[Editor: The Yolo County Board of Supervisors submitted an incredibly important letter to the City of Benicia critical of the Draft EIR for Valero Crude by Rail. In their letter, the Board lays out the importance under California law of taking into account indirect impacts beyond those of the immediate project, including “upstream” communities along the rails in Placer, Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, and Contra Costa counties. Benicia organizers offer profound thanks to our “uprail” neighbors whose health and safety concerns are also ours. Below is a brief excerpt. For the full document in PDF format, click here. – RS]
July 15, 2014
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND E-MAIL
Amy Million, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
250 East L Street
Benicia, CA 94510
RE: Valero Benicia Crude by Rail
Dear Ms. Million:
Yolo County has reviewed the City of Benicia’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) related to the project at the Valero Oil Refinery that would result in the daily delivery of 70,000 barrels of oil by rail to the Refinery (the “Valero Project”). The Valero Project would move approximately 80% of Valero’s crude deliveries from ocean tankers to railways that traverse through our local communities and sensitive environmental resources. Notwithstanding the change in where the oil is traveling, the DEIR pays little attention to the potential upstream effects of increased oil by rail shipments through Placer, Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, and Contra Costa counties.
As discussed below, the DEIR provides only a brief review of the environmental, safety, and noise effects on upstream communities. This DEIR justifies this cursory analysis because the effects are “indirect” and not in the Project’s immediate vicinity. […continued…]
Repost from The San Francisco Chronicle [Editor: (apologies for the commercial content…the video that follows the commercial is well worth the wait.) The following San Francisco Chronicle article on Positive Train Control is incredibly important. Until California is fully covered by a state-of-the-art collision-avoidance system, Valero should not be issued a use permit for crude by rail. Significant quote from the article: “In the four-plus decades since the federal safety board began urging that the technology be installed, 139 crashes that could have been prevented with collision-avoidance systems have occurred on U.S. rail lines, resulting in 288 deaths and 6,500 injuries, according to internal records of the safety agency examined by Hearst Newspapers.” – RS]
System can prevent train accidents, rail industry slow to adopt
New technology prevents accidents, but rail industry is dragging its feet
Bill Lambrecht, July 27, 2014
Jake Miille/Special to The Chronicle | A procession of tanker cars transporting Bakken crude oil travels on a railroad line near James (Butte County).
Faced with a huge increase in hazardous oil-carrying trains, California is urging quicker implementation of technology that would prevent train accidents caused by human error. But after pushing back against the idea for nearly half a century, the rail industry is far from ready to adopt the safety measure.
The technology monitors and controls train movements with a digital communications network that links locomotives with control centers. It’s designed to prevent collisions by automatically slowing or stopping errant trains that are going too fast, miss stop signals, enter zones with maintenance workers on the track or encounter other dangers.
Yet 45 years after the National Transportation Safety Board first recommended such a system, the technology, known as positive train control or PTC, operates only on a tiny slice of America’s rail network – including a segment of the Metrolink commuter rail line in Southern California, which has become a leader in adopting the technology after a crash near Chatsworth (Los Angeles County) killed 25 people and injured 102 in 2008. It is also coming soon to Caltrain in the South Bay and on the Peninsula.
In the four-plus decades since the federal safety board began urging that the technology be installed, 139 crashes that could have been prevented with collision-avoidance systems have occurred on U.S. rail lines, resulting in 288 deaths and 6,500 injuries, according to internal records of the safety agency examined by Hearst Newspapers.
During that time, the safety agency issued 75 PTC-related recommendations – formal advice to the industry and its federal regulator that has grown increasingly strident.
Railroad resistance
But the Hearst investigation found that even after early successes with the technology, its development has met continuous resistance from railroads unwilling to sacrifice profits for the safety that the system would provide.
The Federal Railroad Administration, charged with regulating the U.S. rail system, has frequently defied the safety board’s recommendations to install PTC. At times, it has joined with industry to push back against implementation.
Finally, shortly after the Chatsworth accident, in which one of the engineers was distracted while texting, Congress passed legislation mandating the installation of the control system on key portions of the nation’s rail network by the end of 2015.
Caltrain and Metrolink are among the few commuter lines in the country that say they expect to meet that deadline. But rising concern about trains hauling crude in the North American oil boom has put California at odds with the federal government about the pace of PTC and railroad safety in general.
Ten derailments
Since last year, 10 oil trains have derailed in the U.S. and Canada, including the catastrophic wreck a year ago in Quebec that killed 47 people in the small town of Lac-Mégantic.
The amount of oil arriving into California by rail jumped last year by 506 percent to 6.3 million barrels, a state interagency working group on rail safety reported last month.
The report predicted that by 2016, the amount of crude oil coming to California by train could increase by 150 million barrels if California’s five major refineries operate at capacity.
California recently learned that a Burlington Northern Santa Fe crude-carrying train is making weekly runs through the Feather River Canyon, into downtown Sacramento and south to Stockton, before ending up at the Tesoro refinery outside Martinez.
State officials are raising an array of concerns with the federal government about the sluggishness of implementation of the safety measures.
Congress and the Federal Railroad Administration are proposing delays in PTC deadlines, but the report last month from nine California agencies recommended just the opposite: accelerating the installation.
Heading off disaster
“We’re trying to do something before an accident happens instead of looking at a catastrophe and figure out how it could have been prevented,” said Kelly Huston, deputy director of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. “A train with better technology to prevent it colliding with another train is safer than a train that doesn’t have that technology.”
Metrolink began running the collision-avoidance technology earlier this year on the line that runs from Los Angeles to Riverside.
“Our biggest challenge has been the fact that we’re out front as much as we are, so we’re the ones experiencing the bugs,” said Metrolink spokesman Jeff Lustgarten.
“The deadline was seven years out,” he added. “It wasn’t as if it were an unreasonable deadline.”
Caltrain is installing its $231 million safety system along the San Francisco-to-Gilroy line.
The Government Accountability Office and rail safety advocates have questioned whether the Federal Railroad Administration is prepared for the inspections and approvals for PTC. Caltrain echoes those concerns.
“I think they will be challenged from a resource point of view to get this done, and it seems likely that that is going to be a constraint on all of us,” said Karen Antion, a consultant who is directing Caltrain’s transition to the system.
Human factor
The collision-avoidance technology is designed to minimize the number of train disasters caused by human error, the cause of roughly 40 percent of derailments.
In the 1980s, Burlington Northern, plagued by a series of fatal accidents, was the first to act on a recommendation that the National Transportation Safety Board had issued nearly two decades before, calling on railroads to adopt an avoidance system. The railroad’s technology plotted the speed and positions of trains within 30 feet. If trains got too close and an engineer didn’t slow after warnings flashed on a locomotive computer screen, the system took over.
It became more than an experiment: For five years, Burlington Northern’s system operated on 17 locomotives on 300 miles of tracks in Minnesota. There were no accidents.
“All of the components worked as expected,” said Steven Ditmeyer, who was Burlington Northern’s research director at the time. “We had acceptance by train crews, dispatchers and maintenance people. There was no fear of the system and people could see its benefits.”
Momentum lost
The federal safety board soon turned up the heat, advising the Federal Railroad Administration in the early 1990s to establish a “firm timetable” for installing train control along America’s tracks.
But the opposite occurred. The 1990s were a time of upheaval in the industry, with mergers set in motion by deregulation. Amid the reorganizing and subsequent cost-cutting, railroads lost interest in train control.
In 1993, the Association of American Railroads prepared a 91-page study that laid out a case for benefits of the technology beyond avoiding wrecks: savings in fuel and labor costs, better traffic control, a means to monitor the condition of locomotives and “a better-rested and safer workforce.”
But rather than use the study to rally its members, the leaders of the railroad trade group ordered the study destroyed. The railroad association argued in 1995 that the new technology “must be justified on the basis of safety benefits only.”
The Federal Railroad Administration went along with what the industry wanted. Ditmeyer headed the agency’s Office of Research and Development after being deeply involved with the Burlington Northern project. In 1996, he testified at a congressional hearing that technical issues with the system still needed to be addressed.
In a recent interview, Ditmeyer recalled that testimony as “one of the things I regret most in my life. … I was forced to say it was not ready to implement.”
Congress acts
After 9/11, the railroads’ focus shifted to protecting against terrorist attacks, and collision-avoidance technology was pushed even further down the priority list.
Finally, after the Chatsworth crash, Congress passed a measure requiring implementation of PTC and President George W. Bush signed it into law. But the delays were far from over.
In 2010, the Association of American Railroads filed suit challenging federal rules for installing the new technology, arguing that “while the costs of PTC are tremendous, the benefits are relatively few.” Four years later, the suit drags on.
Michael Rush, associate general counsel of the Association of American Railroads, said his members are committed to the technology, but that key components are still in a developmental stage.
“It is a work in progress. We’re trying to do something that’s not been done before,” he said.
In the run-up to the 2015 deadline, Americans don’t have the opportunity to measure progress in installing the technology. The federal railroad agency rejected a National Transportation Safety Board recommendation to post railroads’ updates online.
“To publish this information would likely mislead and confuse the public,” agency administrator Joseph Szabo said in a letter, adding that it would “waste valuable agency resources.”
Robert Sumwalt, a member of the federal safety board, said in an interview that the railroad agency’s “response to this was, frankly, appalling.”
Drop in accidents
The railroad agency defends its safety record, pointing to a 50 percent drop in rail accidents over the past decade. The agency also touts a voluntary agreement that went into effect July 1 under which oil trains reduce speed in urban areas and take pains to identify routes with the fewest risks.
The Federal Railroad Administration favors a plan to deal with railroads’ plans to install the safety system incrementally, not setting any overall deadline. Testifying at a Senate hearing this spring, Szabo said the open-ended plan would set milestones for individual railroads and “achieve the benefit of PTC as much as possible as soon as possible.”
Other proposals in Congress would delay the technology beyond 2015.
“Pure trouble” is how Grady Cothen, the agency’s former associate administrator for safety, sums up the agency’s open-ended deadline proposal. “There is a place for FRA discretion, but there has to be a framework,” he said.
Sumwalt said he and other federal safety board members “were feeling good” after Congress ordered the collision-avoidance technology six years ago.
“And now we’re finding that it’s going to be delayed even further,” he said. “It’s frustrating to see accidents continue to happen that we know PTC would have prevented.”
This story has been corrected since it appeared in print editions.
Bill Lambrecht is a reporter in the Hearst Newspapers Washington bureau.
Repost from The Sacramento Bee [Editor: Significant quote: “Officials with the Valero Refining Co. …recently asked about the training center. Valero, which has its own fire department in Benicia, has come under pressure lately in the Sacramento area from fire officials and other leaders who say trains hauling oil through downtowns will put the region at heightened risk of fires caused by spills….’Much of the specialized training we require is only available out-of-state,’ Valero spokesman Chris Howe said. ‘We have been in touch with the state representatives about their plans. If a facility and program were available nearby and met our training needs, we would consider it.’” – RS]
Officials want to build a ‘total disaster city’ for training, with fires, explosions and crashes
By Tony Bizjak, Jul. 24, 2014
A concrete building will be used to train emergency crews at the Emergency Response Training Center in Rancho Cordova. Local and state fire industry leaders are pitching plans for a world-class $56 million training facility in Sacramento that would put emergency crews face to face with realistic simulated disasters. | Randy Pench
Saying California’s emergency responders need more training to handle major calamities, state and local leaders are pitching plans to build a world-class $56 million training facility in eastern Sacramento County that would pit fire crews against a variety of realistic, pressure-packed simulated disasters. Emergency crews would be required to douse a real 727 jet as it lies in pieces across a field after a simulated crash at the training site; or make split-second decisions on how to approach a derailed train leaking crude oil; or figure out how to quickly pull survivors out of a partially demolished and unstable building after a terrorist bombing or earthquake. Initial construction on the Emergency Response Training Center has begun on 53 acres east of Mather Field in Rancho Cordova. The facility, billed as one of the most varied, modern and sophisticated training sites in the country, would be “a total disaster city,” said Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Chief Kurt Henke, one of the officials behind the push. “This is a one-stop shop,” he said. “Anything you can think of, you can set it up at this facility.” The project is a joint effort between Henke’s fire department, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and the Sacramento Fire Department. The three departments have set up a joint powers group called the California Fire & Rescue Training Authority. The effort, years in the planning, has hit a key moment this summer. The authority has invested $13 million to launch the project, some of it raised from local fire districts, some from federal Department of Homeland Security grants. But to move forward, the agencies must find more money now. Seizing on fears about increased shipments of volatile crude oil on trains through the region and state, Henke and the state OES Chief Kim Zagaris are asking the Legislature and Governor’s Office for $5 million to build a hazardous materials training feature at the Mather site as soon as possible. It would include rail track and oil tanker cars, as well as props that mimic an oil refinery, chemical plant and oil loading station. Those discussions are ongoing. “The governor and Legislature have been very good with us asking what those needs are,” Zagaris said. “We’re waiting to see what comes out of this.” Training facility advocates have their eye on two legislative bills this session that could provide funding to bolster training statewide for first responders. Those include a bill by Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, who invited Henke and Zagaris to a legislative hearing last month to discuss the issue. They used that platform to make a pitch for funding for their facility. Pavley’s office said money from the bill could go toward the Rancho Cordova facility. Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, said she too has legislation that could provide funds for the center. The training center group is applying for grants, and also has begun to reach out to private companies for support, including donations of real-world props such as rail cars. Federal Express recently donated a 727 jet. Henke said the training site, which includes classrooms, a fire station and an incident control tower, could also benefit utility companies, railroads, oil companies and even corporations interested in safety programs for high-rise offices. Officials with the Valero Refining Co., which plans to ship 100 train cars of potentially highly volatile crude oil daily through Sacramento to its Benicia refinery, recently asked about the training center. Valero, which has its own fire department in Benicia, has come under pressure lately in the Sacramento area from fire officials and other leaders who say trains hauling oil through downtowns will put the region at heightened risk of fires caused by spills. “Much of the specialized training we require is only available out-of-state,” Valero spokesman Chris Howe said. “We have been in touch with the state representatives about their plans. If a facility and program were available nearby and met our training needs, we would consider it.” If built to its full scope, the site would be a firefighter skill-building fantasyland. Among the planned elements: a trench where a backhoe has just ruptured a simulated gas pipeline, a high-rise building on fire, various house fires, and a simulated freeway crash and hazardous material spill. In one exercise, emergency responders might break into and crawl through a concrete pipe on a rescue mission. Another exercise, involving a burning car, would have a tire blowout simulator to add realism and shock value. Project officials plan to build a river simulator to practice swift-water rescues, and a “strip” style retail mall that catches fire. Trainers in a control tower overlooking the site would push the buttons to create and control the mayhem. Agency commanders would sit in a command center nearby, directing operations, while being recorded and captured on video for post-exercise analysis of their performance. Henke said the joint powers authority has not decided what it would charge agencies for training. “We’re doing a cost analysis right now, to make sure we set a legitimate price point,” he said. He said he thinks agencies and private companies will want to send their firefighters, emergency teams and supervisors for the all-encompassing experience that will help them keep up with technology changes, gain experience dealing with hazardous materials, and learn to work in tandem with other agencies. Tracey Hansen, chief of Cosumnes Community Services District Fire Department and president of the California Fire Chiefs Association, agreed, saying fire departments have been struggling to keep up with training requirements during the recession. “California doesn’t have these kinds of facilities in the state,” she said. She cited the current desire among fire officials for training to deal with potential Bakken crude oil spills as more of that commodity is shipped on rail through the state in coming years. “I see this (facility) as a needed opportunity.”
Seattle oil train derailment further fuels concerns, opposition
By Josh Kerns on July 24, 2014
Crews stand by an oil train that derailed early Thursday in Seattle. (Hayley Farless/Washington Environmental Council)
While no oil spilled when a train carrying crude oil through Seattle derailed Thursday morning, local officials say it’s a dangerous wake up call that can’t be ignored.
The train, with 100 tanker cars of Bakken crude oil, was heading for a refinery at Anacortes and pulling out of the Interbay rail yard at 5 mph when five cars derailed early Thursday morning, said Burlington Northern Santa Fe spokesman Gus Melonas.
They included one of the locomotives, a buffer car loaded with sand and three tankers. The locomotive, buffer car and one tanker remained upright. Two of the tankers tilted. One leaning at a 45-degree angle had to be pumped out and taken elsewhere for repairs, Melonas said.
No one was injured in the accident and a railroad hazardous material crew was on the scene in five minutes, he said.
King County Executive Dow Constantine said the incident underscores the need for federal regulators to take action immediately on new rules to protect the public.
“I’m very concerned that large volatile oil trains pose significant risk for derailment, fire, explosion, loss of property and life.”
Constantine tells KIRO Radio he finds it troubling that local governments have little say or control over what passes through their communities while facing potential dangers.
Concerns about oil trains have grown significantly as production of domestic oil continues to increase. More people became aware of oil train dangers when a runaway train exploded in 2013 in the Quebec town of Lac-Megantic, killing 47 people.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee cited safety and environmental risks in June when he directed state agencies to evaluate oil transport in Washington.
The derailment comes just one week after Constantine convened a group of elected leaders from across the Northwest and British Columbia to examine what he calls “the true costs and impacts of coal and oil trains on our communities.”
“We need to have a conversation about what is appropriate to ship through these heavily populated areas and what kind of notice people deserve that these shipments are taking place,” Constantine said.
On Wednesday, the Seattle City Council sent a letter to U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx supporting a petition filed by environmental groups seeking an emergency ban on shipments of Bakken and other highly flammable crude oil in old style tankers known as DOT-111 cars.
“The city of Seattle is deeply concerned about the threat to life, safety and the environment of potential spills and fires from the transport of petroleum by rail,” the letter said.
The government proposed rules Wednesday that would phase out tens of thousands of older tank cars that carry increasing quantities of crude oil and other highly flammable liquids through America’s towns and cities.
The tankers involved in the Seattle accident hold about 27,000 gallons of oil and are a newer design with enhanced safeguards.
“The cars performed as designed,” Melonas said. “There was no release of product.”
It was the first incident in the state involving an oil train, he said.
“We have an outstanding safety record, and derailments have declined in Washington state over 50 percent on BNSF main lines in the past decade,” he said.
But Seattle City Councilman Mike O’Brien tells KIRO Radio he wants far greater assurance.
“As far as which steps need to be taken before I’m comfortable, I don’t have an answer for that yet. But I’m really disappointed that people aren’t taking those steps immediately,” he said.
The Seattle accident occurred on the same day the Corps of Engineers is holding a hearing in Seattle on a draft environmental statement for a pier that BP built at its Cherry Point refinery north of Bellingham to handle oil tankers and oil trains. Environmental groups planned a rally before the hearing.
“This is a warning of how dangerous this could be,” says Kerry McHugh, communications director for the Washington Environmental Council.
She noted the train derailed near Puget Sound, under Seattle’s Magnolia Bridge, the main connection to one of the city’s neighborhoods.
“The potential for environmental damage, economic damage and the disruption of people’s lives is huge,” she says.
You must be logged in to post a comment.