hearing, Zuniga said she would review her tentative ruling once more before making a final ruling, but did not say when she planned to make the final ruling.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

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





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

Chevron environmental report 'unclear,' judge rules

By Katherine Tam
West County Times
Posted: 05/20/2009 09:56:11 AM PDT
Updated: 05/20/2009 07:47:52 PM PDT

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

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

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

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

The city and the oil giant dispute these claims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Now It’s Official: The Poor and People of Color Get the Dirty Air

RaceWire Colorlines Blog, May 6, 2009:

http://www.racewire.org/archives/2009/05/now_its_official_the_poor_and.html

Last week, researchers at the University of Massachusetts and the University of Southern California released a study that confirms what many people are all too familiar with: toxic pollution falls disproportionately on lower-income neighborhoods and communities of color. The 28-page report, entitled “Justice in the Air”, is one of the first to examine the disparities between the health risk from industrial air toxins faced by people of color and the poor and their proportion of the population.

Birmingham, Alabama ranks first among metropolitan areas in the race-based rankings: people of color are burdened by 65% of the health risk but only make up 34% of the population. Baton Rouge, Memphis and Chicago follow closely behind. Birmingham also tops the class-based rankings: low-income individuals account for 24% of the health risk but make up 13% of the population (PDF). Baton Rouge, Tacoma, Gary, and Milwaukee-Waukesha are metropolitan areas that are featured in both top-ten rankings. This suggests that while there is some correlation between income, race, and environmental injustice, there must also be distinct racial and socio-economic examinations of how communities are impacted by environmental hazards.

Another unique component of the report is its study of industrial companies whose pollution has disproportionately affected low-income communities or communities of color. These results are particularly significant because they allow race and class to be taken into consideration when assessing corporate environmental responsibility. National Oilwell Varco, ExxonMobil and the Hess Corporation are among the top ten in both racial and socioeconomic toxic rankings. More than 50% of the health risk falls on people of color for each corporation.

While "Justice in the Air" highlights how medium-sized cities with heavy industry face the highest race and socioeconomic disparities with regards to air pollution, it also correlates with the conclusions that have been made from more general studies. The American Lung Association recently released a study containing a list of the most polluted cities, which include Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Sacramento, Dallas, and Houston. The power plants, refineries, industrial waste facilities, and freeways that pollute cities like Los Angeles are predominantly in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. Across the board, research is pointing to an important conclusion: if policymakers and organizations intend to work towards healthier and cleaner communities, they must recognize the existence of systemic environmental racism and classism. An effective environmental justice movement will consider the intersections of race, culture, class and geography in its creation and implementation of laws, regulations and policies.

For a wonderful and brief account of environmental justice activism happening in the Los Angeles area, check out this short film from the Sundance Channel about the work being done by Communities For A Better Environment (CBE). It interviews Executive Director Bill Gallegos and community organizer Roberto Cabrales about their work in fighting for cleaner air in Southeast LA.

part one:

(Sundance Film is Embedded Here)