Since 1902, Chevron has been refining crude oil in order to manufacture petroleum products and other chemicals in Richmond, a poor and mostly African American community in Contra Costa County, CA. During the 20th century, the Richmond refinery spread across the area. Today, the company employs 1,200 people and processes approximately 240,000 barrels of crude oil a day into gasoline, jet fuel, diesel and lubricants. Negative health outcomes have been associated with the disproportionate burden of industrial contamination in this area. A recent health study reported that prevalence of asthma among children in Richmond (17%) was double than the national average (7%). Prevalence of asthma among adults that have lived in Richmond for more than 15 years (34.9%) was significantly higher than those more recent residents (9.2%), both higher than the national average (8.7%). Other acute health problems related to air pollution, such as headaches, eye irritation, skin irritation, and respiratory allergies have been identified within these communities. The controversy sparked in 1993, when Chevron made plans to increase its chemical storage and the number of hazardous chemicals in the Richmond area. After not reaching agreements in negotiations with Chevron, local residents tried to lobby public officials to force the company to invest $50 million into community development. The West County Toxics Coalition was able to successfully lobby the Planning Commission in Richmond because it could rally hundreds of citizens. Legal advice from the Golden Gate Law Clinic also helped this community group interpret laws like the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and thus provide powerful evidence that the reformulated fuel plan would have detrimental impacts on children and other vulnerable residents. Chevron ended up paying $5 million. In the 2008 Elections, residents of Richmond approved the Richmond Business License Tax (Measure T), an initiative to bring $10 million additional annual revenue for the city from Chevron to expand community programs. However, in February 2009, Chevron filed a lawsuit in Contra Costa County Superior Court that was ruled on its favour, proclaiming Measure T unconstitutional and voiding it. Since the plant started operating, hundreds of accidents have occurred. The latest was a large explosion and fire that occurred on August 6, 2012. This accident caused more than 15,000 of residents to seek treatment at area hospitals. After the 2012 accident and mass protests (210 protesters were arrested in the one year anniversary of the accident), the city of Richmond filed a lawsuit against Chevron over the fire. In response to this lawsuit, Chevron pleaded no context to six criminal charges and agreed to implement extra oversight of its operation and pay $2 million in fines and restitution. |
| Name of conflict: | Chevron Refinery in Richmond, CA, USA |
| Country: | United States of America |
| State or province: | California |
| Location of conflict: | Richmond |
| Accuracy of location | HIGH (Local level) |
| Type of conflict. 1st level: | Industrial and Utilities conflicts |
| Type of conflict. 2nd level: | Oil and gas refining |
| Specific commodities: | Crude oil Chemical products |
| Project details | The refinery processes approximately 240,000 barrels of crude oil a day. The company had 304 accidents between 1989 and 1995 - major fires, spills, leaks, explosions, toxic gas releases, flaring, and air contamination. |
| Project area: | 2,324 |
| Level of Investment for the conflictive project | 1,000,000,000 |
| Type of population | Urban |
| Affected Population: | 15,000-30,000 |
| Start of the conflict: | 1993 |
| Company names or state enterprises: | Chevron Polska Energy Resources Sp. z o.o. from United States of America |
| Relevant government actors: | City of Richmond, Planning Commission for the city of Richmond, California EPA |
| Environmental justice organizations (and other supporters) and their websites, if available: | The West County Toxics Coalition, Communities for a Better Environment, Golden Gate University Environmental Law and Justice Clinic, APEN (Asian Pacific Environmental Network) |
| Intensity | MEDIUM (street protests, visible mobilization) |
| Reaction stage | In REACTION to the implementation (during construction or operation) |
| Groups mobilizing: | Local ejos Local government/political parties Neighbours/citizens/communities Social movements Ethnically/racially discriminated groups |
| Forms of mobilization: | Community-based participative research (popular epidemiology studies, etc..) Development of a network/collective action Development of alternative proposals Lawsuits, court cases, judicial activism Media based activism/alternative media Public campaigns Street protest/marches |
| Environmental Impacts | Visible: Fires, Noise pollution, Waste overflow, Oil spills, Air pollution Potential: Global warming, Soil contamination, Loss of landscape/aesthetic degradation |
| Health Impacts | Visible: Accidents, Exposure to unknown or uncertain complex risks (radiation, etc…), Occupational disease and accidents, Other environmental related diseases |
| Other Health impacts | Asthma and other acute health problems related to air pollution: eye irritation, headaches, nosebleeds, respiratory allergies, and skin irritation. |
| Socio-economical Impacts | Potential: Increase in Corruption/Co-optation of different actors, Lack of work security, labour absenteeism, firings, unemployment |
| Project Status | In operation |
| Conflict outcome / response: | Compensation Environmental improvements, rehabilitation/restoration of area Court decision (failure for environmental justice) Negotiated alternative solution Technical solutions to improve resource supply/quality/distribution Application of existing regulations |
| Do you consider this an environmental justice success? Was environmental justice served?: | Not Sure |
| Briefly explain: | After not reaching agreements in negotiations with Chevron, local residents tried to lobby public officials to force the company to invest $50 million into community development. The West County Toxics Coalition was able to successfully lobby the Planning Commission in Richmond because it could rally hundreds of citizens. Legal advice from the Golden Gate Law Clinic also helped this community group interpret laws like the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and thus provide powerful evidence that the reformulated fuel plan would have detrimental impacts on children and other vulnerable residents. Chevron ended up paying $5 million. |
| Juridical relevant texts related to the conflict (laws, legislations, EIAs, etc) |
| |||||
| References to published books, academic articles, movies or published documentaries |
| |||||
| ||||||
| Related media links to videos, campaigns, social network |
| |||||
| Other comments: | This is one of the top 40 influential environmental justice cases in the United States identified from a national survey of environmental activists, scholars and other leaders by graduate students at the University of Michigan |
| Contributor: | Alejandro Colsa Pérez, [email protected], University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment |
| Last update | 18/08/2019 |
| Conflict ID: | 17 |