California Regulation, Derailment, Explosion, Rail Safety, Railroad workers, State regulation, Train crew size

Rail workers score big safety win in California

Repost from People’s World
[Editor:  See earlier coverage:  News Release from California Senator Lois Wolk.  – RS]

Rail workers score big safety win in California

By: Mark Gruenberg, August 26 2015
lacmegantic
Photo: Police helicopter view of Lac-Mégantic, the day of the derailment. Forty-two people were confirmed dead, with five more missing and presumed dead. Licensed under CC BY-SA 1.0 via Commons

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (PAI) – Rail workers scored a big safety win in California on August 21 as state lawmakers gave final approval to a bill mandating two-person crews on all freight trains.

The measure, pushed by the Teamsters and their California affiliates, the Rail Division of SMART – the former United Transportation Union – and the state labor federation, now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown, D-Calif., who is expected to sign it.

Rail unions nationwide have been pushing for the two-person crews while the rail carriers have been pushing for just one, an engineer. Several months ago, the head of one carrier, the Burlington Northern, advocated crewless freights.

The unionists told lawmakers presence of a second crew member would cut down on horrific crashes such as the one that obliterated downtown Lac-Megantic, Quebec, two years ago. Then, a runaway oil train crashed and exploded, killing 47 people. That train had only an engineer. There has been a string of similar U.S. accidents since, especially of oil-carrying trains. Recent oil train accidents were near Galena, Ill., Lynchburg, Va., and in West Virginia.

The proposed California statute requires trains and light engines carrying freight within the nation’s largest state – home to one of every eight Americans – to be operated with “an adequate crew size,” reported Railroad Workers United, a coalition of rank-and-file rail workers from SMART, the Teamsters and other unions.

The minimum adequate crew size, the bill says, is two. Railroads that break the law would face fines and other penalties from the state Public Utilities Commission. The commission supported the bill, SB730.

“Today’s freight trains carry extremely dangerous materials, including Bakken crude oil, ethanol, anhydrous ammonia, liquefied petroleum gas, and acids that may pose significant health and safety risks to communities and our environment in the case of an accident,” said sponsoring State Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Solano.

“With more than 5,000 miles of railroad track that crisscrosses the state through wilderness and urban areas, the potential for derailment or other accidents containing these materials is an ever present danger. I urge the governor to sign this bill into law, providing greater protection to communities located along rail lines in California, and to railroad workers.”

“California has nearly 7,000 miles of railroad track that winds through both wilderness and urban areas, making train safety a priority issue,” said California Labor Federation spokesman Steve Smith. “SB730 will help to protect railway workers, the public, and the environment from freight train derailments by ensuring trains operate with a two-person crew.

“The labor federation is proud to support this critical legislation and we’re urging the governor sign it into law.”

The rail workers union and Railroad Workers United have also pushed for two-person crews at the national level, but they’ve run into indifference, at best, in the Republican-run 114th Congress. Meanwhile, the carriers lobby federal regulators to let them have one-person crews.

Dennis Pierce, President of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the Teamsters Rail Conference, told the U.S. House Transportation Committee in June that while another safety measure – positive train control (PTC) – would also help cut down the possibility of accidents, it’s no substitute for two-person crews.

“PTC can’t replace the second crewmember,” Pierce said then. “It doesn’t provide a second set of eyes and ears trained on the road ahead or monitor the ‘left’ side of the train for defects like hot wheels, stuck brakes or shifted lading, or observe the ‘left’ side of highway-rail grade crossings for drivers who fail to stop, or separate stopped trains that block crossings to allow first responders to cross the tracks.”

SMART, the Teamsters and other rail unions and workers are pushing the Safe Freight Act (HR1763), mandating the two-person crews, introduced by Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, the senior Republican in the House.

SMART Transportation Division President John Previsich said, “The safest rail operation is a two-person crew operation. With several major train derailments having occurred in the last few months…our lawmakers and the general public must understand that multi-person crews are essential to ensuring the safest rail operations possible in their communities. No one would permit an airliner to fly with just one pilot, even though it can fly itself. Trains, which cannot operate themselves, should be no different.”

Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

CONFIRMED: Hearings on Valero Crude By Rail to begin on Tues., September 29

By Roger Straw, Editor
[Note:  The revised environmental report will be available for viewing on the City’s website and here on the Benicia Independent.  – RS] 

45-day Public Comment Period begins on August 31, ends on October 15

Today I heard directly from Benicia City Planner Amy Million, confirming that the Recirculated Draft Environmental Report will be released on Monday, August 31, and that the first Public Planning Commission hearing on the Report will be on Tuesday, September 29.  The hearing will begin at 6:30pm in Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 East L Street, Benicia.

ALL INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD PLAN TO ATTEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING TO SHARE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.  Mark your calendar now!

Ms. Million confirmed that  if after the first hearing there remain more speakers who wish to offer public comments, additional hearings will be held on consecutive evenings: Wednesday, September 30, Thursday, October 1.  A fourth hearing, if needed, will be held on Thursday, October 8 (presumably at the same time and location, but not confirmed at this time).

In an email, Ms. Million wrote, “The number of hearings is determined by the number of speakers, therefore a maximum number is not set.”

The 45-day public comment period will close on October 15.

The City of Benicia welcomes all comments, and your questions and opinions are important as our Planning Commissioners prepare for a decision whether to permit Valero’s proposed Crude By Rail project.  More information and background can be found here on The Benicia Independent – see the menu above or click below for

Note that with the release of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, much on this website will be undergoing changes.  Bear with me as we move into this critical review period.
Roger Straw, Editor
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Clean-up costs, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Explosion, Property values, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

BENICIA HERALD LETTER: The high-risk cost of crude by rail

Repost from the Benicia Herald
[Editor:  An excellent perspective on the economic risks that local communities take on when they permit crude by rail.  No link is provided for this letter because the Benicia Herald does not publish Letters in its online edition.  (Yes, I still remember how to type! ) – RS]

The high-risk cost of crude by rail

By Kat Black, August 26, 2015

For the past few years, I have been listening to the Valero Benicia Refinery representatives and supporters of the refinery’s proposed Crude-by-Rail Project make statements supporting the project because of the large tax revenue Valero provides for the city of Benicia.  But when did tax revenue override health and safety?  Valero’s most recent propaganda cites the loss of over $300,000 per year because of the delay in the project, and further cites that as loss of pay for police and paramedics.   Notwithstanding that that particular claim is completely unsubstantiated, the people and business owners of the city of Benicia are entitled to due process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), regardless of the time it takes.  This is the law.  To say Benicia is losing money because of CEQA is a simple propaganda ploy, an effort to make people believe they are less safe because the project has not yet been approved.  Why else would they quote police and paramedics?  Why didn’t they quote the library or other services?

There has been a lot of press on crude train derailments and explosions over the past few years.  We need to consider what the cost would be if this project is approved and a subsequent explosion were to happen, as has already happened in the U.S. and Canada.  If you are a property or a business owner, your property value would very likely decrease.  There is a local precedent for this: In August, 2012, there was a large explosion and fire at the Chevron refinery in Richmond.  In 2013, the County Assessor increased property values for all cities in Contra Costa County except Richmond, where property values were lowered.  The Assessor specifically cited the Chevron explosion as the precise reason for the devaluation.  The City of Richmond was subsequently hit with a $2.5 million deficit for the loss of property tax revenue.

Do you want to risk the devaluation of your property or the property tax revenue for the City?  The risks are just too high.  Stop Valero’s dangerous Crude-by-Rail Project!

Katherine Black
Benicia Resident

Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Another go-round: Valero environmental report due Monday, Aug. 31

Repost from the Benicia Herald
[Editor: CONFIRMED: the first Planning Commission hearing will be on Tuesday, September 29, 6:30pm at City Hall Council Chambers.  If additional speakers wish to offer public comments, subsequent hearings will be held on Wednesday, September 30, Thursday, October 1 and Thursday, October 8 (presumably at the same time and location?).  The 45-day public comment period will close on October 15.  – RS]

Another go-round: Valero report due

By Donna Beth Weilenman, August 26, 2015

Public to have 45 days to comment after Aug. 31 release of review of Crude-by-Rail Project

A revised version of the Valero Crude-by-Rail Draft Environmental Impact Report is due to be released Monday, Principal Planner Amy Million said.

The revision is the latest step in a series of actions that began in early 2013, when Valero Benicia Refinery applied for a use permit to extend Union Pacific Railroad lines into its property so crude oil could be delivered by rail car.

That oil would replace the same volume of barrels brought in by tanker ship, the refinery said, and no other operations would be changed.

The project involved other modifications, such as adding an off-loading rack that would remove oil from parallel rows of rail cars; adding pipeline; and employing other methods to reduce the chance of spillage.

The refinery said it expected 50 to 100 additional rail cars to arrive up to twice a day, brought in at a time of day when there would be little impact on traffic. The trains would carry 70,000 barrels of North American crude each day, replacing shipped barrels from foreign sources, the refinery said in its use permit application.

The refinery also said that increases in emissions from locomotives would be more than offset by the reduction in emissions from oceanic tanker ships.

At the time, Charlie Knox, the city’s former director of community development, said if the permits were approved quickly, the project could be operational by early 2014.

However, during subsequent Planning Commission and City Council meetings, enough members of the public asked for a more comprehensive environmental impact report (EIR) to dig deeper than the mitigated negative declaration report that had been presented as a way to comply with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The initial draft, or DEIR, of the document initially was expected to be completed before the end of 2013, but extensive public comment from those on both sides of the issue delayed its completion, and the document wasn’t released until June 17, 2014.

After many residents said 45 days wouldn’t be enough to examine and offer comments on the DEIR, the Planning Commission extended the official public review period on the hefty document.

That panel also conducted several hearings of its own, giving the public a chance to speak in person in addition to offering written comments. The hearings filled the Council chamber, and overflow seating was arranged in the City Hall courtyard, Commission Room and several conference rooms.

Nor were Benicia residents the only ones to weigh in on the topic. Representatives of cities uprail from Benicia told the Planning Commission that locomotives going through their communities en route to Benicia would emit greenhouse gases that wouldn’t be offset by reduced shipping.

Others expressed fear that rail cars weren’t strong enough to prevent explosions should those carrying volatile Bakken crude get overturned in a derailment, and questioned whether emergency preparations have been sufficient.

State Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, said Benicians were “wise” to demand the EIR, but said the first draft wasn’t adequate.

Writing a letter after the public comment period had closed, Attorney General Kamala D. Harris urged a rewrite of the DEIR, too.

While U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Napa, hasn’t commented directly on the project, he and other members of Congress have asked Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx to make crude shipments by rail safer.

Some residents used the opportunity to complain about conventional-fuel vehicles and the traffic the additional rail cars would create in Benicia’s Industrial Park. Others spoke about the importance of Valero to Benicia, as an employer, taxpayer and donor to community causes.

The controversial project also touched Mayor Elizabeth Patterson.

City Attorney Heather McLaughlin worried about the mayor’s email alerts, to which some residents subscribe, that Patterson used to provide information about the Crude-by-Rail Project and other subjects of interest to Benicians.

Last year, McLaughlin urged Patterson to recuse herself from participating in any decision-making on the topic, pointing to the potential of a later lawsuit on the basis of possible bias on the part of the mayor.

Patterson, citing advice from her lawyer, refused to recuse herself.

Since the original application and subsequent debate, both official and otherwise, environmental interest groups as well as the refinery have conducted public meetings about the project; those opposed have staged protests and assembled periodic marches that went through Pittsburg, Martinez, Richmond and other cities.

Such public participation isn’t unusual, Amy Million said: “I was not involved in prior EIRs with the city. I believe the Arsenal and Benicia Business Park generated a good amount of public interest.”

Public comments as well as answers to questions have been incorporated in the DEIR that will be released Monday, she said. The Recirculated DEIR (RDEIR) is a new document that only addresses the portions of the original DEIR that needed to be rewritten.

Million said it’s not a complete DEIR rewrite. In fact, it’s less than 300 pages, she said, including appendices that make up a third of the document.

The DEIR in total is 1,470 pages.

“The RDEIR includes additional risk analysis of transporting crude by rail and addresses comments regarding impacts beyond Roseville, which were not included in the DEIR,” Million said Tuesday.

It will be released for a new 45-day comment and circulation period, Million said. As with the original DEIR, this document will be presented to the Planning Commission for review, and that panel will accept comments at its public hearing and add observations of its own.

When those comments are collected, they’ll be incorporated into the final version of the environmental report, Million said.

“Once the Final EIR is ready, it will go before the Planning Commission for certification,” she said. “The use permit and EIR only go to the City Council on appeal.”

She said 20 paper copies of the document will be made available at no charge on a first-come, first-served basis.

Copies also will be placed at Benicia Public Library, 150 East L St., and at the Community Development Department at Benicia City Hall, 250 East L St., where individuals can read it.

In addition, a PDF copy that can be downloaded as well as read will be added to the city website, www.ci.benicia.ca.us.

For safe and healthy communities…