Common use of ISSUE AREA Clause in Contracts

ISSUE AREA. Potential Project Impacts Significance Before and After Proposed Mitigations Land use Increased industrial development; intensified land use LS LS Traffic LS LS Increased emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons S S Increased roadside carbon monoxide concentrations, odors LS LS Air Criteria Pollutants Reduced use of freons, cumulative decrease in PM10 precursors within the Bay Area and County B Air Toxics Toxic air concentrations with adverse health effects; cumulative toxic air emissions contribute to human health effects LS Increased handling of hazardous materials; increased hazardous waste for disposal; increased risk of upset LS LS Public Health/Safety PS LS Table 2. Potential Impacts of the Chevron RFP Project and Reported Significance Levels. Increased traffic on ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Street; increased parking; accelerated pavement deterioration; increased vehicle trips; growth in traffic Exposure of workers to hazardous materials; potential for accidents involving hazardous materials B Emergency Services Need additional fire suppression and water flow; complications to emergency evacuation plans LS LS Public Services Increased demand for police, fire department services; increase in pavement deterioration, use of water, natural gas, and electricity; increased disposal of contaminated soil LS LS Energy Increased use of non-renewable energy resources LS LS Culture No impacts N/A N/A Geology Potential damage from seismic groundshaking, soil settlement S S Hydrology Increased contamination of storm water, impervious surfaces LS LS Noise Increased construction and operational noise levels LS LS Biological Remove vegetation, increase wastewater discharge LS LS Visual Increase industrial appearance, add new sources of light and glare LS LS Fiscal On-time and on-going revenues for city, County, and schools B B Employment Increase demand for construction workers B LS = less than significant; S = significant; PS = potentially significant; B = beneficial The project encouraged the participation of a broad cross-section of Richmond residents, local businesses, and area and regional environmental organizations. To get a sense of the range of their concerns, it is helpful to examine the public comments made about the proposed project during the EIR process. These were collected in the form of letters as well as oral testimony at a hearing held on September 15, 1993.55 Through an understanding of these comments, we can compare the proposals and ultimate agreement reached between Chevron and several organizations to the broader concerns of the Richmond community. Table 3 provides an overview of concerns expressed by public agencies. Table 4 presents comments by organizations, including environmental and 55 Environmental Science Associates, Inc. (1993). Chevron Reformulated Gasoline and FCC Plant Upgrade Project, Volume I: Comments and Responses. Prepared for City of Richmond, November, 1993. neighborhood groups. Table 5 lists the concerns of individuals, expressed in writing or at an Environmental Assessment Panel meeting. These tables exclude the concerns of three organizations that would later negotiate the final terms of project approval with Chevron: The West County Toxics Coalition, People Do!, and Citizens for a Better Environment. Table 3. Primary Concerns Expressed During EIR Process by Public Agencies. Bay Area Air Quality Management District • Best available control technology not being applied for certain project components such as pumps and seals • FCC combustion emissions (i.e., NOx emissions calculated at 8247 lbs/day vs. 7900) • Emissions calculations have not been finalized for health risk assessment • Offsets that satisfy permit requirements do not necessarily satisfy CEQA requirements State Department of Transportation • Traffic study data is inadequate East Bay Municipal Utility District • Project should be designed to maximize water conservation and use of reclaimed wastewater East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) • Land use discussion should describe the Trails Plan of the EBRPD Master Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) • Anchors for wires stabilizing a flare may be constructed in BCDC jurisdiction • Project will contributed additional contaminants to storm water runoff system Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District • Recommends a reduction in supply of on-site permanent parking spaces; transit service should be identified in the traffic element of the DEIR; pedestrian access should be established to minimize travel distances for transit patrons Contra Costa County Community Development Department • Need more information on impacts on Congestion Management Program roadways • Need more information on impacts to area pedestrian and bicycle circulation • Traffic analysis needed for post-construction impacts Contra Costa County Public Works Department • DEIR should designate construction traffic routes that do not impact local streets Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Project may be subject to Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System West Contra Costa County Unified School District • Increased health risks from increased emissions • Increased public safety risk from fires, explosions, or accidental releases • Increased odors, noise, traffic, possibility of accidents involving tanker trucks, and hazardous waste Table 4. Primary Concerns Expressed During EIR Process by Organizations. Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council • Needs corrective mitigation for use of Richmond Annex segment of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Boulevard for project-related truck, tanker, and other heavy vehicles. • Traffic impacts on Richmond surface streets warrant complete discussion and planning California Rural Legal Assistance • Chevron plans to dispose of certain hazardous wastes from project in landfills in Kettleman Hills, Buttonwillow, and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ • Transporting hazardous wastes and asbestos through Kettleman City and Buttonwillow will significantly impact their environments; these communities should have received public notice Point Richmond Neighborhood Council • No assessment of mental health, physical well-being, or quality of life for residents living near refinery • Mitigations should include reduction of pollutants, hazardous emissions, and noise levels; use of state-of-the-art technology; dollar contribution to offset effects on neighbors • Cumulative effects of air toxics in “toxic corridor” from Richmond to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ should be studied • Report should list all emissions credits and their source • “Sacrificial pocket” around the refinery cannot be ignored because of promised area-wide air quality improvements • Appropriate baseline criteria for health risk assessment not used • Project’s “distance” from residential areas ignores Point San Pablo Yacht Harbor and recreational areas • Point Richmond neighbors already extremely affected by noise • Chevron should relocate the city and County telecommunications installations onto its property as part of mitigations Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter • Are there alternatives to using MTBE and TAME compounds? • Greater use of best available control technologies (such as low leak valves) needed • Need more specific breakdown of increased hydrocarbon emissions from project • Local levels of pollutants will increase in area that is overburdened • Need commitment from Chevron to use of fenceline monitoring of chemicals produced/stored at facility • Increased discharges to San Pablo Bay • What species were observed in area effected by project? • Need an effective Community Alert System Southwest Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council and Crimewatch • Scope of area covered regarding traffic flow and impacts is too small • Many items under Public Services are really Emergency Services that will see increased demand • No mention of impacts from transporting waste materials • Railcar transportation estimates are flawed • Hazardous waste transport by rail along I-580 through Southwest Richmond Annex increases potential spills and evacuation needs • Recent General Chemical incident suggests that certain presumptions as to wind direction, chemical concentrations, and effects of an incident are wrong • Richmond Fire Department staffing is inadequate • Recent General Chemical incident suggests that County Community Notification Network is flawed • Project will result in new sources of light and glare Table 5. Primary Concerns Expressed During EIR Process by Hearing Attendants and Individuals. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Environmental Association • Better technology needed to address safety ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Environmental Health Network • Against the project and reformulated gasoline; He had a central nervous system reaction to oxygenated fuels; oxygenates have an affect on the olfactory system ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, Point Richmond Neighborhood • Astonished that projected emissions would be so high ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, North Richmond • CFC’s need to be recycled completely; facility goes into “overproduction” at night, needs to be inspected at night; should learn lessons from the General Chemical release ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Toxic Cloud Task Force • Many of the emissions come from burning natural gas for energy; solar panels could be used for at least the first 100 degrees ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Neighborhood House of North Richmond • Project is an opportunity to develop a partnership in jobs and an evacuation plan; Chevron has consistently provided resources to the community ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Richmond • Opposed to the project; local impacts for regional benefits; lower life expectancy for African-Americans due to heavy industry ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Contra Costa Building Trades Council • Project will result in significant number of jobs; need a community outreach program; labor is available to facilitate discussions between environmentalists and Chevron ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, Richmond • Concerned with increased long-term risk to the community; need a community inspector; property values will suffer ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Richmond Chamber of Commerce • Four ways in which Chevron supports the community: supports local and small businesses, supplies lists to contractors, sends purchasing agents to Chamber events, and participates in community programs ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Council of Industries • A lot of building trades out of work and this project will give them work; half of Council membership works at Refinery ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council • Traffic increases on ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Blvd. near Annex not addressed ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers • Most impacts less than significant ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Richmond • Project should provide monitoring stations along the fenceline with wind detection as an early warning system; need a more aggressive attitude toward development of an emergency system ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, Point Richmond Neighborhood Council • Health study needed for those already affected by contaminants or those who are sensitive receptors ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ • ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ already has 400 per million excess cancer cases – how can any increase in carcinogenic pollutants be less than significant; City does not require industries to carry catastrophic insurance policies; inspection is inadequate; emergency response network is inadequate; how does the City decide of impacts constitute acceptable risks; what would be an adequate buffer zone; what are transportation routes for hazardous substances; will project increase the chance of accidents; do ratings of hazardous waste storage, transport, handling, and disposal, and the effects of pollutants on the public take into account cumulative and synergistic effects; given 67% chance of magnitude 7 earthquake, how can the City approve the project; who will monitor noise levels While a broad array of concerns encouraged individuals, representatives of neighborhood councils, and citizen groups to question various aspects of the project, systematic opposition to the RFP was mobilized by the coalition of three environmental organizations mentioned above. The West County Toxics Coalition is a local, member- driven environmental justice organization established in 1980 over concerns stemming from the Chevron refinery and other industrial land uses.56 Members hail from the City of Richmond, while the organization serves Richmond and the adjacent cities of San Pablo and El Cerrito. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, himself born and raised in North Richmond, formed the organization as a complement to the predominantly social service groups operating in the neighborhood. WCTC was founded as an environmental organization, specifically focused on the unique concerns of environmental justice communities. Having heard about the permit process, ▇▇▇▇▇ contacted his allies, CBE and People Do! People Do! was composed of residents of Point Richmond, a white, middle-class neighborhood that constituted one of the four most proximate communities to the Chevron refinery. People Do! described itself as a “community coalition dedicated to working with Chevron to achieve an equitable share of public improvements and adverse impact mitigations for the continued operation and upgrading of the Chevron Refinery.”57 Its president, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, was the first to accuse Chevron of “piecemealing” its modernization efforts – seeking approval of small segments of the originally intended project – in order to avoid an evaluation of the cumulative impact of plant changes.58 The two groups joined CBE in offering extensive commentary on the DEIR and working with various neighborhood councils to incorporate their interests into a “Community/Environment Improvement Package,” proposed to Chevron and then the Richmond Planning Commission. CBE’s lead community organizer for the project describes the organizing process: The process started with making all of the neighborhood councils and existing groups that we thought might be interested aware of this project coming through and the opportunity for a good neighbor agreement. There were a bunch of meetings with those groups to get them involved including the Chevron Community Advisory Panel, and then those groups participated in these meetings with Chevron to understand the project better and give them our ideas of what they needed to do to make the project acceptable. These are meetings between the groups and the company. There were public meetings as the outreach started, to the neighborhood councils, saying this is happening, this is what Chevron is proposing, these groups are joining together to negotiate with Chevron to try and improve the project, we want to be involved, here’s how you can be involved, and again you tend to get a self-selected group out of that. Who represents their neighborhood council, their CAP, their organization, that becomes part of essentially like a steering committee and you proceed with the company. Generally [the companies] will make some changes. I think in Chevron’s case there were little or none that they agreed to.59 Organization representatives differed slightly in their depiction of the extent of community-corporate interaction before the hearing process began. Yet it is clear that discussions with Chevron did not yield concessions. CBE, WCTC, and People Do! were left to meet with members of the Richmond Planning Commission, charged with 56 Interview of Member, West County Toxics Coalition, June 5, 2002, in Richmond. 57 People Do! (1993). Response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Chevron Reformulated Gasoline and FCC Upgrade Project. September 23, 1993. 58 Ibid, p. 7. 59 Interview of former Organizer, Communities for a Better Environment (formerly Citizens for a Better Environment), June 4, 2002, in Point Richmond. approving a conditional use permit for the project. A letter from these organizations to the General Manager of the refinery on November 29, 1993 expresses their frustration with the extent to which their concerns had been considered.60 The groups cancelled a scheduled meeting with Chevron and requested a written response to their demands, which focused on community development, accident prevention, air and water pollution prevention, and improved environmental assessment and monitoring. No further communications occurred. Before we consider the permitting process which led to an agreement between en

ISSUE AREA. Potential Project Impacts Significance Before Potential physical disturbance due to construction/demolition; proposed tanks 109, 110, and After Proposed Mitigations 112 incompatible with residential uses LS LS Land use Increased industrial development; intensified land use LS Location of Tank 109 conflicts with General Plan visual buffer requirement S LS Traffic LS LS Increased emissions Operation of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, construction parking lots and hydrocarbons S S Increased roadside carbon monoxide concentrations, odors LS LS Air Criteria Pollutants Reduced use of freons, cumulative decrease in PM10 precursors within the Bay Area and County B Air Toxics Toxic air concentrations with adverse health effectsaccess controls; cumulative toxic air emissions construction traffic will contribute to human health effects LS Increased handling deterioration of hazardous materials; increased hazardous waste for disposal; increased risk of upset LS LS Public Health/Safety PS LS Table 2. Potential Impacts of the Chevron RFP Project and Reported Significance Levels. Increased traffic pavement on ▇▇▇▇▇▇ StreetAvenue and San Pablo Avenue S LS Air Criteria Pollutants/Air Toxics S S Public Health/Safety Increase in excess lifetime cancer risk of .3 in one million for occupational and 1.3 in one million for residential receptors; minimally increased parkingrisk of chronic noncancer health effects LS LS Risk of Upset Numerous small-scale accidents/failures could affect sensitive receptors LS LS Construction would require increased water supply of 5 gpm; accelerated pavement deteriorationoperation would increase water demand by 100 gpm; increased vehicle trips; growth in traffic Exposure of workers to hazardous materials; potential no significant impacts for accidents involving hazardous materials B Emergency Services Need additional fire suppression and water flow; complications to on- or off-site events or public emergency evacuation plans response services LS LS Public Services S LS Energy Construction and operation will consume additional energy LS LS Table 8. Potential Impacts of the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project and Reported Significance Levels. Significance Before and After Proposed Mitigations Increased demand for policeemissions of criteria pollutants; carbon monoxide concentrations at four key intersections would exceed state ambient air quality standards during construction; increased emissions of VOCs, fire department services; increase in pavement deteriorationnitrogen oxides, use of water, natural gassulfur dioxide, and electricityparticulate matter during project operation Construction truck traffic will contribute to deterioration of pavement on ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and San Pablo Avenues Resources of prehistoric/protohistoric or historic age may be encountered during subsurface construction/earthmoving Surface runoff into nearby freshwater emergent wetlands; increased disposal releases during offloading and transfer could reach wetlands B Culture Geology Potential failure of cut and fill slopes could cause damage to project; grading and excavation could create unstable slope conditions; during project lifetime, refinery is likely to have at least one moderate to severe earthquake that will cause strong groundshaking S LS Construction activities could add to sediment load of stormwater runoff; storm runoff from or over contaminated soil soils could introduce hazardous materials into wastewater treatment system; additional wastewaters produced by the project; no change in selenium or cyanide discharges LS LS Energy Increased use Hydrology Likelihood of nonaccidental spills during transfer activities is high S LS Short-renewable energy resources LS LS Culture No impacts N/A N/A Geology Potential damage term noise from seismic groundshaking, soil settlement S S Hydrology Increased contamination of storm water, impervious surfaces construction activity LS LS Noise Increased construction Construction of Tank 109 would generate short-term noise at Hillcrest School and operational adjoining residences; operating machinery in proposed project would substantially alter area noise levels environment S LS S LS Biological Native grassland could be affected by rupture or leak from tank 1007 LS LS Biological Remove vegetationConstruction to involve area flood lighting S LS Visual Hydrogen Plant, increase wastewater discharge Steam Boiler, Pentane Handling/Benzene Saturation Unit modifications, and several new tanks visible from a number of directions S/LS LS Visual Increase industrial appearance, add new sources of light and glare LS LS Fiscal OnEmployment Peak demand for 200 construction workers; increased permanent employment at refinery by 9 full-time and on-going revenues for city, County, and schools B B Employment Increase demand for construction workers jobs B LS = less than significant; S = significant; PS = potentially significant; B = beneficial The project encouraged the participation of a broad cross-section of Richmond residents, local businesses, and area and regional environmental organizations. To get a sense of the range of their concerns, it is helpful to examine the public comments made about the proposed project during the EIR process. These were collected in the form of letters as well as oral testimony at a hearing held on September 15, 1993.55 Through an understanding of these comments, we can compare the proposals and ultimate agreement reached between Chevron and several organizations to the broader concerns of the Richmond community. Table 3 provides an overview of concerns expressed by public agencies. Table 4 presents comments by organizations, including environmental and 55 Environmental Science Associates, Inc. (1993). Chevron Reformulated Gasoline and FCC Plant Upgrade Project, Volume I: Comments and Responses. Prepared for City of Richmond, November, 1993. neighborhood groups. Table 5 lists the concerns of individuals, expressed in writing or at an Environmental Assessment Panel meeting. These tables exclude the concerns of three organizations that would later negotiate the final terms of project approval with Chevron: The West County Toxics Coalition, People Do!, and Citizens for a Better Environment. Table 39. Primary Concerns Expressed During EIR Process by Public Agencies. Bay Area Air Quality Management District • Best available control technology not being applied is required for certain project components such as pumps any pollutant emissions exceeding the threshold limits set by the AQMD for new or modified stationary sources; the threshold for regulated pollutants is 10 pounds per day per pollutant • Emission offsets required for new or modified sources of nitrogen oxides, precursor organic compounds, particulate matter, and seals sulfur dioxide • FCC combustion emissions (i.e.Modelling is required for CO, NOx emissions calculated at 8247 lbs/day vs. 7900) • Emissions calculations have not been finalized for health risk assessment • Offsets that satisfy permit requirements do not necessarily satisfy CEQA requirements State NOx, and SO2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) • Traffic study data is inadequate A Caltrans Encroachment Permit will be required for any work done within the State right-of-way, including work due to mitigation East Bay Municipal Utility District • Project Proposes a variety of factual corrections regarding reclaimed water use for the proposed project • Unocal should be designed continue to maximize explore for other means to reduce potable water conservation and use of reclaimed wastewater East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) • Land use discussion should describe the Trails Plan of the EBRPD Master Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) • Anchors for wires stabilizing a flare may be constructed in BCDC jurisdiction • Project will contributed additional contaminants to storm water runoff system Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District • Recommends a reduction in supply of on-site permanent parking spaces; transit service should be identified in the traffic element of the DEIR; pedestrian access should be established to minimize travel distances for transit patrons Contra Costa County Community Development Department • Need more information on impacts on Congestion Management Program roadways • Need more information on impacts to area pedestrian and bicycle circulation • Traffic analysis needed for post-construction impacts Contra Costa County Public Works Department • DEIR should designate construction traffic routes that do not impact local streets Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Project may be subject to Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System West Contra Costa County consumption ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ Unified School District • Increased health risks from Hillcrest Elementary School is indicated as a sensitive receptor; enrollment of approximately 1,100 students with an age range of 5-12 years of age and 70 staff members will be in close proximity to the facility and the additional tank(s) • Request an infrared fenceline monitoring system with notification/ warning of possible unsafe emissions • All tanks in proximity to the school should have pressure relief valves and should be vented to a vapor recovery system • Bellows valves need to be installed on all hydrocarbon service lines two inches and smaller • Assistance in developing an evacuation plan is needed • Need to commit to a five to ten year plan of tree planting in the buffer zone between the tanks and Hillcrest • Hope that Unocal will increase support of District programs (i.e., additional donation of $25,000 for science equipment at three schools) West Contra Costa Unified School District • Currently two elementary school sites southeast of the refinery (Hercules and Ohlune); an additional school is in the construction stage • Concerned about increased emissions • Increased of pollutants, increased public safety risk from fires, explosions, or accidental releases • Increased release of toxic gases or vapors, increased odors, noise, traffic, possibility transfer of accidents involving tanker truckshazardous waste, cumulative health hazards and hazardous waste risk of upset State Lands Commission • Must modify Risk of Upset analysis to include the marine terminal facilities at Unocal and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇; analysis should situate a vessel at the terminal fully loaded with gasoline in the process of unloading its cargo San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission • Any construction on or over the water or within 100 feet of the line of the highest tidal action of the Bay would require permit approval • Project must meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System standards • Should include a risk analysis of the increased potential for oil spills as a result of the project and analysis of preventive measures • Report indicates a high likelihood of accidental spill every 12 years resulting in significant impact; should be analyzed relative to other marine terminals. Table 410. Primary Concerns Expressed During EIR Process by Labor Organizations. Richmond Annex Neighborhood Labor Organization Concerns Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council • Needs corrective mitigation Research given to socio-economic issues related to jobs, health care, etc. is inadequate • Will local workers be utilized? • What type of job skills and training will be required? • Will there be adequate safety training? • Will there be a community outreach program for use the employment of Richmond Annex segment local women, minorities, disadvantaged? • Will work force be provided with health care benefits? • What will impact be on 2.5 secondary jobs affected for every one construction job? • Should review the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors’ study, “The Impact of Out-of- Area Workers on Non-residential construction in Contra Costa County” to determine areas of impact Attorney for the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada • There will be an increase in selenium discharges • Large increases in criteria pollutants resulting from increased shipments of materials; future ship traffic appears to be four times greater than considered in DEIR • Expansion of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Boulevard Oil Terminal DEIR found significant impacts on air quality; project not considered in County’s quantitative cumulative impact analysis for project-related truckUnocal • Certain air and water quality and risk analysis documents not appended • Unocal not planning to start construction until Fall; requirements don’t take effect until March 1996; extension of 15 days would not prejudice Unocal • Function and impacts of new hydrogen plant should be fully described • Not clear how Unocal will comply with reduced sulfur content rules • Effects of increased steam production not taken into account • Effects of diversion of some products to diesel/jet fuel production not discussed • Information on criteria air pollutants, tankerhealth risk assessment, ship emissions, and other heavy vehiclesconstruction waste missing to various degrees • DEIR underestimates NOx and SO2 emissons, ship emissions, VOC emissions from tanks, emissions from pressure relief valves, fugitive emissions from soil excavation • DEIR failed to recommend feasible mitigation for significant air quality impacts • Best available control technologies, particularly with respect to tanks, flanges, pumps, and pressure relief valves would lower emissions • Standard closed loop sampling of process operations could reduce VOC emissions • AQMD requires best available control technology for toxics when cancer risk of a project exceeds one in a million. Project risk is as high as 1.33 in a million. Thus, lower leak detection limits, more frequent inspections, and shorter repair periods are required • Traffic Project underestimates toxic releases • Odor impacts on Richmond surface streets warrant complete discussion due to increased use of oxygenates • Project could result in health impacts due to use of MTBE, which is listed as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act • Increased selenium discharges will reduce water quality • DEIR did not evaluate impacts of handling and planning California Rural Legal Assistance • Chevron plans to dispose of certain transporting hazardous wastes from • DEIR did not evaluate impacts of the project in landfills in Kettleman Hills, Buttonwillow, on workers at the refinery • DEIR did not evaluate cumulative ship accidents • DEIR should be recirculated Table 11. Primary Concerns Expressed During EIR Process by Community Organizations. Organization Concerns Rodeo Citizens Association • Haven’t had the proper amount of time to review this document; Rodeo and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ are located in unincorporated areas where citizens cannot rely on elected officials to review DEIRs for them. • Transporting hazardous wastes Within less than a year, we have had four EIR processes to review and asbestos through Kettleman City comment on; ask for a 45 day extension • Request that the County provide an advisor for unincorporated citizenry impacted by the project (Rodeo, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇) • Unocal is already in violation of the Clean Water Act for selenium discharges; project will produce further selenium • Unocal should restore native grasses to Bay shore similarly to what Chevron is doing in Richmond • Field survey for vegetation and Buttonwillow will significantly impact their environmentswildlife insufficient; these communities should have received public notice Point Richmond Neighborhood Council conducted on one day in December • Inventory of wildlife species, especially birds of prey, is incomplete • No heavy metal ecological risk assessment of mental health, physical well-being, or quality of life for residents living near refinery has been conducted • Mitigations should include reduction of pollutants, hazardous Should enclose flare to reduce emissions and noise • Must not be allowed to increase VOC emissions, similar to Shell EIR conditions • Emission of particulates is over the state limit; construction will add to it • A NE wind could blow nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide over Rodeo from the main terminal stations and contribute to acid rain • Provide the Sheriff’s department with noise levelsmonitoring equipment to enforce noise ordinances • Truck traffic will increase; use of state-of-the-art technology; dollar contribution must compensate Rodeo for increased traffic through the main roadway or get to offset effects on neighbors • Cumulative effects of air toxics in “toxic corridor” from Richmond to I-80 at the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on-ramp • Comprehensive landscaping on hill tops needed to compensate for visual impacts • Should hire workers from Rodeo/West County. • Remote sensor fenceline monitoring with either infrared or pulsed laser system with results open to citizens • Use of bellows valves, double mechanical seals • Tree planting plan should be studied funded for at least 5 years (estimated cost between $39­ 46 thousand) • Report DEIR should list all emissions credits and their source include discussion of financial impact on County revenues • “Sacrificial pocket” around Community fund similar to the refinery canC&H Sugar fund in ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ must be set up for the benefit of Rodeo Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council • Did not be ignored because of promised area-wide air quality improvements • Appropriate baseline criteria for health risk assessment have sufficient time to review the document. Do not used • Project’s “distance” from residential areas ignores Point San Pablo Yacht Harbor and recreational areas • Point Richmond neighbors already extremely affected by noise • Chevron should relocate the city and County telecommunications installations onto its property as part of mitigations Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter • Are there alternatives to using MTBE and TAME compounds? • Greater use of best available control technologies (such as low leak valves) needed • Need more specific breakdown of increased hydrocarbon emissions from project • Local levels of pollutants will increase in area that is overburdened • Need commitment from Chevron to use of fenceline monitoring of chemicals produced/stored recognize any overriding impacts at facility • Increased discharges to San Pablo Bay • What species were observed in area effected by project? • Need an effective Community Alert System Southwest Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council and Crimewatch • Scope of area covered regarding traffic flow and impacts is too small • Many items under Public Services are really Emergency Services that will see increased demand • No mention of impacts from transporting waste materials • Railcar transportation estimates are flawed • Hazardous waste transport by rail along I-580 through Southwest Richmond Annex increases potential spills and evacuation needs • Recent General Chemical incident suggests that certain presumptions as to wind direction, chemical concentrations, and effects of an incident are wrong • Richmond Fire Department staffing is inadequate • Recent General Chemical incident suggests that County Community Notification Network is flawed • Project will result in new sources of light and glare this time. Table 512. Primary Concerns Expressed During EIR Process by Hearing Attendants and Individuals. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Improvement Association • Crockett is surrounded by many sources of air emissions; project emissions are insignificant compared with Interstate 80; more carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons from that source than from any industry • Project will hopefully reduce pollutants on I-80 if traffic levels off • Growing problem of particulates; already out of compliance with state level many days of the year • Construction phase will generate 400 pounds of particulates per day and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ anticipates receiving most of that • Increasing watering down of the construction site to reduce the plume of particulates • Use reclaimed water rather than East Bay Municipal Utility District water ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Rodeo resident • Comment period should be lengthened for 45 days because ▇▇▇▇▇ was not adequately advised or notified of this project; no mass mailing or publicity • No discussion of Unocal plans for selling all California oil fields; would mean larger amount of ship traffic and greater sulfur dioxide emissions • Unocal should not be allowed to purchase offsite offsets • Proximity of project to Hillcrest Elementary School is troublesome; should be an infrared fenceline monitoring system installed between Unocal and the commuity • There should be state-of-the-art leakless valves, pumps, and compressors installed throughout the facility • This project has for some reason remained outside of the Rodeo Redevelopment Project boundaries; this needs to be rectified and any additional tax dollars need to be credited to the Rodeo Redevelopment Budget • If the above cannot be done, the tax dollars should be returned to the Rodeo Municipal Advisory Panel. • Financial gains should go to Rodeo, not Central County ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Environmental Association • Better technology needed to address safety ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ resident • County should not allow this project • We have been in regular contact with AQMD regarding foul odors we are forced to breathe thanks to Unocal • Project will increase air and water pollution and cancer risk to residents • County should not add to air pollution burden of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ at a time when the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Cogeneration Plant is being constructed • Article referring to this project was in the West County Times on Friday, July 15th • Approach to inviting public comment does not ▇▇▇▇▇▇ trust in the County or its relationships with large business interests Comments did not reflect the sense of urgency or inherent unfairness perceived by Richmond residents during the Chevron RFP process. Agencies focused on relatively minor analytical concerns or jurisdictional questions, with the exception of the AQMD (which highlighted BACT concerns) and two impacted school districts. The districts, particularly ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Unified, Environmental Health Network • Against the project and reformulated gasoline; He had a central nervous system reaction to oxygenated fuels; oxygenates have an affect on the olfactory system ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, Point Richmond Neighborhood • Astonished that projected emissions would be so high ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, North Richmond • CFC’s need to be recycled completely; facility goes into “overproduction” at night, needs to be inspected at night; should learn lessons from the General Chemical release ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Toxic Cloud Task Force • Many advanced many of the emissions come from burning natural gas for energy; solar panels could be used for at least ideas introduced by CBE and other activists during previous negotiations with Shell and Chevron. Fenceline monitoring, use of bellows valves, and other technologies were suggested by the first 100 degrees ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇districts. Labor organizations were most concerned with the accuracy of DEIR estimates and analyses, Neighborhood House and the document’s omission of North Richmond • Project is an opportunity to develop a partnership in jobs and an evacuation plan; Chevron has consistently provided resources socio-economic indicators pertaining to the community ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇region’s workforce and project effects on employment. They shared the school districts’ desire to include BACT in project implementation, Richmond • Opposed particularly with respect to the project; local impacts for regional benefits; lower life expectancy for African-Americans due to heavy industry ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇tanks, Contra Costa Building Trades Council • Project will result in significant number of jobs; need a community outreach program; labor is available to facilitate discussions between environmentalists and Chevron ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇flanges, Richmond • Concerned with increased long-term risk to the community; need a community inspector; property values will suffer ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Richmond Chamber of Commerce • Four ways in which Chevron supports the community: supports local and small businesses, supplies lists to contractors, sends purchasing agents to Chamber eventspumps, and participates in community programs ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇valves that can contribute to fugitive emissions on-site. Community organizations, Council of Industries • A lot of building trades out of work such as the Rodeo Citizens Association and this project will give them work; half of Council membership works at Refinery ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council • Traffic increases on ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Blvd. near Annex not addressed ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers • Most impacts less than significant ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Richmond • Project should provide monitoring stations along the fenceline with wind detection as an early warning system; need a more aggressive attitude toward development of an emergency system ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, Point Richmond Neighborhood Council • Health study needed for those already affected by contaminants or those who are sensitive receptors ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇Improvement Association, included members who had been instrumental in negotiating facility siting or expansion agreements with C&H Sugar, Pacific Refinery, and other firms. Their comments focused on proposed mitigations similar to those incorporated in previous agreements, such as “no net increase” in VOC emissions, use of technological innovations (i.e., fenceline monitoring, bellows valves), landscaping/ restoration of native vegetation, and the establishment of a community fund. The proximity of Hillcrest Elementary School was viewed as particularly troublesome. While very few representatives from Rodeo or ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ • commented on the DEIR, one can find hints of divergent perspectives on the refinery’s impacts and town entitlement to mitigation or community development funds. These rifts inevitably emerged between the two unincorporated towns, which at times regarded each other in less than amiable ways. Rodeo is where the plant is and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ already has 400 per million excess cancer cases – how can any increase in carcinogenic pollutants be less than significant; City does not require industries is just downwind of it, adjacent to carry catastrophic insurance policies; inspection is inadequate; emergency response network is inadequate; how does it. It’s about a mile away but the City decide of impacts constitute acceptable risks; what would be an adequate buffer zone; what are transportation routes for hazardous substances; will project increase the chance of accidents; do ratings of hazardous waste storage, transport, handling, and disposal, and the effects of pollutants on the public take into account cumulative and synergistic effects; given 67% chance of magnitude 7 earthquake, how can the City approve the project; who will monitor noise levels While a broad array of concerns encouraged individuals, representatives of neighborhood councils, and citizen groups to question various aspects of the project, systematic opposition to the RFP was mobilized by the coalition of three environmental organizations mentioned above. The West County Toxics Coalition is a local, member- driven environmental justice organization established in 1980 over concerns stemming from the Chevron refinery and other industrial land uses.56 Members hail from the City of Richmond, while the organization serves Richmond and the adjacent cities of San Pablo and El Cerrito. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, himself born and raised in North Richmond, formed the organization as a complement to the predominantly social service groups operating in the neighborhood. WCTC was founded as an environmental organization, specifically focused on the unique concerns of environmental justice communities. Having heard about the permit process, ▇▇▇▇▇ contacted his allies, CBE and People Do! People Do! was composed of residents of Point Richmond, a white, middle-class neighborhood that constituted one of the four most proximate communities to the Chevron refinery. People Do! described itself as a “community coalition dedicated to working with Chevron to achieve an equitable share of public improvements and adverse impact mitigations for the continued operation and upgrading of the Chevron Refinery.”57 Its president, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, was the first to accuse Chevron of “piecemealing” its modernization efforts – seeking approval of small segments of the originally intended project – in order to avoid an evaluation of the cumulative impact of plant changes.58 The two groups joined CBE in offering extensive commentary on the DEIR and working with various neighborhood councils to incorporate their interests into a “Community/Environment Improvement Package,” proposed to Chevron and then the Richmond Planning Commission. CBE’s lead community organizer for the project describes the organizing process: The process started with making all of the neighborhood councils and existing groups that we thought might be interested aware of this project coming through and the opportunity for a good neighbor agreement. There were a bunch of meetings with those groups to get them involved including the Chevron Community Advisory Panel, and then those groups participated in these meetings with Chevron to understand the project better and give them our ideas of what they needed to do to make the project acceptable. These are meetings between the groups and the company. There were public meetings as the outreach started, to the neighborhood councils, saying this is happening, this is what Chevron is proposing, these groups are joining together to negotiate with Chevron to try and improve the project, we want to be involved, here’s how you can be involved, and again you tend to get a self-selected group out of that. Who represents their neighborhood council, their CAP, their organization, that becomes part of essentially like a steering committee and you proceed with the company. Generally [the companies] will make some changes. I think in Chevron’s case there were little or none that they agreed to.59 Organization representatives differed slightly in their depiction of the extent of community-corporate interaction before the hearing process began. Yet it is clear that discussions with Chevron did not yield concessions. CBE, WCTC, and People Do! were left to meet with members of the Richmond Planning Commission, charged with 56 Interview of Member, West County Toxics Coalition, June 5, 2002, in Richmond. 57 People Do! (1993). Response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Chevron Reformulated Gasoline and FCC Upgrade Project. September 23, 1993. 58 Ibid, p. 7. 59 Interview of former Organizer, Communities for a Better Environment (formerly Citizens for a Better Environment), June 4, 2002, in Point Richmond. approving a conditional use permit for the project. A letter from these organizations to the General Manager of the refinery on November 29, 1993 expresses their frustration with the extent to which their concerns had been considered.60 The groups cancelled a scheduled meeting with Chevron and requested a written response to their demands, which focused on community development, accident prevention, air and water pollution prevention, and improved environmental assessment and monitoring. No further communications occurred. Before we consider the permitting process which led to an agreement between entopography a