Agenda — Richmond City Council, September 24, 2024 (part 1 of 3)

PLEASE NOTE: HYBRID MEETING FORMAT

- REGULAR MEETING OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL

Tuesday, September 24, 2024, 4:30 p.m.

Community Services Building
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Members:

Eduardo Martinez, Mayor at Large
Melvin Willis, Councilmember District 1
Cesar Zepeda, Councilmember District 2
Doria Robinson, Councilmember District 3
Soheila Bana, Councilmember District 4
Gayle McLaughlin, Councilmember District 5
Claudia Jimenez, Vice Mayor, District 6

NOTICE: MASKS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED!!

***REGISTER TO VOTE HERE!!***
https://registertovote.ca.gov/

Link to City Council Agendas/Packets
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4157/City-ofRichmond-Council-Meetings

HOW TO WATCH THE MEETING FROM HOME:

KCRT – Comcast Channel 28 or AT&T Uverse Channel 991.

Livestream online at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3178/KCRT-Live2.

HOW TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS:

In Person: Anyone who desires to address the City Council on items appearing on the agenda, including Open Forum, must complete and file a pink speaker’s card with the City Clerk prior to the City Council’s consideration of the item. Once the City Clerk has announced the item, no person shall be permitted to speak on the item other than those persons who have submitted their names to the City Clerk. Each speaker will be allowed up to TWO (2) MINUTES to address the City Council on NON-PUBLIC HEARING items listed on the agenda. Speakers are allowed up to THREE (3) minutes on PUBLIC HEARING items.

Via Zoom: Anyone who desires to address the City Council on items appearing on the agenda, including Open Forum, must raise their hand once public comment is open. The public speakers attending in person will be called first, followed by Zoom participants. Only those public speakers that have their hand raised once the speakers are called will be recognized.

Open Session and City Council: Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/99312205643?pwd=MDdqNnRmS2k4ZkRTOWhlUldQOUF1Zz09

Passcode: ccmeeting

By iPhone one-tap: US: +16699006833,,99312205643# or +13462487799,,99312205643# By Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592

Webinar ID: 993 1220 5643

International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aehrwCgISx

To comment by video conference: click on the Participants button at the bottom of your screen and select the “Raise Your Hand” button to request to speak when Public Comment is being asked for. When called upon, press the unmute button. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted. **

To comment by phone: you will be prompted to “Raise Your Hand” by pressing “*9” to request to speak when Public Comment is asked for. When called upon, you will be asked to unmuted by pressing *6. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted. Instructions of how to raise your hand by phone are available at:
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362663 -Joining-a-meeting-by-phone. **

**The mayor will announce the agenda item number and open public comment when appropriate.

9-24-24 cc mtg.
2 Via mail: received by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting, sent to 450 Civic Center Plaza, 3rd Floor, Office of the Clerk, Richmond, CA 94804.

Via eComments: eComments are available once an agenda is published. Locate the meeting in "upcoming meetings" and click the comment bubble icon. Click on the item you wish to comment on. eComments can be submitted when the agenda is published and until the conclusion of public comments for the agenda item. Email your comment to [email protected] should you have difficulty submitting an eComment during a meeting.

Via email: to [email protected] by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.

Emails MUST contain in the subject line 1) public comments – Open Session prior to Closed Session; 2) public comments – Open Forum; or 3) public comments agenda item #__ [include the agenda item number].

Properly labeled public comments will be considered a public record, put into the official meeting record, available after the meeting as supplemental materials, and will be posted as an attachment to the meeting minutes when the minutes are posted: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=31

The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted. To ensure that the City Council receives your comments, you are strongly encouraged to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting.

Procedures for Removing Items from the Consent Calendar: Members of the public who request to remove an item from the consent calendar must first discuss the item with a staff member by phone or a back-and- forth email discussion, and state the name of the staff member when requesting removal of the item from the consent calendar (by 2 p.m. the day of the meeting).

Any member of the City Council who would like to remove an item from the consent calendar must notify the appropriate staff person and the City Clerk’s Office prior to the meeting. Although members of the City Council are encouraged to ask questions and share concerns with staff ahead of the meeting, they are not required to do so.

The Clerk’s Office must be informed of any requests to remove items from the Consent Calendar. Items removed from the Consent Calendar shall be placed at the end of the agenda for consideration.

CONDUCT AT MEETINGS: Richmond City Council meetings are limited public forums during which the City strives to provide an open, safe atmosphere and promote robust public debate. Members of the public, however, must comply with state law, as well as the City’s laws and procedures and may not actually disrupt the orderly conduct of these meetings. The public, for example, may not shout or use amplifying devices, must submit comment cards and speak during their allotted time, may not create a physical disturbance, may not speak on matters unrelated to issues within the jurisdiction of the City Council or the agenda item at hand, and may not cause immediate threats to public safety.

Click here for City Harassment Policy

Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities: Upon request, the City will provide for written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary 9-24-24 cc mtg.
3 aids or services and sign language interpreters, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in and provide comments at/related to public meetings. Please submit a request, including your name, phone number and/or email address, and a description of the modification, accommodation, auxiliary aid, service or alternative format requested at least two days before the meeting. Requests should be emailed to [email protected] or submitted by phone at 510-620-6513, ext. 9, or 510-620-6509.

Requests made by mail to City Clerk’s Office, City Council meeting, 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 must be received at least two days before the meeting. Requests will be granted whenever possible and resolved in favor of accessibility.

Unless otherwise noted in an agenda description, all actions taken by the Council include a determination that CEQA does not apply (i.e., the action is not a project and therefore exempt from CEQA).

Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office translates agendas to enhance public access. Translated agendas are provided as a courtesy and do not constitute legal notice of the meeting or items to be discussed. In case of discrepancy, the English agenda will prevail.

Pages
9-24-24 cc mtg.
4 A. OPEN SESSION TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION 4:30 p.m.

B. ROLL CALL
C. CLOSED SESSION
C.1 LIABILITY CLAIMS (Government Code Section 54956.9)
Claimant: Khala Finley
Agency claimed against: City of Richmond
•
Claimant: Mark Hall
Agency claimed against: City of Richmond
•
C.2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (paragraph (1) of Subdivision [d] of Government Code Section 54956.9) Richmond Shoreline Alliance v. City of Richmond•
Winehaven v. City of Richmond•
Thomas Butt v. Eduardo Martinez•
Thomas Butt v. Gayle McLaughlin•
C.3 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of Subdivision (d) [as applicable] of Government Code Section 54956.9) One case•
C.4 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Government Code Section 54957)
Title: Confidential Investigative & Appeals Officer•
C.5 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: Point Molate (site of former Naval Shipyard Depot) Agency Negotiator: Dave Aleshire
Negotiating Parties: East Bay Regional Park District & Tribe & Upstream Pt. Molate LLC
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
•
9-24-24 cc mtg.
5 C.6 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54957.6)
Agency Representatives: Sharrone Taylor and Jack Hughes• Employee organizations:

SEIU Local 1021 Full Time Unit and Part Time Unit1.

IFPTE Local 21 Mid-Level Management Unit and Executive
Management Units

2. Richmond Police Officers Association RPOA3.

Richmond Police Management Association RPMA4.

IAFF Local 1885.

Richmond Fire Management Association RFMA6.

D. PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION (limited to items on the Closed Session agenda only)
E. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
________________________________________________________ 9-24-24 cc mtg.
6 F. REGULAR MEETING OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL
6:30 p.m.

G. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
H. ROLL CALL
I. STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
J. AGENDA REVIEW
K. REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY OF FINAL DECISIONS MADE DURING

CLOSED SESSION
L. REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER (public comment allowed under Open Forum) M. OPEN FORUM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
(public comment on items that remain on the Consent Calendar or items not on the agenda - limited to 2 minutes unless otherwise specified - Back and forth dialogue with the Council is prohibited) - PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS RESPECTFUL!! N. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
(All items placed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and noncontroversial. These items will be enacted upon together with a motion and second, without discussion, of any member of the City Council, and each item shall be deemed to have received the action recommended.)
N.1 City Attorney's Office
N.1.a Fifth Amendment to the Legal Services Agreement with Newdorf Legal
13 APPROVE a fifth amendment to the legal services agreement with Newdorf Legal for $150,000 for a total amount not to exceed $400,000 and term ending June 30, 2025 – City Attorney’s Office (Shannon Moore 510-620-6509).

N.1.b Legal Services Agreement with the City, Bradley Miller and Keller Rohrback LLP to evaluate claims on interest rate swap transactions 52 APPROVE a contingency fee representation agreement with Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and R. Bradley Miller, Esq. for legal services in a matter involving financial and other advice provided to the City by various parties regarding swaps and derivatives and AUTHORIZE the city attorney to make any necessary technical modifications to agreement before final execution - City Attorney’s Office (David Aleshire 510-620-6509).
9-24-24 cc mtg.
7 N.2 City Clerk's Office
N.2.a Carahsoft/DocuSign Agreement 63
APPROVE a fourth contract amendment with Carahsoft/DocuSign piggybacking on CMAS contract #3-20-70-2247G between the State of California and Carahsoft/DocuSign for the term of September 30, 2024, to September 29, 2025, in an amount not to exceed $15,170.70 - City Clerk's Office (Pamela Christian 510-620-6513).

N.3 City Council
N.3.a Proclamation recognizing August as American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness as designated by the State of California
133
PROCLAMATION recognizing the month of August as American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month as designated by the State of California, and commending Muslim communities in California for the positive impacts they have made towards the advancement of our city and country - Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-620-6743) and Mayor Eduardo Martinez (510-620-6503).

N.3.b Proclamation to declare the month of September as National Suicide Awareness and Prevention Month
137
PROCLAMATION declaring the month of September as National Suicide Awareness and Prevention Month in the City of Richmond - Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-620-6743).

N.4 Community Development
N.4.a Repeal of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 9.64 - Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in Newly Constructed Buildings 142
INTRODUCE an ordinance (first reading) repealing Chapter 9.64 to the Richmond Municipal Code (RMC), which bans natural gas infrastructure in new construction - Community Development Department (Lina Velasco/Avery Stark 510-620-6714).

N.4.b Final Third-Party Review Report of the Chevron Richmond Refinery February 9, 2021, Oil Spill Incident Investigation
150
RECEIVE the written Final Third-Party Review Report of the Chevron Richmond Refinery February 9, 2021, Oil Spill Incident Investigation – Community Development Department (Lina Velasco 510-620- 6841).
9-24-24 cc mtg.
8 N.5 Economic Development
N.5.a Resolution to Approve Final Payment to WR Forde Associates, Inc. for Services Rendered for Leak Repair in 2020
376
ADOPT a resolution to approve the final payment of $16,290.08 to WR Forde Associates, Inc. for services rendered for the Leak Repair Project in the year 2020; and ACCEPT the completed project and formal close out the project; and AUTHORIZE the city manager, or their designee, to execute any necessary documentation to process the final payment and close out the agreement – Economic Development Department (Charles Gerard 510-829-2253/Lizeht Zepeda 510-620-6653/Kyle Lam 510-620-6802).

N.6 Finance Department
N.6.a Investment and Cash Balance Report, Monthly Overtime Reports, and Documentary Transfer Tax Report for the Month of July 2024 430
RECEIVE the City’s Investment and Cash Balance Report, Monthly Overtime Reports, and Documentary Transfer Tax Report for the month of July 2024 – Finance Department (Andrea Miller 510-620- 6740).

N.7 Fire Department
N.7.a Service Contract with Bauer Compressors, Inc. to Provide Preventative Maintenance and Repairs to Air Products and Air Compressor Systems
453
APPROVE a sole-source contract with Bauer Compressors, Inc for preventative maintenance and repair of the Fire Department’s self- contained breathing apparatus systems in an amount not to exceed $30,000, for a three-year term effective September 11, 2024, through September 10, 2027, with two one-year extension options not to exceed an additional $20,000 for the total extended term – Fire Department (Chief Michael E. Smith 510-307-8041/Deputy Chief Aaron Osorio 510-307-8021/Battalion Chief Anthony Woodards 510- 620-6989/Den Mark Marcelo 510-307-8038).

N.8 Mayor's Office
N.8.a Appointment of Kiara Kempski Richmond Arts and Culture Commission
478
APPOINT Kiara Kempski to the Richmond Arts and Culture
Commission with a term that expires on January 31, 2027 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

N.8.b Appointment of Michael Gliksohn to the Economic Development Commission
480
APPOINT Michael Gliksohn to the Economic Development
Commission with a term ending March 30, 2025 - Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
9-24-24 cc mtg.
9 N.8.c Appointment of Eric Moseley to the Commission on Aging 483 APPOINT Eric Moseley to the Commission on Aging with a term that expires on May 19, 2025 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

N.8.d Appointment of Keri Sullivan to Community Crisis Response Program Advisory Board
486
APPOINT Keri Sullivan to the Community Crisis Response Program Advisory Board. The current term ending on December 31, 2025, serves as a placeholder. Terms will be established at a later date once a quorum has been appointed – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

N.8.e Appointment of Alice LoCicero to Community Crisis Response Program Advisory Board
489
APPOINT Alice LoCicero to the Community Crisis Response Program Advisory Board. The current term ending on December 31, 2025, serves as a placeholder. Terms will be established at a later date once a quorum has been appointed – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

N.8.f Appointment of Rosie Rendon to Community Crisis Response Program Advisory Board
492
APPOINT Rosie Rendon to the Community Crisis Response Program Advisory Board. The current term ending on December 31, 2025, serves as a placeholder. Terms will be established at a later date once a quorum has been appointed – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

N.8.g Appointment of Sahai Burrowes to Community Crisis Response Program Advisory Board
495
APPOINT Sahai Burrowes to the Community Crisis Response Program Advisory Board. The current term ending on December 31, 2025, serves as a placeholder. Terms will be established at a later date once a quorum has been appointed – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

N.8.h Appointment of Oscar Flores to the Community Police Review Commission
498
APPOINT Oscar Flores to the Community Police Review
Commission with a term that expires on November 1, 2027 - Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
9-24-24 cc mtg.
10 N.9 Public Works
N.9.a Abatement Report from the Director of Public Works 501 RECEIVE written abatement reports from the Director of Public Works for the months of June, July, and August - Public Works Department (Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478).

O. PUBLIC HEARINGS
O.1 Renaming the Section of Spring Street South of Cutting Boulevard to Pedie Perez Avenue to Memorialize the Life of Richard “Pedie” Perez III 562
HOLD a public hearing to rename the section of Spring Street South of Cutting Boulevard to Pedie Perez Avenue to memorialize the life of Richmond “Pedie” Perez III - Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-620-6743).

O.2 Appeal of Encroachment Permit (#EN23-00843) Denial for Up and Under Pub & Grill BBQ Smoker
570
ADOPT a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the City Engineer’s decision to deny encroachment permit application #EN23-00843 submitted by Nathan Trivers, owner of Up & Under Pub & Grill, to place a BBQ smoker on the public sidewalk/street in front of 2 West Richmond Avenue based on fire safety concerns, municipal code violations, community complaints, public right- of-way issues and failure to comply with other applicable state and local regulations – Public Works Department (Robert Armijo 510-620-5477/Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478).

P. STUDY AND ACTION SESSION
P.1 Direct Staff to Conduct an Assessment, Study and Community Outreach on the Usage of Chevron's $550 Million Payment Over the Next 10 Years 621
DIRECT staff to issue a request for proposals, IDENTIFY a funding source and ALLOCATE up to $100,000 to hire consultants to facilitate community outreach efforts and conduct assessments, and to DIRECT the city manager and appropriate staff to design and implement comprehensive community outreach to gather input on enhancing public safety and quality-of-life services, support and assist with the assessment of the City's unmet infrastructure needs, and assess the City's unfunded obligations and develop a strategy to reduce these within 10 years and to create a reserve fund to relieve future generations of debt burdens - Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-620-6743).

P.2 Chevron Settlement Fund Intentions 624
ADOPT a resolution expressing City Council’s overarching intention with respect to expenditure of the Chevron settlement funds, outlining types of expenditures that would be consistent with this intention, and prohibiting City employees from making alternative plans or commitments of the funds without first obtaining City Council consent - Vice Mayor Claudia Jimenez (510-620- 6565), Councilmembers Gayle McLaughlin (510-620-6636) and Doria Robinson (510-620-6593).
9-24-24 cc mtg.
11 P.3 Receive Performance Improvement Plan for the Measure J funded R-Transit Program and Lower the Cost Pool Rate for R-Transit
630
RECEIVE a presentation regarding the Richmond Paratransit Audit commissioned by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority; APPROVE the City of Richmond’s responses to the Audit and the Performance Improvement Plan; and AUTHORIZE the reduction of the cost pool amount allocated to the Richmond Paratransit Program by $351,000 in Fiscal Year 2024-25 which would increase the General Fund’s obligation by $351,000 – Community Services Department (LaShonda White 510-620-6828).

P.4 Discussion Regarding Proposed Amendments to Ordinance on Political Affiliates and Democratic Representation for Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Task Forces
751
DISCUSS proposed amendments to Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 3.14 limiting the percentage of members of boards and commissioners that belong to any one political advocacy group or organization and DIRECT the City Attorney’s Office to prepare the amendments - Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-620-6743).

Q. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: REFERRALS TO STAFF, AND GENERAL REPORTS (INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS)(limited to two minutes per Councilmember)(public comments allowed under Open Forum)
R. ADJOURNMENT
________________________
9-24-24 cc mtg.
12 September 24, 2024

City Attorney's Office

DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Dave Aleshire, City Attorney
Shannon Moore, Chief Assistant City Attorney

Subject:

Fifth Amendment to the Legal Services Agreement with
Newdorf Legal
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This legal services agreement will increase the compensation by $150,000 for a total amount not to
exceed amount of $400,000 with term ending June 30,
2025. The contract will be paid from the Risk
Management General Liability Fund Account: 50182316-
400554.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

June 6, 2020
October 5, 2021

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

A Fifth Amendment to the legal services agreement with
Newdorf Legal is needed to handle current and future
municipal law litigation matter(s) and appeal(s).

RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE a fifth amendment to the legal services agreement with Newdorf Legal for $150,000 for a total
amount not to exceed $400,000 and term ending June
30, 2025 – City Attorney’s Office (Shannon Moore 510-
620-6509).

AGENDA
REPORT
13 September 24, 2024

DISCUSSION:

The City Attorney’s Office requests a fifth amendment to the legal services agreement with Newdorf Legal to handle current and future municipal law litigation matter(s) and appeal(s). Newdorf Legal represents individuals, businesses , and public entities. The managing Partner, David Newdorf, has taken numerous cases to trial in state and federal court, handled arbitrations and mediations, and briefed and argued major appeals in the California Court of Appeal and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Newdorf’s rates are as follows: Partner(s) $295/hour; Associate(s) $275/hour; Paralegal(s) $120/hour. The City Attorney’s Office is requesting that the City enter a fifth amendment to the contract with Newdorf Legal for $150,000 for a total contract amount not exceeding $400,000 for a contract term ending June 30, 2025.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Fifth Amendment to the Legal Services
Agreement with Newdorf (proposed)

Attachment 2-- Fourth Amendment to the Legal Services
Agreement with Newdorf

Attachment 3 – Third Amendment to the Legal Services
Agreement with Newdorf Original Legal Services Agreement with Newdorf

Attachment 4 – Second Amendment to the Legal Services
Agreement with Newdorf

Attachment 5 – First Amendment to the Legal Services
Agreement with Newdorf

Attachment 6 – Original Legal Services Agreement with Newdorf

14 Fifth Amendment to Newdorf Agreement for Legal Services DocID #27103v1
A-1

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF RICHMOND
AND

NEWDORF LEGAL

This Fifth Amendment to the Agreement for Legal Services between the City of Richmond (“City”) and NEWDORF LEGAL (“Special Counsel ”) (the " Fifth Amendment") is entered into as of September 24th, 2024, by and between the City and Special Counsel with reference to the following facts:

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the City and Special Counsel entered into that certain Legal Services Agreement (“Original Agreement”) for representation of the City and City-related entities on June 6, 2020 for an amount not to exceed $150,000 and term ending June 30, 2020; and

WHEREAS, the City and Special Counsel entered into the First Amendment to the Original Agreement to increase the compensation by $100,000 on October 5, 2021; and

WHEREAS, the City and Special Counsel entered into a Second Amendment of the Original Agreement on March 18, 2022 to extend the term to June 30, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the City and Special Counsel en tered into a Third Amendment of the Original Agreement on July 1, 2023 to extend the term to June 30, 2024; and

WHEREAS, the City and Special Counsel entered into a Fourth Amendment of the Original Agreement on July 1, 2024 to extend the term to June 30, 2025; and

WHEREAS, the City now desires for Special Counsel to continue its representation of the City and increase the compensation; and

WHEREAS, the City now desires for Special Counsel to continue its representation of the City and increase the compensation by $150,000; and

WHEREAS, the City and Special Counsel desire to further amend the Original Agreement pursuant to this Fifth Amendment.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals hereof, and other mutual covenants and promises contained herein and for other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the City and Special Counsel agree as follows:

1. Amendment. Exhibit A of the Original Agreement, “Scope of Work and Schedule of Fees & Charges,” is hereby amended to read as shown in Attachment 1 to this Fifth Amendment.

15 Fifth Amendment to Newdorf Agreement for Legal Services DocID #27103v1
A-2

2. Effect of Fifth Amendment. Except as provided in this Fifth Amendment, all other terms of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and this Fifth Amendment is to increase the compensation by $150,000.

3. Counterparts. This Fifth Amendment may be executed in counterparts each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the City and Special Coun sel have caused this Fifth Amendment to be effective as of the last date written above.

CITY OF RICHMOND NEWDORF LEGAL

________________________ By __________________________ Mayor
Title ______________________

Attest:

By: _____________________
City Clerk

Approved as to form:

By: _____________________
City Attorney
16 Fifth Amendment to Newdorf Agreement for Legal Services DocID #27103v1
A-3
Attachment 1

SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE OF FEES & CHARGES

Scope of work:

Special Counsel shall handle municipal law litigation matter(s) and appeal(s) at the direction of the City Attorney.

(City of Richmond Contact Attorney: Shannon L. Moore, Chief Assistant City Attorney)

Schedule of Fees & Charges:

Hourly Rates

PARTNER(S) $295/hour
ASSOCIATE(S) $275/hour
PARALEGAL(S) $120/hour

Compensation:

Only those costs and expenses set forth in Section III of Exhibit "B", entitled "Reimbursements" shall be paid to Special Counsel.

Total compensation for legal services and reimbursements shall be charged in accordance with Exhibits "A" and "B" and shall not exceed Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) for attorneys’ fees and reimbursements.

17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD0D97D7-155B-4C20-84F4-A0C6B0C6F981 40 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD0D97D7-155B-4C20-84F4-A0C6B0C6F981 6/9/2022
41 42
43 44

Fourth Amendment to Newdorf Agreement for Legal Services A-1

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF RICHMOND
AND

NEWDORF LEGAL

This Fourth Amendment to the Agreement for Legal Services between the City of Richmond and NEWDORF LEGAL Special Counsel(the "Fourth
Amendment") is entered into as of July 1, 2024, by and between the City and Special Counsel with reference to the following facts:

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the City and Special Counsel entered into that certain Legal Services Agreement for representation of the City and City-related entities on June 6, 2020 for an amount not to exceed $150,000 and term ending June 30, 2020; and

WHEREAS, the City and Special Counsel entered into the First Amendment to the Original Agreement to increase the compensation by $100,000 on October 5, 2021; and

WHEREAS, the City and Special Counsel entered into a Second Amendment of the Original Agreement on March 18, 2022 to extend the term to June 30, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the City and Special Counsel entered into a Third Amendment of the Original Agreement on July 1, 2023 to extend the term to June 30, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City now desires for Special Counsel to continue its representation of the City and extend the time; and WHEREAS, the City now desires for Special Counsel to continue its representation of the City and to extend the term to June 30, 2025; and

WHEREAS, the City and Special Counsel desire to further amend the Original Agreement pursuant to this Fourth Amendment.

1. Amendment. Exhibit A of the Original Agreement, of Work and Schedule of Fees & is hereby amended to read as shown in Attachment 1 to this Fourth Amendment.

2. Effect of Fourth Amendment. Except as provided in this Fourth Amendment, all other terms of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and this Fourth Amendment is to extend the term to June 30, 2025.

Docusign Envelope ID: 495B2D9A-B825-4830-A59A-4EA07820F631 45 Fourth Amendment to Newdorf Agreement for Legal Services A-2

3. Counterparts. This Fourth Amendment may be executed in counterparts each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the City and Special Counsel have caused this Fourth Amendment to be effective as of the last date written above.

CITY OF RICHMOND NEWDORF LEGAL
________________________ By __________________________
City Manager
Title _________________________
Attest:

By: _____________________
City Clerk
Approved as to form:

By: _____________________
City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: B96B12BD-9009-4142-A603-1E88B2DE6641 Managing Attorney
Docusign Envelope ID: 495B2D9A-B825-4830-A59A-4EA07820F631 46 Fourth Amendment to Newdorf Agreement for Legal Services A-3 Attachment 1

SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE OF FEES & CHARGES

Scope of work:

Special Counsel shall handle municipal law litigation matter(s) and appeal(s) at the direction of the City Attorney.

(City of Richmond Contact Attorney: Shannon L. Moore, Chief Assistant City Attorney)

Schedule of Fees & Charges:

Hourly Rates

PARTNER(S) $295/hour
ASSOCIATE(S) $275/hour
PARALEGAL(S) $120/hour

Compensation:

Only those costs and expenses set forth in Section III of Exhibit "B", entitled "Reimbursements" shall be paid to Special Counsel.

Total compensation for legal services and reimbursements shall be charged in accordance with Exhibits "A" and "B" and shall not exceed Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) for and reimbursements.

Docusign Envelope ID: 495B2D9A-B825-4830-A59A-4EA07820F631 47 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D87E898-4435-49D6-8B21-BFC524BE9B40 48 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D87E898-4435-49D6-8B21-BFC524BE9B40 49 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D87E898-4435-49D6-8B21-BFC524BE9B40 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D87E898-4435-49D6-8B21-BFC524BE9B40 51 01337.0028/1015967.2 Page 1 of 2
April 19, 2022
DocID #27696v1

City Attorney's Office

DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

David Aleshire, City Attorney
Floy Andrews, Special Counsel
Subject:

Legal Services Agreement with the City, Bradley Miller and Keller Rohrback LLP to evaluate claims on interest rate swap transactions
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact as all fees and costs incurred in connection with the representation will be paid on a contingency basis of 25% of the net recovery. Costs are also reimbursable from the net recovery. To the extent that City unilaterally decides to retain additional experts or services, the City will be responsible for those separate costs. Costs associated with City staff support will not be recoverable.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

April 6, 2021; October 5, 2021; December 7, 2021; April 5, 2022, April 19, 2022

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Over the past approximately 15 years, the City relied on a team of various financial experts to provide advi ce
regarding certain bonds held by the City. Those experts advised the City to participate in various swaps and
derivatives transactions totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The City sought to have independent financial advisors, and based on the issues raised, the City sought outside legal advice. Now the City seeks to retain the legal services of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and R. Bradley Miller, Esq. to represent the City on a contingent fee basis in AGENDA
REPORT
52 01337.0028/1015967.2 Page 2 of 2
April 19, 2022
DocID #27696v1
evaluating the advice the City received and to represent the City in recovering for professional malpractice.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE a c ontingency fee representation agreement
with Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and R. Bradley Miller, Esq. for legal services in a matter involving financial and other advice provided to the City by various parties regard ing swaps and derivatives and AUTHORIZE the city attorney
to make any necessary technical modifications to
agreement before final execution - City Attorney’s Office (David Aleshire 510-620-6509).

DISCUSSION:

The City entered into various esoteric swaps and derivatives transactions pertaining to certain outstanding municipal bonds during the years between 2009 and 2014.

Thereafter, the City terminated those swaps and derivatives transactions and refinanced the outstanding bonds with more conventional municipal bonds . The swaps and derivatives so terminated were highly complex and involved outstanding municipal bonds with notional values totaling over $454 million. In terminating those transactions, the City was required to pay over $66 million in termination fees.

In 2022, the City retained Charles River Associates (CRA) to perform an Independent Compliance and Regulatory Review of the Cit y’s swaps and derivatives, as well as t he various financial proposals originally provided to the City. CRA was focused on understanding how the City initially decided to enter into the highly complex swaps and derivatives and whether there were any legal, regulatory or compliance failures. CRA concluded that the original financial proposals and associated representations and actions of the advisors “warrant further scrutiny.”
The present action to enter into the legal services agreement is intended to obtain that further scrutiny and to seek recovery for professional malpractice, if warranted.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Legal Services Agreement between with the City of Richmond & Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and R. Bradley Miller Regarding Richmond Swaps

53 SWAPS Legal Services Agreement 1

LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA (“CLIENT”) & KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. AND R. BRADLEY MILLER (“ATTORNEYS”)

REGARDING RICHMOND SWAPS

1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES. This Agreement is made between Keller Rohrback L.L.P. (“Keller”) and R. Bradley Miller (“Miller”) and the City of Richmond, California (hereafter referred to as “Client”). Keller and Miller are hereafter referred to as “Attorneys”.

This Agreement is required by California Business and Professions Code section 6147 and is intended to fulfill the requirements of that section.

2. RETENTION OF FIRM RATHER THAN PARTICULAR ATTORNEY.

Client is retaining R. Bradley Miller and the law firm of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. (“KRLLP”). The retention of KRLLP is of the firm and not any particular attorney, and attorney services to be provided to Client by KRLLP will not necessarily be performed by any particular attorney.

3. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF CLIENT. Client designates the City Attorney as the authorized representative to direct Attorney s and to be the primary individual to communicate with Attorneys regarding the subject matter of Attorneys ’ representation of Client under this Agreement. This designation is intended to establish a clear line of authority between Client and Attorney s but not to preclude communication between Attorneys and other representatives of Client.

4. LEGAL SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED. The legal services to be provided by Attorneys to Client are as follows: Representation of Client with respect to the following matters (collectively, the “Swaps Action”):
a. Evaluation of potential claims related to the City’s numerous interest rate swap transactions and swaptions entered into from 2006 to the date hereof (“Swaps”), including any termination payments which have been made.
b. Claims and/or actions against financial advisors, swap advisors, attorneys, swap providers and others, as appropriate, seeking equitable and/o r legal relief, including but not limited to damages sustained by Client as a result of the Swaps, including all appeals related thereto (such claims or actions are referred to as the “Swap Action”).

5. LEGAL SERVICES SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED. It is the intent of the parties that Attorneys will represent Client in a civil action or actions seeking equitable and legal relief related to its Swaps in the appropriate court or courts of the State of California or appropriate state and/or the United States District Court, as well as in any proceeding by writ or appeal related to that action until a final non -appealable judgment or settlement . Attorneys will prepare one or more draft complaints asserting Swaps-related claims and provide such drafts to Client for review.

No Swaps Action will be commenced without the prior consent of both Attorneys and Client. Legal services that are not to be provided by Attorneys under this Agreement specifically include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Proceedings before any state or federal administrative or governmental 54 SWAPS Legal Services Agreement 2

agency, department, or board, other than as necessary with respect to the work herein. However, with Client’s permission Attorney s may elect to appear at administrative proceedings to protect Client’s rights in this litigation, without Client being assessed any additional attorney s’ fee in connection with such appearance.
b. Defending any legal action(s) against Client or its employees commenced by any person, with the exception of any cross complaints or counter claims filed in the Swaps Actions described in Paragraph 4. This exception would not include any legal action filed against Client or Client’s employees arising out of the Swaps Action. c. Any action with respect to any dispute arising under or concerning this Agreement.

If Client wishes to retain Attorneys to provide any legal services for matters excluded from this Agreement, a separate written agreement between Attorneys and Client may be required which may require compensation to Attorneys in addition to that set forth in Paragraph 8. Alternatively, Client would always have the option to engage other counsel to provide such legal services.

6. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ATTORNEYS AND CLIENT. Attorneys will perform the legal services called for under this Agreement, keep Client informed of material progress and developments, and respond to Client’s inquiries and communications.

Attorneys will work at all times under the direction and control of the City Attorney, which shall have the power to control and supervise the litigation. As the Client’s chief legal officer, and subject to the review and approval by the Governing Body, City Attorney shall retain direct control over all aspects of the Swaps Action, including specifically (but not limited to) the following:
• decisions regarding settlement and resolution of the case and major strategic decisions are reserved exclusively to the discretion of Governing Body; • City Attorney and Client will retain complete control over the course and conduct of the Swaps Actions;
• Attorneys from the City Attorney’s Office with supervisory authority shall be personally involved in overseeing the litigation at all times.

Client will be truthful and cooperative with Attorney s and keep Attorneys informed of developments. Attorneys will present status reports to Client as events reasonably warrant or at the reasonable request of Client. Attorneys and Client mutually acknowledge that Attorneys need to be informed about Client’s plans and anticipated decisions that may materially affect the Swaps Action. Accordingly, Attorneys and Client will work to assure that each keeps the other fully and timely informed about matters that a ffect the other and Attorneys shall consult in advance with and obtain the prior approval of the City Attorney concerning all substantive aspects of the Swaps Action. Additionally, Attorneys shall not make or distribute any press releases without the express permission and consent of the City Attorney.

7. CLIENT RETENTION OF DOCUMENTS. Client acknowledges its responsibility to undertake all necessary effort to identify, preserve, and retain documents concerning potential claims or defenses related to the Swaps Action. Additionally, Client will suspend all document destruction policies and implement a litigation hold as necessary to ensure 55 SWAPS Legal Services Agreement 3

the preservation of relevant documents as advised by Attorneys . This litigation hold applies to hard-copy documents; electronically stored data, including backup tapes, legacy systems, and metadata; calendars and planners; and data from text messaging, blogs and social networking sites.

This includes preserving all relevant data, regardless of whether it is contained on business or personal computers, personal digital assistants, cell phones etc. The documents need to be preserved in the form in which they currently exist. Client shall cooperate with Attorney s in locating, preserving, and reproducing its records which may be material to the investigation, discovery, prosecution, and trial in the Swaps Action. Client shall designate a lead staff member to coordinate discovery and other document requests related to the Swaps Action in a timely manner and Client shall assist in providing access to Attorney s such current or former staff members as may be witnesses or knowledgeable of matters related to the Swaps action.

8. ATTORNEYS’ FEES. The compensation that Attorneys will receive for the legal services to be provided under this Agreement will consist of a contingent fee equal to 25% of any “Recovery.”
a. “Recovery” means the sum of any “Cash Recovery” (as defined herein) without reduction or adjustment for “Costs” (as defined in Paragraph 10 of this Agreement). For purposes of this Agreement, “Judgment” refers to any final (including conclusion of any appeals) contested court order or judgment or contested arbitration award; “Settlement” refers to Recoveries obtained pursuant to any voluntary agreement, whether by settlement, mediation, or court stipulation. b. “Cash Recovery” means, without limitation, the total monetary amount received (whether by Judgment or Settlement) as a result of the Swaps Action, including any fee or Cost award described in subparagraph e below. This definition specifically includes attorneys’ fees. “Partial Cash Recovery” means a ny Cash Recovery obtained prior to the complete resolution of the Swaps Actions and where there are multiple defendants , may mean settlements or judgments against some defendants but not all. Such recovery shall be used first to pay unreimbursed Costs advanced up to the date of such Partial Cash Recovery. Unless Attorneys and Client agree otherwise in writing, any remaining Partial Cash Recovery received prior to the final resolution of the Swaps Action shall be placed in a trust account administered by Keller for the benefit of Client. With approval of Client, the funds in this trust account may be drawn upon to pay for any future Costs incurred in the Swaps Action.
c. Should Recovery following a J udgment provide for payment in the future (which may consist of one or several payments over a period of time) , Attorneys shall be paid the applicable percentage from each payment when received.
d. Attorneys shall keep an accounting of (i) all attorney fees incurred in the Swaps Action, (ii) all costs incurred, (iii) all funds in the trust account administered by Attorneys , and (iv) other matters and shall provide periodic reports on same to C lient upon request (see Section 10(e)).
e. Client may obtain by award or negotiated settlement attorneys’ fees and/or Costs in the Swaps Action. For example, certain claims may arise under statutes that provide for an award of attorneys’ fees. Attorneys agree that if such an award is allowed for under the law then it will endeavor to pursue such an award from the Court on behalf of Client and defend Client against any claims that it owes defendants’ attorney fees.
f. Client understands that the attorneys’ fee set forth in this Agreement is not set by 56 SWAPS Legal Services Agreement 4

law but rather has been negotiated between Attorneys and Client. g. If no recovery is obtained, Client shall not be obligated to pay any of the Attorneys fees or Costs.

9. DIVISION OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES / CO-COUNSEL.

Attorneys’ fees payable hereunder shall be divided between Miller and Keller based on the value of the amount of time each has devoted to this representation. In addition, Attorneys may decide to retain another attorney or law firm as associate counsel. Client agrees that Attorneys may associate other attorneys to assist in the representation. Client’s legal fees under this agreement will not increase by reason of this association. A decision by Attorneys to retain associate counsel shall be subject to Client’s approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event of any dispute between Keller and Miller, they may submit it to Client for resolution. Client shall not be a party to such dispute between Keller and Mil ler and its reasonable fees and costs shall be reimbursed.

10. COSTS.
a. Attorneys to advance costs. Attorneys will advance the Costs (as defined in this paragraph 10) incurred in connection with Attorneys ’ representation of Client under this Agreement. Those Costs, if authorized, are reimbursable out of the Cash Recovery. b. Authorized costs. The Client authorizes Attorney s to incur reasonable Costs and to retain consultants or expert witnesses reasonably necessary in Attorneys ’ judgment.

Such Costs include, but are not limited to, court filing fees, deposition costs, expert, consultant, and investigator fees and expenses, investigation costs, electronic document hosting costs transportation, meals and lodging for out of town travel, messenger service fees, photocopying expenses, and process server fees. Costs shall not include full or part- time employees (e.g. paralegals and law clerks). Instead, Costs shall be specific and confined to representation of Client.

Costs shall be accounted for as they are incurred by Attorney. There shall be no mark-up attached.

With respect to electronic document hosting, Keller will provide such services through its Legal Technology Group, on the terms set forth on Attachment 1; all fees related thereto shall constitute Costs to be advanced by Attorneys and reimbursed as set forth in this Section 10. As such, Attorneys and Client are jointly incentivized to keep Costs to a minimum. Items that are not to be considered Costs, and that must be paid by Client without being either advanced or contributed to by Attorney s, include, but are not limited to, (i) Client’s expense s incurred in providing information to third parties, (ii) Client’s internal expenses in support of the litigation, and (iii) damages to third parties not caused in any manner by actions of Attorneys, that Client is ultimately required to pay.

Regarding expert consultant and investigator costs, Attorney s and Client shall meet and confer regarding selection and retention of expert consultants and investigator in the Swaps Action and Client shall be informed of the persons chosen and their charges. Client shall not unreasonably withhold approval of selection and retention of such experts. c. In the event of Recovery for Client, Client will reimburse Costs. In the event Client obtains Recovery (whether by settlement, arbitration, J udgment or otherwise) and pursuant to Paragraph 16 (Conclusion of Services) , Client shall pay Costs within sixty (60) days of a final accounting provided by Attorneys unless otherwise agreed by the Parties in writing. Any 57 SWAPS Legal Services Agreement 5

Client funds in the Attorneys’ trust account may be put towards any unpaid balance of Costs at direction of the Client.
d. In the event of judgment for defendants, Attorney s bear risk of taxed defense Costs except where Client reckless. To the extent permitted by law and to the extent not based on the conduct of Client, Attorneys will bear the risk of any defense costs taxed against Client in the event of a n adverse ruling (such as sanctions for spoliation of evidence) or taxable costs awarded to Judgment for defendants in the Swaps Action. As used in this section, “conduct” means the (i) failure to perform the terms of this Agreement; or (ii) any intentional reckless conduct which diverges from the Attorneys’ recommended course of action and which results in either an adverse ruling or a Judgment for defendants. For this provision to apply, Attorneys would have to specifically advise in writing the specific advice they would deem subject to this provision where the failure to follow it would be reckless. The application of this provision as to a discrete adverse ruling does not necessarily implicate this provision as to a Judgment. e. Periodic statements of costs. Attorneys will provide Client with periodic statements of Costs incurred in the Swaps Action at approximately quarterly intervals or at such other frequency as mutually agreed between Client and Attorney s. At any time, Client may communicate with Attorneys regarding Attorneys ’ estimates with regard to Costs that may be incurred in the future.
f. Client outside expenses. Expenses incurred by Client in connection with retention of additional consultants retained by Client , including outside counsel and/or experts, shall be paid for by Client and shall not be considered Costs for purposes of this Agreement.

11. REPRESENTATION OF ADVERSE INTERESTS. If Attorney s had a relationship with another party involved in the Swaps Action, or with someone who would be substantially affected by the Swaps Action, the Rules of Professional Conduct would require Attorneys to disclose that to Client so that Client could evaluate whether that relationship causes Client to have any concerns over Attorney’s loyalty, objectivity or ability to protect Client’s confidential information.

12. SETTLEMENT. Decisions regarding settlement of the case are reserved exclusively to the discretion of Client and the City Attorney . Attorneys will not settle Client’s claim without the approval of Client, who will have the absolute right to accept or reject any settlement. Attorneys will notify Client of the terms of any settlement offer received by Attorneys.

13. ORDER OR AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES OR COSTS BY ANOTHER PARTY. The court may order, or the parties to the dispute may agree, that another party will pay some or all of Client’s attorney’s fees, costs, or both. Any such order or agreement will not affect Client’s obligation to pay contingency fees and Costs under this Agreement. However, subject to Paragraph 8 (contingent fee), any such amounts actually received by Attorneys will be credited against Attorneys’ fees or Costs, respectively, incurred by Client.

14. DISCHARGE OF ATTORNEYS. Client may discharge Attorney(s) at any time by written notice effective when received by Attorney (s). Unless specifically agreed by Attorney(s) and Client, Attorney(s) will provide no further services and advance no further Costs on Client’s behalf after receipt of the notice except as Client may direct in writing. If Attorney(s) are Client’s attorney of record in any proceeding, Client will execute and return a substitution-of- attorney form immediately on its receipt from Attorney(s). 58 SWAPS Legal Services Agreement 6

In the event Attorney(s) are discharged without cause before the termination of the litigation, Client shall (i) reimburse such Attorney(s) for any and all Costs advanced by such Attorney(s) not later than ninety (90) days from receipt of a final cost accounting from Attorney(s), and (ii) upon termination of the litigation, pay such Attorney(s) a fee consisting of the reasonable value of Attorney(s)’ services performed up to the point of the discharge. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit Client’s rights and remedies in the event of a discharge of Attorney(s) for cause (which shall mean Attorney(s)’ failure to perform his or its obligations under this Agreement), and upon a discharge for cause, Client shall not be obligated to reimburse Costs or pay the contingent fee in Section 8. In the event of a discharge of fewer than all Attorney(s), the provisions of this Paragraph 14 shall apply only with respect to the discharged Attorney(s).

15. WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY. An Attorney may withdraw from representation of Client: (i) with Client’s consent, (ii) upon court approval, or (iii) if no court action is filed, for good cause upon ninety (90) days’ notice to Client; or (iv ) at any time without cause upon ninety (90) days’ notice to Client . Good cause is deemed upon Client’s breach of this Agreement, Client’s refusal to cooperate with Attorney s, or any other fact or circumstance that would render Attorney s’ continuing representation unlawful or unethical. In the event o f a withdrawal under clause ( iv) above, the withdrawing Attorney will be entitled to retain any contingency fee payable with respect to any claims that have been resolved (including with respect to amounts owing in the future with respect to resolved claims).

16. CONCLUSION OF SERVICES. When Attorneys’ services conclude, whether by completing the terms of this Agreement or by discharge (under Paragraph 14) or withdrawal (under paragraph 15), all unpaid charges (including fees under Paragraph 8 and Costs under Paragraph 10) will become due and payable , unless otherwise provided herein. Attorneys will notify Client in writing of the conclusion of services and provide an accounting of costs, fees, and other charges due. Attorneys are authorized to apply any Client funds held in one of Attorneys ’ client trust accounts to pay unreimbursed advanced Costs. Nothing in this Paragraph shall be construed as inconsistent with the other provisions of this Agreement, including but not limited to Paragraphs 8 and 10.

If at the conclusion of services, the Swaps Action is continuing with other legal counsel, Attorneys will cooperate fully in transferring all Client’s papers and property, inform legal counsel of deadlines, and assist them in the transition of the Swaps Action.

17. LIEN. Except in situations where Attorneys withdraw or are discharged, such situations being governed by Sections 14 and 15, Client hereby grants Attorneys a lien on any and all claims or causes of action that are the subject of Attorneys’ fee and/or Costs advanced under this Agreement. Attorneys’ lien will be for any sums owing to Attorney s for any unpaid Costs (under Paragraph 10) or fees (under Paragraph 8) at the conclusion of Attorneys’ services. The lien will attach to any Recovery Client may obtain, whether by arbitration award, judgment, settlement or otherwise.

18. RELEASE OF CLIENT’S PAPERS AND PROPERTY. At the termination of services under this Agreement, Attorney s will release to Client on request all of Client’s papers and property. Client’s papers and property include correspondence, deposition transcripts, exhibits, experts’ reports, legal documents, physical evidence, and other items in possession of Attorneys reasonably necessary to Client’s representation. 59 SWAPS Legal Services Agreement 7

19. CONFIDENTIALITY. This Agreement establishes the relation of attorney-client between the parties hereto. Attorneys shall hold all money and property of Client in trust for Client’s benefit, with all funds deposited and managed in Attorney’s client trust account as required by law, shall not divulge Client’s confidences, and shall be entitled to the candid cooperation of all Client’s employees in all matters related to the assigned files and any related actions. This Agreement shall be privileged and confidential subject to Business and Professions Code section 6149 and Evidence Code section 952 and 954.

20. DISCLAIMER OF GUARANTEE. Although Attorneys may offer an opinion about possible results regarding the subject matter of this Agreement, Attorneys cannot guarantee any particular result. Client acknowledges that Attorney s have made no promises about the outcome and that any opinion offered by Attorneys in the future will not constitute a guaranty.

21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties. No other agreement, statement, or promise made on or before the effective date of this Agreement will be binding on the parties.

22. SEVERABILITY IN EVENT OF PARTIAL INVALIDITY. If any provision of this Agreement is held in whole or in part to be unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of that provision and of the entire agreement will be severable and remain in effect.

23. MODIFICATION BY SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT. This Agreement may be modified by subsequent agreement of the parties only by an instrument in writing, approved and executed in the same manner as the initial Agreement.

24. MEDIATION CLAUSE. If a dispute arises out of or relating to any aspect of this Agreement between Client and Attorneys, or the breach thereof, and if the dispute cannot be settled through negotiation, Attorneys and Client agree to mediation pursuant to Paragraph 8( g) before resorting to litigation, or any other dispute resolution procedure. In the event of litigation, as legal damages would be difficult to establish, the parties are entitled to seek equitable remedies including specific performance.

25. NO AWARD OF ATTORNEY S’ FEES OR COSTS IN ACTION ON
AGREEMENT. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs incurred in any action or proceeding concerning or arising out of this Agreement, or efforts to negotiate the matter, and the parties shall share equally the costs of any arbitrator, mediator, or other decision maker in any forum.

26. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE. Pursuant to California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4.2.(a)3- 410, Keller is informing Client in writing that Keller has professional liability insurance , and Miller is informing Client in writing that he has previously had professional liability insurance, will promptly apply for such insurance and anticipates that it will be in place no later than September 30, 2024.

27. GOVERNING LAW. The terms and provisions of this Agreement and the performance of the parties hereunder shall be interpreted in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State of California. Any action to enforce this agreement will be venued in the Superior Court in and for the County of Contra Costa.

28. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall be effective on the date last executed below. Once effective, this Agreement will, however, apply to services provided by Attorneys on this matter before its effective date. 60 SWAPS Legal Services Agreement 8

29. AUTHORITY OF PARTIES. Each of the signatories to this Agreement warrants that he or she has the authority to enter into and execute this Agreement and to bind the entity or entities on whose behalf each signs.

30. EXECUTION. This Agreement may be executed in duplicate counterparts. This Agreement and future documents relating to this Agreement may be digitally signed in accordance with California law. Any party to this Agreement may revoke such agreement to permit digital signatures at any time by providing written notice to the other party.

The foregoing is agreed to by:

CITY OF RICHMOND
Dated: By

Eduardo Martinez, Mayor
Attest:

___________________________

Pamela Christian, City Clerk

Approved as to Form:

David Aleshire, City Attorney

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.

Dated: By

Dated:

R. Bradley Miller

61 SWAPS Legal Services Agreement 9

ATTACHMENT 1

Relativity License $150/per user monthly
All included Relativity hosting $15 per GB hosted monthly Unlimited Analytics
(Assisted Review, Email Threading,
Near Duplicate, Categorization,
Name Normalization)
Included
All pre and post file processing using
Relativity Processing or iPro eCapture
Included

Keller Rohrback’s Legal Technology Group (“LTG”) is embedded with Keller Rohrback’s litigation teams to support the legal technology and complex eDiscovery needs for the firm’s matters and clients. LTG provides in -house consulting for data preservation and collection, data processing, document hosting, document review, and document production.

Keller Rohrback’s LTG manages and utilizes enterprise litigation support systems and software in-house to control and manage the entire electronic discovery reference model. This included harnessing the same industry standard software large national litiga tion support vendors use to process and host terabytes of data. These tools include iPro eCapture, Relativity Processing, and Relativity on premise for document review. The Relativity install includes unlimited data analytics providing assisted review technology, near de-duplication, email threading, and concept searching to increase review speed and analysis of large data productions. The cost of these enterprise systems are not charged al a carte like most outside third party providers, instead LTG charges a monthly per GB hosting rate for the final data set hosted in Relativity. This all-in rate includes pre and post data processing, productions, hosting, and analytics processing for duplicate identification, email threading, concept search, communication analysts and active learning/assisted review.

As provided in Section 10, these costs are a part of the Authorized Costs and are advanced by Attorneys and paid out of the Recovery.

Page 1 of 2 ends

(September 24, 2024)

City Clerk's Office

DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Pamela Christian, City Clerk

Subject:

Carahsoft/DocuSign Agreement
FINANCIAL IMPACT: $15,170.70 from General Fund, account string 01141013-400209

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

Prior approval by the City Council was on September 30, 2021.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City of Richmond is currently using DocuSign as its electronic signature solution. The request is for a one- year extension.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE a fourth contract amendment with
Carahsoft/DocuSign piggybacking on CMAS contract #3-20- 70-2247G between the State of California and
Carahsoft/DocuSign for the term of September 30, 2024, to September 29, 2025, in an amount not to exceed $15,170.70 - City Clerk's Office (Pamela Christian 510-620-6513).

DISCUSSION: The City of Richmond is “piggybacking” on the State of California’s award to Carahsoft/DocuSign based on competitive solicitation with CMAS contract#3- 20-70-2247G. CMAS contracts are established through a competitive bid process conducted by the State of California. Because of this, all pricing, products and/or AGENDA
REPORT
63

Page 2 of 2 ends

(September 24, 2024)
services offered must have been previously bid and awarded on a Federal GSA schedule. Our CMAS contract is based on Carahsoft GSA Schedule 47QSWA18D008F.

Without having to go to bid, an agency may request a copy of the CMAS contract from Carahsoft. The cost of these services is based on an allotted amount of envelopes processed. The benefits of using DocuSign include sending and signing agreements securely from virtually any device. DocuSign signature eliminates manual tasks, increases convenience for both customers and employees, and improves employee productivity.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Original Contract
Attachment 2 – Contract Amendment #2
Attachment 3 - Contract Amendment #3
Attachment 4 – Carahsoft/DocuSign Quote#48860770
Attachment 5 - Contract Amendment #4
Attachment 6 – CMAS Contract# 3-20-70-2247G
64 65
66 67
68 69
70 71
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 72 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 10/13/2021
Contracts Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 Mayor
73 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 74 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 75 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 76 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 77 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 78 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 79 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 80 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 81 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 82 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 83 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 84 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 85 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 86 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 87 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 88 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 89 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 90 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A38EBA8-7D51-4731-9BF6-8DC61CA56AF8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 70B3ADA6-BEC4-4C65-BB24-A9A197BB89D7 91 CITY OF RICHMOND

CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Department: Project Manager:

Project Manager E-mail:

Project Manager Phone No:

P.R. No: Vendor No: P.O./Contract No:

Description of Services:

Amendment No. ___ modifies the: (2nd or subsequent amendments attach Amendment History page)

Term, Payment Limit and Service Plan
Payment Limit and Service Plan

Term and Service Plan
Service Plan
The parties to this Contract Amendment do mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract Amendment are the City of Richmond, California, a municipal corporation (City), and the following named Contractor:

Company Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No: / Expiration Date:

A California [ ] corporation, [ ] limited liability corporation [ ] general partnership, [ ] limited partnership, [ ] individual, [ ] non-profit corporation, [ ] individual dba as [specify:]
[ ] other [specify:]

2. Purpose. This Contract Amendment is being entered into to amend the Contract between City and Contractor which was approved by the City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on , which original term commenced on and terminates with an original contract payment limit of $ . Said contract shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Original Contract" and is incorporated herein by reference.

3. Original Contract Provisions. The parties hereto agree to continue to abide by those terms and conditions of the Original Contract, and any amendments thereto, which are unaffected by this Contract Amendment.

City Clerk's Ofc.

Ursula De Loa
[email protected]
(510) 621-1257
14712
eSignature processing solution
✔
2 Carahsoft Technology Corp.
11493 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 100
Reston, Virginia 20190
Jennifer Yeater
(571) 662-3397
[email protected]
September 30, 2021
September 30, 2023
September 29, 2024
14,490.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BD9294C-C176-4D79-A605-4CACA3E3D5D4 92 Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 09-26-07

4. Amendment Provisions. This Contract Amendment is subject to the Amendment Provisions attached hereto, which are incorporated herein by reference, and which control over any conflicting provisions of the Original Contract, or any amendment thereto.

5. City of Richmond Business License Active Status Maintained. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 7.04.030, the Contractor must maintain its City of Richmond business license for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.

6. Insurance Coverage Updated and Maintained.

Pursuant to the Original Contract,
the Contractor shall provide the City with updated insurance certificates, and the Contractor shall maintain insurance coverage, for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.

7. Signatures
. These signatures attest the parties’ agreement hereto:

CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
a municipal corporation
By _______________________
Title:

I hereby certify that the Original Contract
and this Amendment have been approved
by the City Council or executed by the City
Manager.

By _______________________
City Clerk
Approved as to form:

By_______________________
City Attorney
List of Attachments:

1. Amendment Provisions

2. Updated Insurance Certificates
CONTRACTOR:
______________________________
(*The Corporation Chairperson of the Board, President or Vice-President should sign on the line below.)
By____________________________
Title:________________________
(*The Corporation Chief Financial Officer, Secretary or Assistant Secretary should sign on the line below.)
By:___________________________
Title:_Secretary__________________
(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations
Code Section 313, if Contractor is a
corporation or nonprofit organization, this
Contract (1) should be signed by the
Chairperson of the Board, President or
Vice-President and the Chief Financial
Officer, Secretary or Assistant Secretary;
(2) should have both signatures conform to
designated representative groups pursuant
to Corporations Code Section 313.

Vice President

Carahsoft Technology Corp.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BD9294C-C176-4D79-A605-4CACA3E3D5D4 93 Contact Amendment
Instruction Sheet
For Contract Amendment # 1 select one of the following Contract Amendment Provision forms based on one of the following conditions (if this is the 2nd or subsequent amendment to an existing contract, an Amendment History page is required outlining the details of all subsequent amendments in addition to ONE of the amendment provisions pages listed below).

1. Term, Payment Limit and Service Plan (increases both the term and the dollar limit of the cont
ract and may modify the service plan of
the origi
nal contract to include additional tasks and/or services in relation t
o the existing contract (if applicable)

2. Payment Limit and Service Plan (increases the dollar limit of the contract, but does not extend the term of t
he contract and may
modify the service plan of the original contract to include additional tasks and/or services in relation to the existing contract (if applicable)

3. Term and Service Plan (extends the term of the contract, but does not increase the dollar amount
of the contract and may modify the
ser
vice plan of the original contract to include additional tasks and/or services in relation to the existing contract (if applicable)

4. Service Plan (modifies the service plan of the original contract to include additional ta
sks and/or services in relation to the existing
co
ntract)

5. Amendment History (if this is the 2nd or subsequent amendment to an existing contract, an Amendment History
page is required
outlining t
he details of all subsequent amendments in addition to
ONE of the amendment provi
sions pages listed above (one of items
1-4)
If you need to make any other changes to the contract, you should consider executing a new City of Richmond Standard Contract.

Again, only ONE of the following Amendment Provisions pages and an Amendment History page (if this is the 2nd or subsequent amendment) should be used and attached to this Contract Amendment.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BD9294C-C176-4D79-A605-4CACA3E3D5D4 94 Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and

Amendment No. P.O./Contract No.

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (TERM, PAYMENT LIMIT AND SERVICE PLAN)

1. Paragraph 2 (Term) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to extend the Contract term. Paragraph 2 of the Original Contract is amended to read as follows:

"2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is

____________________________________________________________ (Insert original contract commencement date)

and it terminates

___________________________________________________.
(Insert new contract termination date)

unless sooner terminated as provided herein."

2. Paragraph 3 (Payment Limit) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to increase the payment limit by $ . Paragraph 3 of the Original Contract is amended to read as follows:

"3. Payment Limit. City's total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $ including expenses."

“The City of Richmond shall not pay for services that exceed the Contract Payment Limit without the prior written approval of the City Manager if the total Contract amount does not exceed $10,000 or without the prior approval of the City Council if the total Contract amount is over $10,000.”

3. The Service Plan (Exhibit A) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to include the following tasks and/or services:

Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 9-26-07

2 September 30, 2023
September 29, 2024
14,490.00
28,980.00

Carahsoft Technology Corp.

Extends the contract for an additional year.

Scope and services remain the same.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BD9294C-C176-4D79-A605-4CACA3E3D5D4 95 Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and

Amendment No. P.O./Contract No.

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (PAYMENT LIMIT AND SERVICE PLAN)

1. Paragraph 3 (Payment Limit) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to increase the payment limit by $ . Paragraph 3 of the Original Contract is amended to read as follows:

"3. Payment Limit. City's total payments to Contractor under this Contract Amendment shall not exceed $ including expenses."

2. The Service Plan (Exhibit A) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to include the following tasks and/or services:

Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 9-26-07

Carahsoft Technology Corp.
2 14,490.00

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BD9294C-C176-4D79-A605-4CACA3E3D5D4 96 Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and
Amendme
nt No. P.O./Contract No.

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (TERM AND SERVICE PLAN)

1. Paragraph 2 (Term) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to extend the Contract term. Paragra
ph 2 of the Original Contract is amended to read as
follows:
"2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is
_____________________________________________________________ (Insert original contract commencement date)
and it terminates
_____________________________________________________________. (Insert new contract termination date)
unless sooner terminated as provided herein."

2. The Service Plan (Exhibit A) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to include the f
ollowing tasks and/or services:

Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 9-26-07

Carahsoft Technology Corp.
2 September 30, 2023

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BD9294C-C176-4D79-A605-4CACA3E3D5D4 97 Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and

Amendment No. P.O./Contract No.

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (SERVICE PLAN)
(CONTRACTOR’S OBLIGATION’S)

The Service Plan (Exhibit A) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to include the following tasks and/or services:

Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 9-26-07

Carahsoft Technology Corp.
2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BD9294C-C176-4D79-A605-4CACA3E3D5D4 98 Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and
Amendme
nt No. P.O./Contract No.

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (AMENDMENT HISTORY)
The first Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increa sed contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan
The second Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increa sed contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan
The third Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increa sed contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan
The fourth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increa sed contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan
The fifth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increa sed contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan

Carahsoft Technology Corp.
2 14,490.00
14,490.00
14,490.00
14,490.00
14,490.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BD9294C-C176-4D79-A605-4CACA3E3D5D4 99 Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and
Amendme
nt No. P.O./Contract No.

The sixth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increa sed contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan
The seventh Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increa sed contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan
The eighth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increa sed contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan
The ninth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increa sed contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan
The tenth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increa sed contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan
Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 11-30-07
2 Carahsoft Technology Corp.
14,490.00
14,490.00
14,490.00
14,490.00
14,490.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BD9294C-C176-4D79-A605-4CACA3E3D5D4 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132

Page 1 of 2 ends

September 24, 2024

City Council

DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Council Member Soheila Bana and Mayor Eduardo
Martinez

Subject:

Proclamation recognizing August as American Muslim
Appreciation and Awareness as designated by the State
of California
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact in recognizing the proclamation

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

April 4, 2023- Proclamation

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Proclamation recognizing August as American Muslim
Appreciation and Awareness as designated by the State
of California
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

PROCLAMATION recognizing the month of August as
American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month as
designated by the State of California, and commending
Muslim communities in California for the positive impacts they have made towards the advancement of our city and
country. Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-620-6743)
and Mayor Eduardo Martinez (510-620-6503)

AGENDA
REPORT
133

Page 2 of 2 ends

September 24, 2024
DISCUSSION:

Enriched by the unparalleled diversity of its residents, the City of Richmond takes great pride in supporting individual religious freedoms and is strengthened by the many varied religious, political, and cultural traditions and contributions of its diverse populations, including those that practice Islam.

The history of Islam in this country dates to before its founding, originating with enslaved Africans who brought their Muslim beliefs with them to the Americas and who later contributed in numerous ways to the founding of the nation, and there are today millions of American Muslims, both immigrant and native born, of diverse backgrounds and beliefs. Approximately 1,000,000 American Muslims currently reside in California, the highest number of any state in the United States. Over 30,000 Muslims live in Contra Costa County, and make innumerable contributions to the cultural, political, and economic fabric and well-being of California and the United States.

In 2023, the Council on American-Islamic Relations received 607 complaints of hate crimes or hate incidents, a 419% increase from the previous year, and over 8,000 complaints total, the highest-ever in its 30-year history.

The City of Richmond’s mosques have played a pivotal role in supporting members of the Muslim community and others in this city. Masjid Al-Rahman, founded in 1995, which hosts weekly congregational prayers for over 300 attendees and conducts food bank distribution twice a week for the Richmond community, regardless of faith.

The City Council acknowledges the importance of local government in advocating for peace and justice, understanding that Muslims everywhere deserve to live in peace and safety.

We must acknowledge and promote awareness of the myriads of invaluable contributions of American Muslims in California and across the country and extend to them the respect and camaraderie every American deserves.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment – Proclamation

134

WHEREAS, approximately 1,000,000 American Muslims currently reside in California, the highest number of any state in the United States. Over 30,000 Muslims live in Contra Costa County, and make innumerable contributions to the cultural, political, and economic fabric and well -being of California and the United States ; and

WHEREAS, enriched by the unparalleled diversity of its residents, the City of Richmond takes great pride in supporting individual religious freedoms and is strengthened by the many varied religious, political, and cultural traditions and contributions of its diverse populations, including those that practice Islam; and

WHEREAS, The City of Richmond’s mosques have played a pivotal role in supporting members of the Muslim community and others in this city. Masjid Al - Rahman, founded in 1995, which hosts weekly congreg ational prayers for over 300 attendees and conducts food bank distribution twice a week for the Richmond community, regardless of faith; and

WHEREAS, Masjid Al -Noor offers a range of services, including the five daily prayers and Jumu'ah prayers, providing a space for worship, spiritual connection, and programs designed to support individuals in deepening their knowledge and understanding of Islamic teachings; and

WHEREAS, The Muslim Mission Center works to foster a better understanding of Islam locally through education and outreach programs, offering a variety of services for their congregants, such as an Islamic school, family counseling, funeral services, and more; and

Recognizing American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month City of Richmond
135

WHEREAS, the city council acknowledges the importance of local government in advocating for peace and justice, understanding that Muslims everywhere deserve to live in peace and safety; and

WHEREAS, it is appropriate to acknowledge and promote awareness of the myriads of invaluable contributions of American Muslims in California and across the country and extend to them the respect and camaraderie every American deserves.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richmond does hereby recognize the California State De signation of August 2024 as American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month to acknowledge the rich history, contributions, and guiding virtues of Muslims and to commend all Muslim communities in California for the lasting positive impact they have made toward the advancement of our city and country.

______________________ ___________________________
Mayor Eduardo Martinez Council Member Soheila Bana
City of Richmond City of Richmond, District 4
September 24, 2024 September 24, 2024

136

Page 1 of 2 ends

September 24, 2024

City Council

DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Council Member Soheila Bana

Subject:

Proclamation to declare the month of September as
National Suicide Awareness and Prevention Month
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of this proclamation.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Proclamation to declare the month of September as
National Suicide Awareness and Prevention Month in the
City of Richmond
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

PROCLAMATION declaring the month of September as
National Suicide Awareness and Prevention Month in the
City of Richmond - Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-
620-6743).

AGENDA
REPORT
137

Page 2 of 2 ends

September 24, 2024
DISCUSSION:

Suicide is a significant public health issue that claims the lives of more than 48,000 people annually in the United States. For every life lost to suicide, an estimated 135 individuals are directly affected, meaning nearly 6.5 million people experience the effects of suicide loss each year. In Contra Costa County, including Richmond, the suicide rate is approximately 9 to 10 deaths per 100,000 residents, underscoring the local relevance of this issue.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated mental health challenges such as depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and isolation, particularly among vulnerable populations including youth, veterans, and communities of color. These societal stressors have intensified the need for increased awareness, intervention, and access to mental health resources.

By declaring September as National Suicide Awareness and Prevention Month in the City of Richmond, we can increase awareness to promote open discussions on mental health, to foster a supportive environment where individuals at risk feel seen, heard, and feel safe to ask for help, reducing the number of lives lost to suicide.

The proclamation aims to encourage all Richmond residents, along with city leaders, educators, employers, and healthcare providers, to unite in their efforts to increasing awareness to address the stigma surrounding suicide and to support those who experience challenges with their mental health by advocating for accessible mental health resources.

This proclamation encourages the City of Richmond to stand in solidarity with all those impacted by suicide and work toward a future where no one feels alone in their struggles.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Proclamation
Attachment 2 – Suicide Awareness Event Flyer
138

WHEREAS, the City of Richmond acknowledges the significant public health crisis of suicide, which claims the lives of more than 48,000 individuals annually in the United States, affecting not only those lost but also their families, friends, and communities; and
WHEREAS, for every suicide death, it is estimated that 135 people are directly impacted, meaning nearly 6.5 million individuals experience the profound effects of suicide loss each year, including grief, trauma, and the need for support; and WHEREAS, Contra Costa County, which includes Richmond, experiences a suicide rate of approximately 9 -10 deaths per 100,000 people annually, reflecting the ongoing need for local awareness and intervention; and
WHEREAS, mental health challenges such as depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and isolation have been exacerbated by societal stressors, including the COVID -19 pandemic, particularly affecting vulnerable populations such as youth, veterans, and communities of color; and
WHEREAS, through local and national resources, including crisis hotlines, mental health services, and community outreach, there are vital programs that offer support and intervention for individuals at risk, yet more must be done to increase access to these services for all Richmond residents; and
WHEREAS, September is recognized as Suicide Awareness and Prevention Month, a time for communities to come together to break the stigma around mental health, to educate others on the warning signs of suicide, and to encourage open, compassionate dialogue on mental well-being; and
WHEREAS, local organization Keyz 2 the Future in collaboration with the City of Richmond’s Community Crisis Response Program - Reaching Out with Compassion and Kindness is conducting a community awareness event on Saturday, September 30, 2024, at Cobiz in Richmond; and

Declaring September as National Suicide Awareness and Prevention Month 139

WHEREAS, it is vital that all members of the Richmond community, including city leaders, educators, employers, and healthcare providers, unite in efforts to promote mental health, support those in crisis, and advocate for policies that expand access to prevention resources.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that the Richmond City Council on September 24, 2024, does hereby recognize September as Suicide Awareness and Prevention Month in the City of Richmond. I urge all residents to increase their understanding of mental health challenges, support individuals in need, and work collectively to reduce the number of lives lost to suicide.

______________________ ___________________________
Mayor Eduardo Martinez Council Member Soheila Bana
City of Richmond City of Richmond, District 4

140
141

Page 1 of 4 ends

September 24, 2024

Community Development

DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Lina Velasco, Community Development Director
Avery Stark, Principal Planner
Kimberly Y. Chin, Senior Asst. City Attorney

Subject:

Repeal of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 9.64 -
Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in Newly
Constructed Buildings

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The repeal of the subject Ordinance will not have a fiscal impact on the General Fund.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

In November 2021, the City of Richmond passed
Ordinance No. 15-21 N.S, effectuating a Prohibition of
Natural Gas Infrastructure in Newly Constructed
Buildings.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

In California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found the City of
Berkeley’s ordinance prohibiting natural gas
infrastructure in new buildings unlawful. Since the City of Richmond’s ordinance is modeled after Berkeley’s
ordinance, repeal of Ordinance No. 15-21 N.S is
necessary to avoid possible litigation or other legal issues in the future.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

INTRODUCE an ordinance (first reading) repealing
Chapter 9.64 to the Richmond Municipal Code (RMC),
which bans natural gas infrastructure in new construction - Community Development Department (Lina
Velasco/Avery Stark 510-620-6714).

AGENDA
REPORT
142

Page 2 of 4 ends

September 24, 2024

BACKGROUND:

In July 2019, the City of Berkeley passed Ordinance 7672-NS entitled “Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in New Buildings” (“Berkeley Ordinance”). The Berkeley Ordinance was codified at Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 12.80. In relevant part, the Berkeley Ordinance seeks to “eliminate obsolete natural gas infrastructure and associated greenhouse gas emissions in new buildings where all-electric infrastructure can be most practicably integrated, thereby reducing the environmental and health hazards produced by the consumption and transportation of natural gas.” It does so by:
(1) prohibiting natural gas infrastructure (defined as “fuel gas piping, other than service pipe, in or in connection with a building . . . extending from the point of delivery at the gas meter”) in newly constructed buildings (defined as “a building that has never been used or occupied for any purpose”) with limited exceptions, (2) deeming that requirement “objective planning standards under Government Code section 65913.4 and objective development standards under Government Code section 65589.5,” and (3) applying that requirement to Use Permit and Zone Certificate applications submitted on or after the effective date of the ordinance.

In November 2021, the City of Richmond (“City”) passed Ordinance No. 15-21 N.S, which added the same prohibition of natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings as Chapter 9.64 to the Richmond Municipal Code. The wording of the City’s ordinance is nearly identical to the Berkeley Ordinance and the prohibition applies to “Design Review Permits, Use Permit[s], and/or Zoning Compliance Review applications.” The differences between the City’s ordinance and the Berkeley Ordinance are minor and inconsequential to this analysis.

In November 2019, the California Restaurant Association (“CRA”) sued Berkeley claiming the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”) and state law pre- empted the Berkeley Ordinance. Berkeley moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which the District Court did, concluding that the EPCA should be “interpreted in a limited manner” so that it does not “sweep into areas that are historically the province of state and local regulation.” CRA appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ninth Circuit Decision
The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision. It held, in relevant part, that the EPCA preempts building codes like the Berkeley Ordinance which ban natural gas piping within new buildings. Specifically, EPCA has a preemption clause, which reads, “no State regulation concerning the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of such covered product shall be effective with respect to such product.” The Ninth Circuit ruled the Berkeley Ordinance concerns the energy use of covered products because it prohibits consumers from using natural gas-powered appliances in newly constructed buildings. It held, “by enacting EPCA, Congress ensured that States and localities could not prevent consumers from using covered products in their homes, kitchens, and businesses. So EPCA preemption extends to regulations that address the products themselves and building codes that concern their use of natural gas.” The Court found “Berkeley can’t bypass EPCA’s preemption of building codes that directly ban covered 143

Page 3 of 4 ends

September 24, 2024

products by instead simply prohibiting the piping that transports natural gas from the utility’s meter to the appliance.”

DISCUSSION:

Because the City’s ordinance is nearly identical to the Berkeley Ordinance, the Ninth Circuit’s decision, holding that the Berkeley Ordinance is preempted by federal law, applies equally to the City’s ordinance.

Furthermore, on May 14, 2024, the City of Berkeley adopted an ordinance repealing Chapter 12.80 to the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC), which bans natural gas infrastructure in new construction. The repeal of the adopted ordinance resolved the litigation.

After the amended decision was issued on January 2, 2024, relevant City staff were directed, on January 19, 2024, to cease enforcement of the City’s Ordinance. The City has not enforced the Ordinance since that time. As such, staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance (see Attachment 1) repealing Chapter 9.64 of the Richmond Municipal Code (RMC), which bans natural gas infrastructure in new construction, to avoid possible litigation or other legal issues in the future. In addition, the CRA has sent the City a letter requesting that the City repeal its ordinance or make a public announcement suspending its enforcement (see Attachment 2).

FUTURE POLICY CONSIDERATION:

Moving forward, staff will continue to encourage all-electric construction by sharing its many benefits, some of which include:
 Cleaner air and better health outcomes from eliminating the emissions associated with burning fossil fuels, particularly indoors.  Not having to pay to install gas pipes in new buildings.  Taking advantage of financial incentives and rebates for all-electric appliances.  Resilience against power outages, particularly when electric technologies are paired with battery storage.
 Hedging against high energy costs by being able to schedule electric appliances to operate at times of day when electricity costs are lowest.  Preparing for the potential discontinuation of gas appliances in the future that could occur from possible regulatory actions by regional, state, or federal agencies.
 More efficient appliances.
 Reduced risk of combustion in the event of an earthquake.

Community Development and Environmental and Health Initiatives staff are exploring future policy options to bring to the City Council for consideration that would support 144

Page 4 of 4 ends

September 24, 2024

achieving the greenhouse gas reduction goals expressed in the Climate Action Plan. that motivated the adoption of the natural gas ban. Some options could include adopting local amendments to the Building Code to establish an energy reach code that considers Richmond’s unique local climatic, geological, topographic conditions.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Ordinance
Attachment 2 – Letter from the California Restaurant Association

145

Page 1 of 2 ends

September 24, 2024

ORDINANCE NO. _________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND REPEALING RICHMOND MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.64 - PROHIBITION OF NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE IN

NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS

WHEREAS, Section VII of Article XI of the California Constitution provides that a City may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to update, consolidate, and streamline the Richmond Municipal Code (“RMC”) periodically to comply with recent federal and state law enactments and decisions and to achieve more efficient enforcement of code violations to promote public healt h, safety, and welfare; and

WHEREAS, in light of the Ninth Circuit Decision of California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, 89 F.4th 1094 (9th Cir. 2024), with an ordinance functionally indistinguishable from Berkeley’s Ordinance, the City Council has identified the entire Chapter 9.64 of the RMC relating to regulations on a prohibition of natural gas to be preempted; and

WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure that the RMC’s provisions for natural gas are consistent with federal and state law for accuracy in enforcement and transparency for the public; and

WHEREAS, said repeal to the RMC are permitted by law, including the California Constitution, Government Code, and Civil Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND HEREB Y ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein.

SECTION 2: Chapter 9.64 of the City of Richmond Municipal Code, entitled “PROHIBITION OF NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE IN NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS” is hereby repealed in its entirety.

SECTION 3: Severability.

If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, the remainin g portions of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance irrespective of the unconstitutionality or invalidity of any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase.

SECTION 4: Effective Date.

This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.

146

Page 2 of 2 ends

September 24, 2024

-------------------------------------------------
First introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richmond held ________________ and finally passed and adopted at a regular meeting held _________________________by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

_____________________________

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)

Approved:

______________________
Mayor

Approved as to form:

______________________
City Attorney

147

Silicon Valley • New York • Atlanta • Washington, D.C. • Austin Sarah O. Jorgensen
1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 2300
Atlanta, GA 30309
Direct Dial: (650) 623-1403
[email protected]

July 29, 2024

VIA EMAIL
Dave Aleshire
City Attorney
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
[email protected]
Re: Impact of Cal. Rest. Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, 89 F.4th 1094 (9th Cir. 2024) on Ordinance No. 15-21 N.S.

Dear Mr. Aleshire:

Our firm has been asked to review the validity and enforceability of City of Richmond’s gas prohibition ordinance (No. 15-21 N.S.) (the “Ordinance”) on behalf of the California Restaurant Association. In the recent decision in California Restaurant Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, 89 F.4th 1094 (9th Cir. Jan. 2, 2024), a case in which our firm represents the Association, the Ninth Circuit held that Berkeley’s similar ordinance was preempted by federal law.

Upon reviewing the Ordinance, we have concluded that it is functionally indistinguishable from Berkeley’s Ordinance and is therefore preempted. It does not appear that the City has taken steps to repeal or suspend enforcement of the Ordinance. We would prefer to resolve this issue informally and amicably and thus are reaching out to see whether further discussion would be helpful in resolving this situation short of an adversarial process.

As set out in Article IX of the Richmond Code of Ordinances, the city prohibits natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings. Richmond Code of Ordinances, Article IX (Health), Chapter 9.64 (Prohibition Of Natural Gas Infrastructure In Newly Constructed Buildings), Sec. 9.64.040 (Prohibited natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings).

The Ordinance is invalid and is not enforceable because it is preempted by federal law.

Binding Ninth Circuit precedent compels that conclusion. In California Restaurant Ass’n, the Ninth Circuit held that the City of Berkeley’s ban on natural gas infrastructure in new buildings was preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”), §§ 6201-6422.

EPCA sets national energy policy, including federal energy conservation standards for residential and commercial appliances. To avoid a patchwork of conflicting state and local regulations, EPCA expressly preempts any state or local regulation “concerning the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of” a covered appliance. 42 U.S.C. § 6297(c). As the Ninth Circuit explained, EPCA reaches building code provisions and preempts ordinances that, like Berkeley’s, prevent the use of gas by covered appliances; although Berkeley banned gas piping 148
Dave Aleshire
July 29, 2024

Page 2 of 2 ends

Silicon Valley • New York • Atlanta • Washington, D.C. • Austin instead of gas appliances, a local government cannot do “indirectly what Congress says [it] can’t do directly.” Cal. Rest., 89 F.4th at 1106-07. The City’s Ordinance, like Berkeley’s ban, has the effect of preventing appliances from using gas. And like Berkeley’s, the Ordinance does not qualify for any exception to preemption. In short, the Ordinance is indistinguishable from Berkeley’s ban under the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning and is therefore preempted.

Several other counties and cities have acknowledged this reality and repealed or suspended their gas bans as the law requires. Because continuing to enforce the Ordinance is unlawful, we request that the City Council repeal or suspend enforcement of the Ordinance, make a public announcement of that decision, and direct relevant officials not to apply the Ordinance to building permit applications.

We kindly request a response by August 19, 2024. If it would be helpful, we are happy to meet with you to discuss this matter.

Best regards,
Sarah O. Jorgensen
cc (via em
ail): Richmond City Council
Soheila Bana ([email protected]);
Claudia Jimenez ([email protected]);
Gayle McLaughlin ([email protected]);
Melvin Willis ([email protected]);
Cesar Zepeda ([email protected]);
Doria Robison ([email protected])
149

Page 1 of 3 ends

September 24, 2024

Community Development

DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Lina Velasco, Director of Community Development
Nicole A. Heath, Director of Hazardous Materials
Programs, Contra Costa Health (CCH)

Subject:

Final Third-Party Review Report of the Chevron
Richmond Refinery February 9, 2021 Oil Spill Incident
Investigation
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund related to receiving this report.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

On February 9th, 2021, Chevron Richmond Refinery
confirmed an oil leak from the 003 line at the Richmond Long Wharf. The leak released approximately 18 barrels
of hydrocarbons into the San Francisco Bay. Chevron
Richmond Refinery issued a level 2 Community Warning
System (CWS) Notification via their CWS Terminal by
Contra Costa Health (CCH). In response to the incident, CCH - Hazardous Materials Programs (CCHHMP)
designated the incident a Major Chemical Accident or
Release (MCAR) per Contra Costa County’s (CCC)
industrial safety ordinance (ISO) and City of Richmond
industrial safety ordinance (RISO) regulatory
requirements. CCH commissioned AcuTech Group, Inc.
(AcuTech) to provide a third-party review of the Chevron Richmond Refinery February 9, 2021 oil spill
investigation.

AGENDA
REPORT
150

Page 2 of 3 ends

September 24, 2024
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE the written Final Third-Party Review Report of
the Chevron Richmond Refinery February 9, 2021 Oil
Spill Incident Investigation – Community Development
(Lina Velasco 620-6841).

DISCUSSION:

Background

Chevron Richmond Refinery had a hydrocarbon leak from a pipeline (003 line, also known as 16 Ballast line) at the Chevron Richmond Long Wharf on February 9, 2021. Per Chevron calculations, up to 18.41 barrels of hydrocarbon leaked into the San Francisco Bay which was a mix of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel and flush water.

Containment booms were deployed to protect environmentally sensitive sites and shorelines. A Level 2 community warning public health advisory was issued to nearby residents following the CCH - Hazardous Materials Program policy for hazardous materials incident notification.

In response to the incident, Contra Costa Health (CCH) - Hazardous Materials Programs (CCHHMP) designated the incident a Major Chemical Accident or Release (MCAR) per Contra Costa County’s (CCC) industrial safety ordinance (ISO) and City of Richmond industrial safety ordinance (RISO) regulatory requirements. Section 6.43.090(c)(2) of the RISO (similar to Section 450-

8.016(c)(2) of the ISO) allows Contra Costa Health Hazardous Materials Program to conduct an independent root cause analysis of the MCAR. In this case, CCHHMP recommended to the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance/Community Warning System Ad Hoc Committee, which is appointed by the County Board of Supervisors, that CCH hire an independent expert to review the root cause investigation report conducted by Chevron.

CCH commissioned AcuTech Group, Inc. (AcuTech) to provide a third-party review of the Chevron Richmond Refinery February 9, 2021 oil spill investigation.

AcuTech was contracted by CCH to initiate the project on August 13, 2021; however, was unable to begin the assessment until Chevron released their investigation report of the incident. On August 26, 2022, Chevron provided the report titled “Event Title: February 9, 2021 Richmond Long Wharf Incident, IMPACT ERM Investigation #128842 & LI #192231, September 23, 2021”, to AcuTech.

AcuTech Scope of Work and Approach

AcuTech’s scope of work was limited to providing a third-party review of the incident investigation report conducted by Chevron. This involved AcuTech performing the following tasks:
151

Page 3 of 3 ends

September 24, 2024
 Reviewing the root cause analysis report to ascertain the completeness of the report and adherence to the requirements and expectations of the ISO or RISO
 Developing a set of questions and additional data required to further understand the events leading up to the incident, discovery, mitigation, and recommended actions related to the incident
 Reviewing data provided by Chevron on the response to the event, root cause analysis (RCA) process and mechanical integrity specific aspects for line 003 including the design, construction, maintenance, inspection, procedures, surveillance, and repair
 Reviewing Chevron’s follow-up response and status of their recommended actions related to the incident and RCA including the actions taken to date by Chevron to address their findings
 Evaluating agency notifications along with other completed and available agency notification and investigation reports
 Developing an opinion on the RCA and actions by Chevron related to the investigation and follow-up

To aid in the completion of the above tasks, AcuTech requested additional documents from Chevron to understand the incident and how Chevron was addressing the findings of their investigation. Questions were posed to Chevron regarding the incident investigation report and Chevron provided written responses along with verbal responses through interviews conducted with Chevron personnel.

Public Input

CCH hosted a community meeting in Richmond at the Bermuda Room of the Richmond Auditorium on July 17, 2023 to receive input on the draft Report. This meeting was held following a 45-day public notice period.

Conclusions/Findings

During the 45-day public notice period, 117 public comments were received, addressed and attached to the draft report. The comments resulted in minor changes to pages 10 and 13 of the report. The final report was brought to the Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO)/Community Warning System (CWS) Ad Hoc Committee on May 30, 2024. At that time staff was directed to include in the report all documents reviewed by Acutech that could be released to the public. The final report has been updated to include this information in Section 12- Addendum A.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Final Third-party Review of February 9, 2021 Chevron Richmond Refinery Oil Spill Incident Investigation
152

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
AcuTech Group, Inc.
1919 Gallows Rd., Suite 900
Vienna, Virginia 22182 USA
www.acutech-consulting.com

Prepared for:

Contra Costa County
4585 Pacheco Blvd, Suite 100
Martinez, California 94553

June 25, 2024

153

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 i AcuTech Group, Inc.

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 1

2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

2.1. Background & Objectives ............................................................................................... 3

2.2. Report Format ................................................................................................................. 4

2.3. Review Team .................................................................................................................. 4

3. Scope and Approach ............................................................................................................... 4

4. Evaluation of Incident Investigation ....................................................................................... 6

5. Evaluation of RCA Findings / Root Causes ........................................................................... 7

5.1. Management Systems ..................................................................................................... 8

5.2. Inspection History ......................................................................................................... 10

5.3. Human Factors .............................................................................................................. 11

6. Evaluation of RCA Recommendations / Action Plans ......................................................... 12

6.1. Implementation of Recommendations / Action Plans .................................................. 13

7. Evaluation of Agency Notifications...................................................................................... 15

8. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 16

9. Documents Reviewed ........................................................................................................... 16

10. References ............................................................................................................................. 17

11. Appendix ............................................................................................................................... 17

11.1. Scope of Work .......................................................................................................... 17

11.2. Glossary – Abbreviations and Definitions ................................................................ 18

11.3. Public Comments and Responses ............................................................................. 20

12. Addendum A – Copies of Documents Reviewed ................................................................... 1

154

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 1 AcuTech Group, Inc.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
On February 9th, 2021, Chevron Richmond Refinery confirmed an oil leak from the 003 line at the Richmond Long Wharf. The leak released approximately 18 barrels of hydrocarbons into the San Francisco bay. Chevron Richmond Refinery issued a level 2 Community Warning System (CWS) Notification via their CWS Terminal by Contra Costa Health (CCH). In response to the incident, CCH - Hazardous Materials Programs (CCHHMP) designated the incident a Major Chemical Accident or Release (MCAR) per Contra Costa County’s (CCC) industrial safety ordinance (ISO) and City of Richmond industrial safety ordinance (RISO) regulatory requirements.

CCH commissioned AcuTech Group, Inc. (AcuTech) to provide a third-party review of the Chevron Richmond Refinery February 9, 2021 oil spill investigation. AcuTech was contracted by CCH to initiate the project on August 13, 2021, but was unable to begin the assessment per the contract until Chevron released the report of their investigation. The contract was again updated, to extend the term only, on June 22, 2022, while awaiting the Chevron report. On August 26, 2022, Chevron provided the report titled “Event Title: February 9, 2021 Richmond Long Wharf Incident, IMPACT ERM Investigation #128842 & LI #192231, September 23, 2021”1, to AcuTech.

AcuTech Scope of Work and Approach
AcuTech’s scope of work was not to conduct an independent investigation but was limited to providing a third-party review of the incident investigation report conducted by Chevron. This involved AcuTech performing the following tasks:

 Reviewing the root cause analysis report to ascertain the completeness of the report and adherence to the requirements and expectations of the ISO or RISO  Developing a set of questions and additional data required to further understand the events leading up to the incident, discovery, mitigation, and recommended actions related to the incident
 Reviewing data provided by Chevron on the response to the event, root cause analysis (RCA) process and mechanical integrity specific aspects for line 003 including the design, construction, maintenance, inspection, procedures, surveillance, and repair  Reviewing Chevron’s follow-up response and status of their recommended actions related to the incident and RCA including the actions taken to date by Chevron to address their findings
 Evaluating agency notifications along with other completed and available agency notification and investigation reports
 Developing an opinion on the RCA and actions by Chevron related to the investigation and follow-up

To aid in completion of the above tasks, AcuTech requested additional documents be provided by Chevron to understand the incident and how they were addressing the findings of their investigation. Questions were posed to Chevron regarding the incident investigation report and Chevron provided written responses along with verbal responses through interviews conducted with Chevron personnel.
155

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 2 AcuTech Group, Inc.

Conclusions
Contributing factors and root causes that led to the Richmond Long Wharf line 003 pipeline leak were identified in the Chevron incident investigation report. Based on the review of these factors, root causes, recommended actions and the Chevron incident investigation report, AcuTech concluded the following:

 The TapRoot® methodology used by Chevron is a recognized commercially available root cause analysis tool that is widely used in industry for this purpose and is referenced in guidance from CCHHMP for compliance with the ISO/RISO. They used this tool and other means (interviews, engineering reviews, further site inspections, records reviews) to determine the root causes and contributing factors.
 Chevron identified two contributing factors and five root causes to the event (Table 1) that AcuTech also believes were the underlying causes and factors leading to the event. The five recommended actions (Table 3) do address preventing reoccurrence of the events of the Richmond Long Wharf oil spill incident and are in line with industry best practices.  Beyond the TapRoot® process, Chevron showed through interviews and actions that they took the incident very seriously and management was directly engaged in understanding the root causes and seeing to the resolution of corrective actions. The Refinery manager held meetings to ensure actions were taken to understand the root causes of the event and take corrective action to prevent reoccurrence. AcuTech believes this is a key purpose of root cause analysis and so the intent of the process was met as addressed by the thoroughness of the investigation and implementation of technical lessons learned.  The root causes identified failures in both Chevron Richmond Refinery’s management of change (MOC) system and fixed equipment asset strategy (FEAS) program for the wharf.

Shortcomings in these two systems played a large role in contributing to this event which Chevron acknowledged through their root cause analysis report conclusions and recommended actions.
o Chevron identified the failures of the mechanical integrity systems adequately with critical introspection and has committed to improved methods for inspection and maintenance of wharf line 003.
o Damage mechanisms for line 003 have been updated and Chevron has made improvements to their processes for inspection and replacement or repair of the line including implementation of the MOC program for pipe material changes.  The five recommended actions were completed by the targeted completion date identified by Chevron in the 30 day follow up report2. These recommended actions address the root causes identified in the incident investigation. Positive changes were made regarding training of MOC and incident investigation by specifically discussing this incident. MOC training also discussed changes in piping type from cement lined to carbon steel pipe would classify as a change needing to follow the MOC process. In addition, updates to process safety related programs such as mechanical integrity inspections using Saturated Low Frequency Eddy Current (SLOFEC), implementing more robust data analyses for repeat pipeline repairs (“bad actors”), and corrections to P&IDs. Chevron is also working to pilot a leak detection technology on one of its Richmond Long Wharf pipelines.

156

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 3 AcuTech Group, Inc.
 The appropriate agencies were notified by Chevron approximately 1 hour after Chevron received the initial public notification. While CCH requires notification as soon as possible or within 15 minutes, it is AcuTech’s opinion that Chevron made all reasonable efforts to meet the requirements of CCH notification while still maintaining good emergency response practices of containing a leak to reduce environmental consequences.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. Background & Objectives
Chevron Richmond Refinery had a hydrocarbon leak from a pipeline (003 line, also known as 16 Ballast line) at the Chevron Richmond Long Wharf on February 9, 2021. Per Chevron calculations, up to 18.41 barrels of hydrocarbon leaked into the San Francisco Bay which was a mix of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel and flush water2. Containment booms were deployed to protect environmentally sensitive sites and shorelines. A Level 2 community warning public health advisory was issued to nearby residents following the CCH - Hazardous Materials Program policy for hazardous materials incident notification.

In response to the incident, CCH - Hazardous Materials Programs designated the incident a Major Chemical Accident or Release (MCAR) per ISO and RISO regulatory requirements.

Section 6.43.090(c)(2) of the RISO (similar to Section 450-8.016(c)(2) of the ISO) allows Contra Costa Health Hazardous Materials Program to conduct an independent root cause analysis of the MCAR. In this case, CCHHMP recommended to the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance/Community Warning System Ad Hoc Committee, which is appointed by the County Board of Supervisors, that CCH hire an independent expert to review the root cause investigation report conducted by Chevron.

CCH requested AcuTech Group, Inc. (AcuTech) to provide a proposal to conduct a third-party review of the Chevron Richmond Refinery February 9, 2021 oil spill investigation. AcuTech was contracted by CCH to initiate the project on August 13, 2021, but was unable to begin the assessment per the contract until Chevron released the report of their investigation allowing AcuTech to begin the review. The contract was again updated, to extend the term only, on June 22, 2022, while awaiting the Chevron report. Chevron then provided the report titled “Event Title: February 9, 2021 Richmond Long Wharf Incident, IMPACT ERM Investigation #128842 & LI #192231, September 23, 2021” 1, to AcuTech on August 26, 2022.

157

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 4 AcuTech Group, Inc.

2.2. Report Format
This report includes information requested by CCH including the scope (section 3), evaluations of the following in the Chevron report:
 Incident investigation review; section 4
 Findings / incident causes (root causes); section 5
 Recommendations and action plans; section 6
o Proposed and completed action plans and their current status  Agency Notifications; section 7
 A conclusion is provided in section 8.

2.3. Review Team
The study was conducted by AcuTech Group, Inc. Personnel involved in the review were:
 David Moore, PE, CSP – President and CEO
 David Heller, CSP, CPSA – Senior Principal Engineer, Incident Investigation Specialist
 Alison Ballon – Principal Engineer, Incident Investigation Specialist  Mark Politte – Senior Principal Engineer, Mechanical Integrity Specialist  Ken Min – Senior Engineer, Mechanical Integrity Specialist

3. SCOPE AND APPROACH
The scope for this project was to conduct a third-party review of the RCA investigation of the Chevron Long Wharf Oil Spill incident, including the notification process at the Chevron Richmond Refinery as performed by Chevron. AcuTech’s scope of work was not to conduct an independent investigation of the Long Wharf Line 003 release. The purpose of Chevron’s RCA investigation and report was to adequately address any gaps in the safety program and management practices at the Chevron Richmond Refinery.

As defined by CCH, AcuTech’s scope specifically consisted of:
a. Review the completed RCA report provided by the Chevron Richmond Refinery and interview key members of their investigation. AcuTech’s independent review and investigation, and final report to Contra Costa County include, but not be limited to:
i. Review of the Mechanical Integrity program and how it applies to the pipeline, including:

A. Inspection data of the ballast line;
B. Corrosion monitoring;
C. Determination of the metallurgy and failure route;
D. Procedure for use of the ballast line pre- and post-loading operation; E. Surveillance during use; and
F. Other process safety management systems that may be applicable to this incident.
ii. Review Chevron Richmond Refinery’s action plan to ensure that the recommendations and action plans are addressing the findings from the incident investigation;
158

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 5 AcuTech Group, Inc.

A. NOTE: due to the length of time that passed since the incident occurred, the original scope was expanded to evaluate how action plans were addressed and ensuring recommended actions were completed as intended iii. Review the creation of the incident/event timeline; and iv. Review the Chevron Richmond Refinery’s notification process. b. Review other completed and available investigation reports from the Coast Guard, the Oil Spill and Prevention Response team from California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and CalOSHA.
c. Take part in a public participation process, which will include the following:
i. Develop a public Oversight Committee to oversee the investigation review process; A. Hold a report-out meeting with the Oversight Committee after review of Chevron’s incident investigation report is complete and provide a written completeness evaluation of Chevron’s incident investigation. Contractor will make appropriate changes to the evaluation report based on feedback received from the Oversight Committee; and
B. Hold a public meeting once the written completeness report has been accepted from the Oversight Committee. This report will have a 45-day public comment period during which the public meeting will held, Contractor will listen to the public’s concerns and consider making changes in the report and work with Chevron to complete the evaluation report.

Contractor shall respond to all written comments and comments raised in the public meeting.
ii. Attend and present reports at the following meetings:

A. A public meeting to present the draft evaluation report; and B. Two (2) public meetings to present the final evaluation report to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the Richmond City Council. d. Provide a final evaluation report to the Contra Costa Health Hazardous Materials Programs Director, or designee, which will include the results of its independent review and investigation into the Chevron Long Wharf Oil Spill incident, Chevron’s investigation into the incident (including a RCA), the public comments received during the public comment

Scope covered under items c and d above have not been completed as of this issue of this draft report. After the draft third-party review report is issued, scope item c will commence and timing to complete may vary. A final evaluation report (scope item d) will only be issued after completion of tasks in scope item c.

The approach used by AcuTech to complete the scope of work included the following tasks:
 Reviewing the root cause analysis report to ascertain the completeness of the report and compare the method used and work product to the requirements and expectations of the ISO/RISO requirements for investigating incidents and for handling a MCAR  Developing a set of questions and additional data required to further understand the events leading up to the incident, discovery, mitigation, and recommended actions related to the incident
 Reviewing data provided by Chevron on the response to the event and RCA process 159

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 6 AcuTech Group, Inc.
 Assessing the mechanical integrity program including the design, construction, maintenance, inspection, procedures, surveillance, and repair of line 003 on the Long Wharf
 Interviewing Chevron personnel regarding the investigation process and to determine the policies and procedures employed for mechanical integrity of line 003 including o Investigation Team Lead
o Richmond Refinery Fixed Equipment Inspection Team Lead o Richmond Refinery PSM Manager
 Reviewing Chevron’s follow-up response and status of their actions related to the incident and RCA
 Reviewing draft recommended action completion reports provided by Chevron to evaluate and comment on how recommended actions were completed
 Evaluating agency notifications along with other completed and available agency notification and investigation reports
 Developing an opinion on the RCA and actions by Chevron related to the investigation and follow-up.

4. EV ALUATION OF INCIDENT INVESTIGATION
Chevron’s Richmond Long Wharf incident investigation was conducted using the TapRooT® RCA methodology which is a recognized commercially available root cause analysis tool that is widely used in industry for this purpose. TapRooT® incident investigation system is also referenced in guidance from CCC ISO for compliance with the ISO/RISO as one of the acceptable methodologies of conducting a root cause analysis.

Per Chevron instruction document RI-371, Near Loss, Event Reporting and Incident Investigation, the severity of this incident did not warrant a TapRooT® investigation. This was done to ensure the investigation addressed potential issues relating to management systems and technical systems.

Chevron had an independent leader from corporate HSE in San Ramon to lead the incident investigation and along with a qualified TapRoot investigator providing support. They used this tool and other means (interviews, engineering reviews, further site inspections, records reviews) to determine the root causes and contributing factors.

The investigation began shortly after the incident occurred with the investigation concluding on October 24, 2021 before Chevron provided the last 30-day follow-up report2 to CCH. A copy of the final 30-day follow-up report can be found on the CCH website.

Included in the Chevron incident investigation report is a SnapCharT® event timeline prepared by members of the Chevron incident investigation team. This timeline starts with the install of line 003 in 1948, covers various damages and leaks that occurred in the history of line 003 along with inspection and repairs made prior to the incident. Details are also included in the timeline for day of events beginning with estimated start time of the leak based on pressure drops in the line, confirmation of the leak, when the leak was stopped and ended with installation of the repair clamp on the leak location. The SnapCharT® identified the two contributing factors or contributing causes (shown in Table 1) along with the direct cause which is the leak of line 003. Each of the contributing factors were reviewed using the TapRooT® Root Cause Tree® process to identify 160

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 7 AcuTech Group, Inc.
the appropriate root causes of the incident described in Table 1. Evaluation of the actual contributing factors and root causes is described in section 5.

AcuTech’s review of the incident investigation root cause methodology found the approach to be complete in capturing direct causes, contributing factors, root causes and providing a complete timeline of events. It was also confirmed that the RCA investigation performed by Chevron was in compliance with RISO/ISO requirements including those in Section 6.43.090(c)(1) of the RISO (similar to Section 450-8.016(c)(1) of the ISO).

Beyond the TapRoot® process, Chevron showed through interviews and actions that they took the incident very seriously and management was directly engaged in understanding the root causes and seeing to the resolution of corrective actions. The Refinery manager held meetings to ensure actions were taken to understand the root causes of the event and take corrective action to prevent reoccurrence. AcuTech believes this is a key purpose of root cause analysis and so the intent of the process was met as addressed by the thoroughness of the investigation and implementation of technical lessons learned.

5. EV ALUATION OF RCA FINDINGS / ROOT CAUSES
The Chevron Richmond Wharf incident investigation team identified two contributing factors and five root causes for the 003 line which are provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Contributing Factors and Root Causes (Chevron RCA Report) Contributing Factors and Root Causes
Contributing Factor 1: The cement-lined carbon steel pipe in intermittent use failed due to internal corrosion
 Root Cause 1. The asset strategy for the 003 Line did not include inspection techniques that were adequate for detecting localized corrosion in cement-lined pipe.  Root Cause 2. Loss/Near Loss Reports for prior incidents had not been consistently generated.
 Root Cause 3. There is no formal process to trigger lookbacks on the history of the line that could track “bad actors.”
 Root Cause 4. MOC review may have provided an opportunity to identify any concerns unique to cement-lined piping.

Contributing Factor 2: If the leak was detected and contained sooner, the severity of the event would have been reduced (i.e., Level 1 or 2 instead of Level 3a incident)  Root Cause 5: Leak detection and passive containment at RLW requires further review

AcuTech performed a detailed review of the RCA investigation report evaluating each of the identified contributing factors and root causes. Results of this review are broken down into three sections: management systems, inspection history and human factors. AcuTech did not perform an audit of the evaluated management systems, only reviewed them with respect to the 003 Line pipeline leak.

161

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 8 AcuTech Group, Inc.

AcuTech concluded that this event was a failure to follow good engineering and industry practices for mechanical integrity for piping systems handling hydrocarbons. It was exacerbated by the complexity of the piping system (the length of piping, the concrete lining making inspection more challenging, the location over water, and other factors). It is believed Chevron identified these issues adequately with critical introspection and has committed to improved methods for inspection and maintenance of wharf line 003.

5.1. Management Systems

5.1.1. Management of Change
An effective management of change (MOC) system ensures hazards posed by potential changes are identified and mitigated to the extent possible. Chevron noted in their investigation report that sections of the 003 line were replaced with unlined carbon steel pipe and in several instances, these changes did not go through the standard Richmond Refinery MOC process. AcuTech reviewed several of the MOCs conducted on the 003 line along with changes in the piping that were completed outside of the MOC process.

Section 6.43.090(a)(6) of the RISO requires regulated stationary sources to establish and implement written procedures to manage changes except for replacement in kind.

Changing cement lined carbon steel pipe with unlined carbon steel would be considered a change in design specification and therefore does not meet the definition of a replacement in kind. A MOC should have been completed whenever portions of the 003 line were changed from cement lined carbon steel piping to unlined carbon steel pipe. Section

6.43.090(a)(6)(B) of the RISO also requires that the MOC procedure addresses the following considerations prior to any change being implemented: the technical basis for the proposed change; the impact of change on safety and health; modifications to operating procedures; necessary time period for the change; and authorization requirements for the proposed change. Root cause 4 identified that following the MOC process may have provided the opportunity for relevant parties, such as materials engineering group, to identify concerns of making this change including impacts to the integrity of the piping.

Following the MOC process may have also provided an opportunity to update associated inspection isometrics as the Chevron MOC process does require updating relevant process safety information. Recommended action 2 in Table 3 was developed to address the root cause of failure to conduct MOCs. Chevron confirmed that personnel are trained in their MOC program and to address possible confusion, their MOC training material was updated to include changing of pipe material as an example change that would warrant a MOC.

162

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 9 AcuTech Group, Inc.

5.1.2. Fixed Equipment Asset Strategies Program
Chevron utilizes their internal standard, MFG 525, Manufacturing Instruction for Fixed Equipment Asset Strategies, to implement their fixed equipment asset strategies (FEAS) program which includes piping. The FEAS system is part of Chevron’s Richmond Refinery mechanical integrity program. The program aspects related to the wharf line 003 in question were reviewed in detail including the inspection history, inspection technique, and ultimate failure of the line.

A review of this information found the Chevron FEAS program for the Wharf line 003 to be designed to address the requirements of regulatory standards including those of Contra Costa County Ordinance Chapter 450-8 (ISO) and the City of Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 6.43, RISO).

The refinery followed industry standards such as API 570 (as described in MFG-525), Piping Inspection Code: In-Service Inspection, Repair, and Alteration of Piping Systems; an inspection code developed and published by the American Petroleum Institute (API).

API 570 covers in-service inspection, rating, repair, and alteration of piping systems and their respective pressure relieving devices. API 570 establishes the requirements and guidelines needed to maintain the safety and mechanical integrity of piping systems after they have been commissioned.

API RP 574, Inspection Practices for Piping System Components, is also followed by the Richmond refinery (as described in MFG-525). It is a recommended practice developed and published by API that discusses inspection practices for piping, tubing, valves (other than control valves), and fittings used in petroleum refineries and chemical plants. This RP describes common piping components, valve types, pipe joining methods, inspection planning processes, inspection intervals and techniques, and types of records. API RP 574 supplements API 570 to provide information and best practices that assist practitioners in the “how to” inspect piping and common piping components.

The Chevron FEAS program is intended to “validate and improve API 570 inspection plans”, as noted in the Chevron investigation report. Per Chevron requirements, an asset strategy is used for operating, monitoring and maintaining fixed equipment to preserve the integrity and process function of such equipment. MFG-525 requires an asset strategy to identify applicable damage mechanisms, determine the need for and define integrity operating windows, and prescribe inspection, testing and preventative maintenance. These requirements are in alignment with those outlined in API 570 and API RP 574.

Another requirement of MFG-525 is to review past inspection findings, repairs, and modifications to ensure they are covered as possible damage mechanisms in the FEAS evaluation. The 003 line was reviewed in 2019 during the initial rollout of the FEAS program and as noted in the investigation report, that review did not identify “potential coating/lining failure” or “under deposit corrosion” as damage mechanisms. However, there were previous failures of the 003 line due to broken or cracked cement lining including one in 2018 which resulted in partial implementation of a SLOFEC technique which can detect this type of damage. The review of line history during the implementation 163

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 10 AcuTech Group, Inc.
of the FEAS program for the 003 line should have identified “coating/lining failure” and “under deposit corrosion” as damage mechanisms and should have resulted in broader implementation of inspection techniques designed to find this type of damage.

The issue of not following MFG-525 and not implementing proper inspection techniques was identified in root cause 1 and root cause 2. Root cause 2 also identified the inconsistency in developing loss/near loss reports for incidents on the 003 line. The Chevron investigation report noted that only two of the four incidents had loss/near loss reports. While some of the incidents may not have required formal investigations, generating such near loss reports allows for trending of the incidents and prompted for proper damage mechanisms to be included in the FEAS of the 003 line.

Root cause 3 took a deeper evaluation into potential shortcomings of MFG-525. As the standard is written, the FEAS should be reviewed after a “trigger event” which would be any event that requires evaluating or updating an asset strategy or creating a new one. This is also a requirement of API 574. However, the Chevron standard does not require any sort of trending review of historical data that could have an impact on the fixed equipment. The investigation report references use of a “bad actor” process that is in place for rotating equipment. In root cause 3, Chevron recognized that reviewing historical data for the 003 line may have also prompted the proper damage mechanism to be included in the asset strategy resulting in a correct inspection technique for this line.

Since the incident, Chevron conducted a full SLOFEC analysis of the entire length of line 003, which is industry best practice for identifying deficiencies in piping systems in this service and design. Damage mechanisms are known, and Chevron has made improvements to their processes for inspection and replacement or repair of the line.

5.2. Inspection History

5.2.1. Ballast Line Inspection Data and Corrosion Monitoring The Chevron investigation report contains a thorough review of the inspection history of the 003 line which was reviewed by AcuTech. In the report, Chevron states that the fixed equipment inspection (FEAS) program would include corrosion monitoring, and AcuTech agrees the program is in line with the applicable industry, regulatory, and refinery standards and practices including API 570 and others. Samples of relevant inspection data were requested and reviewed by AcuTech including external visual inspection reports, operator visual surveillance reports and mechanical integrity computerized data management reports showing thickness data and inspection dates as shown in Table 2. None of the data indicated an imminent failure at the leak location. It should be noted that based on AcuTech’s review of the data provided, inspections were performed at appropriate frequencies and incident recommendations were addressed in a timely manner. AcuTech is in agreement with Chevron’s report statement that their inspection program and developed internal standards (MFG-525) meet the requirements of relevant industry standards and did not identify other concerns regarding the inspection program other than correct implementation.
164

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 11 AcuTech Group, Inc.

Table 2: Inspection Report Data
Inspection Data Inspection Date Standard
Used
Completed
By
Piping Asset Strategy Report Report Date:

November 3, 2022
n/a Chevron
Piping Asset Strategy Report Report Date:

February 10, 2021
n/a Chevron
TML Corrosion Report 8/12/2020 API 570 Chevron
External visual inspection report of
circuit ‘Line 003’
5/8/2020 API 570 Redacted
SLOFEC Report 2/22/2021 API 570 Third Party

5.3. Human Factors

5.3.1. Ballast Line Loading Procedure and Surveillance
AcuTech requested and was provided with a copy of the Marine Transfer Operations Manual. This manual contains instructions for transfer of material through the 003 line and is treated as any other cargo transfer. The procedure has instructions for wharf personnel during pre- and post-transfer of material. During transfer operations, the manual requires a transfer to be continuously monitored by the berth operator. Operations monitor pressure and/or flow in real time on the central control board and can respond to alarms triggered at certain set points.

When transfer lines are not in operation, Chevron provided clarification that wharf operators routinely make rounds performing visual inspections of the lines as part of their shift duties. The 003 line was not in active transfer when the leak occurred therefore the line was not being continuously monitored via board operators.

Chevron identified casual factor 2 that the leak was not mitigated by leak detection and/or passive containment. Root cause 5 was subsequently identified relating to the lack of leak detection and/or passive containment in the wharf. If Chevron had other means of leak detection besides just visual inspections by operations, it is possible that the leak may have been caught earlier and the event severity reduced. This concern was identified and adopted with recommended action 5 in Table 3.

5.3.2. Determination of the Metallurgy and Failure Route A comprehensive postmortem inspection and failure analysis was completed by Chevron as documented in several places in the Chevron investigation report. The exact failure mode of the leak could not be determined until the 003 line segment was removed and a failure analysis completed. Initial visual inspections provided indication of local internal corrosion of a cement lined section of the 003 line causing the leak.

165

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 12 AcuTech Group, Inc.

Chevron performed a test on the 003 line using handheld x-ray fluorescence to confirm the piping consisted of carbon steel, as suspected. A variety of other postmortem field and laboratory tests and inspections were performed on the section of 003 line to evaluate the failure route. Testing concluded the initial findings to be correct that under deposit corrosion was the likely failure mode. This under deposit corrosion determination was based on localized thinning on the interior pipe surface and presence of corrosion scaling.

Specifically, the corrosion scaling composition reviewed by Chevron indicated the presence of oxygen and chlorides which can increase corrosion severity in piping. After reviewing the failure analysis report in detail, AcuTech agrees with Chevron’s findings regarding the determination and decision of the likely failure mode.

5.3.3. Inspection Plan
An inspection plan for Line 003 was developed by Chevron as a result of the 2019 FEAS which was in compliance with API 570, API 574 and internal standards. That inspection plan was then fully implemented by trained inspectors. However, as noted in section 5.1.2, Chevron recognized that the FEAS for the 003 line was lacking proper damage mechanisms resulting in a possible incomplete inspection plan. Since the incident, Chevron has updated the inspection plan for the 003 line and added SLOFEC as alternative means to complete inspections of the line. AcuTech reviewed the updated inspection plan and is in agreement with the revised plan.

6. EV ALUATION OF RCA RECOMMENDATIONS / ACTION PLANS
Chevron identified five recommended actions to address each of the root causes identified from the RCA investigation as noted in their final incident investigation report to CCH. These recommended actions include those shown in Table 3:

Table 3: Recommended Actions (Chevron RCA Report)
Recommended Action Targeted Milestone / Completion Date(s)

1. Review the design and inspection plan that applied to the 003 Line and provide any recommended alternatives. 1/28/2022

2. Communicate/train wharf operations on Loss/Near Loss and Management of Change practices and procedures.
4/29/2022

3. For fixed equipment at the wharf, consider implementing a process and/or utilizing tools similar to the “bad actor” process utilized for rotating equipment. 4/29/2022

4. Review piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs) and inspection isometrics for lines with cement lined piping in hydrocarbon service and other lines whose piping design is unique to the wharf.

Cement-lined piping (4/29/2022)
Other lines unique to
the Wharf (1/27/2023)

5. Review leak detection technologies (e.g., tell tales, cameras, flow/pressure indication, etc.) and/or passive containment technologies. 10/28/2022
166

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 13 AcuTech Group, Inc.

Based on discussions with Chevron and a review of documentation provided to the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office, AcuTech has confirmed that all of the identified recommended actions have been completed and/or implemented by Chevron.

While reviewing the actions and whether they resolved the root causes, it was noted that recommended actions 2, 3, and 4 mainly pertain to Richmond Long Wharf operations and not all the Chevron Richmond Refinery. AcuTech reviewed Chevron document RI-371, Chevron Instruction for Near Loss, Event Reporting, and Incident Investigation. This document states “… for all Level 2 and Level 3 incidents to ensure lessons learned are communicated to all affected personnel.” For this Long Wharf incident, the affected personnel would have been limited to Wharf personnel (including technical staff, supervisors, managers, and operators) and not all refinery staff. Based on interviews with Chevron personnel, AcuTech learned that the Chevron investigation team identified that the wharf was not treated to the same level of integrity management and exhibited signs that the process safety culture was not as robust as the remainder of the facility. Chevron identified these organizational issues and made recommended actions for improving focusing on wharf operations.

During interviews with personnel, Chevron also confirmed that information was disseminated throughout the refinery via a “local reliability site bulletin”. This site bulletin included a variety of lessons learned that also addressed recommended actions 2, 3 and 4. Between the process safety culture at the wharf and Chevron internal standards requiring actions to only be implemented for those areas affected by the incident (i.e., only wharf operations), AcuTech is in agreement with limiting some of the recommended actions to wharf operations.

It is AcuTech’s opinion that recommended actions 1 – 5 developed by Chevron address the root causes identified from the root cause incident investigation.

6.1. Implementation of Recommendations / Action Plans
Recommended action 1 required Chevron to review the inspection plan and provide recommended alternatives. Chevron did complete a SLOFEC inspection across the entire portion of line 003 and not just portions after the incident occurred. While SLOFEC is not required by industry or government regulations, Chevron recognized the advantages of SLOFEC inspection were worth the cost and has added SLOFEC as a supplemental inspection technique at the Richmond Long Wharf to inspect cement-lined piping. The asset strategy for the 003 line moving forward has been revised to include 21 new condition monitoring locations (CMLs), conducting a triennial SLOFEC inspection of the bottom 180 of the pipeline and a triennial ultrasonic thickness inspection for the remaining areas of the pipeline (those that cannot have a SLOFEC inspection). According to Chevron, over 50% of the original 003 pipeline has been air-gapped including the section in the causeway. Removing a large portion of the pipeline, increasing the CMLs, and requiring SLOFEC inspection provides a more robust FEAS for the 003 pipeline. Implementing these changes will improve the identification of potential anomalies on the line 03 piping to help improve the prevention of future leaks.

167

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 14 AcuTech Group, Inc.

Communication and training on loss/near loss (L/NL) and management of change practices and procedures was completed via a mandatory in-person training for Richmond Long Wharf personnel. The L/NL training covered the requirement to formally investigate any release of hydrocarbons to water and provided an emphasis on the lessons learned from this event. PSM training material on incident investigations was also updated to train personnel that they are required to enter actual and potential incidents into the incident tracking database and investigate appropriately which was one of the factors in root cause 2 (not all incidents were reported and investigated).

MOC training conducted for Richmond Long Wharf operations did address the types of changes requiring a MOC and discussed incorrectly not performing a MOC as related to this incident. Both the wharf personnel MOC training and the optional MOC refresher training did include, an example change requiring a MOC, changing piping material from cement-lined carbon steel pipe to unlined carbon steel pipe. This explicit reference to types of changes speaks to the root cause that MOCs were not performed when previously changing the pipe material on the 003 pipeline.

A data visualization tool to identify pipeline circuit “bad actors” was developed to address recommended action 3. Chevrons “bad actors” process assists in identify repeat repairs on equipment over a defined period of time but prior to this incident, was only in use for rotating equipment. This tool will allow Chevron to monitor integrity threats, inspection recommendations, and history briefs which are then used to determine areas for increased focus and characterized as “bad actors” of wharf piping. Those “bad actors” are then reviewed every 6 months by a cross-functional team including the area inspector, reliability engineer, operations management and others as needed. If needed or deemed appropriate, revisions to the underlying asset strategies are made based on the requirements in MFG-525. This “bad actor” program is in addition to the inspection and review requirements outlined in MFG-525.

Three piping circuits at the Richmond refinery were identified by Chevron with cement lined pipe, one being the 003 pipeline related to this incident and the other two in sump drain lines.

The associated P&IDs and inspection isometrics have since been updated to reflect the cement lined pipe and associated asset strategies have also been updated. Updating the asset strategies ensures appropriate damage mechanisms and additional surveillance activities are properly documented. Recommended action 4 also required a review of P&IDs and inspection isometrics for lines unique to the Richmond Long Wharf which Chevron considered to include:
linear expansion joints, loading arms, vapor collection piping and equipment, large threaded pipe, detonation arrestors, flame arrestors, sumps and sewage tanks. Based on field verification, the associated P&IDs and inspection isometrics were updated, which is standard practice. Chevron also confirmed that no changes were needed to the asset strategies for the corresponding Richmond Long Wharf lines.

168

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 15 AcuTech Group, Inc.

Evaluating various different leak detection and containment technologies, as required in action 5, can present different options with varying degrees of results. AcuTech confirmed that not only were alternate technologies evaluated, Chevron is now proceeding with further measures to pilot one of the proposed leak detection technologies, a hydrocarbon rope sensor, to better understand feasibility and sustainability. The pilot will occur on a fuel oil line at the Richmond Long Wharf which is a heavily used line and sits below other lines which may allow the technology to detect a loss of containment from the piping circuits above.

Passive containment technologies were reviewed including those for secondary containment and booms, both of which Chevron determined to be not feasible. Secondary containment was considered largely unfeasible as it would prohibit the inspection of the bottom of the piping circuits. Given that this is where the leak occurred in this incident, AcuTech is in agreement that installing secondary containment would not be good practice for pipelines over water in the Richmond Long Wharf. Booms along the causeway of the Richmond Long Wharf were deemed not feasible due to restricting access to the piping circuits for both spill response boats and fixed equipment inspectors in work boats. The boats would not be able to jump the booms or have very limited entry points. Costs associated with causeway booms was also a concern of Chevron as they would be exposed to higher damage (location against marine current), require more frequent replacement, and have an overall increased level of maintenance. While booms serve as a first line of defense in oil spill recovery, if they restrict the ability for response or proper maintenance that could serve to increase the severity of the incident.

7. EV ALUATION OF AGENCY NOTIFICATIONS
A review of the notifications made by Chevron found the authorities notified included, but not limited to, those from Contra Costa Health, California Occupational and Health Administration (CalOSHA), U.S. Coast Guard, California Department of Fish and Wildlife and others. These notifications are in alignment with those that would be required for a release of hazardous material to the San Francisco bay. AcuTech did identify that agencies were notified approximately 1 hour after Chevron received the initial public notification and sought further information regarding the timing to ensure compliance with regulations. Agency notification timelines were provided in the CCH 72 hour report3.

The notification to CalOSHA was in compliance with California Code of Regulations, Title 19 Section 2631 (e) which falls under the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.

Chevron and CalOSHA settlement reports were reviewed and no items of concern were noted by AcuTech.

The CCH - Hazardous Materials Program includes the Hazardous Materials Incident Notification Policy. According to Section III.E of that policy, CCH requires notification “…as soon as possible or within 15 minutes from discovery of a release….”. Based on interviews with Chevron, it was determined that after the initial public concern was identified, Chevron attempted to confirm the leak was an oil spill and not other ship/barge related issues and then made the appropriate notifications following that determination. It is AcuTech’s opinion that Chevron made all reasonable efforts to meet the requirements of the Contra Costa Health notification requirements 169

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 16 AcuTech Group, Inc.
while still maintaining good emergency response practices of containing a leak to reduce environmental consequences.

After the event, various agencies including Contra Costa Health, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and US Coast Guard worked alongside Chevron to ensure potential impacts from the leak were evaluated and thoroughly remediated. Ten liaison reports from the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) were reviewed and thoroughly document the collaboration between Chevron and various regulatory agencies to evaluate the spill and its response.

8. CONCLUSIONS
AcuTech was commissioned by Contra Costa County to perform a third-party independent review of the February 9th, 2021 Chevron Long Wharf incident root cause analysis report as further described above. AcuTech conducted the review based on the available data including from documents presented, interviews, and observations.

The evaluation of incident investigation, root causes, actions and agency notifications described in sections 4,5, 6, and 7, respectively, of this report represent our main conclusions with respect to how Chevron conducted the root cause analysis and incident investigation. AcuTech did not identify concerns associated with the Chevron investigation report and believes it to be thorough in nature.

9. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
The following is a high level list of documents provided by Chevron and reviewed by AcuTech  RI-621: Temporary Leak repairs
 RI-371: Near Loss, Event Reporting, and Incident Investigation  RI-410: Marine Oil Spill Emergency Response
 RI-368: Mechanical Integrity
 MFG-525: Fixed Equipment Asset Strategies
 Marine Transfer Operations Manual, Job Aid for Washing Bert Laters  Spill Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan
 Feb 9, 2021 Wharf 16" Ballast Line Leak - volume estimate  2013 Damage Mechanism Review (DMR) report relevant to Line 003  Agency notifications made after incident
 Reports from USCG, DFW and CalOSHA
 Line 003 Piping Asset Strategy Report
 IDMS data export in excel of the circuit 'Line003'
 External visual inspection report of the circuit 'Line003'  2018 Loss/Near Loss report
 2021 SLOFEC Report
 MOCs discussed in Chevron investigation report
 2023.03.30 Ltr to S Grassini & J Brooks (Response to Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office)
170

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 17 AcuTech Group, Inc.
 Fixed equipment asset strategy for the 003 line
 Chapter 5: Normal Operations in the Equipment Operations Manual  Pressure trend of piping circuit 1611-X005-003 (“003 Line”) from May 2019 through March 2021

10. REFERENCES

1. Chevron. (2021). Event Title: February 9, 2021 Richmond Long Wharf Incident, IMPACT ERM Investigation #128842 & LI #192231, September 23, 2021. Richmond.

2. Chevron. (2021, October 27). Contra Costa Health. Retrieved from 30 Day Follow-up Notification Report: https://cchealth.org/hazmat/data-incident-report/63683412.pdf

3. Chevron. (2021, February 15). Contra Costa Health. Retrieved from 72 hour Inicide Report:
https://cchealth.org/hazmat/data-incident-report/62455645.pdf

11. APPENDIX

11.1. Scope of Work
AcuTech’s scope of work as prescribed in the request for proposal (RFP672021) is shown below:

A. The successful candidate will be reviewing the completed/draft RCA report provided by the Chevron Richmond Refinery as well as opportunity to interview key members of the investigation. CCHS expects the independent review report to include at a minimum the following:

1. Review Mechanical Integrity program and how it applies to the pipeline a. Inspection data of the ballast line
b. Corrosion monitoring
c. Determination of the metallurgy and failure route
d. Procedure for use of the ballast line pre- and post-loading operation e. Surveillance during use
f. Other process safety management systems that may be applicable to this incident

2. The candidate will review Chevron Richmond Refinery’s action plan to address the findings of the incident investigation to ensure that the recommendations and action plans are addressing the findings from the incident investigation.

3. Verification and review of incident / event timeline

4. Verification of agencies notifications process
B. Review other completed and available investigation reports from the Coast Guard and the Oil Spill and Prevention Response team from California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and from Cal/OSHA.

C. The successful candidate will be involved in a Public Participation process.

1. A public oversight committee has been developed that will oversee the investigation review process.
171

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 18 AcuTech Group, Inc.
a. The Oversight Committee will assist in selecting the successful contractor company to review the investigation.
b. A report-out meeting will be held with the Oversight committee after review of Chevron’s incident investigation report is complete. The candidate will provide a written completeness evaluation of Chevron’s incident investigation. The Oversight Committee will have the opportunity during this meeting to ask questions and give comments on the draft completeness evaluation. At this meeting the Oversight Committee may ask questions and give suggestions on the evaluation report. The contractor will make appropriate changes to the evaluation report based on the feedback from the Oversight Committee. c. When the written completeness report has been accepted from the feedback from the Oversight Committee, this report will have a 45-day public comment period.

During the 45-day public comment period, a public meeting will be held. The public meeting will be an opportunity for the reviewer to listen to the public’s concerns and consider making changes in the report including working with Chevron to complete the evaluation report. The contractor working with CCHS shall respond to all written comments and comments that are raised in the public meeting.

2. The contractor should expect to attend and present reports at the following meetings:
a. A public meeting (expected to be virtual) to present the draft evaluation report. b. The final evaluation report will include the findings of the independent review of Chevron’s incident investigation and public comments received during the public comment period and the comments from the public meeting and the responses to these comments.
c. Two public meetings will be held to present the final evaluation report to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the Richmond City Council.

11.2. Glossary – Abbreviations and Definitions
Abbreviation Name
API American Petroleum Institute
CalOSHA California Occupational and Health Administration CCC Contra Costa County
CCH Contra Costa Health
CCHHMP Contra Costa Health Hazardous Materials Program
CCR California Code of Regulations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CML Condition Monitoring Location
HSE Health, Safety, and Environmental
ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance
L/NL Loss/Near Loss
MCAR Major Chemical Accident or Release
MOC Management of Change
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSPR Office of Spill Prevention and Response
P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
172

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 19 AcuTech Group, Inc.

Abbreviation Name
PSM Process Safety Management
RCA Root Cause Analysis
RISO Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance
RLW Richmond Long Wharf
SLOFEC Saturated Low Frequency Eddy Current

Term Definition
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
The largest U.S. trade association for the oil and gas industry Article A manufactured item, as defined under 29 CFR 1910.1200(b) and Section 5189 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, that is formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture, that has end use functions dependent in whole or in part upon the shape or design during end use, and that does not release or otherwise result in exposure to a regulated substance under normal conditions of processing and use
Major Change Introduction of a new process, process equipment, or regulated substance, an alteration of process chemistry that results in any change to safe operating limits, or other alteration that introduces a new hazard
Mechanical Integrity The process of ensuring that process equipment is fabricated from the proper materials of construction and is properly installed, maintained, and replaced to prevent failures and accidental releases Mitigation system
(active and passive)
Specific activities, technologies, or equipment designed or deployed to capture or control substances upon loss of containment to minimize exposure of the public or the environment
 Passive mitigation: Equipment, devices, or technologies that function without human, mechanical, or other energy input  Active mitigation: Equipment, devices, or technologies that need human, mechanical, or other energy input to function Process Any activity involving a regulated substance including any use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or the onsite movement of such chemicals, or combination of these activities. For purposes of this definition, any group of vessels which are interconnected and separate vessels which are located such that a highly hazardous chemical could be involved in a potential release shall be considered a single process
Public Any person except employees or contractors at the stationary source
Regulated substance Any substance listed pursuant to section II 2(r)(3) of the Clean Air Act as amended in §68.130 of 40 CFR 68 or in Section 2770.5 of the CalARP regulation
Replacement-in-
Kind
A replacement that satisfies the design specifications
173

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 20 AcuTech Group, Inc.

Term Definition
Root cause Prime reasons, such as failures of some management systems, that allow faulty design, inadequate training, or improper changes, which lead to an unsafe act or condition, and result in an incident.

Root causes are also known as underlying causes. If root causes were removed, the particular incident would not have occurred Stationary source Any buildings, structures, equipment, installations, or substance- emitting stationary activities that belong to the same industrial group, which are located on one or more contiguous properties, which are under the control of the same person (or persons under common control), and from which an accidental release may occur.

The term stationary source does not apply to transportation, including storage incident to transportation, of any regulated substance or any other extremely hazardous substance under the provisions of this chapter. A stationary source includes transportation containers used for storage not incident to transportation and transportation containers connected to equipment at a stationary source for loading or unloading.

Transportation includes, but is not limited to, transportation subject to oversight or regulation under 49 CFR part 192, 193, or 195, or a state natural gas or hazardous liquid program for which the state has in effect a certification to DOT under 49 U.S.C. Section 60105.

Properties shall not be considered contiguous solely because of a railroad or gas pipeline right-of-way

11.3. Public Comments and Responses
The following pages include the public comments provided on this report, CCH responses, and AcuTech responses.

174
1 Michael Dossey
From: Charles Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 1:43 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I'm writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill. I believe that all people, regardless of their race, the language they speak, or how much money they make, should breathe clean air and be able to drink clean water. When I learned about the diesel spill close to the beaches where people swim, I was concerned and surprised. But I was shocked to learn that in 2018, Chevron had realized that the same pipe was cracked – but didn’t actually fix the problem.

Chevron can’t be trusted to report on themselves, because at the end of the day, the Chevron Corporation cares most about their own bottom line and turning a profit while residents rack up medical bills. Our regulatory agencies, from the county up to the state, should have the capacity, staff power, and oversight to transparently regulate the refinery and should not be made to rely on Chevron’s own self-produced reporting. As people living and working in Contra Costa and in the Bay, we deserve timely, accurate, and unbiased information about the highly toxic materials that Chevron is releasing into the community.

Thank you.

Charles Allen
[email protected]
Oakland, California 94601

175
1 Michael Dossey
From: Karen Jacques <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 1:44 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Karen Jacques
[email protected]
1209 T St. #3
Sacramento, California 95811

176
1 Michael Dossey
From: Justin Truong <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 1:44 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Justin Truong
[email protected]
33 Junior Terrace
San Francisco, California 94112

177
1 Michael Dossey
From: Keira Fullbright <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 1:45 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Keira Fullbright
[email protected]
Belton, South Carolina 29627

178
1 Michael Dossey
From: Mari Rose Taruc <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 1:45 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Mari Rose Taruc
[email protected]
17th Avenue
Oakland, California 94606

179
1 Michael Dossey
From: Audrey Chan <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 1:46 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Audrey Chan
[email protected]
Culver City, California 90230

180
1 Michael Dossey
From: sharon byers <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 1:46 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.
sharon byers
[email protected]
13042 Stanbridge Ave
downey, California 90242

181
1 Michael Dossey
From: Raymonde Czerwinski <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Raymonde Czerwinski
[email protected]
Corona, California 92882

182
1 Michael Dossey
From: geoff silverman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 1:50 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.
geoff silverman
[email protected]
10969 Rochester Ave
Los Angeles, California 90024

183
1 Michael Dossey
From: Carlos Nunez <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Carlos Nunez
[email protected]
18009 Victory Blvd
Reseda, California 91335

184
1 Michael Dossey
From: Ounniyom Ounniyom <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 1:59 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Ounniyom Ounniyom
[email protected]
Richmond, California 94806

185
1 Michael Dossey
From: frolayne carlos <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 2:01 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I'm writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill. The pipe oversight and lack of maintenance is unacceptable and puts residents of the area, wildlife and surrounding environment at risk.

We all deserve access to clean air and water and believe that all people, regardless of their race, the language they speak, or how much money they make, should breathe clean air and be able to drink clean water. I am appalled to learn that in 2018, Chevron had realized that the same pipe was cracked – but didn’t actually fix the problem.

Thank you.
frolayne carlos
[email protected]
El Sobrante, California 94803

186
2 187
1 Michael Dossey
From: Nicole Ma <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 2:14 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Chevron can’t be trusted to report on themselves, because, at the end of the day, the Chevron Corporation cares most about their own bottom line and turning a profit while residents rack up medical bills. Our regulatory agencies, from the county up to the state, should have the capacity, staff power, and oversight to transparently regulate the refinery and should not be made to rely on Chevron’s own self-produced reporting. As people living and working in Contra Costa and in the Bay, we deserve timely, accurate, and unbiased information about the highly toxic materials that Chevron is releasing into the community.

Thank you.

Nicole Ma
Nicole Ma
[email protected]
Irvine, California 92606

188
1 Michael Dossey
From: Brenda Guzman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 2:14 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Brenda Guzman
[email protected]
310 Marina Way S
Richmond, California 94804

189
1 Michael Dossey
From: Janielle Torregosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 2:14 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Janielle Torregosa
[email protected]
Long Beach, California 90815

190
1 Michael Dossey
From: Ariana Saechao <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 2:23 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Ariana Saechao
[email protected]
2800 Avenue
Richmond, California 94804

191
1 Michael Dossey
From: Charles Kieser <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 2:26 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Charles Kieser
[email protected]
,

192
1 Michael Dossey
From: Sarah Matsumoto <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 2:26 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Sarah Matsumoto
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95062

193
1 Michael Dossey
From: Trang Trinh <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 2:27 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Trang Trinh
[email protected]
Milpitas, California 95035

194
1 Michael Dossey
From: Gabriel Lautaro <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 2:28 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Gabriel Lautaro
[email protected]
Piedmont, California 94610

195
1 Michael Dossey
From: Erika Minkowsky <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 2:30 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Erika Minkowsky
[email protected]
Richmond, California 94805

196
1 Michael Dossey
From: Alexis Georgiou <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 2:38 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Alexis Georgiou
[email protected]
982 Laurie Ave
Santa Clara, California 95054

197
1 Michael Dossey
From: Clio Soiffe <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 3:12 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Clio Soiffe
[email protected]
2314 E 20th St
Oakland, California 94601

198
1 Michael Dossey
From: Leah Redwood <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 3:44 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Leah Redwood
[email protected]
2817B California Street
Berkeley, California 94703

199
1 Michael Dossey
From: Gregory Stevens <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 3:57 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Gregory Stevens
[email protected]
506 Guerrero St.

San Francisco, CA

200
1 Michael Dossey
From: susan pelican <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 4:12 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.
susan pelican
[email protected]
21024 co rd 95
woodland, California 95695

201
1 Michael Dossey
From: Harvey Hild <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 4:24 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Harvey Hild
[email protected]
Harvey Hild
1430 Weil Rd, Texas 78124-1663

202
1 Michael Dossey
From: Janine Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 5:17 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Janine Moore
[email protected]
32 Gilman St.

Waterville, Maine 04901

203
1 Michael Dossey
From: Chris Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 5:45 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Chris Rose
[email protected]
Petaluma, California

204
1 Michael Dossey
From: Rilriia Kilurden <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 6:47 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Rilriia Kilurden
[email protected]
1305 Pyramid Way Apt. 1A
Sparks, Nevada 89431

205
1 Michael Dossey
From: Karen Berger <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 7:31 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Karen Berger
[email protected]
4412 Ocean View Bl.

Montrose, California 91020

206
1 Michael Dossey
From: Roshi <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 8:19 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Roshi
[email protected]
El Cerrito, California 94530

207
1 Michael Dossey
From: Steven Mazliach <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 8:26 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Steven Mazliach
[email protected]
4334 Geary Blvd, Apt 1
San Francisco, California 94118

208
1 Michael Dossey
From: Lara Clayman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 8:49 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Lara Clayman
[email protected]
Oakland, California 94602-3323

209
1 Michael Dossey
From: Tesla Sampson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 10:38 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Tesla Sampson
[email protected]
Redwood City, California 94061

210
1 Michael Dossey
From: Alison Ehara-Brown <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 5:49 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I'm writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill. I live in and raised my children and I am raising my grandchildren in the shadow of the refinery,
I believe that all people, regardless of their race, the language they speak, or how much money they make, should breathe clean air and be able to drink clean water. When I learned about the diesel spill close to the beaches where people swim, I was concerned and surprised. But I was shocked to learn that in 2018, Chevron had realized that the same pipe was cracked – but didn’t actually fix the problem.

Thank you.

Alison Ehara-Brown
[email protected]
Richmond, California 94804

211
2 212
1 Michael Dossey
From: Marinell Daniel <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 6:25 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Marinell Daniel
[email protected]
4070 La Colina Rd.

El Sobrante, California 94803

213
1 Michael Dossey
From: Rie Takahashi <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 6:26 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Rie Takahashi
[email protected]
Berkeley, California 94703

214
1 Michael Dossey
From: Nikki Sachs <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 7:09 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Nikki Sachs
[email protected]
Berkeley, California 94702-1753

215
1 Michael Dossey
From: Jenna Cobb <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 7:54 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Jenna Cobb
[email protected]
270 e Badillo St
Pasadena, California 91106

216
1 Michael Dossey
From: kathryn vo <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 11:11 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.
kathryn vo
[email protected]
Oakland, California 94609

217
1 Michael Dossey
From: Rochelle Towers <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 11:33 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Rochelle Towers
[email protected]
Oakland, California 94619

218
1 Michael Dossey
From: Danielle Buma <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 11:49 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I was shocked to learn that in 2018, Chevron realized the pipe was cracked but didn’t fix the problem.

Chevron cares most about their own bottom line. Chevron cannot be trusted to report on themselves.

Thank you,
Danielle Buma
Danielle Buma
[email protected]
Vallejo, California 94590

219
1 Michael Dossey
From: William Oertel <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 11:54 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

William Oertel
[email protected]
Santa Rosa, California 95407

220
1 Michael Dossey
From: R Taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 12:04 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

R Taylor
[email protected]
Los Angeles, California 90064

221
1 Michael Dossey
From: Kay Fischer <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 5:32 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Kay Fischer
[email protected]
4099 Howe St.

Oakland, California 94611

222
1 Michael Dossey
From: Jean Tepperman <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 6:02 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
So who’s independent company is going to be in charge let me guess the governors hand picked team or maybe someone from Berkeley you know the climate change professionals lol maybe we should just fine them or charge them so much for permits to even remove and replace said piping so it makes it harder to even do the work Jean Tepperman
[email protected]
1701 Channing Way
Berkeley, California 94703

223
1 Michael Dossey
From: Eunice Chung <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 6:25 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Eunice Chung
[email protected]
Union City, California 94587

224
1 Michael Dossey
From: MaryAnn Denning <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 6:49 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

MaryAnn Denning
[email protected]
Corning, New York 14830

225
1 Michael Dossey
From: Leah Redwood <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 9:25 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Leah Redwood
[email protected]
2817B California Street
Berkeley, California 94703

226
1 Michael Dossey
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 6:23 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.
[email protected]
,

227
1 Michael Dossey
From: Diane Dulmage <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 8:20 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Diane Dulmage
[email protected]
Richmond, California 94804

228
1 Michael Dossey
From: JL Angell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 8:31 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

JL Angell
[email protected]
2391 Ponderosa Road
Rescue, California 95672

229
1 Michael Dossey
From: Jan Warren <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 9:38 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
The public is beyond tired trying to get regulations to get real measures to protect their health from fossil fuel companies that would rather not maintain the refinery and prefer to take chances, while making more money at the public and nature's health risk. The goal is fix pipes before an accident. Chevron has a bad history of not being proactive. There needs to be more oversight and accountability.

I'm writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill. I believe that all people, regardless of their race, the language they speak, or how much money they make, should breathe clean air and be able to drink clean water. When I learned about the diesel spill close to the beaches where people swim, I was concerned and surprised. But I was shocked to learn that in 2018, Chevron had realized that the same pipe was cracked – but didn’t actually fix the problem.

Thank you.

Jan Warren
[email protected]
230
2 3202 Primrose Ln
Walnut Creek, California 94598-1719

231
1 Michael Dossey
From: Alex Weisshaus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 9:44 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Alex Weisshaus
[email protected]
San Francisco, California 94110

232
1 Michael Dossey
From: Erica Cheung <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 9:48 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Erica Cheung
[email protected]
Oakland, California 94609

233
1 Michael Dossey
From: Kristel Rietesel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 11:00 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.
-Kristel Rietesel, admin of the Bay Area Clean Air Coalition Kristel Rietesel
[email protected]
Berkeley, California 94708

234
2 235
1 Michael Dossey
From: David Gassman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 1:17 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

David Gassman
[email protected]
389 Belmont Street #111
Oakland, California 94610

236
1 Michael Dossey
From: Tessa Wardle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 1:57 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Tessa Wardle
[email protected]
San Geronimo, California 94963

237
1 Michael Dossey
From: Virginia Morris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 2:23 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

We are all in this together and all of us need accountability from those polluting and harming this community!
Thank you.

Virginia Morris
[email protected]
Stockton, Kansas z:94606

238
2 239
1 Michael Dossey
From: Steve Ongerth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 5:10 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Steve Ongerth
[email protected]
1200 Brickyard Way, 104
Richmond, California 94801

240
1 Michael Dossey
From: Lauren Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 10:13 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Lauren Murdock
[email protected]
3940 Via Lucero, Apt #16
Santa Barbara, California 93110

241
1 Michael Dossey
From: Karen Kirschling <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 10:14 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Karen Kirschling
[email protected]
San Francisco, California 94117

242
1 Michael Dossey
From: Betty Kissilove <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 2:55 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Betty Kissilove
[email protected]
San Francisco, California 94122

243
1 Michael Dossey
From: Marinell Daniel <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 3:36 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I'm writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill. I believe that all people, regardless of their race, the language they speak, or how much money they make, should breathe clean air and be able to drink clean water. When I learned about the diesel spill close to the beaches where friends live and swim. I was concerned and surprised. But I was disgusted and alarmed to learn that in 2018, Chevron had realized that the same pipe was cracked – but didn’t actually fix the problem.

I was raised in Richmond near the refinery and now own my home in El Sobrante. I have see the hazardous chemicals dispersed with flares and polluted air that our young have to breathe. I do not trust Chevron to do right by the community or their workers. I am 84 years old and I am sadden to see the mess we are leaving for the next and future generations to live with.

Regards,
Marinell Daniel
244
2 Thank you.

Marinell Daniel
[email protected]
4070 La Colina Rd.

El Sobrante, California 94803

245
1 Michael Dossey
From: Andrea Agrimonti <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 8:40 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Andrea Agrimonti
[email protected]
River Forest, Illinois 60305

246
1 Michael Dossey
From: Diana Bohn <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 11:29 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Diana Bohn
[email protected]
Saint Louis Road
Berkeley California, California 94707

247
1 Michael Dossey
From: Allyson Ujimori <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 3:05 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Allyson Ujimori
[email protected]
Oakland, California 94610

248
1 Michael Dossey
From: Tony Marks-Block <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 3:06 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Tony Marks-Block
[email protected]
Bella Vista Avenue
Oakland, California 94610

249
1 Michael Dossey
From: Lolly Lim <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 3:06 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Lolly Lim
[email protected]
Los Angeles, California 90028

250
1 Michael Dossey
From: Quanah Brightman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 3:09 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Quanah Brightman
[email protected]
Richmond, California 94801

251
1 Michael Dossey
From: Brittany Noble <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 3:11 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Brittany Noble
[email protected]
San Francisco, California 94122

252
1 Michael Dossey
From: Deirdre Snyder <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 3:17 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Deirdre Snyder
[email protected]
Oakland, California 94609

253
1 Michael Dossey
From: Keira Fullbright <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 3:21 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Keira Fullbright
[email protected]
Belton, South Carolina 29627

254
1 Michael Dossey
From: Carman Nareau <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 3:39 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I'm writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill.

Chevron knew about a crack in the pipe that caused the spill in 2018 but didn’t actually fix the problem. It’s unreasonable to expect that Chevron can be trusted to report on themselves.

Corporations are motivated by profits and are not looking out for residents’ safety.

Our regulatory agencies, from the county up to the state, should have the capacity, staff power, and oversight to transparently regulate the refinery and should not be made to rely on Chevron’s own self-produced reporting. As people living and working in Contra Costa and in the Bay, we deserve timely, accurate, and unbiased information about the highly toxic materials that Chevron is releasing into the community.

Thank you.

Carman Nareau
[email protected]
Emeryville, California 94611

255
1 Michael Dossey
From: Kaili Kuo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 3:42 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Kaili Kuo
[email protected]
Oakland, California 94609

256
1 Michael Dossey
From: Kimberly Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 3:43 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Kimberly Mark
[email protected]
Oakland, California 94606

257
1 Michael Dossey
From: Jenna Cobb <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 3:45 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Jenna Cobb
[email protected]
270 e Badillo St
Pasadena, California 91106

258
1 Michael Dossey
From: Kiara Harasaki <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 3:48 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Kiara Harasaki
[email protected]
Redondo Beach, California 90278

259
1 Michael Dossey
From: Connie Lu <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 4:01 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Connie Lu
[email protected]
3043 Vin Grande Ct
San Jose, California 95135

260
1 Michael Dossey
From: Lazuli Trujano <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 4:06 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

We demand that Chevron is held accountable, especially when it comes to reporting! Thank you.

Lazuli Trujano
[email protected]
Richmond, California 94805

261
2 262
1 Michael Dossey
From: Claire Phillips <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 4:07 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Claire Phillips
[email protected]
Altadena, California 91001

263
1 Michael Dossey
From: Charles Loi <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 4:25 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Charles Loi
[email protected]
San Jose, California 95123

264
1 Michael Dossey
From: Abtehal Alazzani <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 4:42 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Abtehal Alazzani
[email protected]
Richmond, California 94806

265
1 Michael Dossey
From: Aileen Joy <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 5:55 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Aileen Joy
[email protected]
Oakland, California 94611

266
1 Michael Dossey
From: Paul Crum <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:20 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Furthermore, having personal experience working on contract at Chevron Standad Oil in El Segundo. CA, I learned that Company Policy required them to put "Leaker Tags" on leaking valves and pipes. It was like working in a war zone with alarms and ambulances daily.

Unfortunately for us these companies are intent on screwing the public for more profits.

Thank you,
/s/Paul Crum
21 Lighthouse Ln,
267
2 Richmond,
CA 95804-7403
PS: PG&E is also intent on screwing the public thri the PUC.

CC: Congressman Garamendi
Paul Crum
[email protected]
Richmond, California 94804-7403

268
1 Michael Dossey
From: Alice Grimm <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 9:56 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Alice Grimm
[email protected]
Oakland, California 94618

269
1 Michael Dossey
From: Eli Boeck <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 6:50 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Eli Boeck
[email protected]
Vallejo, California 94590

270
1 Michael Dossey
From: Elana Story <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 7:53 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Elana Story
[email protected]
Oakland, California 94609

271
1 Michael Dossey
From: Linda Civitello <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 8:37 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Linda Civitello
[email protected]
Sebastopol, California 95472

272
1 Michael Dossey
From: Nguyen Werks <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:23 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Nguyen Werks
[email protected]
Oakland, California 94601

273
1 Michael Dossey
From: Stephanie Kubick <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:35 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Stephanie
Stephanie Kubick
[email protected]
San Francisco, California 94117

274
1 Michael Dossey
From: Sue Hurley <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 3:05 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Sue Hurley
[email protected]
Benicia, California 94510

275
1 Michael Dossey
From: Noah Haydon <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:00 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Noah Haydon
[email protected]
405 91st St
Daly City, California 94015

276
1 Michael Dossey
From: Gabriel Newman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 10:23 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Gabriel Newman
[email protected]
Lafayette, California 94549

277
1 Michael Dossey
From: Lara Clayman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 3:03 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Lara Clayman
[email protected]
Oakland, California 94602

278
1 Michael Dossey
From: Rebecca Orozco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 10:56 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Rebecca Orozco
[email protected]
Oakland, California 94611

279
1 Michael Dossey
From: Aviva Kardener <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 3:20 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Aviva Kardener
[email protected]
2008 West Street
Oakland, California 94612

280
1 Michael Dossey
From: Todd Snyder <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 5:49 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Todd Snyder
[email protected]
San Francisco, California 94115

281
1 Michael Dossey
From: Nancy Stein <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 12:51 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Chevron in Richmond
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

Chevron continues to be a corrupt and lying company that threatens every living being in the bay area.

The Feb 21st spill was inadequately cleaned up by the company, and the $70,000 fine is also inadequate.

Do we need to launch a Chevron boycott to get you to do the right thing? There is not one piece of Chevron publicity that speaks the truth. It is a company bent on destroying the planet to the benefit of a few bloated, ugly billionaires.

Nancy Stein
P.O. Box 28
Pt. Reyes, Ca 94956
282
1 Michael Dossey
From: Diane Livia <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 12:59 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ATTN: Michael Dossey. AcuTech not neutral Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

AcuTech should never have been chosen to write the report on Chevron's oil spill on early 2021.

According to SF Baykeeper, AcuTech is not a neutral third party, as was required by local laws governing refinery investigations.

This would appear to not fulfill the legal obligations required of the report on that spell.

Diane Livia
6445 Colby St,
Oakland, CA 94618
283
1 Michael Dossey
From: Lonna Richmond <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 1:08 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Chevron Oil Spill
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

Hello,

I am writing to voice my complaint about AcuTech and their obvious conflict of interest when hired to critique the way Chevron handled the oil spill of 2021 in Richmond.

The people of Richmond–and the Bay–deserve better. That is why I am joining the Baykeeper and community partners and demanding full transparency and accountability from Chevron.

Truthfully, fining Chevron $70,000 for their negligence and mishandling of this spill, is an insult.

This company
earned billions in previous years and $70K is like pocket change to them.

Chevron must get on board and take care of our Bay - anything less is unacceptable.

Sincerely,
Lonna Richmond

‐‐

284
1 Michael Dossey
From: Aida <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 1:31 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] New Chevron Oil Spill Report Doesn't Smell Correctly - Again Chevron Lies Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

In early 2021, Richmond residents called Baykeeper’s pollution hotline to report a strange sheen on the Bay and a noxious smell in the air. Turns out, they had discovered an oil spill at Chevron’s loading dock. Unfortunately, Chevron itself was unaware that its oil was polluting the Bay until locals reported it.

In the hours and days that followed, Chevron set up a single boom that didn’t contain the oil—the oil’s spread was evident from our drone aerial footage. Chevron also failed to make use of basic containment strategies, such as skimmer boats and absorbent pads to collect the oil.

A local beach was closed to the public due to the oil washing up on shore, and the toxic leak possibly impacted sensitive eelgrass beds nearby that serve as important habitat for fish and wildlife.

Partly motivated by public outrage over Chevron’s ineffective response effort, Contra Costa County Health Services hired a contractor, AcuTech, to investigate the spill and Chevron’s actions. Now, two years later, AcuTech has finally released its report—and they gave Chevron a glowing review. AcuTech’s unreasonably delayed report left many of the public’s questions unanswered and also neglected to assess the most important aspects of the spill: the oil’s toxicity and its impact on the Bay.

Digging deeper, we learned that AcuTech is not a neutral third party, as was required by local laws governing refinery investigations. According to their website, AcuTech holds a number of contracts with Chevron and at least 24 other major oil companies. In fact, out of all the contractors that bid, only AcuTech had an existing financial relationship with Chevron. Despite this, AcuTech failed to publicly disclose their conflict of interest and was hired for the job.
285
2 Chevron has faced few consequences for the spill. "The refinery filed a legally required report last year, and in response the state issued Chevron a penalty amounting to $70,000," as Baykeeper executive director Sejal Choksi-Chugh pointed out, "That means they paid less than $90 per gallon for the oil they spilled.

That’s not even a slap on the wrist, it’s a fist bump between the agencies and the Chevron execs. Of course the public was angry, and the City Council required this independent investigation. It's just unfortunate AcuTech was not actually independent and let Chevron off the hook."
The people of Richmond, and of the Bay Area, deserve better. That’s why Baykeeper and our community partners are demanding full transparency and accountability from Chevron. If you want to share your concerns and tell our local agencies to force Chevron to be a better neighbor on the Bay, Chevron, either be a "good neighbor" or move your stinking and corrupt business to another planet. Elon Musk should be able to help you and your cronies.

A. Marina, San Francisco Beekeeper
286
1 Michael Dossey
From: Lora Premo <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Chevron Oil spill SF Bay
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

To whom it may concern:

I am horrified to learn that the 2021 oil spill by Chevron has resulted in virtually no consequences — just small fines that are pocket change to an oil company. The people of Richmond, and of the Bay Area, deserve better. There should be full transparency and accountability demanded from Chevron, not simply sweeping another Big Oil disaster under the rug while destroying the health and lives of hundreds of people and decimating irreplaceable ecosystems that KEEP US *ALL* ALIVE. Big Oil’s disdain for the environment affects every human on earth. This is not an “isolated” event, like a single gum wrapper landing on the ground. The sooner we completely cease all use of Big Oil’s products, the better. Events like this will hasten that wonderful day, but this disaster cannot be allowed to go virtually unacknowledged. They made only the most minimal gesture at clean up and to get their attention, they should be fined *billions* of dollars — that’s the only thing that will catch their attention. Even millions are meaningless to these heartless, irresponsible corporations who do not care who or what they destroy in their quest for profits.

Another option could be jail time for the executives. Something genuinely meaningful.

I hope some greater action will be taken now and in the future as these events continue to occur, since we have made it clear to them with these minimal fines that nobody except the general population and the wildlife really cares. And oil companies do not care about human beings or wildlife — they only care about money, and that is where you have to affect them if you are going to effect any change.

287
2 Sincerely,

Lora Premo

288
1 Michael Dossey
From: ALICE POLESKY <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 7:03 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] AcuTech's Flawed Report on the Chevron Oil Spill Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

Finally, two years after the spill, AcuTech has finally released its report—and they gave Chevron a glowing review.

AcuTech’s unreasonably delayed report left many of the public’s questions unanswered and also neglected to assess the most important aspects of the spill: the oil’s toxicity and its impact on the Bay.

It turns out that AcuTech is not a neutral third party, as was required by local laws governing refinery investigations.

According to their website, AcuTech holds a number of contracts with Chevron and at least 24 other major oil companies.

In fact, out of all the contractors that bid, only AcuTech had an existing financial relationship with Chevron. Despite this, AcuTech failed to publicly disclose their conflict of interest and was hired for the job.

Chevron has faced few consequences for the spill. The refinery filed a legally required report last year, and in response the state issued Chevron a penalty amounting to $70,000. That means they paid less than $90 per gallon for the oil they spilled. That’s not even a slap on the wrist, it’s a fist bump between the agencies and the Chevron execs.

The people of Richmond, and of the Bay Area, deserve better. We need full transparency and accountability from Chevron.

Sincerely,
Alice Polesky, San Francisco resident and Bay lover

289
1 Michael Dossey
From: Jenifer Steele <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 7:26 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] oil spill
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

Evidently the organization that investigated the Richmond oil spill, AcuTech, has a cozy relationship with Chevron. What’s wrong with you people? We should be phasing out fossil fuels, not give them the green light to despoil the planet. The Earth is dying, and you’re whistling Dixie. Please have better regulations in place to prevent future spills.

Jenifer Steele

2411 Jefferson Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94703

290
1 Michael Dossey
From: H R <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 9:43 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] hold Chevron accountable
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

Contra Costa Health Hazardous Materials Programs,
Chevron’s response to their 2021 oil spill in the SF Bay was inadequate and irresponsible.

Chevron failed to perform even the most basic containment strategies, and this is not acceptable for the people of Richmond, the people of the Bay Area at large, and for wildlife.

We need true transparency and accountability from Chevron, not a report that glosses over the failures they made. Chevron needs to make changes that reflect the situation we all are in with regard to climate change. We cannot afford oil spills and inadequate responses to oil spills.Please hold Chevron accountable.

Thank you,
Hilary Rand (a concerned citizen, a lifetime resident of the Bay Area)

291
1 Michael Dossey
From: Donna Sharee <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 12:03 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oil Spill of 2021
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

A local beach was closed to the public due to the oil washing up on shore, and the toxic leak possibly impacted sensitive eelgrass beds nearby that serve as important habitat for fish and wildlife.

Chevron has faced few consequences for the spill. "The refinery filed a legally required report last year, and in response the state issued Chevron a penalty amounting to $70,000," as Baykeeper executive director Sejal Choksi‐Chugh pointed out, "That means they paid less than $90 per gallon for the oil they spilled. That’s not even a slap on the wrist, it’s a fist bump between the agencies and the Chevron execs. Of course the public was angry, and the City Council required this independent investigation. It's just unfortunate AcuTech was not actually independent and let Chevron off the hook." The people of Richmond, and of the Bay Area, deserve better. We are demanding full transparency and accountability from Chevron!

Sincerely,
292
2 D. Sharee
SF, CA 94112
293
1 Michael Dossey
From: Querido Galdo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 4:36 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Accountability for Chevron
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

Dear Contra Costa County Health Services,

I am writing because I am truly tired of seeing our county’s primary polluter continually get away with impacting our health with minimal accountability. Why does this continue to happen? Are you not charged with protecting the health of everyone in this county? Why do you continue to let Chevron off the hook with slaps on the wrist, while county residents continue to suffer from the impacts of their negligence and harmful practices?

In the most recent example of your egregious selling out of the very residents you’re charged with protecting, you hired a firm with clear conflicts of interest to investigate Chevron’s completely inadequate spill response. Out of all of the firms that bid on doing this important work, why did you choose the one that is firmly enmeshed with the industry? At best this is some serious lack of due diligence, and at worst it is not only gross negligence in holding polluters accountable—it points to a deep indifference to what your job and mission is supposed to be.

This department needs to get its act together and start really doing its job. If Chevron or other polluters’ activities and negligence impact our county’s health, YOU are one of the key agencies we rely upon to hold them accountable. There MUST be real consequences to their destructive and deadly actions. No more minuscule fines that represent the tiniest fraction of profit for these companies. They must pay significant impactful fines to the degree they impact our communities. And if even these consequential fines don’t change their practices and negligence, they must be shut down in our county. You may think this will negatively impact our tax base—but how much more do their actions cost us in lost health, our most precious resource?

Please stop basically siding with industry and start siding with the community you work for. You don’t work for Chevron—you worn for US.

Sincerely,
Tito Galdo

‐‐
Querido Galdo
Queridomundo Creative LLC
www.queridomundo.com [queridomundo.com]
pronouns: he/him/his [why pronouns?] [forbes.com]

294
1 Michael Dossey
From: Jenna Saefong <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 12:05 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
My name is Jenna Saefong and I am writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill. I believe that all people, regardless of their race, the language they speak, or how much money they make, should breathe clean air and be able to drink clean water. When I learned about the diesel spill close to the beaches where people swim, I was concerned and surprised. But I was shocked to learn that in 2018, Chevron had realized that the same pipe was cracked – but didn’t actually fix the problem.

Thank you.

Jenna Saefong
[email protected]
Richmond, California 94805

295
1 Michael Dossey
From: Brandy Khansouvong <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 12:06 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Brandy Khansouvong
[email protected]
4748 Hartnett Ave
Richmond, California 94804

296
1 Michael Dossey
From: regina gilligan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 2:29 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Regina Gilligan, Richmond resident
regina gilligan
[email protected]
Richmond, California 94804

297
1 Michael Dossey
From: Jean Tepperman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 6:16 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Jean Tepperman
[email protected]
1701 Channing Way
Berkeley, California 94703

298
1 Michael Dossey
From: Emma Ishii <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 11:30 AM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I'm writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill.

I believe that all people, regardless of their race, the language they speak, or how much money they make, should breathe clean air and be able to drink clean water. When I learned about the diesel spill close to the beaches where people swim, I was concerned and surprised. But I was shocked to learn that in 2018, Chevron had realized that the same pipe was cracked – but didn’t actually fix the problem.

As people living and working in Contra Costa and in the Bay, we deserve timely, accurate, and unbiased information about the highly toxic materials that Chevron is releasing into the community.

Thank you.

Emma Ishii
[email protected]
299
2 Oakland, California 94606

300
1 Michael Dossey
From: Megan Zapanta <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2023 6:15 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I am the Richmond Organizing Director of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network and I’m writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill.

For years, I have seen the Laotian refugee community face the negative impacts of living in the shadow of the Chevron Refinery.

Thank you.

Megan Zapanta
[email protected]
301
2 Richmond, California 94806

302
1 Michael Dossey
From: Kathleen Petricca <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2023 1:21 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment re: Chevron diesel spill: #ChevronKnew their pipe could leak.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious

Thank you.

Kathleen Petricca
[email protected]
Martinez, California 94553

303
1 Michael Dossey
From: Ben Eichenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 7:17 PM
To: Hazmat Arpteam; ccchazmat
Cc: Claudia Jimenez; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments of SF Baykeeper on Chevron 2.9.21 Oil Spill Report Attachments: 2023.08.21 Comment re_CCC Report.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious

Dear Contra Costa County,

Attached please find the comments of San Francisco Baykeeper on the Chevron Richmond Refinery February 9, 2021, Oil Spill Incident Investigation Third‐Party Review. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or concerns.

Best,

‐‐

Keeping an eye on the Bay since 1989
Ben Eichenberg, Staff Attorney (He/Him)
San Francisco Baykeeper 1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800 | Oakland, CA 94612 Office: 510-735-9700 x105
baykeeper.org [baykeeper.org]
[twitter.com]
[facebook.com]
[instagram.com]
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: This communication is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you received this message in error, any review, use, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately of the error and delete this communication and any attached documents from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. 304

Attn: Michael Dossey: Contra Costa Health Hazardous Materials Programs 4585 Pacheco Blvd., Ste. 100 Martinez, CA 94553 Submitted electronically to: [email protected] Comment Deadline August 28, 2023 Comments of San Francisco Baykeeper Re: Chevron Richmond Refinery February 9, 2021, Oil Spill Incident Investigation Third-Party Review On February 9, 2021, a rupture in a pipeline at the Chevron Richmond Refinery caused hundreds of gallons of petroleum product to spill into San Pablo Bay (“oil spill”). The Oil Spill Incident Investigation Third-Party Review conducted by AcuTech (“AcuTech Oil Spill Report”) under the Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 6.43, RISO) addresses this oil spill. The AcuTech Oil Spill Report “was limited to providing a third-party review of the incident investigation report conducted by Chevron.” AcuTech Spill Report at 1. This limited investigation is inadequate to fulfill the purposes of the RISO. There are a number of topics—as explored in detail in the comments, below—where the AcuTech Spill Report does not conduct the level of investigation necessary to prevent future leaks. To the extent that these comments venture outside the limitations placed on this investigation by AcuTech and Contra Costa Heath Services, Baykeeper recommends that a full independent investigation be conducted to ensure the safety of Bay Area residents and the health of the Bay. Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance The RISO is intended to “prevent and reduce the probability of accidental releases of regulated substances that have the potential to cause significant harm to the public health and increase participation by industry and the public to improve accident prevention.” Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 6.43. Further, the RISO recognizes that regulatory requirements are not sufficient to guarantee public health and safety, that the public must be informed and engaged, and that an investigation that thoroughly identifies hazards and assesses risks within a reasonable time frame is the key to preventing future accidents. The City recognizes that regulatory requirements alone will not guarantee public health and safety, and that the public is a key stakeholder in chemical accident prevention, preparedness and response at the local level. Preventing accidental releases of regulated substances is the shared responsibility of industry, government and the public. The first steps toward accident prevention are identifying the hazards and assessing the risks. Once information about chemical hazards in the community is 305
openly shared, industry, government and the community can work together towards reducing the risk to public health and safety. The success of a safety program is dependent upon the cooperation of industrial chemical and oil refining facilities within the City of Richmond. The public must be assured that measures necessary to prevent incidents are being implemented, including changes or actions required by the County of Contra Costa or the stationary source that are necessary to comply with this chapter. Id. at 6.43.020(d)-(e). Critically, the RISO states without qualification that its goal is “[p]reventing and reducing the number, frequency and severity of accidental releases in the City to the greatest extent feasible.” Id. at 6.43.030(i). As described in the following comments, a full independent review of the February 2021 oil spill is both feasible and necessary to accomplish this goal. Environmental Damage The people of Richmond already carry a disproportionate environmental burden, and spills like the one at Chevron’s Longwharf in 2021 exacerbate that burden with additional exposure to toxic pollutants. The spill closed beaches, contaminated the water, and caused fumes that led to residents complaining the area smelled like a gas station. Nevertheless, the official presentation of AcuTech’s Oil Spill Report stated that the spill was contained to the Chevron property and there were no injuries or environmental damage as a result of the spill.1 This statement is false. The following photographs were taken by Baykeeper, with one photo from local media, and show that containment of the spill was inadequate and that the oil and a significant oil sheen spread along a substantial swath of Richmond’s coastline, impacting far more than Chevron property, as was inaccurately stated at AcuTech’s presentation. 1 The video of the AcuTech presentation can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx1Mf32-io8, with the statement made at 4:16. The slide from Contra Costa Health with the same statement can be found at https://cchealth.org/hazmat/pdf/chevron-incident-2021-0209-Presentation-AcuTech-Report.pdf, slide 3. 306
Figure 1: Oil escapes containment boom, 2/9/21
Figure 2: Closeup view of oil escaping containment and approaching mixing zone, 2/9/21 307
Figure 3: ABC7 still photograph of oil escaping boom containment and spreading along Richmond’s shoreline, 2/9/23 No average member of the public looking at the spill response pictured above would agree that the oil was contained or that the response was adequate. The public wants to know why there was oil along the shoreline and on the beaches. Responders should have seen oil on both sides of the boom and should have taken additional action, including putting out additional booms. Instead, Chevron’s spill response put out one boom, watched oil seeping through the boom and spreading along Richmond’s coastline, and did nothing more besides minimal monitoring and waiting for the Coast Guard and the Office of Spill Prevention and Recovery to arrive. Responders had vessels that could have reached that area and that could have been skimming to collect spilled product that was escaping the boom containment or used absorbent pads to try to remove oil from the water, but they chose not to. As a result, the oil spill spread across the waters of the Bay for miles around Chevron’s wharf. Witnesses observed oil befouling beaches and the shoreline for miles in the hours and days that followed the spill. That oil contained numerous toxic chemical compounds. The harmful impacts that those compounds have on marine life are well documented. Those impacts include a decrease in the thickness of fish eggs; damage to fish eggs, larvae, and young fish; damage to habitats which are the breeding areas of many fish and crustaceans; interference with fish breeding; and tainting of fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and algae. For example, the oil spill occurred in an area known for productive Pacific herring spawns and ecologically important eel grass beds. These photographs document the spread of the oil into these eel grass and herring areas, and show impacts to the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline, “[a] beautifully situated shoreline picnic area, a secluded cove with swimming 308
beach, a fishing pier at a historic site[,] a hilltop with excellent panoramic views of the North Bay Area and a model railroad museum.”2 The failure to find oiled birds or other wildlife does not mean that there were no environmental impacts. Impact analysis should include impacts to nearby communities. Contra Costa County officials issued a temporary health advisory warning residents of Richmond, North Richmond, and San Pablo who have respiratory sensitivities to stay indoors. Residents for miles around complained of the foul chemical smell that pervaded Richmond’s air in the wake of the Spill. These impacts and injuries to the community should have been evaluated in AcuTech’s Oil Spill Report. Unanswered questions: (1) What was the specific chemical composition of the oil spilled? (2) What was the full extent of the area impacted by the oil spill? (3) If the spreading oil pictured in the above photographs was not considered part of the oil spill, explain what basis there is for that determination, what environmental impacts the spreading oil may have had, and what measures could be taken to prevent those impacts. (4) If the oil on the beaches was not considered part of the oil spill, explain what basis there is for that determination, what environmental impacts the beached oil may have had, and what measures could be taken to prevent those impacts. (5) Why was there no preemptive booming around the Longwharf, and why is there still none, today? (6) What was the full extent of the impact of the fumes on the Richmond residents, did residents have to go to the hospital, were advisories to stay indoors sufficient to protect public health, and what can be done to prevent fumes in the future? Good Governance The close connections between the Chevron Refinery and the agencies that are tasked with regulating and responding to refinery mistakes are not indicators of good governance. A regulated industry should not be on its own oversight committee and should not be making critical decisions about what kind of independent oversight is called for in emergency situations. These markers of good governance are important indicators of the efficacy of spill response and should have been discussed in the AcuTech Oil Spill Report. According to the Report, the Contra Costa Health Hazardous Materials Program “recommended to the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance/Community Warning System Ad Hoc Committee, which is appointed by the County Board of Supervisors, that [Contra Costa Health] hire an independent expert to review the root cause investigation report conducted by Chevron.” AcuTech Oil Spill Report at 3. According to media reports, there were four potential contractors for the review, and AcuTech was the only one of the four that had an existing business relationship with Chevron.3 The AcuTech Oil Spill Report should have included a conflict of interest 2 See East Bay Regional Parks website, https://www.ebparks.org/parks/miller-knox. 3 See, e.g., Richmond Confidential, July 13, 2023, available at https://richmondconfidential.org/2023/07/13/richmond-chevron-spill-county-contractor-investigation/. 309
analysis for its own independence and the independence of the committee making recommendations that detailed past and existing contracts with the regulated entity, in this case, Chevron, and explained why Chevron’s participation on committees and with critical decision making did not compromise the integrity of the investigation and Report. Delay and Public Participation The public is inherently excluded from processes that take an undue amount of time and involve significant barriers such as inadequate notice, inaccurate public statements, and incomplete reporting. The oil spill occurred on February 9, 2021. The independent investigation was not begun until August 13, 2021. Even then, Chevron refused to fulfil its obligations under the RISO to provide access and information in a timely manner to the selected independent investigator. See RISO 6.43.090 (c)(1) and (2). Even once this access and information was provided to AcuTech, on August 26, 2022 (notably, Chevron finished its final report on the investigation on October 24, 2021, 10 months before providing it to AcuTech, AcuTech Oil Spill Report at 6), AcuTech still took another ten months to issue its final report on the oil spill that took place now two and a half years ago. AcuTech Oil Spill Report at 3. The AcuTech Oil Spill Report should have addressed these and any other barriers to public participation, at a minimum by answering the following unanswered questions: (1) Why couldn’t the 30-day update report have been released to the public and the Richmond City Council earlier than the end of December 2021 (12/16/21), more than 10 months after the incident occurred? (2) Why was there a more than six-month delay before the independent investigation began, and what impact did that have on the efficacy of the investigation and on public participation? (3) What prevented Chevron from releasing the report requested by AcuTech until August 26, 2022, nearly 19 months after the spill occurred? How could this delay have been prevented? (4) Why did it take AcuTech until June 2023 do release a final report, 10 months after it acquired all information necessary for its review from Chevron, nearly two years after it signed its contract, and two and a half years after the oil spill? Adequate Notification to Authorities According to the AcuTech Oil Spill Report, The appropriate agencies were notified by Chevron approximately 1 hour after Chevron received the initial public notification. While CCH requires notification as soon as possible or within 15 minutes, it is AcuTech’s opinion that Chevron made all reasonable efforts to meet the requirements of CCH notification while still maintaining good emergency response practices of containing a leak to reduce environmental consequences. AcuTech Oil Spill Report at 3. Again, later in its Report evaluating agency notifications, AcuTech states that 310
The CCH - Hazardous Materials Program includes the Hazardous Materials Incident Notification Policy. According to Section III.E of that policy, CCH requires notification “…as soon as possible or within 15 minutes from discovery of a release….”. Based on interviews with Chevron, it was determined that after the initial public concern was identified, Chevron attempted to confirm the leak was an oil spill and not other ship/barge related issues and then made the appropriate notifications following that determination. It is AcuTech’s opinion that Chevron made all reasonable efforts to meet the requirements of the Contra Costa Health notification requirements while still maintaining good emergency response practices of containing a leak to reduce environmental consequences. Id. at 15-16. Chevron’s response, however, was not reasonable. The purpose of agency notification is not to have exact information, as that information can and will be updated as the spill response progresses. The propose of notification is to alert responders that there is an emergency. Every minute counts, and the additional delay, according to AcuTech’s own Report, resulted in a more severe oil spill. Chevron identified casual factor 2 that the leak was not mitigated by leak detection and/or passive containment. Root cause 5 was subsequently identified relating to the lack of leak detection and/or passive containment in the wharf. If Chevron had other means of leak detection besides just visual inspections by operations, it is possible that the leak may have been caught earlier and the event severity reduced. AcuTech Oil Spill Report at 11. Leak detection and response can take many forms, including adequate and timely notice to emergency responders. Because its conclusion that Chevron made all reasonable efforts has no rational basis in the facts in its own Report, AcuTech must reassess its Report and update this section. Other questions about the leak detection are left unanswered in the report that could help mitigate or prevent future emergency situations: (1) How would Chevron’s leak detection and response system work if a heavier product were involved? Here, someone was able to identify the sheen itself, but if it had been a heavier product it would not have been as immediately obvious. (2) Chevron does not have systems in place to tell responders how much has been spilled. In this case, Chevron was not able to estimate how many gallons had been spilled until two days after the event. What systems could be put into place to more accurately measure how much oil is spilled during an event such as this one? (3) A two-hour timeframe is critical for spill response. If responders cannot respond within that time, spill severity is typically much worse. The Report should have evaluated impacts due to spill response times, especially as relates to notice to administrative agencies and responders. 311
(4) The actual time the leak started is not clear from the Report. If someone smelled the leak at 2:30, the leak must have started earlier than 2:30. The Report should pinpoint the actual start time of the leak to accurately evaluate the response and Chevron’s implementation of measures to ensure future safety. Remaining Questions The AcuTech Oil Spill Report is unclear when discussing what problems existed in the past and what solutions were put into place by Chevron to ensure that a similar leak does not occur again in the future. For example, section 5.2 of the Report discusses the inspection history of the line in question and concludes that Chevron conducted a thorough review: “inspections were performed at appropriate frequencies and incident recommendations were addressed in a timely manner.” AcuTech Oil Spill Report at 10. Therefore, AcuTech concludes that Chevron’s “inspection program and developed internal standards (MFG-525) meet the requirements of relevant industry standards.” Id. The Report must be clearer about where problems existed and how those problems have been fixed. If AcuTech means that there was no problem with the MFG-525 standard as implemented by Chevron, and that there has and will be no change of that standard or of Chevron’s inspections, that conclusion should be clearly stated and the Report should explain why an inspection history and regime that did not detect the leak is considered adequate. AcuTech’s discussion of human factors likewise appears inadequate. While the Report identifies “other means of leak detection besides just visual inspections” as a causal factor and root cause, the Report fails to evaluate the visual inspection program. Id. at 11. If “wharf operators routinely make rounds performing visual inspections of the lines as part of their shift duties,” the leak should have been detected. Id. There is no analysis of visual inspections nor explanation of why they failed to detect the leak. Likewise, passive containment is not adequately discussed. The Report should have evaluated the efficacy of permanent containment measures (booms) and whether additional booms would have helped mitigate the severity of the spill. The final version of the Report must be clearer about what problems existed at Chevron’s facility prior to the leak, and what changes have been made to correct those problems. In order to fulfil the purpose of the RISO and adequately inform the public, the Report must lay out each aspect of the inspection of the faulty facilities and Chevron’s response to the oil spill, evaluate each of those aspects, explain which inspections and responses were effective and should be kept unchanged and which should be abandoned or changed, and explain how the changes put in place by Chevron would prevent future disasters. Conclusion AcuTech’s Oil Spill Report is inadequate to achieve the purposes of the RISO and must be updated to achieve those purposes. To the extent those purposes are not served, or the questions posed above by Baykeeper are not answered, a full independent investigation of this spill event is warranted. Overall, the AcuTech Oil Spill Report concludes that the February 9, 2021 Chevron Richmond Longwharf oil spill was preventable. See, e.g., AcuTech Oil Spill Report at 10 312
(“should have identified ‘coating/lining failure’ and ‘under deposit corrosion’ as damage mechanisms and should have resulted in broader implementation of inspection techniques designed to find this type of damage.”) Earlier problems with the faulty pipeline should have alerted Chevron personnel to the potential problems associated with this type of pipe, and leak detection technologies should have been in place to allow a faster response, and less severe leak. Moreover, the safety culture at the Longwharf facility was not as robust as it could have been, and less robust than the safety culture at the rest of Chevron’s facility. AcuTech Oil Spill Report at 13. These conclusions warrant a full independent investigation: a mere review of Chevron’s own investigation and reporting risks perpetrating the same issues highlighted in the Report. Finally, there is a risk that the AcuTech Oil Spill Report is not accurate or thorough enough to effectively predict and prevent future spills. Governance and public participation issues must be taken into account to establish the reliability of the process used to select and complete the Report. Thank you for considering these comments. Ben Eichenberg Staff Attorney San Francisco Baykeeper 313
Chevron Wharf Oil Spill Public Comment
Public comment period open from 7/13/23 through 8/28/23 CCHHMP reviewed the following email comments sent to [email protected] A form letter was used as the dominant means to send comments ‐ these are noted below as the Generic Message Several individuals sent customized comments ‐ unique messages are listed Who sent what when are noted below
Not every email provided a name or address
Date Received Name Email Sent on Behalf of Address Custom Message Generic Message 1 Generic Message 2 Message Response 8/4/2023 Charles Allen [email protected] [email protected] Oakland, California 94601 X Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I'm writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill. I believe that all people, regardless of their race, the language they speak, or how much money they make, should breathe clean air and be able to drink clean water. When I learned about the diesel spill close to the beaches where people swim, I was concerned and surprised. But I was shocked to learn that in 2018, Chevron had realized that the same pipe was cracked – but didn’t actually fix the problem.

Chevron can’t be trusted to report on themselves, because at the end of the day, the Chevron Corporation cares most about their own bottom line and turning a profit while residents rack up medical bills. Our regulatory agencies, from the county up to the state, should have the capacity, staff power, and oversight to transparently regulate the refinery and should not be made to rely on Chevron’s own self‐produced reporting. As people living and working in Contra Costa and in the Bay, we deserve timely, accurate, and unbiased information about the highly toxic materials that Chevron is releasing into the community.

Thank you.

Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Karen Jacques [email protected] [email protected] 1209 T St. #3 Sacramento, California 95811 X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Justin Truong [email protected] [email protected] 33 Junior Terrace San Francisco, California 94112 X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Keira Fullbright [email protected] [email protected] Belton, South Carolina 29627 X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Mari Rose Taruc [email protected] [email protected] 17th Avenue Oakland, California 94606 X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Audrey Chan [email protected] themselves Culver City, California 90230 X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Sharon Byers [email protected] [email protected] 13042 Stanbridge Ave downey, California 90242 X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Raymonde Czerwinski [email protected] [email protected] Corona, California 92882 X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Geoff Silverman [email protected] [email protected] 10969 Rochester Ave Los Angeles, California 90024 X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Carlos Nunez [email protected] themselves 18009 Victory Blvd Reseda, California 91335 X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Ounniyom Ounniyom [email protected] [email protected] Richmond, California 94806 X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Frolayne Carlos [email protected] [email protected] El Sobrante, California 94803 X Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I'm writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill. The pipe oversight and lack of maintenance is unacceptable and puts residents of the area, wildlife and surrounding environment at risk.

Chevron can’t be trusted to report on themselves, because at the end of the day, the Chevron Corporation cares most about their own bottom line and turning a profit while residents rack up medical bills. Our regulatory agencies, from the county up to the state, should have the capacity, staff power, and oversight to transparently regulate the refinery and should not be made to rely on Chevron’s own self‐produced reporting. As people living and working in Contra Costa and in the Bay, we deserve timely, accurate, and unbiased information about the highly toxic materials that Chevron is releasing into the community.

Thank you.

Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Nicole Ma [email protected] [email protected] Irvine, California 92606 X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Brenda Guzman [email protected] [email protected] 310 Marina Way S Richmond, California 94804 X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Janielle Torregosa [email protected] themselves Long Beach, California 90815 X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Ariana Saechao [email protected] [email protected] 2800 Avenue Richmond, California 94804 X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Charles Kieser [email protected] [email protected] X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Sarah Matsumoto [email protected] [email protected] Santa Cruz, California 95062 X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Trang Trinh [email protected] [email protected] Milpitas, California 95035 X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Gabriel Lautaro [email protected] [email protected] Piedmont, California 94610 X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Erika Minkowsky [email protected] [email protected] Richmond, California 94805 X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Alexis Georgiou [email protected] [email protected] 982 Laurie Ave Santa Clara, California 95054 X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Clio Soiffe [email protected] [email protected] 2314 E 20th St Oakland, California 94601 X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Leah Redwood [email protected] [email protected] 2817B California Street Berkeley, California 94703 X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Gregory Stevens [email protected] [email protected] 506 Guerrero St.

San Francisco, CA X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Susan Pelican [email protected] [email protected] 21024 co rd 95 Woodland, California 95695 X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Harvey Hild [email protected] [email protected] Harvey Hild 1430 Weil Rd, Texas 78124‐1663 X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Janine Moore [email protected] themselves 32 Gilman St.

Waterville, Maine 04901 X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Chris Rose [email protected] [email protected] Petaluma, California X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Rilriia Kilurden [email protected] [email protected] 1305 Pyramid Way Apt. 1A Sparks, Nevada 89431 X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Karen Berger [email protected] [email protected] 4412 Ocean View Bl.

Montrose, California 91020 X Please see Response 1
8/4/2023 Roshi [email protected] [email protected] El Cerrito, California 94530 X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Steven Mazliach [email protected] [email protected] 4334 Geary Blvd, Apt 1 San Francisco, California 94118 X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Lara Clayman [email protected] [email protected] Oakland, California 94602‐3323 X Please see Response 1 8/4/2023 Tesla Sampson [email protected] [email protected] Redwood City, California 94061 X Please see Response 1 314
8/5/2023 Alison Ehara‐Brown [email protected] [email protected] Richmond, California 94804 X Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I'm writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill. I live in and raised my children and I am raising my grandchildren in the shadow of the refinery, I believe that all people, regardless of their race, the language they speak, or how much money they make, should breathe clean air and be able to drink clean water. When I learned about the diesel spill close to the beaches where people swim, I was concerned and surprised. But I was shocked to learn that in 2018, Chevron had realized that the same pipe was cracked – but didn’t actually fix the problem.

Chevron can’t be trusted to report on themselves, because at the end of the day, the Chevron Corporation cares most about their own bottom line and turning a profit while residents rack up medical bills. Our regulatory agencies, from the county up to the state, should have the capacity, staff power, and oversight to transparently regulate the refinery and should not be made to rely on Chevron’s own self‐produced reporting. As people living and working in Contra Costa and in the Bay, we deserve timely, accurate, and unbiased information about the highly toxic materials that Chevron is releasing into the community.

Thank you.

Please see Response 1
8/5/2023 Rie Takahashi [email protected] [email protected] Berkeley, California 94703 X Please see Response 1 8/5/2023 Nikki Sachs [email protected] [email protected] Berkeley, California 94702‐1753 X Please see Response 1 8/5/2023 Jenna Cobb [email protected] [email protected] 270 e Badillo St Pasadena, California 91106 X Please see Response 1
8/5/2023 Kathryn Vo [email protected] [email protected] Oakland, California 94609 X Please see Response 1 8/5/2023 Rochelle Towers [email protected] [email protected] Oakland, California 94619 X Please see Response 1 8/5/2023 Danielle Buma [email protected] [email protected] Vallejo, California 94590 X Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I was shocked to learn that in 2018, Chevron realized the pipe was cracked but didn’t fix the problem.

Chevron cares most about their own bottom line. Chevron cannot be trusted to report on themselves.

Thank you,
Please see Response 1
8/5/2023 William Oertel [email protected] [email protected] Santa Rosa, California 95407 X Please see Response 1 8/5/2023 R Taylor [email protected] [email protected] Los Angeles, California 90064 X Please see Response 1 8/5/2023 Kay Fischer [email protected] [email protected] 4099 Howe St.

Oakland, California 94611 X Please see Response 1
8/5/2023 Jean Tepperman [email protected] [email protected] 1701 Channing Way Berkeley, California 94703 X
Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
So who’s independent company is going to be in charge let me guess the governors hand picked team or maybe someone from Berkeley you know the climate change professionals lol maybe we should just fine them or charge them so much for permits to even remove and replace said piping so it makes it harder to even do the work 8/5/2023 Eunice Chung [email protected] [email protected] Union City, California 94587 X Please see Response 1 8/5/2023 MaryAnn Denning [email protected] themselves Corning, New York 14830 X Please see Response 1 8/6/2023 [email protected] themselves X Please see Response 1 8/7/2023 Diane Dulmage [email protected] [email protected] Richmond, California 94804 X Please see Response 1 8/7/2023 JL Angell [email protected] themselves 2391 Ponderosa Road Rescue, California 95672 X Please see Response 1
8/7/2023 Jan Warren [email protected] [email protected] 3202 Primrose Ln Walnut Creek, California 94598‐1719 X
Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
The public is beyond tired trying to get regulations to get real measures to protect their health from fossil fuel companies that would rather not maintain the refinery and prefer to take chances, while making more money at the public and nature's health risk. The goal is fix pipes before an accident. Chevron has a bad history of not being proactive. There needs to be more oversight and accountability.

Chevron can’t be trusted to report on themselves, because at the end of the day, the Chevron Corporation cares most about their own bottom line and turning a profit while residents rack up medical bills. Our regulatory agencies, from the county up to the state, should have the capacity, staff power, and oversight to transparently regulate the refinery and should not be made to rely on Chevron’s own self‐produced reporting. As people living and working in Contra Costa and in the Bay, we deserve timely, accurate, and unbiased information about the highly toxic materials that Chevron is releasing into the community.

Thank you.

Please see Response 1
8/7/2023 Alex Weisshaus [email protected] [email protected] San Francisco, California 94110 X Please see Response 1 8/7/2023 Erica Cheung [email protected] themselves Oakland, California 94609 X Please see Response 1 8/7/2023 Kristel Rietesel [email protected] [email protected] Berkeley, California 94708 X Please see Response 1 8/7/2023 David Gassman [email protected] [email protected] 389 Belmont Street #111 Oakland, California 94610 X Please see Response 1
8/7/2023 Tessa Wardle [email protected] [email protected] San Geronimo, California 94963 X Please see Response 1 8/7/2023 Virginia Morris [email protected] [email protected] Stockton, Kansas 94606 X Please see Response 1 8/7/2023 Steve Ongerth [email protected] [email protected] 1200 Brickyard Way, 104 Richmond, California 94801 X Please see Response 1
8/7/2023 Lauren Murdock [email protected] [email protected] 3940 Via Lucero, Apt #16 Santa Barbara, California 93110 X Please see Response 1 8/7/2023 Karen Kirschling [email protected] [email protected] San Francisco, California 94117 X Please see Response 1 8/8/2023 Betty Kissilove [email protected] [email protected] San Francisco, California 94122 X Please see Response 1 8/8/2023 Marinell Daniel [email protected] [email protected] 4070 La Colina Rd.

El Sobrante, California 94803 X
Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I'm writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill. I believe that all people, regardless of their race, the language they speak, or how much money they make, should breathe clean air and be able to drink clean water. When I learned about the diesel spill close to the beaches where friends live and swim. I was concerned and surprised. But I was disgusted and alarmed to learn that in 2018, Chevron had realized that the same pipe was cracked – but didn’t actually fix the problem.

Chevron can’t be trusted to report on themselves, because at the end of the day, the Chevron Corporation cares most about their own bottom line and turning a profit while residents rack up medical bills. Our regulatory agencies, from the county up to the state, should have the capacity, staff power, and oversight to transparently regulate the refinery and should not be made to rely on Chevron’s own self‐produced reporting. As people living and working in Contra Costa and in the Bay, we deserve timely, accurate, and unbiased information about the highly toxic materials that Chevron is releasing into the community.

Regards,
Please see Response 1
8/8/2023 Andrea Agrimonti [email protected] [email protected] River Forest, Illinois 60305 X Please see Response 1 8/9/2023 Diana Bohn [email protected] themselves Saint Louis Road Berkeley California, California 94707 X Please see Response 1 8/9/2023 Allyson Ujimori [email protected] [email protected] Oakland, California 94610 X Please see Response 1 8/9/2023 Tony Marks‐Block [email protected] [email protected] Bella Vista Avenue Oakland, California 94610 X Please see Response 1
8/9/2023 Lolly Lim [email protected] [email protected] Los Angeles, California 90028 X Please see Response 1 8/9/2023 Quanah Brightman [email protected] [email protected] Richmond, California 94801 X Please see Response 1 315
8/9/2023 Brittany Noble [email protected] [email protected] San Francisco, California 94122 X Please see Response 1 8/9/2023 Deirdre Snyder [email protected] [email protected] Oakland, California 94609 X Please see Response 1 8/9/2023 Carman Nareau [email protected] [email protected] Emeryville, California 94611 X Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I'm writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill.

Chevron knew about a crack in the pipe that caused the spill in 2018 but didn’t actually fix the problem. It’s unreasonable to expect that Chevron can be trusted to report on themselves. Corporations are motivated by profits and are not looking out for residents’ safety.

Our regulatory agencies, from the county up to the state, should have the capacity, staff power, and oversight to transparently regulate the refinery and should not be made to rely on Chevron’s own self‐produced reporting. As people living and working in Contra Costa and in the Bay, we deserve timely, accurate, and unbiased information about the highly toxic materials that Chevron is releasing into the community.

Thank you.

Please see Response 1
8/9/2023 Kaili Kuo [email protected] [email protected] Oakland, California 94609 X Please see Response 1 8/9/2023 Kimberly Mark [email protected] [email protected] Oakland, California 94606 X Please see Response 1 8/9/2023 Kiara Harasaki [email protected] [email protected] Redondo Beach, California 90278 X Please see Response 1 8/9/2023 Connie Lu [email protected] [email protected] 3043 Vin Grande Ct San Jose, California 95135 X Please see Response 1
8/9/2023 Lazuli Trujano [email protected] [email protected] Richmond, California 94805 X Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I'm writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill. I believe that all people, regardless of their race, the language they speak, or how much money they make, should breathe clean air and be able to drink clean water. When I learned about the diesel spill close to the beaches where people swim, I was concerned and surprised. But I was shocked to learn that in 2018, Chevron had realized that the same pipe was cracked – but didn’t actually fix the problem.

Chevron can’t be trusted to report on themselves, because at the end of the day, the Chevron Corporation cares most about their own bottom line and turning a profit while residents rack up medical bills. Our regulatory agencies, from the county up to the state, should have the capacity, staff power, and oversight to transparently regulate the refinery and should not be made to rely on Chevron’s own self‐produced reporting. As people living and working in Contra Costa and in the Bay, we deserve timely, accurate, and unbiased information about the highly toxic materials that Chevron is releasing into the community.

We demand that Chevron is held accountable, especially when it comes to reporting! Thank you.

Please see Response 1
8/9/2023 Claire Phillips [email protected] themselves Altadena, California 91001 X Please see Response 1 8/9/2023 Charles Loi [email protected] [email protected] San Jose, California 95123 X Please see Response 1 8/9/2023 Abtehal Alazzani [email protected] [email protected] Richmond, California 94806 X Please see Response 1 8/9/2023 Aileen Joy [email protected] [email protected] Oakland, California 94611 X Please see Response 1 8/9/2023 Paul Crum [email protected] [email protected] 21 Lighthouse Ln, Richmond, California 94804‐7403 X
Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I'm writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill. I believe that all people, regardless of their race, the language they speak, or how much money they make, should breathe clean air and be able to drink clean water. When I learned about the diesel spill close to the beaches where people swim, I was concerned and surprised. But I was shocked to learn that in 2018, Chevron had realized that the same pipe was cracked – but didn’t actually fix the problem.

Chevron can’t be trusted to report on themselves, because at the end of the day, the Chevron Corporation cares most about their own bottom line and turning a profit while residents rack up medical bills. Our regulatory agencies, from the county up to the state, should have the capacity, staff power, and oversight to transparently regulate the refinery and should not be made to rely on Chevron’s own self‐produced reporting. As people living and working in Contra Costa and in the Bay, we deserve timely, accurate, and unbiased information about the highly toxic materials that Chevron is releasing into the community.

Thank you,
PS: PG&E is also intent on screwing the public thri the PUC.

Please see Response 1
8/9/2023 Alice Grimm [email protected] [email protected] Oakland, California 94618 X Please see Response 1 8/10/2023 Eli Boeck [email protected] [email protected] Vallejo, California 94590 X Please see Response 1 8/10/2023 Elana Story [email protected] [email protected] Oakland, California 94609 X Please see Response 1 8/10/2023 Linda Civitello [email protected] [email protected] Sebastopol, California 95472 X Please see Response 1 8/10/2023 Nguyen Werks [email protected] [email protected] Oakland, California 94601 X Please see Response 1 8/10/2023 Stephanie Kubick [email protected] [email protected] San Francisco, California 94117 X Please see Response 1 8/10/2023 Sue Hurley sue‐[email protected] [email protected] Benicia, California 94510 X Please see Response 1 8/10/2023 Noah Haydon [email protected] [email protected] 405 91st St Daly City, California 94015 X Please see Response 1
8/11/2023 Gabriel Newman [email protected] [email protected] Lafayette, California 94549 X Please see Response 1 8/15/2023 Rebecca Orozco [email protected] [email protected] Oakland, California 94611 X Please see Response 1 8/16/2023 Aviva Kardener [email protected] [email protected] 2008 West Street Oakland, California 94612 X Please see Response 1
8/17/2023 Todd Snyder [email protected] [email protected] San Francisco, California 94115 X Please see Response 1 8/18/2023 Nancy Stein [email protected] themselves P.O. Box 28 Pt. Reyes, Ca 94956 X
Chevron continues to be a corrupt and lying company that threatens every living being in the bay area.

The Feb 21st spill was inadequately cleaned up by the company, and the $70,000 fine is also inadequate.

CCH continues to provide regulatory oversight of
the programs through our triennial audits and via
the onsite engineer.
8/18/2023 Diane Livia [email protected] themselves 6445 Colby St, Oakland, CA 94618 X
AcuTech should never have been chosen to write the report on Chevron's oil spill on early 2021.

According to SF Baykeeper, AcuTech is not a neutral third party, as was required by local laws governing refinery investigations.

This would appear to not fulfill the legal obligations required of the report on that spell.

Please see Response 2
316
8/18/2023 Lonna Richmond [email protected] themselves X Hello,
I am writing to voice my complaint about AcuTech and their obvious conflict of interest when hired to critique the way Chevron handled the oil spill of 2021 in Richmond.

The people of Richmond–and the Bay–deserve better. That is why I am joining the Baykeeper and community partners and demanding full transparency and accountability from Chevron.

Truthfully, fining Chevron $70,000 for their negligence and mishandling of this spill, is an insult. This company earned billions in previous years and $70K is like pocket change to them.

Chevron must get on board and take care of our Bay ‐ anything less is unacceptable.

Please see Response 2
8/18/2023 Aida Marina [email protected] themselves X
In early 2021, Richmond residents called Baykeeper’s pollution hotline to report a strange sheen on the Bay and a noxious smell in the air. Turns out, they had discovered an oil spill at Chevron’s loading dock. Unfortunately, Chevron itself was unaware that its oil was polluting the Bay until locals reported it.

A local beach was closed to the public due to the oil washing up on shore, and the toxic leak possibly impacted sensitive eelgrass beds nearby that serve as important habitat for fish and wildlife.

It's just unfortunate AcuTech was not actually independent and let Chevron off the hook." The people of Richmond, and of the Bay Area, deserve better. That’s why Baykeeper and our community partners are demanding full transparency and accountability from Chevron. If you want to share your concerns and tell our local agencies to force Chevron to be a better neighbor on the Bay,
Chevron, either be a "good neighbor" or move your stinking and corrupt business to another planet. Elon Musk should be able to help you and your cronies.

Please see Response 2
8/18/2023 Lora Premo [email protected] themselves X
To whom it may concern:

It turns out that AcuTech is not a neutral third party, as was required by local laws governing refinery investigations. According to their website, AcuTech holds a number of contracts with Chevron and at least 24 other major oil companies. In fact, out of all the contractors that bid, only AcuTech had an existing financial relationship with Chevron. Despite this, AcuTech failed to publicly disclose their conflict of interest and was hired for the job.

The people of Richmond, and of the Bay Area, deserve better. We need full transparency and accountability from Chevron.

Please refer to response 2
8/18/2023 Jenifer Steele [email protected] themselves 2411 Jefferson Avenue Berkeley, CA 94703 X
Evidently the organization that investigated the Richmond oil spill, AcuTech, has a cozy relationship with Chevron. What’s wrong with you people? We should be phasing out fossil fuels, not give them the green light to despoil the planet. The Earth is dying, and you’re whistling Dixie. Please have better regulations in place to prevent future spills.

Please refer to Response 2
8/18/2023 Hilary Rand [email protected] themselves a concerned citizen, a lifetime resident of the Bay Area X
Contra Costa Health Hazardous Materials Programs,
Chevron’s response to their 2021 oil spill in the SF Bay was inadequate and irresponsible. Chevron failed to perform even the most basic containment strategies, and this is not acceptable for the people of Richmond, the people of the Bay Area at large, and for wildlife.

CCH thanks you for your response,  it is the mission
of CCH Hazardous Materials Programs to protect
public health and the envrionment.  The Industrial
Safety Ordinance is one of the most stringent
process safety regulations.  While CCH prides itself
on being at the forefront of process safety due to
the implementation of the ordinance the MCAR
trend from 2021‐2023 has promted CCH to start
evaluating the ISO for opportunites to strenthen
these regulations including evaluating the tools we
have in place to hold refineries accountable.   CCH
reports out on the progress of this work at the
ISO/CWS Ad Hoc Meetings, to stay apprised of
future meetings please see https://contra‐
costa.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx.
8/20/2023 Donna Sharee [email protected] themselves SF, CA 94112 X Please refer to Response 2 317
8/21/2023 Tito Galdo [email protected] themselves X Dear Contra Costa County Health Services,
I am writing because I am truly tired of seeing our county’s primary polluter continually get away with impacting our health with minimal accountability. Why does this continue to happen? Are you not charged with protecting the health of everyone in this county? Why do you continue to let Chevron off the hook with slaps on the wrist, while county residents continue to suffer from the impacts of their negligence and harmful practices?
In the most recent example of your egregious selling out of the very residents you’re charged with protecting, you hired a firm with clear conflicts of interest to investigate Chevron’s completely inadequate spill response. Out of all of the firms that bid on doing this important work, why did you choose the one that is firmly enmeshed with the industry? At best this is some serious lack of due diligence, and at worst it is not only gross negligence in holding polluters accountable—it points to a deep indifference to what your job and mission is supposed to be.

CCH thanks you for your response,  it is the mission
of CCH Hazardous Materials Programs to protect
public health and the envrionment.  The Industrial
Safety Ordinance is one of the most stringent
process safety regulations.  While CCH prides itself
on being at the forefront of process safety due to
the implementation of the ordinance the MCAR
trend from 2021‐2023 has promted CCH to start
evaluating the ISO for opportunites to strenthen
these regulations including evaluating the tools we
have in place to hold refineries accountable.   CCH
reports out on the progress of this work at the
ISO/CWS Ad Hoc Meetings, to stay apprised of
future meetings please see https://contra‐
costa.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx.  On the matter of
conflict of interest, please refer  to Response 2.
8/22/2023 Jenna Saefong [email protected] themselves Richmond, California 94805 X Please refer to Response 1 8/22/2023 Brandy Khansouvong [email protected] [email protected] 4748 Hartnett Ave Richmond, California 94804 X Please refer to Response 1 8/22/2023 Regina Gilligan [email protected] [email protected] Richmond, California 94804 X Please refer to Response 1 8/24/2023 Emma Ishii [email protected] [email protected] Oakland, California 94606 X Please refer to Response 1 8/26/2023 Megan Zapanta [email protected] themselves Richmond, California 94806 X Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program,
I am the Richmond Organizing Director of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network and I’m writing to give my feedback to the recently published report on the 2021 Chevron diesel spill. For years, I have seen the Laotian refugee community face the negative impacts of living in the shadow of the Chevron Refinery.

Chevron can’t be trusted to report on themselves, because at the end of the day, the Chevron Corporation cares most about their own bottom line and turning a profit while residents rack up medical bills. Our regulatory agencies, from the county up to the state, should have the capacity, staff power, and oversight to transparently regulate the refinery and should not be made to rely on Chevron’s own self‐produced reporting. As people living and working in Contra Costa and in the Bay, we deserve timely, accurate, and unbiased information about the highly toxic materials that Chevron is releasing into the community.

Thank you.

Please refer to Response 1
8/27/2023 Kathleen Petricca [email protected] [email protected] Martinez, California 94553 X Please refer to Response 1 8/28/2023 Ben Eichenberg [email protected] themselves San Francisco Baykeeper 1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800, Oakland, CA 94612 X Too large ‐ 9 pages ‐ see pdf Please refer to Response 3 Summary counts:

Total number of messages received: 117
Total unique (non‐duplicates): 111
Total Generic Messages: 92
Total Custon Messages 19
318
Contra Costa Health Responses:

1) Response 1
a) Regulatory agencies need capacity, staﬀ power, and oversight to transparently regulate the reﬁnery
Response: CCH thanks you for your comment regarding the 2021 Wharf Oil Spill. CCH agrees with the comments that regulatory agencies need capacity and staﬀ power to regulate not only reﬁneries but all businesses handling hazardous materials in Contra Costa County. CCH currently is in the process of working towards implemen�ng 3 new posi�ons and reorganizing our division to among other things, increase our capacity when Major Chemical Accidents or Releases occur. (More details can be found in the discussion at the 2/22/24 ISO/CWS Ad Hoc mee�ng htps://contra-
costa.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=3211). CCH through the ISO con�nues to provide oversight to the reﬁnery through our triennial audits. CCH as required through the ISO has an engineer onsite to oversee process safety ac�vi�es.

b) Timely, accurate, and unbiased informa�on
Response: CCH agrees that �mely, accurate, and unbiased informa�on must be made available to the ci�zens of Contra Costa County. From 2021-2023 CCH Hazmat acknowledges that the �meline from incidents occurring to the beginning of the public no�ce period is quite long. The process of forming the oversight commitee, selec�ng a contractor, and ini�a�ng the work does aﬀect the �meline. The process itself is set very inten�onally to have a very strong focus on environmental jus�ce by having a transparent and public process. However, CCH is working to be more nimble when incidents of this severity occur.

CCH has heard the concerns from the community and will be ins�tu�ng changes to our procedure for the future.

CCH is also in the process of evalua�ng our No�ﬁca�on Policy to make changes to the deﬁni�ons around �meliness of no�ﬁca�on required by facili�es. CCH is also seeking to enhance our policy by adding public awareness messaging for Level 1 incidents. In 2023 CCH revised the no�ﬁca�on policy to include text messaging and email messaging for Level 2 incidents with the aim to provide more �mely informa�on around Level 2 incidents.

2) Response 2
Response: CCH thanks you for your comments regarding the 2021 Wharf Oil Spill. CCH hears your concerns about poten�al conﬂicts of interest between Chevron and Acutech. As a part of the RFP process, companies submi�ng proposals are required to disclose any conﬂicts of interest (speciﬁcally work done for the company in the last 3 years). The Acutech proposal submited in 2021 did note that Acutech had performed work for Chevron USA including the Richmond Reﬁnery. Acutech’s proposal noted that the last �me work was performed for Chevron was in 2015. The RPF process is overseen by an Oversight Commitee which for this 319
incident is comprised of CCH employees, Chevron representa�ves (including USW), members of the community (including a member of the hazmat commission), and City of Richmond Representa�ves. This makeup of this team is to ensure the consultant selec�on process is transparent, fair, and equitable. The line of process safety work is highly specialized with few companies who are equipped to do an RCA inves�ga�on or other process safety work and many of these companies also serve as consultants to companies in the industry. The oversight commitee in the evalua�on process selected contractors based on set criteria while also keeping in mind any conﬂicts of interest reported by respondents.

3) Response 3 (select sec�ons of the Baykeepers comments are shown below) The people of Richmond already carry a disproportionate environmental burden, and spills like the one at Chevron’s Longwharf in 2021 exacerbate that burden with additional exposure to toxic pollutants. The spill closed beaches, contaminated the water, and caused fumes that led to residents complaining the area smelled like a gas station.

Nevertheless, the official presentation of AcuTech’s Oil Spill Report stated that the spill was contained to the Chevron property and therewere no injuries or environmental damage as a result of the spill.
1 This statement is false. The following photographs were taken by Baykeeper, with one photo from local media, and show that containment of the spill was inadequate and that the oil and a significant oil sheen spread along a substantial swath of Richmond’s coastline, impacting far more than Chevron property, as was inaccurately stated at AcuTech’s presentation.

Response: The scope of the review done by Acutech was to review the incident investigation report. Information reported on environmental impacts verbally in the meeting was not included in the Acutech report. CCH notes that the basis for stating there was no injuries or environmental damage was taken from the OSPR updates provided to CCH. No adjustment of the report is warranted.

Impact analysis should include impacts to nearby communities. Contra Costa County officials issued a temporary health advisory warning residents of Richmond, North Richmond, and San Pablo who have respiratory sensitivities to stay indoors. Residents for miles around complained of the foul chemical smell that pervaded Richmond’s air in the wake of the Spill.

These impacts and injuries to the community should have been evaluated in AcuTech’s Oil Spill Report.

Unanswered questions:
(1) What was the specific chemical composition of the oil spilled? (2) What was the full extent of the area impacted by the oil spill? (3) If the spreading oil pictured in the above photographs was not considered part of the oil spill, explain what basis there is for that determination, what environmental impacts the spreading oil may have had, and what measures could be taken to prevent those impacts. (4) If the oil on the beaches was not considered part of the oil spill, explain what basis there is for that determination, what environmental impacts the beached oil may have had, and what measures could be taken to prevent those impacts.
(5) Why was there no preemptive booming around the Longwharf, and why is there still none, today?
(6) What was the full extent of the impact of the fumes on the Richmond residents, did residents 320
have to go to the hospital, were advisories to stay indoors sufficient to protect public health, and what can be done to prevent fumes in the future?

Response: The scope of the work done by Acutech was to review the Incident Inves�ga�on/ Root Cause analysis report that was completed by Chevron. The purpose of the II/RCA is to evaluate why the incident happened and to implement correc�ve ac�ons to prevent something similar from occurring again. The scope did not include a community risk assessment. The spill that resulted was of ﬂush water and diesel like material. Per the 10 OSPR updates that CCH received, it was determined by OSPR and the OEHHA that there was no environmental impact to the shorelines nor were there any impacts to ﬁshing as a result of this incident. In response to the ques�on regarding preemp�ve booming, page 15 of the Acutech report states: “Booms along the causeway of the Richmond Long Wharf were deemed not feasible due to restric�ng access to the piping circuits for both spill response boats and ﬁxed equipment inspectors in work boats. The boats would not be able to jump the booms or have very limited entry points. Costs associated with causeway booms was also a concern of Chevron as they would be exposed to higher damage (loca�on against marine current), require more frequent replacement, and have an overall increased level of maintenance. While booms serve as a ﬁrst line of defense in oil spill recovery, if they restrict the ability for response or proper maintenance that could serve to increase the severity of the incident.”

The close connections between the Chevron Refinery and the agencies that are tasked with regulating and responding to refinery mistakes are not indicators of good governance. A regulated industry should not be on its own oversight committee and should not be making critical decisions about what kind of independent oversight is called for in emergency situations.

These markers of good governance are important indicators of the efficacy of spill response and should have been discussed in the AcuTech Oil Spill Report. According to the Report, the Contra Costa Health Hazardous Materials Program “recommended to the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance/Community Warning System Ad Hoc Committee, which is appointed by the County Board of Supervisors, that [Contra Costa Health] hire an independent expert to review the root cause investigation report conducted by Chevron.” AcuTech Oil Spill Report at 3. According to media reports, there were four potential contractors for the review, and AcuTech was the only one of the four that had an existing business relationship with Chevron. 3 The AcuTech Oil Spill Report should have included a conflict of interest analysis for its own independence and the independence of the committee making recommendations that detailed past and existing contracts with the regulated entity, in this case, Chevron, and explained why Chevron’s participation on committees and with critical decision making did not compromise the integrity of the investigation and Report.

Response: The Industrial Safety Ordinance allows for the completion of an independent 3 rd party
evaluation for Major Chemical Accidents or releases. CCH has developed a process to oversee these 3
rd party evaluations that allows for transparency, public participation, and ultimately receives direction from the ISO/CWS AdHoc committee on actions to take. The make-up of the oversight committee does include representatives from the facility to be able to speak to any 321
technical issues as part of the process. CCH’s process includes voices from both union and non- union members of the facility. CCH over the last year via the MRC Oversight Committee has seen many opportunities for improvement on this process which are actively being worked on right now including but not limited to changes in: committee member make-up, transparency of information (including making all meeting minutes available to the public (including RFPs)), and determination of criteria which automatically would result in an independent investigation of an incident. Please also see Response 2 which addresses the conflict-of-interest matter.

(1) Why couldn’t the 30-day update report have been released to the public and the Richmond City Council earlier than the end of December 2021 (12/16/21), more than 10 months after the incident occurred?
(2) Why was there a more than six-month delay before the independent investigation began, and what impact did that have on the efficacy of the investigation and on public participation? (3) What prevented Chevron from releasing the report requested by AcuTech until August 26, 2022, nearly 19 months after the spill occurred? How could this delay have been prevented? (4) Why did it take AcuTech until June 2023 do release a final report, 10 months after it acquired all information necessary for its review from Chevron, nearly two years after it signed its contract, and two and a half years after the oil spill?

Response: CCH notes that the ﬁnal 30-day update report was received by CCHHMP on 10/27/21 and was promptly placed on our website at that �me. As noted in the Acutech report, there was a delay in star�ng the inves�ga�on due to the report not being released. The report was not released un�l an agreement was reached between the two par�es regarding conﬁden�al business informa�on. CCH acknowledges that this is a barrier to having the inves�ga�ve work star�ng and is working towards improving the process to prevent such delays from occurring in the future.

In regard to the release of the dra� report for public comment, the process established by CCH allows for a dra� of the report to be release to the oversight commitee ﬁrst for public comment along with a presenta�on by the consultant. The consultant is then tasked with incorpora�ng all comments from the oversight commitee and adjus�ng the report as needed. This was done in April-June of 2023. From about September-January, Acutech worked on the review of the incident inves�ga�on. Due to the process having been delayed so long it came to CCH aten�on that many of the ac�on items from the report were either already completed or close to comple�on. An adjustment to the scope of the work to be done by Acutech was made to include a review of the implementa�on and closure of all the ac�on items to ensure that they were done properly. While this did add �me to the release of the report, CCH felt that it was necessary to have this review added to the scope to provide for a thorough review.

Adequate Notiﬁcation to Authorities According to the AcuTech Oil Spill Report, the appropriate agencies were notiﬁed by Chevron approximately 1 hour after Chevron received the initial public notiﬁcation.

While CCH requires notiﬁcation as soon as possible or within 15 minutes, it is AcuTech’s opinion that Chevron made all reasonable eﬀorts to meet the requirements of CCH notiﬁcation while still maintaining good emergency response practices of containing a leak to reduce environmental consequences. AcuTech Oil Spill Report at 3. Again, later in its Report evaluating agency notiﬁcations, AcuTech states that The CCH - Hazardous Materials Program includes the Hazardous Materials Incident Notiﬁcation Policy.

According to Section III.E of that policy, CCH requires notiﬁcation “…as soon as possible or within 15 322
minutes from discovery of a release….”. Based on interviews with Chevron, it was determined that after the initial public concern was identiﬁed, Chevron attempted to conﬁrm the leak was an oil spill and not other ship/barge related issues and then made the appropriate notiﬁcations following that determination. It is AcuTech’s opinion that Chevron made all reasonable eﬀorts to meet the requirements of the Contra Costa Health notiﬁcation requirements while still maintaining good emergency response practices of containing a leak to reduce environmental consequences. Id. at 15-16. Chevron’s response, however, was not reasonable. The purpose of agency notiﬁcation is not to have exact information, as that information can and will be updated as the spill response progresses. The propose of notiﬁcation is to alert responders that there is an emergency. Every minute counts, and the additional delay, according to AcuTech’s own Report, resulted in a more severe oil spill. Chevron identiﬁed casual…… Response: The scope of this review was limited to the Incident Inves�ga�on/ Root Cause Analysis which seeks to iden�fy the management system failures which allowed the incident to happen and iden�fy correc�ve ac�ons. No�ﬁca�on to agencies is outside this scope. However, when speaking to incident no�ﬁca�on CCH notes that it is reasonable for a facility to need �me to inves�gate upon receiving informa�on that there is an incident which could be related to their processes. It is the responsibility of the company to no�fy CCH upon conﬁrma�on of an incident. CCH since 2021 has updated the no�ﬁca�on policy to give more guidance around no�ﬁca�on �melines in events where the facility is inves�ga�ng a poten�al incident. 323
Comments provided by San Francisco Baykeeper
Remaining Questions – Page 9 of Report
The AcuTech Oil Spill Report is unclear when discussing what problems existed in the past and what solutions were put into place by Chevron to ensure that a similar leak does not occur again in the future. For example, section 5.2 of the Report discusses the inspection history of the line in question and concludes that Chevron conducted a thorough review: “inspections were performed at appropriate frequencies and incident recommendations were addressed in a timely manner. ” AcuTech Oil Spill Report at 10. Therefore, AcuTech concludes that Chevron’s “inspection program and developed internal standards (MFG-525) meet the requirements of relevant industry standards. ” Id. The Report must be clearer about where problems existed and how those problems have been ﬁxed. If AcuTech means that there was no problem with the MFG-525 standard as implemented by Chevron, and that there has and will be no change of that standard or of Chevron’s inspections, that conclusion should be clearly stated and the Report should explain why an inspection history and regime that did not detect the leak is considered adequate.  AcuTech response: Based on our review of the Chevron Richmond reﬁnery inspection program, MFG-525 and inspection data provided, there were no problems identiﬁed with the inspection program in relation to relevant industry standards. Chevron inspection program, MFG-525, was not executed as written which was identiﬁed by Chevron in several of their root causes. If the Chevron standard was properly implemented, the correct damage mechanisms, inspections techniques, and coverage should have been identiﬁed for Line 003.

The report will be revised for the following text in red o “AcuTech is in agreement with Chevron’s report statement that their inspection program and developed internal standards (MFG-525) meet the requirements of relevant industry standards and did not identify other concerns regarding the inspection program other than correct implementation. ” (Page 10)

AcuTech’s discussion of human factors likewise appears inadequate. While the Report identiﬁes “other means of leak detection besides just visual inspections” as a causal factor and root cause, the Report fails to evaluate the visual inspection program. Id. at 11. If “wharf operators routinely make rounds performing visual inspections of the lines as part of their shift duties, ” the leak should have been detected. Id. There is no analysis of visual inspections nor explanation of why they failed to detect the leak. Likewise, passive containment is not adequately discussed. The Report should have evaluated the eƯicacy of permanent containment measures (booms) and whether additional booms would have helped mitigate the severity of the spill.  AcuTech response: Operator rounds consistent of surveying and performing visual inspections of all equipment and piping in the wharf area over their shift, typically an 8 to 12 hour period. Routine operator rounds do not provide for under pipe corrosion inspection even by visual means which is where the leak occurred. Since the incident, Chevron completed a more detailed inspection using Saturated Low Frequency Eddy Current (SLOFEC) technology.
324
 AcuTech Response: Evaluating the eƯicacy of permanent containment measures and the means of incident response was not part of the scope of work provided to AcuTech by CCH.

The contracted scope of work was to conduct a 3rd party review of the Chevron incident report, not to conduct an independent root cause investigation.

The ﬁnal version of the Report must be clearer about what problems existed at Chevron’s facility prior to the leak, and what changes have been made to correct those problems. In order to fulﬁl the purpose of the RISO and adequately inform the public, the Report must lay out each aspect of the inspection of the faulty facilities and Chevron’s response to the oil spill, evaluate each of those aspects, explain which inspections and responses were eƯective and should be kept unchanged and which should be abandoned or changed, and explain how the changes put in place by Chevron would prevent future disasters.
 AcuTech response: AcuTech did evaluate the incident investigation including the cause of the event, the proposed corrective action, and their beneﬁts.

The report will be revised for the following text in red o “Removing a large portion of the pipeline, increasing the CMLs, and requiring SLOFEC inspection provides a more robust FEAS for the 003 pipeline. Implementing these changes will improve the identiﬁcation of potential anomalies on the line 03 piping to help improve the prevention of future leaks. ” (Page 13) 325

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OIL SPILL INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
June 2024 AcuTech Group, Inc.

12. ADDENDUM A – COPIES OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
The following two documents are attached as copies of information reviewed. All remaining documents reviewed, as identified in section 9 contain confidential business information as determined by Chevron.

 Agency notifications made after incident
 Reports from USCG, DFW and CalOSHA

326

For CCHS Use Only:

Received By:
__________________
Date Received:
________________
Incident Number:
______________
Copied To:
____________________
Event Classification Level:
_______

ATTENTION: Matt Kaufmann
Hazardous Materials Program Director
Contra Costa Health Services Department
4333 Pacheco Boulevard
Martinez, CA 94553

INCIDENT DATE: February 9, 2021
INCIDENT TIME: 14:36
FACILITY: Chevron Richmond Refinery

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Patricia Roberts Phone Number: (510) 890-5677

I. SUMMARY OF EVENT

At approximately 14:36, the Refinery Shift Leader (RSL) received a call from a private citizen that there was a sheen observed in the water near the Chevron Richmond Long Wharf. Notifications were made to Long Wharf operations, Chevron Fire Department and Wharf supervision. Operations immediately began investigation into a potential release to the water. Operators in a boat were able to identify a leak in an overhead line. Wharf operations immediately took actions to set up a boom in the water around the leak and to isolate and de-inventory the line. The line was observed to no longer be leaking at 16:30.

II. AGENCIES NOTIFIED, INCLUDING TIME OF NOTIFICATION

After making a determination of potential off-site consequences from a release to the water, in accordance with the Contra Costa County Health Services (CCCHS) incident notification policy, a CWS Level 2 notification was sent.

Primary: Community Warning System (CWS):

• Level 2 CWS activated at approximately 15:43
• CWS Level Update @16:05
• CWS Level Update @16:30
• CWS Level Update @16:54
• CWS Level Update @ 17:37
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000104
327

Secondary: Subsequent notifications via telephone to the agencies below

Agency Person Reached Phone Number Time
National Response Center Theatt 800-424-8802 15:20
State Warning Center California
Emergency Management
Agency
Nevar 800-852-7550 15:25
Contra Costa County Health
Services Department
Bryant 925-335-3232 15:35
US Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco Command Center
Heaney 415-399-3530 15:39
CA Dept of Fish and Wildlife –
Office of Spill Prevention and
Response
Message -
Mike Coyne returned
call
916-375-8581 15:50
Contra Costa County Office of
Emergency Services
Heather 925-646-4461 15:53
Richmond Fire/Police Central
Dispatch
284 Deana 510-620-6933 15:55
CA State Lands Commission Message – Chris called
back
562-590-5201 16:13
Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Left Messages 510-622-2369
510-622-2422
510-421-7771
16:15
18:34
18:41
BCDC Oil Spill Program Message – Linda called
back
415-352-3644 16:19

III. AGENCIES RESPONDING, INCLUDING CONTACT NAMES AND PHONE NUMBERS:

At this time, we are aware of the following agencies that have responded.

Bay Area Air Quality Management
District

PHARN, ROGER

415-793-0974

CDFW-OSPR

Caliguire, Michael
12 additional OSPR representatives
916-500-2369

Richmond Fire Department Brownlow, Noah
7 additional RFD representatives
510-778-5028

Contra Costa County Health
Services Dept
Dwight, Sara
10 additional CCHS representatives
925-464-8477

East Bay Regional Parks Love, Alan
2 additional Park representatives
510-881-1833

MSRC

Albert, Tom
1 additional MSRC representative

Oiled Wildlife Care Network
(OWCN)

Hawkins, Jennie
4 additional OWCN representatives
530-979-6099

CAL OSHA

Saxton, Corey

661-343-1214

Richmond Local Police Department Stonebraker, Matt 510-672-4529 ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000105
328

USCG

Bacon, Taylor
12 additional employees
678-361-7238

IV. EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTION:

The Chevron Fire Department Incident Command System took lead of the incident for oil spill recovery and clean up.

There was mutual aid (Spill response taskforce) for this event. Everyone listed on the communications responded to this event. Please see section III.

V. IDENTITY OF MATERIAL RELEASED AND ESTIMATED OR KNOWN QUANTITIES:

The quantity of material released is estimated based on currently available information to be between 500 and 750 gallons. The material has been preliminarily characterized based on currently available information to be a diesel type material, with a flash point of 146 F.

VI. METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS AT TIME OF EVENT:

Wind Speed (mph) 1 (Long wharf)
Wind Direction
(degree)
228 SW
(Long Wharf)
Precipitation
(inches)

0.00 Temperature (F) 57 (Gertude)

As noted, information based on data received from the Refinery’s Long Wharf or meteorological station which is located near Gertrude Street.

VII. DESCRIPTION OF INJURIES:

There were no injuries associated with this event.

VIII. COMMUNITY IMPACT:

There were no regulatory exceedances based on Ground Level Monitoring data. There are no detects above known health limits based on Air Monitoring data.

Ground Level Monitoring Data Summary
Background Prior to and Maximum Concentration Readings During the event Castro Street Golden Gate Gertrude Street
H2S (ppb)
Background
@ 11:00-
11:59am

3.23 4.09 1.74
H2S (ppb)
Max.

3.86 5.44 2.19
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000106
329

SO2 (ppm)
Background
@ 11:00-
11:59am

4.08 5.02 2.20
SO2 (ppm)
Max.

4.20 7.50 2.86

Note: The Cal/OSHA PEL for SO2 is 2,000 ppb (2 ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period. The Cal/OSHA PEL for H2S is 10,000 ppb (10 ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period

Fence Line Air Monitoring Summary

During the release, no detections were seen at fence line air monitoring stations.

Community Air Monitoring Summary

During the time period of the event and following, community air monitoring was conducted in various locations in Point Richmond ranging from the Toll Plaza off Stenmark Drive to other coastal points along the waterline up to Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline off Dornan Drive. All air samples were below detection limits in the community air sampling (LEL, H2S, CO, SO2, NH3, Benzene).

IX. INCIDENT INVESTIGATION RESULTS:

A root cause analysis incident investigation will be conducted to determine the cause of the release.

X. SUMMARIZE INVESTIGATION RESULTS BELOW OR ATTACH COPY OF REPORT:

Results will be determined by the investigation.

XI. SUMMARIZE PREVENTABLE MEASURES TO BE TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE INCLUDING

MILESTONE AND COMPLETION DATES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Preventable measures will be determined by the investigation.

ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000107
330
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000263
331
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000264
332
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000265
333
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000266
334
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000267
335
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000268
336
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000269
337
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000270
338
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000271
339
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000272
340
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000273
341
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000274
342
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000275
343
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000276
344
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000277
345
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000278
346
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000279
347
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000280
348
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000281
349
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000282
350
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000283
351
Director
National Pollution Funds Center
US COAST GUARD STOP 7605
2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE
WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7605
Staff Symbol: Cm
Phone: 202-795-6071
Toll-Free: 1-800-358-2897
FAX: 202-372-8397
Email: [email protected]
16480
September 1, 2021

CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT
7017 2620 0000 2404 0472

CHEVRON CORPORATION
Attn: MR. G. BOSWORTH
841 CHEVRON WAY
RICHMOND CA 94801
RE: CHEVRON RICHMOND OIL SPILL
FPN: A21012
Dear Mr. Bosworth:

This is a follow-up to correspondence sent to you on August 2, 2021 regarding an oil pollution incident.

On February 9, 2021, the Federal On-Scene Coordinator determined that a damaged pipeline at the Chevron Richmond facility resulted in a discharge of oil into the waters of the US. The U.S. Coast Guard initiated pollution removal actions and the Federal Government incurred costs. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 USC 2701 et seq) provides that the Owner and/or Operator is responsible for the costs incurred.

Based on the information we have received regarding this case, the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) has determined that you are liable for these costs. If you have any evidence that would refute this assertion, please forward it to me, at your earliest opportunity or call me at the toll-free number below. A bill with supporting cost documentation is attached to this letter (Enclosure 1). In compliance with various laws and regulations, personal information contained in the supporting documentation has been redacted.

This is a request for reimbursement of the costs incurred responding to this pollution incident, not a penalty or fine.

Liability for pollution removal costs is in addition to other liabilities which may result from this incident, including, but not limited to, any damages or other pollution removal costs or any civil or administrative penalties arising from the incident.

Payment should be made by check or money order payable to the U.S. Coast Guard. Please write the amount paid in space indicated on the enclosed tear-off portion at the bottom of the invoice. Enclose this tear-off strip with your check, and mail in the enclosed windowed envelope.

Send your payment to: USCG Oil Spill Cost Recovery
RE: A21012
P.O. Box 979116
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
Please note that the Oil Pollution Act requires that any unpaid portion of the bill is subject to interest which will begin to accrue 30 days after the date of the bill. Any payments received after this date will be first applied to the interest and then to the principal.

If you cannot pay this bill in a single payment and wish to discuss a payment plan, or if you feel you are unable to pay this bill, please contact me as soon as possible at the toll-free number below.

ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000284
352
Subj: CHEVRON RICHMOND 16480
September 1, 2021

2 Please understand that this is the only written notification you will receive from the NPFC and that Federal law requires that we forward unpaid debts to the Department of Justice for potential litigation or to the Department of Treasury's Debt Management Services (DMS) for collection. DMS charges additional fees for their collection efforts. I encourage you to read the “Explanation of Costs” (Enclosure 2) and “Rights and Collection Alternatives” (Enclosure 3) which provides greater detail on some of the items that I have covered in this letter.

The Internal Revenue Service requires that we collect your Tax Payer Identification Number as part of collection process. Form W-9 (Enclosure 4) is provided for this purpose. Please return this with any correspondence that you send us.

If you have any questions, you may contact me at the National Pollution Funds Center, at 202-795-6071 or 1-800- 358-2897 or by email. Your cost to close this matter will only increase over time. Please note the Federal Project Number (A21012) on all correspondence to insure proper credit to your account and a timely and accurate resolution of this matter.

S i n c e r e l y ,

RICHARD R. BOES
Case Officer
U.S. Coast Guard

Enclosure: (1) BILL # A21012-001-21
(2) Explanation of Costs
(3) Rights and Collections Alternatives
(4) IRS Form W-9

BOES.RICHARD.R.1
016774460
Digitally signed by
BOES.RICHARD.R.1016774460
Date: 2021.09.01 14:02:06 -04'00'
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000285
353
Keep this portion of the statement for your records. Return receipt at bottom with payment. $21,884.16
$0.00
$0.00

NATIONAL POLLUTION

FUNDS CENTER
To:

FPN:

DESCRIPTION
This is a bill for U.S. Government costs. See second page for list of charges.

AMOUNT
Principal Due
Accrued Interest
This invoice reflects collections received to date totaling:

Total Due $21,884.16
A21012
Oil Spill Cost Recovery
RE: FPN A21012-001-21
P.O. Box 979116
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
Send Payment To:

Tear along perforation ...

Your billing address (please pen-and-ink any errors or changes):
$21,884.16
United States Coast Guard
P.O. Box 979116
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
Amount Paid
$
A21012-001-21RE: FPN

UNITED STATES

CHEVRON CORPORATION
841 CHEVRON WAY
RICHMOND CA 94801

CHEVRON CORPORATION
841 CHEVRON WAY
RICHMOND CA 94801
This bill does not include, among other things, any other removal costs, damages, or any administrative or civil penalty which has been or may be accessed. Interest is charged on balances over 30 days past due. Interest rate is market-based and is subject to change pursuant to OPA Â§1005, 33 USC 2705; current rate is .08% per annum. The terms of this bill are controlling; no other terms affixed to any payment are acceptable.

TAX I.D. NUMBER 54-6010204
Case Officer: Boes
Please send this remittance advice with your payment in the enclosed envelope. Make check payable to "U.S. Coast Guard" & writ e FPN A21012-001-21 on the check. To avoid additional late fees, we must receive payment by October 1, 2021 Billed on September 1, 2021
Amount Due as of September 1, 2021
Federal Project/Bill Number: A21012-001-21
Federal Project/Bill Number: A21012-001-21
Original Bill Date: September 1, 2021
Date of this Statement (if different): September 1, 2021 United States Coast Guard
Oil Spill Cost Recovery
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000286
354
01-SEP-2021
CG Personnel
CG Equipment
$21,861.75
$22.41
$21,884.16Total
Original Bill Date:NATIONAL POLLUTION

FUNDS CENTER
A21012-001-21Federal Project/Bill Number:

Date of this Statement (if different): 01-SEP-2021

ITEMIZED EXPENSES
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000287
355

Explanation of Costs

"CG Equipment" Total cost of Coast Guard-owned equipment used during the removal action based on standard hourly rates published in Commandant Instruction 7310.1 (series). Standard rates typically include crew complement, fuel, maintenance, field operational support, administrative support and depreciation.

"CG Personnel" Total cost of Coast Guard personnel (both military and civilian employees), other than crew complements, used to conduct, direct and/or monitor the removal action or settle claims based on standard hourly rates published in Commandant instruction 7310.1 (series). Standard rates reflect average pay, allowances, government contribution to employee benefits (e.g. FICA, medical), training, change of station, and unfunded retirement costs. Actual costs of travel or per diem are not included - see "CG Travel".

ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000288
356

RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES, COSTS AND COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES

YOUR RIGHTS. You have the right to an explanation of the basis and nature of the debt, an accounting and how we calculated the debt.

If you would like to inspect the documents that form the basis of the debt, please request a copy from the Case Officer assigned to your case. Copies will be provided free of charge. The Case Officer's contact information can be found on the billing letter.

You may dispute the information in the documents, submit additional material for consideration and request that we review or reconsider the determination of the debt . This request should be made within 60 days of the date of the invoice.

You may request a written repayment agreement in lieu of paying the entire balance of your debt at one time.

Reconsideration for other than prompt full payment requires a review of your financial condition, including access to recent income tax returns. If funds are coll ected in excess of the debt, they will be promptly refunded to you, unless prohibited by law.

INSURANCE COVERAGE. If you have insurance coverage, contact your insurance agent to determine whether your policy covers any of the costs you are being billed.

BANKRUPTCY. If you file for bankruptcy, or if you were in bankruptcy at the time of the incident and an automatic stay is in effect, you are not subject to any of fset during the stay. Please notify us of the stay by sending evidence about the bankruptcy proceedings.

JOINT INCOME TAX RETURN. If you file a joint income tax return, contact the Internal Revenue Service before filing your return to protect the share of your spouse's tax return refund. IRS Form 8379 is required.

INTEREST. Any balance not paid within 30 days of the original bill notice is a delinquent balance. A delinquent balance will subject you to additional charges for interest from the date of delinquency.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT DEBT MANAGEMENT SERVICE (DMS). Outstanding debts that are 60 days or older are eligible for referral to the DMS for collection action. In addition, we are required to refer debts that are 120 days delinquent to the DMS for further collection action. If the delinquent debt is referred to DMS for collection, additional fees will be added to the amount due. Those fees will vary based on whether DMS collects the debt directly or through a private co llection agency. Debts may be referred to the Justice Department for collection by litigation at any time.

TREASURY OFFSET PROGRAM (TOP). In addition to the above fees, you may be charged a fee for tax offset or federal salary offset if collection is made through TOP. A separate fee is charged each time a collection is made. The U.S. Treasury is not required to send notice to debtors before it offsets payments.

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFSET. The DMS may collect your debt through administrative offset. DMS may withhold money owed to you by the United States Government. The offset includes:
• Income tax refunds
• Certain Social Security benefits
• Black Lung Program benefits
• Salaries of federal employees (up to 15% of current net disposable pay per pay period until debt is paid). • Retirement benefits , including railroad, federal and military benefits • Vendor or contractor payments
• Travel reimbursements and advances

ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000289
357

ADMINISTRATIVE WAGE GARNISHMENT (AWG). The DMS may also collect the debt through administrative wage garnishment (AWG) without a court hearing. The DMS may contact your employer and garnish a portion of your net disposable pay. If AWG is used in the collection of the debt, you may request a hearing to review the debt by notification to the agency on or before the 15th business day following the mailing of the administrative wage garnishment notice. The notification will stay the withholding order until the debtor has been provided the requested hearing. Fa ilure to timely request a hearing by notification to the agency on or before the 15th business day following the mailing of the administrative wage garnishment notice will still entitle you to a hearing upon request, but will not delay the withholding order. 31 CFR § 285.11(f).

CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES. The debt may be reported to consumer reporting agencies. The information that may be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies includes the debtor's:
• Name and Address
• Social Security Number
• Taxpayer Identification Number
• Amount, status, and history of the debt
• The program under which the debt arose

DELINQUENT DEBTS ARE A BAR TO CERTAIN FEDERAL PROGRAMS. Debtors owing money to the U.S. Government are barred from obtaining federal loans, including student loans and FHA mortgages, federal loan insurance, federal grants, or federal guarantees.

PENALTIES FOR MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS. Information provided by you must represent all material facts and must be true to the best of your knowledge and belief. Misrepresentation of facts in this matter is subject to prosecution under Federal law, including but not limited to 18 USC§ 1001, and 31 USC§ 3729.

ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000290
358

ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000291359

ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000292
360

ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000293
361

ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000294
362

ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000295
363

ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000296
364

ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000297
365

ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000298
366

Assistant Secretary
August 30
Scott M. Banks
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000299
367
The following is an important document from the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board

ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000300
368
OSHAB 400 DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL OR EMAIL Rev. 06/16

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL OR EMAIL

Inspection Number
1514445

I, Nichole Franco, declare:

1. I am at least 18 years of age, not a party to this action, and I am employed in Sacramento County at 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95833.

2. On , I served a copy of the attached Settlement Order in an envelope addressed as shown below and placed the envelope for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown in item 3 following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.

3. D
ate mailed: Place mailed: (city, state): Sacramento, CA

4. On , I electronically served the document listed in item 2 as follows:

NAME OF PERSON SERVED ELECTRONIC SERVICE ADDRESS

Denise Cardoso, DOSH Legal [email protected] Rocio Reyes, DOSH Legal [email protected]

DOSH Northern Office [email protected]
Amy Gaylord [email protected]
Keith Koterbay [email protected]

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Nichole Franco

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) 09/01/2022
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000301
369
OSHAB 203 SETTLEMENT ORDER Rev. 1/20

BEFORE THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

APPEALS BOARD

In the Matter of the Appeal of:

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
6001 BOLLINGER CANYON RD., T-2052.

SAN RAMON, CA 94583

Employer
Inspection Number
1514445

SETTLEMENT ORDER

The above-entitled matter is resolved pursuant to this Order and as set forth in the attached Summary Table and attached Settlement Agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Kevin J. Reedy
Supervising Administrative Law Judge

Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 364.2, subdivision ( e), employer shall post for 30 working days a copy of t he Settlement Order. Posting shall be in a manner as prescribed in Section 356, subdivision (a).

Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 364.2, subdivision ( d), the division shall serve a copy of this disposition on any authorized person representing affected employees if known.

NOTE: If you disagree with this order, you may petition the Appeals Board for reconsideration within 30 days. The petition must comply with the requirements of Labor Code sections 6614 through 6619. Please call the Appeals Board at (916) 274-5751 if you need assistance.

09/01/2022
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000302
370
OSHAB 201 SUMMARY TABLE Rev. 02/18

SUMMARY TABLE

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD

In the Matter of the Appeal of:

CHEVRON RICHMOND REFINERY
Inspection No.
1514445

Citation Issuance Date: 08/02/2021
C
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
I
T
E
M

SECTION
T
Y
P
E

CITATION/ITEM RESOLUTION
A
F
F
I
R
M
E
D
V
A
C
A
T
E
D

PENALTY

PROPOSED

BY DOSH IN

CITATION

FINAL

PENALTY

ASSESSED
1 1 5189.1 (j) (1 )(A) G AVD amended as forth in
attached Settlement Agreement. A $315.00 $315.00
Sub-Total $315.00 $315.00

Total Amount Due* $315.00

*You may owe more than this amount if you did not appeal one or more citations or items containing penalties.

Please call 415-703-4310 or email [email protected] i f you have any questions .

Abbreviation Key:

G=General R=Regulatory Er=Employer
S=Serious W=Willful Ee=Employee A/R=Accident Related
RG=Repeat General RR=Repeat Regulatory RS=Repeat Serious

PENALTY PAYMENT INFORMATION

1. Please make your cashier’s check, money order, or company check payable to:

Department of Industrial Relations

2. Write the Inspection No. on your payment

3. If sending via US Mail: If sending via Overnight Delivery:

CAL-OSHA Penalties U S Bank Wholesale Lockbox
PO Box 516547 c/o 516547 CAL-OSHA Penalties
Los Angeles, CA 90051-0595 16420 Valley View Ave.

La Mirada, CA 90638-5821

Online Payments can also be made by logging on to http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/CalOSHA_PaymentOption.html

-DO NOT send payments to the California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board- ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000303
371
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000304
372
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000305
373
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000306
374
ACUTECH-09-25-2022_000307
375

Page 1 of 3 ends

Richmond City CouncilSeptember 24, 2024

Richmond City Council
September 24, 2024