SAN LUIS OBISPO: Hundreds condemn Phillips 66 oil-by-rail proposal in first day of two-day hearing

Repost from The Tribune, San Luis Obispo CA
[Editor:  See also Pacific Coast Business Times, “Phillips 66 proposes fewer trains” and KSBY-TV, “Hearing begins.”  – RS]

SAN LUIS OBISPO: Hundreds condemn Phillips 66 oil-by-rail proposal in first day of two-day hearing

HIGHLIGHTS
• Planning Commission begins its two-day hearing on the proposed rail line for the Nipomo Mesa refinery
• Phillips 66 officials and county planning staff disagree on environmental impacts
• Hundreds of project opponents from across California arrive in SLO to protest the proposal

About 600 people gathered outside a San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission hearing to protest Phillips 66 Co.’s proposal to bring oil by rail to its Nipomo Mesa refinery.BY Cynthia Lambert, February 4, 2016 10:01 AM

In what was the largest turnout for a public hearing in years, hundreds of local residents and others from around California converged on San Luis Obispo Thursday to urge the county Planning Commission to reject Phillips 66 Co.’s request to receive crude oil by rail.

The hearing came about 18 months after the company submitted its project to the county for review, kicking off a firestorm and deluge of letters from around the state as residents and environmental organizations rallied opposition in communities near the Union Pacific railways.

On Thursday, the days of reckoning had finally arrived.

For several hours, planning commissioners heard appeals from 83 people — a combination of residents from San Luis Obispo County, and northern and southern California, as well as elected officials — all urging they reject a proposal to build a 1.3-mile spur with five parallel tracks from the main rail line to the Nipomo Mesa refinery, an unloading facility at the refinery and on-site pipelines.

“This affects everyone in the county in a major and adverse way,” said James Hencier of Nipomo.

He and other opponents cited numerous public safety and health impacts, air pollution and water quality problems, and the possibility — many said certainty — of a potentially disastrous oil train derailment or spill should the project be allowed to proceed.

“If this project goes forward, we can never go back and change it,” Nipomo resident Jennifer Williams said. “The damage will be done and it will be just a matter of time before an accident happens.”

About 390 people had grabbed speaker comment slips as of Thursday afternoon, including those who spoke that day. Public comment will continue Friday and possibly to a future date, depending on how many of the speakers turn out. None of the 83 public speakers on Thursday spoke in favor of the Phillips 66 proposal.

On Thursday morning in a full meeting room, the commission first heard a report from county planning staff explaining its recommendation for denial of the project, which as proposed would allow five trains a week, for a maximum of 250 trains per year to deliver crude oil to the Nipomo Mesa refinery.

Each train would have three locomotives, two buffer cars and 80 railcars carrying a total of about 2.2 million gallons of crude oil, according to county planners.

But representatives from Phillips 66 urged the commissioners to approve an alternate plan to allow three trains a week instead of five.

“The three-train-per-week project is now our proposed project,” said Jocelyn Thompson of Alston & Bird LLP.

It “eliminates all of the Class 1 impacts with respect to onsite activities,” she added, referring to the highest level of negative impacts to air quality and biological resources referenced in the project’s final Environmental Impact Report.

The county staff report states that three trains a week — or 150 a year — would reduce the significant toxic air emissions to no longer be considered a “Class 1 significant impact.”

However, the county’s planning staff said other significant impacts still would harm the environment even with three trains per week rather than five: construction of the facilities would still disturb environmentally sensitive habitat, and emissions of diesel particulate matter would still remain a “Class 1” impact.

Thompson also told the commission that federal preemption would prevent the commission from imposing conditions along the main rail line to mitigate potential environmental impacts.

In addition, she said, if the project is denied, crude oil will still come into California by rail and eventually reach the refinery, albeit by a different route: Oil would arrive in the Central Valley by train and then be trucked about 110 miles through San Luis Obispo County to Santa Maria, where it would be pumped into a pipeline and sent to the refinery.

“It’s impermissible for you to say that you’re going to deny the project because there’s a train on the tracks,” she said. “The train will come to the San Joaquin Valley and you will be dealing with trucks.”

In response, several local residents said they would prefer trucks over trains, and one San Jose resident said that wouldn’t mean anything to Bay Area residents. “That doesn’t mean anything to us in Northern California,” Jill Sardegna said. “For us there will be trains, one mile long.”

Trains carrying crude oil could enter California at five locations, so the exact routes may vary. Trains from Northern California would generally pass through the Union Pacific rail yard in Roseville, near Sacramento; trains traveling from Southern California would likely pass through the Colton rail yard in San Bernardino County.

The company now receives crude by pipeline.

Phillips 66 officials have repeatedly said oil production in California is dropping, and bringing in crude oil by rail from a wider range of sources would allow the company to offset any reduction in deliveries from its current suppliers. Phillips 66 officials have said the project would maintain more than 200 jobs at the refinery, plus $2.2 million in annual tax revenue to the county.

When asked during a break if layoffs could happen if the project is denied, Phillips 66 spokesman Dennis Nuss said, “We’re going to wait and see what is going to happen with the process.”

Several speakers argued that Phillips 66 does not need the project to maintain its current number of employees, but is only interested in increasing profits.

“All they want are some tracks for a rail spur, that all sounds quite harmless,” Nipomo resident Michele Schneiderman said. “They want to make SLO County a hub for the corporation’s stated crude oil by rail strategy.”

If the plan is approved, the refinery would not increase the amount of material processed there, and no crude oil or refined product would be transported out of the refinery by rail, the company has said. The refined product would be piped to the Rodeo Refinery in Contra Costa County — the same as the refinery’s current operation, according to a staff report.

Currently, no more than six freight trains and six passenger trains pass through San Luis Obispo County each day on the Union Pacific’s Coast line. Freight trains already carry crude oil, as well as lumber, vehicles and hazardous materials, according to the rail project’s environmental report. A crude oil train traverses the county as it moves from San Ardo to Los Angeles two to three times a week. It has been in operation for about 20 years.

San Luis Obispo Mayor Jan Marx was among the elected officials or their representatives who urged denial of the project. “Whether it’s five or three trains, our city would be placed at unique risk to this project,” she said.

Paso Robles High School student Gabby Davis also spoke “on behalf of peers at school and youth in the community.”

“How would it make you feel to know that one day you get a phone call and because of an oil train derailment one of your great grandchildren will be impacted,” she asked the commissioners. “Oil trains are dinosaurs and dinosaurs belong in museums.”

At lunch, about 600 people from around the state rallied across the street from the hearing to protest the project. Some supporters were seen too, with green “Protect Jobs” signs, but they were far outnumbered by opponents with “Stop Oil Trains Now” posters and signs proclaiming, “We Risk, They Benefit” and “Invest in Solar.”

Environmental activist candidate Heidi Harmon, a protest organizer, initiated a call-and-response chant, “childen’s safety under attack … stand up, fight back.”

Among the rally speakers were 24th District congressional candidates Helene Schneider and Salud Carbajal of Santa Barbara.

“All it takes is just one train for a disaster to occur that could wreak havoc,” Schneider, who is mayor of Santa Barbara, told the sign-waving crowd of activists who came from as far away as Los Angeles, Ventura, the San Francisco Bay Area, Fresno and other communities that would be affected by the proposed rail project.

Carbajal, a Santa Barbara County supervisor, cited his opposition to fracking and concerns about public health and safety as his reasons for opposing the Phillips proposal.

“You have to put action to your words or else you’re just blowing hot air,” Carbajal said.

Project opponents at the protest rally included representatives of the California Nurses Association, Surfrider Foundation, and teachers who said school districts along the rail line throughout the state opposed the project. Many had sent letters of opposition to the county over the past year.

Their main concerns were the potential for dangerous explosions from oil trains and toxins released from the transport of diesel fuel.

Cal Poly student Kyle Jordan said the university’s Associated Students Inc. student government board voted in favor of a resolution opposing the project as well.

“The official voice of 20,000 students encourages the Planning Commission to reject this proposal,” Jordan said.

Tribune staff writer Nick Wilson contributed to this report.

City of Benicia staff documents for Planning Commission

City staff’s all-out attempt to sell Valero oil train project

The following documents were released on January 28, when City of Benicia staff included them in their staff report to the Benicia Planning Commission, but they escaped my attention until today.  I noted (and posted links to) the Agenda and Staff Report soon after their release.  They appear on the Planning Commission page on the City website, but were not posted with the accumulation of project documents and public comments on the City’s Valero Crude By Rail page.  At the bottom of the Staff Report are links to the significant documents you will find below.  These Attachments are important – they represent our city staff’s impressive attempt to sell the Valero project to our Planning Commission.

Video: Report finds majority of Lac-Megantic residents show signs of PTSD

Repost from CTV Montreal

Majority of Lac-Megantic residents show signs of PTSD: report

CTV Montreal, February 4, 2016 8:02PM EST

Two thirds of the residents of Lac-Megantic show moderate to severe symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the results of a long-term study released Thursday.

Public health officials have been studying the psychological and health impact caused by the train derailment in July 2013 which killed 47 people. In total 1,600 residents from Lac-Megantic and surrounding areas participated in the study.

Lac-Megantic residents are twice as likely to suffer from anxiety as other residents in the Eastern Townships, only 16 per cent of residents are seeking psychological help, a drop from the previous year, and one out of eight residents do not feel safe in their town.

The results also show that one person out of six has reported increased alcohol consumption since the disaster.

The public health agency is recommending more investment in mental health services and is calling for a collective day of reflection in March to gather all residents to come up with a plan to help heal this community.

One issue that remains unresolved is the rails – many citizens want the tracks to be diverted around the town rather than through it.

On Saturday, Transport Minister Marc Garneau pledged at least no trains that go through town will be allowed to carry crude oil, but there’s no guarantee that measure will become permanent.

Benicia city staff recommends approval of Valero oil trains

By Roger Straw, January 30, 2016
    • Staff dismisses comments by experts, residents, uprail communities
    • Staff recommends Planning Commission certify the EIR and approve the project
    • New procedures for speakers at public hearing on February 8 (See UPDATED version of Feb. 2 below.)
    • Your last chance to speak up – petition and hearing

On Thursday, January 28, 2016, Benicia staff released the agenda for the upcoming Planning Commission final hearings on Valero Crude by Rail.  Included along with the agenda was a 41-page staff report recommending approval of the project, and outlining a new sign-up procedure for those who want to comment at the public hearing.

Like the massive 3-volume Final Draft of the EIR, city staff chose to ignore critical input and to hide behind “federal preemption” in order to cater to the desires of our giant corporate neighbor, Valero.

Benicia residents are sorely disappointed with the decision of our city employees to disregard the health and safety of Benicians and others uprail in Davis, Sacramento and beyond.

The staff recommendation relies on the very same reasoning used by San Luis Obispo County staff to DENY a crude by rail project: what happens uprail can’t be controlled.  Because we can’t control Union Pacific, because only the Feds can have a say about rail shipping beyond local jurisdictions, we throw up our hands, while San Luis Obispo staff says, basically, ok, we’re not helpless, we can stop it HERE.

UPDATE: On Feb. 2, the City released a revised version of the procedures for signup, indicating that YOU MAY PHONE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 707-746-4280 IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SIGN UP IN PERSON.  You may also sign up another person who is unable to sign up in person. 

This is SO discouraging.  It’s tempting to throw up our hands in defeat … but not yet.  We have two more opportunities to make our wishes known:

  1. PETITION – Over 1300 of you have already signed the Safe Benicia petition.  If you have not yet signed, please do so now.  Go to http://bit.ly/StopValeroOilTrains.  Add your personal comments or just push the button.

2. THE FINAL PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING (Commissioners will VOTE after all are heard!)

Where:   Benicia City Council Chambers | 250 East L St. Benicia
When:     Feb. 8, gather at 5:00pm, hearings start 6:30pm
RSVP:      bit.ly/SafeBenicia
PETITION:  Over 1300 of you have already signed the Safe Benicia petition.  If you have not yet signed, please do so now.  Go to bit.ly/StopValeroOilTrains.  Add your personal comments or just push the button.
AGENDA: click here
STAFF REPORT (with recommendation for APPROVAL): click here
Note also:  Additional meetings are scheduled to hear public comment on Tuesday, February 9, Wednesday, February 10, and Thursday, February 11, 2016. These meetings will be held only as needed. If all public comment is provided and the Planning Commission takes action, the agenda item will be closed and the additional meeting(s) will be cancelled.
IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT DURING THE HEARING: Due to the large amount of public interest with this project, the City will be instituting a sign up system in order to speak during the public hearings. Interested members of the public will be allowed to speak in order of sign up. Sign ups will be available on the day of the meeting(s) from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Community Development Department, 250 East L Street, Benicia. At the  hearing, please go to the sign up table just outside of the Council Chambers. Your name will be called in the order in which you signed up. You do not have to sign up in order to speak.  However, you will not be called on until those who have signed up have spoken. In order to accommodate the public, we have arranged for overflow rooms in City Hall with the hearing streaming for you to view and listen. You can also view the event live from the City’s website. http://www.ci.benicia.ca.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={FD712CCF-B69D-4DE4-B704-CD9E825B3187}

For safe and healthy communities…