For a copy of the Chevron lawsuit, click here.

For video, see http://www.nbcbayarea.com/video/#!/on-air/as-seen-on/City-of-Richmond-Sues-Chevron-Over-Refinery-Fire/218177442.

Richmond sues Chevron over refinery fire
Henry K. Lee
Updated 4:46 pm, Friday, August 2, 2013

Spectators view the fire at the Chevron Oil refinery from the top of a guardrail as the fire fills the sky with black smoke above Richmond Calif, Monday August 6, 2012. Photo: Lance Iversen, The Chronicle
On the eve of the anniversary of the disastrous Chevron refinery fire, the city of Richmond sued the company Friday, accusing officials of placing profits and executive pay over public safety.
The crude-oil pipeline leak that led to the blaze Aug. 6, 2012, was "a continuation of years of neglect, lax oversight and corporate indifference to necessary safety inspection and repairs," said the suit filed against Chevron Corp. in Contra Costa County Superior Court.
At a news conference at City Hall, Mayor Gayle McLaughlin said the City Council voted unanimously to sue after talks with Chevron failed to reach an agreement.
"This is not about money, although there are certainly costs attached to the impact of this fire," McLaughlin said. "This is about a change in Chevron's corporate culture, to place safety of the community as a top priority."
Chevron called the lawsuit "a waste of the city's resources and yet another example of its failed leadership."
The company said it would vigorously fight the lawsuit, which it said was designed to divert attention from a "dysfunctional" City Council.
The fire erupted when leaking oil from a corroded pipe ignited, creating a plume of smoke and gas that prompted 15,000 people in Richmond and surrounding cities to seek treatment at hospitals for respiratory problems.
As Chevron was ignoring public-safety concerns at the refinery, it was paying $52.8 million to compensate its top three executives in 2011 alone, the city said in its suit.
In an interim report in April, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board said the fire happened because weak state regulations allowed the company to monitor rather than simply fix potential problems. Company engineers had recommended that the corroded pipe be replaced.
The Chronicle reported last year that the agency conducted three planned inspections at the Richmond refinery in the six years before the fire, spending a total of 150 inspector hours. In at least one of the cases, the inspector did not actually visit the refinery. The level of state oversight was similar at the 14 other refineries in California.
Richmond's complaint against Chevron lists 14 other incidents since 1989 in which the refinery released toxic substances into the air, "each time issuing an apology and promising the Richmond community that they will undertake safety improvements to assure that further releases will be avoided."
McLaughlin, a Green Party member who has not received campaign donations from Chevron, accused the company of pinching pennies on safety while it bankrolled the campaigns of friendly City Council candidates. "This is a failure in Chevron's accountability," she said. "They have failed us."
As she spoke, Richmond residents held up signs showing pictures of the smoke spewing from the refinery during the fire and reading, "Chevron, stop polluting our air and our elections!"
A rally is scheduled for Saturday, with protesters planning to march from the Richmond BART Station to the refinery.
The city is seeking unspecified damages in its lawsuit, including compensation for emergency response, fire suppression, environmental cleanup and loss of property values.
Henry K. Lee is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: hlee@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @henryklee