SIGN THE PETITION: No Valero Oil Trains in Benicia!

Over 1300 of you have already signed the Safe Benicia petition.  If you have not yet signed, please do so now.  Fill in your info below. Then add a comment or just click on ADD YOUR NAME at the bottom.

Railroad blames local company for derailment; handbrakes not set

Repost from the Contra Costa Times
[Editor: Significant quote: “‘…if they didn’t set those handbrakes before they decoupled those eight, they could start rolling. And that looks like what happened,’ said Randy Sawyer, Contra Costa county’s chief environmental health and hazardous materials officer.”  – RS]

Union Pacific Blames Local Company for Martinez Train Derailment

By Ted Goldberg, January 28, 2016

Update, 3 p.m. Thursday: The company handling three tanker cars that derailed in Martinez last week failed to apply enough brakes, according to a report that Union Pacific filed with the Federal Railroad Administration.

When the firm, Eco Services, pulled eight cars into its plant near the Benicia Bridge last Wednesday, a dozen other cars they were separated from began rolling away and under Interstate 680.

“There’s handbrakes on the cars to keep the cars stationary, and if they didn’t set those handbrakes before they decoupled those eight, they could start rolling. And that looks like what happened,” said Randy Sawyer, Contra Costa county’s chief environmental health and hazardous materials officer. “It is a cause for concern.”

The Union Pacific report also found that the incident caused more than $13,000 in damage.

Eco Services, Union Pacific and the Federal Railroad Administration have yet to comment.

Original post: The California Public Utilities Commission has opened an investigation into the derailment of three tanker cars carrying oil-refining chemicals in Martinez last week.

The CPUC’s probe of the incident just south of the Benicia Bridge comes amid new disclosures that the company in charge of the train at the time lost control of a dozen cars carrying spent sulfuric acid just before the derailment.

And county officials say the local agency in charge of responding to hazardous material incidents was not notified about the derailment until two hours after the cars left the tracks.

The company that was handling the material was Eco Services. Union Pacific delivered 20 tanker cars to the firm’s plant in Martinez on Jan. 19.

Early the next morning Eco Services workers began moving eight of the cars into its processing facility, according to a company incident report filed with county officials this week.

“As soon as the separation took place, the remaining 12 cars started rolling southward and down gradient toward Marina Vista Ave[nue],” wrote Anthony Koo, a senior environmental engineer at Eco Services.

The fact that a dozen rail cars carrying chemicals were briefly out of control near a busy freeway, Interstate 680, and one of the region’s major bridges prompted concern from the county’s chief environmental health and hazardous materials officer, Randy Sawyer.

The tanker cars “were moving when they weren’t supposed to be moving,” Sawyer said in an interview. “I would think they would have some kind of braking system that would keep them from doing that.”

According to the report, the three cars that left the tracks first passed under the I-680 overpass before hitting a derail device just west of the structure.

Sawyer said that device is a safety feature designed to prevent rail cars from entering a main track and colliding with a moving train. That safety system worked. No chemicals leaked from the three derailed cars, and no one was injured.

Sawyer also expressed concern about the delay in notifying his agency — a process that took nearly two hours.

“We would expect notification sooner,” he said.

According to the Eco Services report, the derailment occurred at 6:45 a.m. on Jan. 20. The company says it notified Union Pacific 17 minutes later.

Sawyer said the rail company then contacted the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, which then sent the county an email about the incident at 8:33 a.m.

Eco Services said it made a “courtesy call” to the hazardous materials program just over an hour after that.

The delayed notification was most likely because no hazardous materials spilled, but “they did not notify us as quickly as we would have wished,” Sawyer said.

The CPUC, meanwhile, is looking into whether Eco Services or Union Pacific were following state regulations at the time of the derailment, that agency’s spokeswoman, Constance Gordon, said in an email.

Eco Services has not returned calls for comment.

A Union Pacific spokesman says the company will cooperate with the CPUC in its investigation.

San Luis Obispo Planning Department recommends DENIAL of proposed Phillips 66 oil trains terminal

From an email by Ethan Buckner of ForestEthics
[Editor:  Here is the San Luis Obispo County staff document, “Findings for Denial.” This and more documents can be found on the County’s website.  See also Ethan’s update: “SLO County Staff Tells County to DENY Phillips 66 Oil Train Terminal” with info on how YOU can attend the hearings in San Luis Obispo.  – RS]

BREAKING: San Luis Obispo Planning Department recommends DENIAL of proposed Phillips 66 oil trains terminal

By Ethan Buckner, January 25, 2016
BREAKING: SLO County Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the Phillips 66 oil trains terminal
Click here for info on transportation to the hearings & rally.

Extraordinary news this afternoon out of San Luis Obispo, California, where Phillips 66 proposed to build an oil trains terminal at its refinery on the Nipomo Mesa.

Ahead of critical county Planning Commission hearings on the project, the SLO County Planning Department released their staff report recommending denial of the projectThis document is pretty unprecedented from municipal or county planning staff, who in most cases serve as conduits for industry and placaters of public concern. This document reflects a bold assertion of principles of public health, safety, and climate protection over corporate profit. At the bottom of the email, I’ve pasted the main arguments the county is using to recommend denial.

Come hearing time on February 4 and 5, local activists and allies across California will converge on SLO to make sure that Planning Commissioners listen to their own experts and overwhelming public opposition and stamp in this project’s denial. For those of you able to join us in SLO, here’s some info on transportation to the hearings & rally.

The Planning Department’s recommendations do not come out of nowhere. Over the past two years grassroots activists in SLO and beyond have catalyzed a powerful campaign that’s engaged thousands of Californians and enrolled dozens upon dozens of cities, counties, school boards, unions, and campuses to pressure SLO County to deny this project. This recommendation is an affirmation of our collective power.

Many thanks for all your tireless work, and hope to see you in SLO on February 4 and 5!

In solidarity,
Ethan

1. The Department of Planning and Building has found the Project to be inconsistent with several goals and policies of the following plans:

a. Coastal Zone Framework for Planning

b. County’s Conservation and Open Space Element

c. Costal Plan Policies d. Safety Element

e. Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance

f. South County Area Plan

2. The Project would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public and the residents of San Luis Obispo County due to the increase of hazardous accidents as a result of the Project.

3. The Project includes a significant and unavoidable environmental impact with regards to cancer risk (air quality) for the population near the proposed rail spur.

4. The Project includes a significant and unavoidable environmental impact with regards to diesel particulate matter (air quality) due to an exceedance of the SLOCAPCD CEQA threshold.

5. The Project would result in 10 significant and unavoidable environmental impacts (agricultural resources, four which are air quality, biological, cultural, hazards, public services, and water resources), with regards to the mainline rail operations within the County as a result of the Project. Planning Commission Development Plan/Coastal Development Permit #DRC2012-00095 / Phillips 66 Company Page 6

6. The Project would result in 10 significant and unavoidable environmental impacts (agricultural resources, four which are air quality, biological, cultural, hazards, public services, and water resources), with regards to the mainline rail operations beyond San Luis Obispo County and throughout the State.

7. There is a lack of specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project that outweigh the significant effects on the environment, as would be required to approve the Project pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.

Benicia Herald: Train carrying hazardous materials derails in Martinez

Repost from Nick Sestanovich’s Benicia Herald Archive
[Editor:  See also coverage in the CCTimes: Martinez: Train derailment near Benicia Bridge rekindles safety fears along East Bay’s refinery belt.  Also see KTVU News and video coverage on KRON 4 News.  – RS]

Train carrying hazardous materials derails in Martinez

By Nick Sestanovich, January 24, 2016

Martinez train derailment 2016-01-20A train carrying sulfuric acid derailed in Martinez Wednesday morning near the Benicia Bridge. No leaks have been reported, although the incident has caused some concerns in Benicia as the Planning Commission plans to hold a hearing on Valero’s proposed crude-by-rail project in two weeks.

A Union Pacific Railroad train was carrying the hazardous materials to sulfuric acid regeneration provider Eco Services in Martinez at 8 a.m. when three tanker cars were derailed along Mococo Road. It is unknown what caused the derailment.

The acid contained contaminated hydrocarbon, but no leaks were reported and no vapors were released.

As with other train derailments and explosions, this has caused concerns in the refinery-heavy regions of the Bay Area, especially in Benicia where the Planning Commission is going to hold a meeting on Feb. 8 to consider a use permit for the crude-by-rail project.

Valero announced the project, which would extend three Union Pacific Tracks onto its property to deliver up to 70,000 barrels of North American crude oil a day, in 2013 and was quickly met with backlash over its potential environmental effects. Adding fire to these concerns was an oil train explosion in the Canadian town of Lac-Megantic in Quebec that killed 47 people and destroyed more than 30 buildings in July of that year. Since then, oil train explosions in Casselton, N.D., and Lynchburg Va., are just a few of the similar incidents that have gotten widespread publicity.

The sentiments of Benicia have been echoed in other communities. In Pittsburg, the energy company WesPac Midstream LLC had proposed a project to convert a Pacific Gas & Electric tank farm into an oil storage facility which would have delivers from five 104-car oil trains a week. The project was struck down in December.

When reached for comment, Valero Public Affairs Manager Sue Fisher Jones said the Martinez derailment had no bearing on the city.

“The incident in Martinez is not related to, nor does it have any impact on, our operations in Benicia,” she said.

However, other residents like Roger Straw, who runs the anti-crude by rail blog The Benicia Independent, disagree.

“The derailment in Martinez involved tank cars full of poisonous sulfuric acid, rolling downhill unattended, just like the runaway train in Quebec that killed 47 people and leveled a downtown,” Straw said. “What does that have to do with crude by rail? Everything. Rail cars have carried hazardous materials for years, and the risk to our communities is already great. If we add to that risk two more 50-car trains every day full of toxic and volatile Bakken crude oil and/or impossibly heavy diluted tar-sands crude, two trains coming in and two more going out every day, we greatly increase the potential for a major loss in our own community and in those communities and wild spaces uprail from here.”

“This accident at Benicia’s front door is a wake up call,” he added.

The Planning Commission meeting will be held 6:30 p.m., Monday, Feb. 8, at the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 250 East L St.

For safe and healthy communities…