Benicia Planning Commission, Public Comment, Public permitting, Take Action, Valero Crude By Rail

A flurry of exceptional – and very personal – letters opposing Valero Crude By Rail

[Editor:  Below are a few recent letters opposing Valero Crude By Rail, each exceptional and highly personal in its approach (by Rob Peters, Sue Kibbe, David Jenkins, Elizabeth Lasensky and Ruby Wallis).  For more, see Project Review.  – RS]

Rob Peters, Benicia, October 24, 2015, published in the Benicia Herald on October 27, 2015:

Ms. Amy Million:

I’m no scientist — and couldn’t add anything more to the data-fueled reasons and measurable metrics as to why this singular gamble from Valero Inc. is too dangerous, defiant and inimical to the town we have all worked in, shopped, played, bragged about and raised families in.  Benicia is indeed a special jewel of a town that simply should not be in competition with other towns that seem so wedded to heavy industrial output that they soon become known and degraded primarily for that association:    That simply is not the image, future and profile that Benicians could possibly want. Nor, on balance, is it a healthy, sustainable economic image for a town.

A few observations:  We are in the midst of a flat, receding marketplace for petroleum products world wide;  who would refuse to cringe when contemplating the inevitable growth of land, sea and air-borne pollutants and toxics and the enormous 24-7 risks inherent in shipping such combustible, toxic substances through both our town and our many neighboring communities; and whenever we hear the crackled cough of a youngster or an elder who has asthma, we can afford to take Valero’s proposal in a civil way — but not at all in a serious way.   Theirs is merely a cheap, ugly and unproven method to fatten their monetary output — benefiting a sliver of higher ups in the Texan conglomerate — while putting all of us, our visitors, schools, parks and businesses and our neighbors along the route — in permanent fear and disgust over their crude-oil fantasy trains.

I encourage you to utilize your considerable depth and breadth of knowledge of our town and its peoples, and hope you vote to refuse adoption of the Valero scheme; and rather, vote to safeguard the entire population of this town, young and old, and those populations adjacent to us.

Regards,
Rob Peters, Benicia, CA.

Sue Kibbe, Benicia, October 23, 2015, yet to be posted on the City website:

To: Benicia Planning Commission

Re. RDEIR for Valero Benicia Crude-by-Rail Project

As Grant Cooke said, “There is no historical basis to assume there will be no accident.” (September 29, 2015, Planning Commission public hearing)

Double negatives give me pause, but this is so perfectly obvious. There will be accidents, always have been and always will be. Regardless of risk projections, reinforced tank cars, speed limits, track inspections and all good intentions — there will be human error, mechanical failure, bad weather, bad timing, bad luck, rock slides, earthquakes, wear and tear of tracks and trestles never built to carry 7,150 tons twice a day, day after day, year after year. There is the danger posed by “Local Safety Hazard Sites” along the proposed rail routes, with high frequencies of derailments. And there is any combination of these factors that can result in fire, destruction, air and habitat contamination, loss of life.

Not to suggest that we be paralyzed by fear of accidents, just that we acknowledge and weigh the risks against the benefits. So, are there any benefits to the city and citizens of Benicia?

Not to any business in the Industrial Park, where 730 trains per year will be spewing pollution — NOx and carbon monoxide and  particulate matter — directly within the euphemistically named “Park.” Where 8.3-minute estimated delays in traffic will be every-day, four-times-a-day aggravations. Where the risk of working in the Blast Zone will be highest. The Industrial Park, the “engine of Benicia,” will find it difficult to attract and keep businesses and workers.

Certainly not to the homeowners of Benicia, who will see their property values decrease and their air pollution increase. Mark DeSaulnier (U.S. House of Representatives for Contra Costa County and a former member of the California Air Resources Board) recently wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle: “California already has the worst air quality in the nation, with 7,200 deaths a year associated with air pollution.”

There are no benefits to up-rail communities, nor to wildlife, sensitive habitats, wetlands, water resources — essentially, the environment in all its natural beauty and diversity — as the RDEIR clearly documents. The negative impacts are, without exception, “Significant and unavoidable,” with no mitigation available. CEQA’s thresholds for greenhouse gas precursors (NOx) are exceeded in every up-rail county; this is illegal, unacceptable and unconscionable.

To deliberately disregard and violate California’s air quality regulations is to endanger our neighbors to the north and bring shame upon our fair city. From these findings, it would appear that the RDEIR cuts a clear pathway to rejection of Valero’s crude-by-rail project.

But not so fast. . . Valero contends that CEQA is preempted by sacrosanct interstate commerce and the federal government, specifically by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995: “. . . even if the City attempted to control railroad activity by controlling the Valero facility, such effort would be preempted” (Appendix H-5). So has this DEIR been undertaken under false pretenses right from the start, merely to give the illusion of environmental concern?

I find it hypocritical that Valero selectively applies CEQA thresholds to this project when it is to the refinery’s benefit. In calculating the air quality impact in the BAAQMD — the huge area surrounding the entire SF Bay, encompassing Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Napa and southern Solano and Sonoma counties — Valero touts the “improvements” to air quality from the reduction in marine vessels traversing the Bay. As I described in my letter regarding the DEIR (August 13, 2014), this is a completely deceptive manipulation of the numbers. By reducing emissions in the vast BAAQMD, Valero can increase by 18,433 metric tons per year the emissions right here in Benicia. The selective use of CEQA should not be ignored — abiding by the law when it allows the project to proceed with mitigation, but disavowing CEQA when air quality will be significantly degraded, with no available mitigation.

It is time for a moratorium on crude-by-rail in California. The cumulative impact of these hazardous rail shipments, the increase in greenhouse gases and pollution, and the violation of CEQA standards must be assessed by the state, not in piecemeal fashion from one refinery to the next. If the ICCTA (enacted long before crude-by-rail was a national safety concern) is invoked by Valero, the question of crude-by-rail through California should go to the Attorney General’s office and the courts, as the repercussions are far reaching for the entire state and go beyond the boundaries and purview of our small, still lovely city by the Bay.

Finally, we cannot pretend that we are not participants in the devastation of the boreal forests of Alberta and the farmland of North Dakota if we allow crude-by-rail to continue.  I ask that you view the attached aerial photographs to understand the impact that crude oil extraction has on North America. And I close with another quotation, this regarding global climate change, from the 2015 encyclical of Pope Francis:

“We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels needs to be progressively replaced without delay. . . The natural environment is a collective good, the patrimony of all humanity and the responsibility of everyone. . . Many things have to change course, but it is we human beings above all who need to change. We lack an awareness of our common origin, of our mutual belonging and of a future to be shared with everyone.”

Thank you,
Sue Kibbe, Benicia

David Jenkins, Benicia Industrial Park business owner, October 21, 2015, posted on the City’s website:

Dear Mrs. Million,

I am writing to express deep concern over Valera’s proposed oil train offloading facility in Benicia.  According to the EIR, this project would create several “significant and unavoidable impacts” that could devastate our community.

Bringing oil trains into Benicia will create unacceptable increases in toxic air pollution for communities all along the rail route and near the refinery. The EIR identifies several significant and unavoidable air impacts from toxins and known carcinogens including increased pollution from NOx, sulfur dioxide, PM 2.5, and benzene.

According to the EIR, the cumulative risk of spills, explosions, and fires along the UPRR mainline “and the storage yard would be significant for all of the tank car designs,” including the not-yet-built DOT-117 cars. Such a disaster could result in significant loss of life, long-term economic loss, and contamination of our precious wetlands and waterways. This level of risk is also unacceptable.

The exhibit attached clearly indicates a un avoidable risk to the property I own and operate as a truck rental and service facility , to the extent of making my property worthless for re-sale at a future time .This unconceivable risk causes my real estate to be perhaps un-useable due to a risk of being incinerated should the worst case scenario take place.

The EIR also assumes the “worst case” scenario is a spill of 8 tanker cars, or about 240,000 gallons. The train that incinerated Lac-Megantic, Quebec in July 2013 spilled over 1.6 million gallons of crude, or about 60 tanker cars. The EIR must assume a worst case scenario that reflects existing data on recent spills. Without an accurate worst case scenario analysis, this project can not be approved.

The revised EIR identifies “significant and unavoidable” climate impacts that conflict with California’s existing climate law mandating the state move to an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas by 2050. At a time when wildfires are raging and the drought is more dire than ever, it is imperative we invest in safe, clean energy rather than extreme oil infrastructure.

For all these reasons, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission and City Council to not certify this EIR and reject Valero’s proposed oil train terminal in Benicia.

David Jenkins
Nor Cal truck Sales and Rental, Benicia

Elizabeth Lasensky, Davis CA, October 20, 2015, posted on the City’s website:

Dear Ms. Million:

Regarding the Valerio Refinery request for bringing oil trains into Benicia, please add the following comment to the public record:

The Valerio Refinery project will create relatively few jobs. Yet those jobs are being held up as a reason to support the refinery’s request to bring oil trains along thousands of miles of tracks from their origins in North Dakota to the City of Benicia. Could the City of Benicia please explain why those relatively few jobs are so important and the jobs, health and lives of all the people who live, go to school, play and work along the thousands of miles of tracks are worth so little?  Those of us uprail from the project will not see the benefits of those jobs but millions of us – and the environment- carry the risk.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lasensky, Davis CA

Ruby Wallis, Benicia, October 17, 2015, posted on the City’s website:

Dear Amy…. I DO NOT WANT THOSE DANGEROUS TOXIC OIL TRAINS IN BENICIA. And also that crap being refined in Benicia. I have worked at Valero Refinery as a pipe welder. I know they don’t fix anything until something goes wrong. It’s all about the money. And also, Valero never hires local union  members. They would rather hire contractors from out of state. Haven’t you noticed the out of state welding rigs that drive around town with license plates from Texas OK, and Oregon? I always talk to them. They take the money and drive back to the
states they’re from.

I know a friend who worked at Valero when it was built. He told me that he is surprised it hasn’t blow up yet!!!! It’s an accident waiting to happen!! WHY SUBJECT THE PEOPLE TO WORSE AIR ETC.? The people of Benicia do not want this crap!!!

BTW: DON’T YOU KNOW THE TOXIC OIL THEY WANT TO REFINE WILL BE SOLD TO CHINA? ALSO, DID YOU KNOW
THAT THE CHILDREN OF BENICIA HAVE FOUR TIMES THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF ASTHMA?

Listen to the people Amy, and not Valero!!

Ruby Wallis
Retired pipe welder

Air Quality, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Civil penalties, Valero Benicia Refinery, Violations of law

Benicia: Valero to pay $196,000 to settle air quality violation notices

Repost from the Contra Costa Times

Benicia: Valero to pay $196,000 to settle air quality violation notices

By Tom Lochner, 10/29/2015 04:35:26 PM PDT

BENICIA — Valero Oil Co. will pay $196,000 for air quality violations at its Benicia refinery, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District announced Thursday.

The settlement covers 23 violation notices issued by the air district for incidents that occurred in 2012, the district said. The two most significant ones involved errors in an inspection database that omitted listing certain valves, resulting in missed leak inspections.

Eight of the lesser violations involved excessive emissions measured by monitors; six involved hydrocarbon vapor leaks from valves or seals on storage tanks; and seven involved late reports or other minor administrative violations. All were corrected as soon as they were discovered, the district said.

The air district is proposing four new rules that would require tougher emissions limits, more monitoring, and quicker equipment repairs and upgrades to help meet its 20 percent refinery emissions reduction goal by 2020.

Bakken Crude, Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Carbon emissions, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Environmental Impacts, Explosion, Fire, Greenhouse gas emissions, Take Action, Tar sands crude, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

CREDO Action generates over 1,800 letters opposing Valero Crude by Rail

Repost from CREDO Action
[Editor:  The following call to action arrived in thousands of email inboxes on October 27, 2015.  The response was huge – so far over 1800 CREDO-generated letters have been sent to the City of Benicia (in the first 24 hours).   The link here will take you to the CREDO Action page.  Letters deadline is 5pm on Friday, October 30, 2015.  – RS]

Tell the Benicia City Council: Block Valero’s dangerous oil trains terminal

Tell the Benicia City Council: Block Valero's dangerous oil trains terminal.

Oil giant Valero is trying to build a massive oil trains terminal at its refinery in Benicia.

Two 50-car oil trains per day would carry toxic fracked oil and tar sands across California to the refinery, passing through Roseville, Sacramento, Davis, Fairfield and other cities before reaching their destination in Benicia.¹

If approved by the Benicia City Council, the terminal would exacerbate local air pollution in Benicia and in communities along the rail route, expose those communities to the catastrophic danger of an oil train derailment and explosion, and fuel the climate crisis by encouraging fracking and tar sands extraction.

The Benicia City Council is accepting public comments on the project until 5pm on Friday, October 30, 2015. Local opposition has already delayed the project once – we need to speak out right now and demand that the city council block Valero’s dangerous oil terminal.²

Tell the Benicia City Council: Block Valero’s dangerous oil trains terminal. Submit a public comment directly to the city council.

The number of crude by rail accidents in recent years has skyrocketed. In addition to the deadly oil train explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Québec in July 2013, which killed 47 people, there have been nine major oil train explosions in the United States since the start of 2013.

In addition to the threat of deadly train derailments and explosions, Valero’s plan would worsen air quality for communities all along the rail line. In Benicia, shipping more fracked oil and tar sands to Valero’s refinery would only increase toxic refinery pollution. Further, oil trains leak dangerous chemicals, creating a toxic plume around rail lines up and down the rail route.³

With no end in sight to the record drought threatening California, there is simply no excuse for green-lighting any fossil fuel infrastructure project that will encourage the extraction of more dirty fracked oil and tar sands and exacerbating climate change.

Valero will get its way if we remain silent. Submit a public comment urging the Benicia City Council to reject Valero’s crude by rail project.

¹ Jaxon Van Derbeken, “Benicia sees cash in crude oil; neighbors see catastrophe,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 24, 2014
² Tony Bizjak, “Benicia plans more study of crude-oil train impacts,” Sacramento Bee, February 3, 2015
³ Diane Bailey, “Valero’s Promise to Benicia: We’ll only have an environmental disaster once every 111 years,” NRDC Switchboard, September 17, 2014

Send an email.

Tell the Benicia City Council:

Valero’s outrageous proposal to build an oil trains terminal at its refinery in Benicia threatens the health and safety of people all along the rail route.

If approved by the Benicia City Council, the terminal would exacerbate local air pollution in Benicia and in communities along the rail route, expose those communities to the catastrophic danger of an oil train derailment and explosion, and fuel the climate crisis by encouraging fracking and tar sands extraction.

I urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to reject Valero’s dangerous plan.

Click here to send this email.

Tell the Benicia City Council: Block Valero's dangerous oil trains terminal.

Oil giant Valero is trying to build a massive oil trains terminal at its refinery in Benicia.

Two 50-car oil trains per day would carry toxic fracked oil and tar sands across California to the refinery, passing through Roseville, Sacramento, Davis, Fairfield and other cities before reaching their destination in Benicia.¹

If approved by the Benicia City Council, the terminal would exacerbate local air pollution in Benicia and in communities along the rail route, expose those communities to the catastrophic danger of an oil train derailment and explosion, and fuel the climate crisis by encouraging fracking and tar sands extraction.

The Benicia City Council is accepting public comments on the project until Friday. Local opposition has already delayed the project once – we need to speak out right now and demand that the city council block Valero’s dangerous oil terminal.²

Tell the Benicia City Council: Block Valero’s dangerous oil trains terminal. Submit a public comment directly to the city council.

The number of crude by rail accidents in recent years has skyrocketed. In addition to the deadly oil train explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Québec in July 2013, which killed 47 people, there have been nine major oil train explosions in the United States since the start of 2013.

In addition to the threat of deadly train derailments and explosions, Valero’s plan would worsen air quality for communities all along the rail line. In Benicia, shipping more fracked oil and tar sands to Valero’s refinery would only increase toxic refinery pollution. Further, oil trains leak dangerous chemicals, creating a toxic plume around rail lines up and down the rail route.³

With no end in sight to the record drought threatening California, there is simply no excuse for green-lighting any fossil fuel infrastructure project that will encourage the extraction of more dirty fracked oil and tar sands and exacerbating climate change.

Valero will get its way if we remain silent. Submit a public comment urging the Benicia City Council to reject Valero’s crude by rail project.

¹ Jaxon Van Derbeken, “Benicia sees cash in crude oil; neighbors see catastrophe,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 24, 2014
² Tony Bizjak, “Benicia plans more study of crude-oil train impacts,” Sacramento Bee, February 3, 2015
³ Diane Bailey, “Valero’s Promise to Benicia: We’ll only have an environmental disaster once every 111 years,” NRDC Switchboard, September 17, 2014

 

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Emergency Readiness & Response, Hazmat notification, High Hazard Flammable Trains (HHFTs), Oil storage, Parked trains, State regulation

Does keeping hazardous rail cargo secret make Maine safer?

Repost from the Bangor Daily News

Does keeping hazardous rail cargo secret make Maine safer?

By Darren Fishell, Oct. 28, 2015, at 9:17 a.m.
A new state law that took effect Oct. 15, 2015, exempts information about freight rail cargo from Maine’s Freedom of Access Act. While shipping crude oil by rail, as illustrated in the 2013 photo in Hermon, has largely ceased, a spokesman for the environmental group 350 Maine questions whether the new exemption is meant more to quell protests than to protect business interests or promote better communication between railways and first responders.
A new state law that took effect Oct. 15, 2015, exempts information about freight rail cargo from Maine’s Freedom of Access Act. While shipping crude oil by rail, as illustrated in the 2013 photo in Hermon, has largely ceased, a spokesman for the environmental group 350 Maine questions whether the new exemption is meant more to quell protests than to protect business interests or promote better communication between railways and first responders. Brian Feulner | BDN

PORTLAND, Maine — Information revealing when, where and how much hazardous material is shipped by rail through Maine became sealed from public view under state law earlier this month, in a move first responders hope will allow them greater access to information about dangerous materials passing through the state.

The new exemption to Maine’s Freedom of Access Act — the only new exemption to become law during the last legislative session — in June cleared a veto from Gov. Paul LePage, who wrote he believed any information in the hands of first responders should be public.

The railroad industry, however, has pushed for shielding for those shipments from public records, citing safety reasons and business confidentiality.

“Maine didn’t have the exclusion, and [railroads] just didn’t share the information,” Mike Shaw, an Amtrak employee and former lawmaker from Standish, said. “I figured that if it can be in the hands of [first responders] and I don’t know about it, it’s better than nobody knowing it at all.”

Shaw, the bill’s sponsor, resigned from the Legislature in August after moving to Freeport.

Safety and security

Jeffrey Cammack, executive director and legislative liaison for the Maine Fire Chiefs’ Association, said the issue of how to get that information from railroad companies is on the group’s upcoming agenda.

“What we’ve heard from the chiefs is that sometimes [a hazardous material shipment] is stored on the rails in their community and they don’t know it’s there,” Cammack said. “They hope to have some dialogue with the railroad companies just about how long it’s there and why it might be there.”

Cammack said first responders would be better able to prepare for a disaster, spill or derailment with that knowledge.

“The person in control of the product and the emergency responders will have a response plan,” Cammack said. “That’s what we look to gain.”

The highest concern, he said, has been about hazardous materials stored in a town at times for multiple days without emergency responders being alerted.

Shaw said he believed the American Association of Railroads helped with the language of the bill, which initially shielded such records when in the hands of first responders. In testimony, Shaw advocated for broadening that exemption to all state or local agencies.

Ed Greenberg, with the American Association of Railroads, could not confirm the association’s direct involvement in the bill language, but said the industry has general concerns about the security of shipments and proprietary business information.

“Whenever there is sensitive information in whatever level is made public, we believe it elevates security risks by making it easier for someone intent on causing harm,” Greenberg said.

Cammack said that’s not the biggest concern of the Maine Fire Chiefs’ Association.

“We know that for 99.9 percent of the people, that isn’t an issue,” Cammack said.

Nate Moulton, director of the Maine Department of Transportation’s Office of Freight and Business Services, said competition between railroads and other shippers also is a legitimate business concern.

“No. 1, do you want them or your trucking competitors to know how much you’re moving?” Moulton said. “If you’re a trucking company, you don’t post publicly what you’re moving and how much.”

The new exemption in Maine covers all types of hazardous materials that might be shipped by rail, which could include information about other shipments, including some chemicals delivered to paper mills.

The St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad, which runs from Portland to Quebec, was the only company that reported lobbying on the bill, in February. The railroad transports chemicals, forest products, brick and cement, food and agricultural feed products, and steel and scrap, according to its website.

Crude oil concerns

The fight over that kind of shipment information ramped up in the wake of the Lac-Megantic, Quebec, explosion that killed 47 people in July 2013. Federal rules required new disclosures for regular, large shipments of crude oil from the Bakken Formation, beneath North Dakota, Montana and the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Read Brugger, an activist with 350 Maine who protested the transport of crude oil through the state, said shippers generally have sought greater secrecy about their cargo.

“Keeping secret what travels through our communities continues to be high priority for the shipping industry — be it by rail, truck or boat,” Brugger wrote in an email. “They rightly fear that releasing that information to an informed public would unleash a backlash that they could not control.”

Federal rules since May 2014 have required notification to state emergency responders about trains carrying 1 million or more gallons of that type of oil, a requirement that prompted railroad companies to seek nondisclosure agreements with several states over the information.

But any shipments, and especially any of that scale, are unlikely to roll through Maine any time soon. Only two trains carrying shipments of crude oil have come through Maine since the Lac-Megantic accident. Brugger noted the only shipments through Maine in recent years have been less than that amount.

Chop Hardenbergh, publisher and author of the trade newsletter Atlantic Northeast Rails and Ports, wrote in an email that such shipments by rail aren’t likely to pick up until oil prices do.

In addition, Irving’s New Brunswick refinery is not receiving any crude oil by rail and by 2020 could have access to TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline, Hardenbergh wrote.

More rail freight

With a $37 million freight rail improvement project moving ahead after gaining federal funding earlier this week, Moulton said that likely will mean more freight traffic after its expected completion date of summer 2017. That stands to benefit the forest products industry and a booming market for propane shipped by rail, but as common carries, rail shippers are subject to regional demands.

“They don’t get to pick and choose what they move,” Moulton said. “Any legal product they have to quote a rate and then they have to move it.”

About the new disclosure law, Moulton said there are competing priorities.

“It’s a balance, and hopefully we’re finding that balance so that we don’t upend the needs of the railroads and the shippers and we get the right information to the right people that may have to respond to an incident,” Moulton said.

Cammack said the Maine Fire Chiefs’ Association will meet Nov. 18 to address the issue of getting that information from railroad operators in the state.

For safe and healthy communities…