Category Archives: Benicia City Council

Valero appeal letter: blatantly false opening statement

By Roger Straw, March 4, 2016

Valero appeal letter: blatantly false opening statement

2015-06-21 RDS Guerneville indoors (edited, soft, noexit whiteout 350px bdr)Every time there’s an oil train derailment, and especially when that oil train erupts in shocking balls of fire, the tv reporters run to capture video, bloggers like me post a week’s worth of stories on the catastrophic explosions, and the public gathers in City Park to say “no more, not here.”

Imagine how many hidden stories go unnoticed and unreported every day when our air is polluted. Imagine how many videos are impossible, untaken, unwatched of children with asthma. How many dead fish, how many forests destroyed, how many cancer victims along the rails and in oil production communities and refinery towns.

Every day that extreme North American crude is produced, transported and refined, MORE toxic emissions pollute mother earth and enter into our bodies and the bodies of land on which we live.

My blog, the Benicia Independent, may seem to focus primarily on the extreme safety hazards of these dangerous oil trains. Shocked by news of the many horrific oil train accidents, I have taken to scanning the national news every day for stories on train derailments, discussions of safety regulations and other news relating to hazardous material transport. But I have also faithfully posted Valero’s project documents, Benicia’s studies and staff recommendations, and the massive outpouring of citizen and expert comments critical of Valero’s proposal, comments based on a wide range of health and safety issues.

This week, Valero’s attorney submitted a letter appealing the unanimous decision of Benicia’s Planning Commission. With the backing of Benicia’s staff, Valero wants our City Council to review and dismiss the authoritative deliberations of our Planning Commission and the Commission’s decision to deny the project.

Valero’s appeal letter opens with a flat-out falsehood. It states, “All of the public discussion about the Project has focused on the impacts of rail operations….”

Valero wants to characterize opponents of the project as ONLY concerned about safety, and uninterested in any environmental and health impacts related to Valero’s proposal.

But from the very beginning in 2013, Benicia citizens submitted comments easily accessible as part of the official public record documenting scientific expert analyses that raise serious concerns about toxic emissions during transport, offloading, storage and refining of sweet light crude (Bakken) and ultra-heavy diluted bitumen (tar sands). Benicia’s Good Neighbor Steering Committee, and later, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community (BSHC) specifically critiqued the environmental impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed new facility here in Benicia.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, California’s Attorney General, experts Dr. Phyllis Fox and Dr. Petra Pless, the Goodman Group, SAFER California, regional governmental staff and electeds, and many other knowledgeable commenters have joined with local opponents in raising extensive and detailed warnings about the environmental consequences of 1) building and operating the offloading rack, 2) positioning it in the heart of our Industrial Park so near Sulfur Springs and Valero’s existing storage tanks, and 3) refining extreme North American crude oil.

Concerns have been raised repeatedly regarding the “fugitive emissions” escaping during transport on rail cars in and out of the refinery, and especially during the daily repetition of opening and closing valves on 100 train cars in the proposed offloading rack (as compared to many fewer openings and closings of valves for a marine delivery of crude).

Commenters have documented asthma and cancer concerns. We have submitted letters, studied lengthy analyses, and spoken out at hearings in 2013, 2014, 2015 and again last month.

Valero would like not to have heard us.

Our Planning Commission was listening. I hope that our City Council is deep into the 25-inch stack of documents, with ears and eyes open. We (and our Planning Commissioners) should NOT have been mischaracterized and demeaned by Valero’s attorney.

Someone described the harsh and untruthful Valero appeal letter as a “scorched earth” approach. It seems that Valero would like to frighten our City Council members into voting in favor of the project in order to avoid facing a lawsuit by the huge corporation.

The Council will be called upon for courage to do the right thing, regardless of the threats and misleading statements of the project proponent.

All of the public’s comments on health and safety can be found on the City’s website, or at BeniciaIndependent.com/project-review/. Valero’s appeal letter can be found here.

Valero’s appeal: ok, this was expected. What’s next?

By Roger Straw, March 1, 2016

We’ve been expecting this for years. Get on with it!

Yes, this pep talk is for myself – but it might work for you, too: This is no surprise. Stop worrying over Valero’s attorney-driven shock and awe.

Yes, for a week or two, we entertained a slim hope that Valero would do the right thing.  A huge turnout of local and distant residents showed overwhelming opposition.  Our Planning Commission arrived at a unanimous decision to turn down the EIR and deny the project.  Oil train projects across the Strait in Pittsburg, in San Luis Obispo and in Washington state have been stopped or met with official disapproval.  Oil prices are down.  And this is a Benicia City Council election year.

We dared to hope.

But yesterday, Valero showed its hand: it will disregard the public’s concerns for health and safety.  It will rely on an unproven federal exemption to muzzle local decision-makers and to allow dangerous and polluting railroad traffic uprail from Benicia.  It will rely on that exemption with legalese and not-so-hidden threats of litigation, hoping the City of Benicia would rather be sued by environmentalists than by the corporate legal muscle of the largest refinery in the U.S.

Valero showed its hand: corporate profit trumps all.

And so many of us thought Valero was a “good neighbor.”

Clearly Valero is not Davis’ good neighbor, nor Sacramento’s. Clearly not neighbor to the Feather River Canyon or Donner Lake or the lands and inhabitants of the Upper Midwest and Alberta, Canada.  Mother Earth is Valero’s neighbor, but it doesn’t seem to matter.

I have been openly critical of the Crude By Rail proposal here in Benicia since my editorial in the Benicia Herald in June of 2013.  At every turn, I have politely invited Valero to consider withdrawal, to do the right thing.  My voice and that of a growing tide of concerned citizens, the voices of California’s Attorney General and other attorneys, the detailed studies of environmental experts, and the unanimous vote of a Planning Commission that studied the proposal for months – all these ignored.

So … our disappointment is real, but we need to forget it and move on.  Remind yourself: this is exactly what we expected.  Now comes the real test.

Sure, we’re tired.  Yes, we need new energy, new volunteers, more yard signs, more letters, and stamina for yet another series of long nights at City Council hearings.  That’s what we signed on for.

We will soon have yet another chance to STOP Crude By Rail.

So what’s next?

For now, we know this (check for updates later):

  • Benicia City Council will consider the appeal on Tuesday, March 15 at 7pm.  This will only be a formal setting of dates for public hearings on the matter. Still, you may want to show up to send a signal.
  • Sometime in late March or April, the City Council will hold a series of hearings much like those recently held by the Planning Commission.  Stay tuned for those dates and plan to attend.
  • Sign the petition if you haven’t already done so.
  • Write to Benicia’s City Council members.  Send your email to City Planner Amy Million at amillion@ci.benicia.ca.us.  Be sure to note that your comments are “for the public record on Valero Crude By Rail.”
  • Benicians For a Safe and Healthy Community needs your help. Please go to their Facebook page and their website, SafeBenicia.org.

Valero Benicia appeals Planning Commission’s unanimous decision

By Roger Straw, February 29, 2016 2:25pm PT

City Council will review Valero Crude By Rail on Tuesday, March 15

Valero Benicia Refinery dropped off its appeal at City Hall this afternoon, Monday, February 29, 2016.  The City posted the following announcement on its Valero Crude By Rail webpage today:  “It is anticipated that the City Council will hear the appeal on March 15, 2016.”  I’m told that this will only be a formal setting of dates for public hearings on the matter. Still, you may want to show up to send a signal.  Sometime in late March or late April, the City Council will hold a series of hearings much like those recently held by the Planning Commission.  Stay tuned for those dates and plan to attend.

The 1-page Formal Appeal was accompanied by a hard-hitting 11-page letter by Valero’s attorney, John Flynn of Nossaman LLP.  The letter details Valero’s position, and is posted on the City’s website.  The letter tears into Benicia’s Planning Commission for its unanimous Feb. 11 decision to deny the project.

Stop Crude By Rail yardsign

It’s official – our work is not done!  STOP CRUDE BY RAIL!

 

Valero Crude By Rail: All about extreme crude (Canadian Tar Sands diluted bitumen)

Repost from the Sunflower Alliance

Valero Crude By Rail: Extreme Crude as Extreme Threat

By Charles Davidson, Hercules CA, February 20, 2016
CBR_3.jpg
Lynne Nittler of Davis, CA

Like many other fossil fuel infrastructure expansions in the Bay Area, the Valero Crude by Rail project is a key part of the transition to greater processing of extreme crudes. Yet another project poses significant, yet unnecessary public health hazards—this time to Benicia, the Bay Area, the Delta ecosystem and all communities up-rail from Benicia.

Valero’s recently completed Valero Improvement Project, or VIP, was designed to facilitate the processing of much higher sulfur and heavier crudes than the refinery’s former crude oil slate. The VIP permitted the Refinery to process heavier, high sulfur feedstocks as 60% of total supply, up from only 30% prior to the VIP.  The project also raised the average sulfur content of the imported raw materials from past levels of about 1 – 1.5% up to new levels of about 2 – 2.5% sulfur.

Now, Valero’s proposed Crude by Rail Project is specifically designed for the importation into Valero of so-called “mid-continent, North American” crudes, which would be either very lightweight, highly flammable shale oil from Bakken ND or extra heavy tar sands from Alberta Canada.  However, because the Valero Crude by Rail Project combined with the VIP are related parts of a single expanded heavy oil project, the Crude by Rail Project is most likely for the delivery of tar sands (bitumen).

Tar sands is open pit mined as a solid; it does not start out as a liquid. The Bitumen mined in Northern Canada needs to be heated to several hundred degrees before it can be diluted with chemical solvents and made to flow into railroad tank cars. According to the recent Carnegie Endowment study, Know Your Oil: Towards a Global Climate-Oil Index, tar sands refining produces three times the climate-changing greenhouse gases in order to make gasoline, compared to traditional lighter crudes.

Worse, in a 2007 US Geological Service study, it was reported that tar sands bitumen contains 102 times more copper, 21 times more vanadium, 11 times more sulfur, six times more nitrogen, 11 times more nickel, and 5 times more lead than conventional heavy crude oil. Sulfur and nitrogen oxide pollutants contribute to smog, soot, acid rain and odors that affect nearby residents. Because of these considerations, Benicia could likely experience an increase in local air pollution, and the refinery’s equipment could suffer enhanced sulfur corrosion, leading to potential accidents, such as documented for the 2012 Richmond Chevron fire.

The tar sand diluent itself adds significant risk: it is a highly flammable solvent that tends to separate from the heavier mixture during travel.  In a derailment this could cause an explosive fire with a uniquely hazardous tar sands smoke plume. The diluted tar sands mixture would tend to rapidly sink very deep into the soil, with the diluent eventually evaporating and then leaving the tar sands bitumen deep underground.

A significant tar sands spill, in places like the environmentally sensitive Feather River Canyon, the Delta or the Suisun Marsh would be impossible to clean up.  This was proven in Michigan’s 2010 Kalamazoo River Enbridge pipeline rupture, which will never be remediated, despite the spending of over 1 billion dollars to date. Nearby public infrastructure needs to be considered from a public health perspective; for example, East Bay MUD and others are doing a brackish delta water desalination pilot study near Pittsburg.

We must deny Valero the CBR permit and help keep the world’s absolutely dirtiest oil in the ground. To do so would comply with the expressed wishes of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments composed of six counties and 22 municipalities up-rail from Valero who have also asked that this project be denied. Our massive turnout at the Planning Commission hearings achieved our first step in this goal with a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission to deny the land use permit.  Now we must continue our opposition to insure the full Benicia City Council follows this path.