Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Environmental review, Public Comment, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

ANOTHER FLURRY OF LETTERS OPPOSING VALERO CBR

By Roger Straw, April 18, 2016

ANOTHER FLURRY OF LETTERS OPPOSING VALERO CBR

Today the City of Benicia released Public Comments received April 15-18, 2016.

The PDF document is 34 pages, 2.4 MB.  It includes

Download the complete document here.

Air Quality, Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Berkeley, Berkeley City Council, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Crude By Rail, Federal pre-emption, Interstate Commerce Commission Termination ACT (ICCTA), Local Regulation, Oil spill, Toxic pollutants, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

BERKELEY MAYOR TOM BATES: Letter opposing Valero Crude By Rail

By Roger Straw, April 18, 2016

BERKELEY MAYOR TOM BATES: Letter opposing Valero Crude By Rail

The Benicia Independent is in receipt of a letter sent today to the City of Benicia by Berkeley, CA Mayor Tom Bates.  Mayor Bates writes in opposition to certification and permitting of Valero’s proposal.

Here is the complete text of Mayor Bates’ one-page letter:

Berkeley_logo
Office of the Mayor

April 18, 2016

Mayor Elizabeth Patterson City Council Members Tom Campbell, Mark Hughes, Alan Schwartzman, Christina Strawbridge Principal Planner Amy Million City of Benicia Benicia, California

Dear Mayor Patterson; Council Members Campbell, Hughes, Schwartzman, Strawbridge; and Ms. Million:

I ask you to uphold the Benicia Planning Commission’s decision to withhold certification from the Valero Refining Company’s Crude-by-Rail project. I believe the risks of this dangerous rail spur far outweigh possible benefits.

I agree with Attorney General Kamala Harris and environmental and community groups and that the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act does not prevent the City from assessing the transportation and public-safety risks when considering the project under its land-use authority.[1] The issue is one of local land use not pre-empted by federal regulation.

Another chief reason for not approving the project is that the CEQA analysis did not assess all of the project’s potential environmental impacts, including its impacts on other cities.[3] Allowing up to two 50-car trains of crude oil a day to come into the Valero refinery exposes Benicia and other communities to major safety risks, especially given the history of train derailment in recent times, both nationally and internationally.[2] An oil spill could be catastrophic to the local environment and waterways. Moreover, the transport of crude oil will emit toxic pollutants not adequately assessed in the environmental review, thus contaminating the air breathed by your residents and those of other communities as well.

The Berkeley City Council has reviewed the issue of transporting crude oil on the freight lines in the East Bay and has gone on record in unanimous opposition to such transport because of the unacceptable level of hazardous risk, including to Berkeley. The Union Pacific tracks are embedded in our West Berkeley community where people live, work and go to school.

I ask that you not approve this rail spur until the volatile organics are removed from these crude oil shipments and the railroads are upgraded to modern standards to handle such shipments.

Sincerely,
Tom Bates, Mayor

[1] https://beniciaindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/AttyGenl_Kamala_Harris_Comments_Received_April_13-14_2016.pdf
[3] https://beniciaindependent.com/topics/final-draft-environmental-impact-report-feir/
[2] http://ww2.kqed.org/science/2014/07/11/benicia-extends-public-comment-period-on-bay-area-crude-by-rail/

Crude By Rail, Dr. Phyllis Fox, Environmental review, Final Draft Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Expert Dr. Phyllis Fox blasts letters submitted last week by Benicia consultants

By Roger Straw, April 18, 2016

DR. PHYLLIS FOX: Expert blasts letters submitted by Benicia consultants

The Benicia Independent is in receipt of a late-breaking letter from well-known environmental expert Dr. Phyllis Fox, in which Fox rebuts letters submitted by the City of Benicia’s consultants last week.  Consultants MRS and ESA  submitted letters on April 11 and April 12 attacking Dr. Fox’s previous comments.

The Fox letter was submitted less than an hour ago today and is not yet posted on the City’s website.

Fox writes, “I have reviewed the letters by MRS and ESA that respond to my 4/4/16 Comments on Valero’s Appeal of Planning Commission’s Denial of the Valero Crude-by-Rail Project. The MRS and ESA responses are notable for their lack of support for numerous assertions. With few exceptions, they present no supporting calculations nor citations to specific pages in the EIR, reports, or web links. Thus, they present no new evidence and fail to respond to my comments.”

Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Federal pre-emption, Local Regulation, Public Comment, Public Health, Public permitting, Public Safety, Surface Transportation Board, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

BENICIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA for Apr 18 includes pro-Valero Staff Report and 11 attachments

By Roger Straw, April 17, 2016

Council Agenda for Apr 18 – staff documents in support of Valero

Don’t fail to notice the significance of the Agenda for the Benicia City Council hearing on Monday, April 18. The Agenda was published on April 13 without any mention that there was a strongly worded staff report supporting Valero. The agenda has 11 attachments, linked below.

  • Crude By Rail Staff Report 4-18-2016 FINAL.pdf (This 19-page document includes 42 questions raised by Council members with staff responses, all supporting Valero’s proposal.  Staff concludes with “Staff’s recommendation for the Valero Crude by Rail Project FEIR and Use permit has not altered.”)
  • Attachment 1- Memo Surface Transportation Board Process (2-page memo by Benicia’s consulting attorney Brad Hogin, defining STB Declaratory Orders, and laying out procedures of the STB. Hogin points out that the STB does sometimes institute “declaratory order proceedings based on petitions filed by parties that are not rail carriers.”)
  • Attachment 3- MRS Response Letter to Fox Comments (8-page letter by the City’s consultant, Marine Research Specialists, defending its “Quantitative Risk Analysis” against criticism by Dr. Phyllis Fox.)
  • Attachment 2 – ESA Response Memo to Fox Comments (5-page letter by the City’s consultant, ESA, defending its against criticism by Dr. Phyllis Fox on air quality and flooding.)
  • Attachment 4 – Barkan Memo (4-page letter on crude by rail statistics by Christopher P.L. Barkan, professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This is actually a very interesting document, with several tables of figures in response to questions about derailments, spills and explosions.)
  • Attachment 5- Andrew Chang Response Letter (4-page letter defending its report on fiscal and economic impacts.  Admits to no errors or overstatements.)
  • Attachment 6- SLO References to Preemption  (52 pages from the San Luis Obispo environmental report, concluding with the findings for denial.)
  • Attachment 7 -SEA-3, Inc. Surface Transportation Board Decision (7-page STB denial of a declaratory order petition, with guidance.)
  • Attachment 8 – Project Train Valero Property Diagram (1 page with two drawings showing the length of a 50-car crude oil train and the proposed unloading rack on Valero’s property.)
  • Attachment 9 – October 1, 2013 Council Report for Hogin’s Contract (2 page amendment providing for additional funds beyond $50,000 for consulting attorney Hogin to work on Valero Crude by Rail.  Glowing statements are made about his qualifications.  An attached Statement of Qualifications is not included in this PDF.)
  • Attachment 10- Public Comments Submitted April 7-12 2016 (Index on p. 1 shows letters from the City of Berkeley, Communities for a Better Environment, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community and 15 individuals, every one of which oppose Valero’s proposal.  In addition, the document shows a sample of an “identical letter” and lists several individuals there with no indication whether they submitted such an identical letter or some other letter.)
  • Attachment 11 – Speakers List for April 18 (This is the City’s  lists of individuals who filled out a comment card, including those who have not had an opportunity to speak and will be called on during the April 18, 2016 meeting, and those who already had a turn to speak during the April 4th or April 6th meetings, and will not be eligible to speak again.

For safe and healthy communities…