Category Archives: Benicia Planning Commission

Bakken Shale, Benicia Planning Commission, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City of Benicia, DEIR, Environmental Impacts, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Oil Industry, Public Health, Rail industry, Rail Safety, Rail tanker cars

SF Chron article about Benicia / Crude by Rail

Repost from SFGate.com

[Editor’s note]  This SF Chronicle report includes a short video interview with Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson.  Unfortunately, the interview is preceded by advertising, and can’t be set to manual play – so I will not embed it here.  After reading the text here, click on the link above to see the video on SFGate.  The text here very nicely places Valero’s proposal in a wider Bay Area and California context, and then lays out some startling numbers.  Worth the read!

Is California prepared for a domestic oil boom?

Published Wednesday, February 26, 2014

The North Dakota oil boom has resulted in more trains going boom. At least 10 trains hauling crude oil from the Bakken Shale across North America have derailed and spilled, often setting off explosions. The deadliest killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, on July 6, 2013. As California refineries seek to adapt their operations to bring in Bakken crude by rail, Bay Area residents in refinery towns want to know: Will they be safe?

In Solano County, Benicia residents packed a Planning Commission meeting when Valero Refining Co. unveiled a plan to adapt its Benicia refinery to receive crude by rail rather than by ship. In Contra Costa County, Pittsburg residents (as well as state Attorney General Kamala Harris) are concerned about a proposal by West Pac Energy to convert a closed tank farm to an oil storage and transfer facility. Similar worries are voiced in Crockett and Rodeo about a proposed propane and butane project at the Phillips 66 refinery.

Air pollution is the top-line concern for these communities, followed by fear of spills and explosions. Some protests are tied to the larger political debate over importing tar sands oil from Canada.

The refinery operators maintain they are merely trading ship transport for rail transport or upgrading aging facilities.

We do know this: The tangle of laws and agencies that oversee rail transport make it easy to assign blame to someone else and tough to hold any one agency or business accountable. Rail oversight is primarily the federal government’s job, which makes sense for an industry with track in every state. While the state handles pollution, some safety inspections and emergency response, it is unclear how much legal authority it or any other state government has. The Obama administration announced some voluntary safety measures Friday that would slow trains in cities, increase track inspections and beef up emergency response. There’s still work to do be done sorting out who would enforce such rules.

A state Senate committee will meet Monday to begin investigating whether California is prepared to receive hundreds of railcars a day of highly flammable Bakken crude. The legislators are asking: Should we have confidence that the agencies with oversight, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Public Utilities Commission and Caltrans, are up to the job?

We need to know how theses railroads will run safely before more Bakken crude comes in by rail.

More crude riding the rails

85-fold – the increase in the amount of crude oil transported on U.S. railroads since 2006, from 4,700 carloads to 400,000 carloads in 2013, according to a rail industry regulatory filing.

135 times – the increase in the amount of crude transported by rail in California since 2009, from 45,491 barrels in 2009 to 6,169,264 barrels in 2013, according to the California Energy Commission.

1 percent – the portion of crude oil transported into California by rail (most comes by ship). This is projected to increase as more refineries adapt to bring in Bakken crude by rail.

73 degrees Fahrenheit – the flash point of Bakken crude, a lighter oil that contains more volatile organic compounds than other crude oils, as compared with 95 degrees Fahrenheit. “Crude oil being transported from the Bakken region may be more flammable than traditional heavy crude oil,” reported the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Benicia Planning Commission, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Editor’s update, January, 2014

By Roger Straw

Valero_Crude_by_Rail-Project_Description_March_2013_(cover_page)The City of Benicia has tentatively scheduled the release of the Valero Crude by Rail DRAFT EIR for “January, 2014.”  Watch here for news of its release.  Click here to send me an email if you would like to be on the Benicia Independent mailing list.  I will let you know as soon as it breaks.

Meanwhile, study up and be prepared to make your views known about the prospect of tanker trains rolling over the tracks from North Dakota, through communities uprail from here, over the protected waters of the Suisun Marsh and into Benicia.

You can learn a lot here on Benicia Independent – see Recent Posts and Archives at left.  And here are a few encouraging links I discovered this morning:

  • Railroad town battles train crude cars
    LAMY, NM (KRQE) – The railroad has been running through Lamy, New Mexico for more than a century. Since 1880, rail cars have hauled people and freight through the tiny town. But while the town is tied to its tracks, many here feel like something is barreling down on them: train cars hauling crude oil.  MORE
  • Oil-by-Rail: Crude oil shipments poised to take over Northwest railways
    CENTER FOR JUSTICE / ADVOCATES & ATTORNEYS/RIVERKEEPER: Washington state is becoming ground zero in transportation of oil, putting Spokane, surrounding communities and the Spokane River once again in the cross hairs of dirty energy.  MORE
  • Grays Harbor Crude-By-Rail Terminals Blocked – State board to halt oil projects.
    EARTHJUSTICE:   OLYMPIA, WA — The Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board stated that it will reverse the permits issued to two major crude-by-rail shipping terminals in a letter to interested parties. The decision will send the proposals back to the City of Hoquiam and the Washington Department of Ecology to conduct a complete review of the environmental risks and harms of transforming Grays Harbor into an industrial crude oil zone.  MORE

You can also study the original documents on the City’s “Valero Crude by Rail” page.   Many of those documents are also posted here in searchable form – click on Documents above.

You must make up your own mind, of course, but as for me, after months of study, I will oppose the proposal on grounds of public safety, air quality, inadequate emergency planning and inadequate federal regulation of rail transport of hazardous materials.  It is unlikely that any mitigations proposed in the DEIR will be sufficient to change my mind.  Let’s hope that our Planning Commissioners will deny the permit on these and other grounds, and that our City Council will stand firm if/when Valero appeals.

Roger Straw
Editor and Publisher
The Benicia Independent

Benicia Planning Commission, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Packed Council Chambers – Planning Commission delays vote

Detailed testimony calling for an EIR

Valero’s proposed rail terminal came before Benicia’s Planning Commission on July 11. The public hearing was a critical moment for citizen concerns to be heard, and heard they were. Many Benicians and Bay Area experts asked for a more thorough process of review than the current “Initial Study” and “Mitigated Negative Declaration” prepared by City staff and an outside consultant. Over and over again, the Commission heard requests that they require the project to undergo a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Valero supporters were present and gave their green light to the project, citing the many ways that the company serves their interests and those of Benicia.

Commissioners raised excellent questions, but Valero and City staff chose to delay any attempts at giving answers until they have had more time to prepare carefully studied responses. Staff responses are promised by Friday, August 2.

At the end of the meeting, City staff assured Commissioners and the public that additional comments on the project would be welcome, but then indicated that comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration were now closed. I was a bit confused by this. For now, if you want to comment, send a letter or email anytime prior to the next Commission meeting on August 8. Your PRESENCE at the meeting will speak even more loudly. Please plan to attend.

Written comments may be sent to City Manager Brad Kilger by email bkilger@ci.benicia.ca.us with a copy to the Community Development Department at comdev@ci.benicia.ca.us.