All posts by Roger Straw

Editor, owner, publisher of The Benicia Independent

Adams Broadwell attorneys on behalf of SAFER California: critical review of Valero FEIR

By Roger Straw, February 10, 2016
[See also the update section below for exhibits added later today.  – RS]

On February 8, 2016, the law firm Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo sent the City of Benicia of lengthy and detailed review, highly critical of the City’s Final EIR on Valero Crude By Rail(Warning – this is a 10 MB download.)

The letter is written on behalf of “Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (‘SAFER California’) and individuals who reside and work in the City of Benicia.”  It features individual reviews by well-known environmental experts Dr. Phyllis Fox and Dr. Petra Pless.

The Benicia Independent has created an INDEX to the document which is lengthy and is followed by extensive supporting attachments (see text version below).

Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo – INDEX
PDF Page # Description
1 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cordozo comments, cover letter
2 I. Interest of Commenters
3 II. The City’s responses to comments are inadequate
5 III. The City’s application of federal preemption is overbroad & conflicts with the constitutional exercise of traditional police powers
12 IV. The city still lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions in the FEIR regarding the project’s significant impacts and still fails to incorporate all feasible mitigation measures necessary to reduce such impacts to a less than significant level
36 V. The FEIR still fails to analyze all feasible alternatives
38 VI. The FEIR fails to disclose the project’s inconsistencies with the City’s general plan
40 VII. The FEIR fails to disclose the project’s inconsistencies with the general plans of uprail cities and counties
43 VIII. Conclusion
44 Attachment A: Findings for denial (Exhibit C)
57 Attachment B: Responses to Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cordozo comments
60 Attachment C: Dr. Phillis Fox, Comments on FEIR
62 I. Summary & Conclusions
65 II. Failures to analyze air quality impacts on different types of crude
71 III. Underestimate of ROG estimates
85 IV. Southern route not  analyzed
97 V. Alternatives to the project
98 VI. Mitigations not required
106 Attachment D: Dr. Petra Pless, Review of FEIR
107 Cover letter
108 I. Inadequacies of project description & EIR analyses not adequately supported
112 II. Failures to mitigate air quality impacts – construction
119 III. Failures to mitigate air quality impacts – operations
164 IV. The EIR’s Health Risk Assessments Are Substantially Flawed and Fail to Identify Significant Impacts
181 V. Recommendation
182 Attachment F-1, REVISED ASSUMPTIONS FOR Year 2014 Daily Line Haul Locomotive Criteria Pollutant Emissions -100 Railcars per Day per EIR Methodology
185 Attachment F-2 Project characteristics, assumptions, and locomotive emissions according to Phillips 66 SMR CBR FEIR and Valero Benicia CBR FEIR
187 Locomotive Emissions

UPDATE:

On Feb. 10, the City of Benicia posted extensive additional Exhibits to the SAFER California Letter of February 8, 2016.  See below, or go to the City’s page.  [#53 and #62 are broken links.  I will fix if/when I get better information.  – RS]

Pless_Exhibit_F1_-_F21
Ex._1_SJVAPCD_Authority_to_Construct_Application_ Review_Bakersfield_Terminal_2012-07-25
Ex._2_Emissions_Rail_Car_Fugitives_Revised
Ex._3_Rasmussen_et_al
Ex._4_Targa_Project_ISMND_FINAL_02242012
Ex._5_Midland_Valves_for_Pressure_Cars
10. Phillips Rail Spur Project FEIR December 2015
14. Impl_doc
17.(2) Tec_development_doc_final_2000
17. Impl_doc
18. ep724-stb-data-spreadsheet
20._RA_05-01_SPRD_Peformance_Saa_Nov_05
22. (b)_4185_Field_Guide_To_Tank_Cars1-opt
22. CH2ThresholdsTables5-2015
26._H51A Executive Summary
36._Improving_Securement_in_Hazardous_Materials
36. (1)2014_crude_by_
36. (2)2015_crude_by_
36. (3)2013_crude_by_
36. (4)2012_crude_by_
36. (5)2011_crude_by_
36. (6)2010_crude_by_
36. (7)2009_crude_by_
45. Phillips Rail Spur Project FEIR December 2015
52. __102634-west-coast-seein
53.
58._vi.
59. (1)ethylene-oxide-4pg-brochure
59. (2)ethylene-oxide-4pg-brochure
61._c79122pirol-newsAr
62. tsocorpsite.files.wor…tesoro-dot-120-fact-sheet
63.
66. RAR1201
68._SP16188_2014060840

BAAQMD: Important comments on Final EIR, Valero Crude By Rail

By Roger Straw, February 9, 2016

BAAQMDThe Benicia Independent is in receipt of a very important letter sent to the City of Benicia Planning Commission on February 8, 2016 by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

Commissioner Steve Young read from the letter at Monday’s Planning Commission meeting. City staff posted this important letter online yesterday, but located it on page 26 of a 256-page, 14 MB document of public comments received after the release of the FEIR (Jan. 28 – Feb. 8).  The letter is available as a standalone PDF document here on the Benicia Independent.

The letter states that the Final EIR is inadequate, and gives examples of air quality mitigations that do not conflict with federal preemption.

The letter goes on to point out that air quality studies in the FEIR rely on inaccurate and outdated risk analyses.

The BAAQMD offers in the letter (again) to assist Benicia and Valero in developing and implementing appropriate mitigation measures.

NRDC et al: Important comments on Final EIR, Valero Crude By Rail

The Benicia Independent is in receipt of a letter sent to the City of Benicia Planning Commission by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) detailing the failure of the EIR to “adequately analyze, disclose and mitigate the [Valero Crude by Rail] Project’s significant environmental impacts.”

The letter has not yet been posted to the City’s website as of this writing.

NRDC, joined by experts, attorneys and advocates representing 18 other Bay Area environmental groups (listed below), also responds to the City of Benicia staff report.  The staff report recommended certification of the EIR and approval of the project.

The NRDC letter details at length the EIR’s various omissions and failures of law, logic and scientific method.  Comments are organized into sections on Air Quality, Environmental Justice, Hazards, Water Quality, Biological Resources  and “Additional Impacts Not Analyzed.”

The additional section on the Staff Report makes a lengthy and careful legal case against the City’s claim that federal law preempts Benicia from mitigating impacts or denying approval for the project.

In conclusion, the letter states, “Benicia Municipal Code 17.104.060, prohibits the City from approving a project that will be detrimental ‘to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working’ near the project, ‘to properties or improvements in the vicinity,’ or ‘to the general welfare of the city.’  For all the reasons stated above and in our prior comments, the Project will harm Benicians, other communities throughout the state, and our climate. The City should decline to certify the EIR and deny the permit for this Project.”  [emphasis added]

This important and powerful letter has nineteen signatories:

• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Communities for a Better Environment
• San Francisco Baykeeper
• Center for Biological Diversity
• Sierra Club
• Richmond Progressive Alliance
• ForestEthics
• Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter
• Bay Localize
• Community Science Institute
Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community
• Crockett-Rodeo United to Defend the Environment
• Martinez Environmental Group
• Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition
• Sunflower Alliance
• Pittsburg Defense Council
• 350 Bay Area and 350 Marin
• Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
• Rodeo Citizens Association
• Asian Pacific Environmental Network

From Davis to Benicia: Lives are on the Line!

This is a PDF adaptation of a Powerpoint presentation prepared for the 2/8/16 Benicia Planning Commission hearing.

From Davis to Benicia: Lives are on the Line – a public hearing presentation

By Elizabeth Lasensky, Yolo MoveOn (facebook.com/yolo.moveon) and Yolano Climate Action (yolanoclimateaction.wordpress.com/).

UPRR tracks in Davis 386
Click on the image to view the PDF presentation.