Category Archives: Valero Benicia Refinery

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.

Valero Benicia oil train hearing – September 29

By Roger Straw, Editor
[Editor: UPDATE ON 8/26/15: 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]

Benicia Planning Commission hearings will likely begin on Tuesday, September 29, 2015

The City of Benicia posted a notice on August 13 that the next Planning Commission hearing on Valero’s proposed Crude by Rail project will be held on Tuesday, September 29, 2015.   If the hearing is held on that date, the Commissioners and public will begin their review of the RECIRCULATED Draft Environmental Impact Report, time and location yet to be announced.

The Planning Division’s 8/13/15 listing of Current Planning Projects shows a Planning Commission meeting on 9/29, designated for review of Valero’s Use Permit, and notes, “Railway extension inside refinery. Recirculated Draft EIR anticipated to be released for public review period on August 31, 2015.”

The meeting does not yet appear on the City’s Planning Commission webpage.  Nor has it been posted on the Valero Crude By Rail page on the City’s website.

As of today according to the City’s Planning Department, the R-DEIR will be released as scheduled, on August 31, 2015.  (Note correction: previously published information that the release would be on 8/29 was in error.)

We will let you know when dates and locations of future hearings are confirmed.

BENICIA HERALD LETTER: Allowing crude by rail is asking for trouble, Kathy Kerridge

Repost from the Benicia Herald
[Editor:  No link is provided for this letter because the Benicia Herald does not publish letters in its online edition.  A version of this letter also appeared in the Contra Costa Times.  – RS]

Allowing crude by rail is asking for trouble

By Kathy Kerridge, August 16, 2015, Benicia Herald

It’s time for Benicia and California to say no to bringing in crude oil by rail (CBR). This is the highly explosive and flammable Bakken crude from North Dakota, which exploded in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killing 47.  This is what Valero wants to bring into Benicia and other refineries want to bring into the Bay Area.  There have been 30 major crude by rail accidents since 2012, including the latest on July 17 in Montana that spilled 35,000 gallons from a train that was going the legal speed limit.

The refineries also want to bring in tar sands crude from Alberta, Canada.  A spill of tar sands crude in water cannot be cleaned up.  The substances that dilute the tar sands (like benzene) so it can be transported evaporate and the tar sands sink to the bottom of the water.  $1 billion, yes that’s right billion, has been spent on the Kalamazoo River spill of tar sands and the river is still not clean.  Do we want a spill on the Benicia Rail Bridge into the Carquinez Strait or one in the Suisun Marsh?  How about the Feather River Canyon where a train carrying corn recently derailed sending its cargo into the river?

Say no to CRB going over high hazard areas.  Every rail line into the state goes through one.  Say no to CBR by earthquake faults.   Say no to trains carrying crude in cars designed to carry corn syrup.  Say no to the new cars which have also split and spilled in recent derailments.  Say no to bomb trains going through densely populated areas like Sacramento, Davis, and the East Bay.  Just say no to putting people, our water sources and our environment at risk

Valero Benicia sues BAAQMD, demands $57M in Clean Air Credits

Repost from Courthouse News Service

Refiner Demands $57M in Clean Air Credits

By Dave Tartre, July 29, 2015 5:37 AM PT

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Valero Refining Co. sued the Bay Area Air Quality Management District on Monday, claiming it abused its discretion by denying it $57 million in emissions-reduction credits.

Improvements from a major modernization of Valero’s Benicia refinery brought significant and permanent reductions in air pollution, Valero claims, but the Air Quality Management District last year rejected its application to bank $57 million in emissions reduction credits for the work it did of its own volition.

The refinery, next to the Carquinez Strait about 25 miles north of San Francisco, emits fewer nitrogen oxides and less particulate matter greater than 10 microns in diameter than it did before the project, and also reduced organic compounds and sulfur dioxide, Valero says.

It claims that the Air Quality Management District has not disputed that “the emissions reductions were real, permanent, quantifiable, enforceable and not legally required.”

A Bay Area Air Quality Management District representative on Tuesday said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

Valero says it relied on a senior district engineer for guidance during the project, only to find out that the district was not bound by her decisions.

After the project was complete, Valero says, the Air Quality Management District changed the baseline emissions figures for the before-and-after comparison it uses to grant or deny credits.

The district’s hearing board upheld the denial on appeal.

Valero on Monday asked the Superior Court to declare the ruling a prejudicial abuse of discretion not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.

Valero claims the district’s hearing board mischaracterized its 3½-year project as a “simple shutdown of equipment.”

To the contrary, Valero says, the refinery was outfitted with new furnaces, new flue gas scrubbers and other equipment that “reduced emissions of various pollutants … by thousands of tons per year, thereby significantly improving Bay Area air quality.”

Though the work was prompted by a 2005 consent decree with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Valero says it went far beyond the agreement’s requirements, to retool the refinery’s equipment and operations.

Valero says that $500 million of the $750 million spent on the project went to “achieve emissions reductions beyond those required by the Consent Decree or by other provisions of law.”

Valero seeks writ of mandate to evaluate the fairness and consistency of the district’s rejection, not just whether it was reasonable.

A spokesman from Valero declined to comment, saying the company would let the filing speak for itself.

It is represented by Ronald Van Buskirk with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, in San Francisco.