Bakken Crude, Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Diluted bitumen (Dilbit), Feather River Canyon, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), San Francisco Bay Area, Suisun Marsh, Tar sands crude, The Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, Valero Crude By Rail, Valero Improvement Project (VIP)

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

February 21, 2016 Roger Straw

Repost from the Sunflower Alliance

Valero Crude By Rail: Extreme Crude as Extreme Threat

By Charles Davidson, Hercules CA, February 20, 2016

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.

Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Valero Crude By Rail

Martinez News-Gazette: Hotly contested Valero crude-by-rail application denied by Benicia Commissioners

February 21, 2016 Roger Straw

Repost from the Martinez News-Gazette

Hotly contested Valero crude-by-rail application denied by Benicia Commissioners

By Joseph Bustos, February 21, 2016

The Benicia Planning Commission rejected a permit application by the Valero Benicia Refinery on Thursday night that would have allowed the refinery to haul upwards of 70,000 barrels of crude oil on two 50 car trains along Union Pacific railroad tracks throughout various Bay Area cities.

Anticipating a large amount of speakers, Benicia’s Planning Commission fielded more than 70 comments from the public across four days of late night public hearings, beginning on February 8th and finally concluding on February 11th.

Against staff recommendation to approve the use permit and certify the project’s Environmental Impact Report, the Commission unanimously voted to reject the project application and did not certify the project’s environmental impact report.

The Commission cited that the project holds highly negative impacts to traffic in the industrial park and economic impacts to adjacent businesses that stand against city health, safety, and quality of life. They also cited the lack of provisions for clean-up costs in case of accidents in Benicia and other cities, creating potential economic strain on Benicia as well as uprail cities.

Other large concerns were the possibilities for rail cars to fall into Sulphur Springs Creek and the bay, as well as technology surrounding rail safety, increases in the cost of insurance coverage for the community, liability risk for property damage, and the construction of the unloading rack in Benicia causing significant traffic and emergency access issues.

The Planning Commission called all of these concerns directly contrary to the city’s general plan, and citied a responsibility to act for the other uprail communities that would be at risk.

Texas-based Valero Energy expressed disappointment with the decision, and are currently looking into a possible appeal. The company has until February 29 to file an appeal to the Benicia City Council.

The controversial proposal first took root in late 2012 and has seen a vast array of detractors from multiple environmental groups and cities through which the railways pass through, citing rail and environmental safety concerns.

Comments continued to pour in by a number of groups all week, demanding that the commission reject Valero’s proposed rail project. Barring action from the City Council, the decision would be a major win for environmental groups lobbying for rejection for the last three years.

In contrast, Valero officials and supporters claimed the installation of an oil by rail program would make the refinery far more flexible and competitive, strengthening Benicia’s economy with more than $350,000 in tax revenue and providing additional jobs. The refinery currently receives crude oil by ship and pipeline, and the proposed rail would have been an additional source of oil transportation rather than completely replacing the other methods.

Valero is currently the largest private employer for the city of Benicia, and constitutes more than 20 percent of Benicia’s general fund revenue.

Tamhas Griffith of the Martinez Environmental Group praised the decision of the Planning Commission and thanked them for listening to concerns of Bay Area communities.

“The Martinez Environmental Group is grateful for the exemplary work of the Benicia Planning Commissioners. In service to their community, each commissioner went above and beyond expectation to render a fair, compassionate, and unanimous judgement that people are more important than company profits,” expressed Griffith.

Griffith added that the denial of the application shows care and concern for communities through which refineries operate and travel through. “It was a hopeful decision for refinery corridor communities who absorb the brunt of daily massive pollution and constant danger.”

Just a few short weeks ago, Martinez was host to a rail incident that saw three tankers carry sulfuric acid derailed near Marina Vista Avenue under the I-680 overpass. Although the tankers fortunately did not leak, the accident again yielded concerns regarding rail safety and monitoring what hazardous materials pass through the city.

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

Huffington Post: Benicia Planning Commissioners Unanimously Reject Valero’s Oil Train Proposal

February 19, 2016 Roger Straw

Repost from the HuffPost Green and the Sierra Club

Benicia Planning Commissioners Unanimously Reject Valero’s Oil Train Proposal

By Elly Benson, Sierra Club attorney, 02/19/2016 07:49 pm ET

Benicia is a small waterside city near San Francisco that is perhaps best known for briefly serving as the California state capital in the 1800s. But last week, six planning commissioners in this quiet community dealt a blow to the oil industry when they unanimously rejected oil giant Valero’s proposal to transport crude to its local refinery in dangerous oil trains. Valero’s plan to receive two 50-tanker oil trains each day at the Benicia refinery is emblematic of broader industry efforts to ramp up transport of oil — including dirty tar sands crude from Canada and explosive Bakken crude from North Dakota — in mile-long trains to refineries along the West Coast.

The 6-0 vote came shortly before midnight on Thursday, February 11th — after four consecutive nights of public hearings that lasted until 11 pm or later. When the hearings began at Benicia City Hall on Monday evening, more than 150 people had signed up to speak and the crowd filled the hearing room, several overflow rooms, and the building’s courtyard. The commissioners heard from scores of concerned Benicia residents — and also from residents of “up-rail” towns and cities (including Sacramento and Davis) who would be endangered by the oil trains rolling through their communities on the way to the Valero refinery. Oil train derailments and explosions have increased dramatically in recent years — including the July 2013 oil train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Canada that tragically killed 47 people.

Benicia City Hall was still packed at 11:30pm on night 3 of of the Planning Commission hearings.

In denying the project, the commissioners went against City planning staff’s recommendation to approve Valero’s proposal. Staff recommended approval despite concluding that the benefits do not outweigh the numerous “significant and unavoidable” impacts on up-rail communities (including derailments, oil spills, and explosions). The staff report insisted that federal regulation of railroads means that the legal doctrine of preemption prohibits the City from mitigating — or even considering — any of the serious risks that oil trains pose to communities and sensitive environments along the rail line.

During the public hearing, the contract attorney hired by the City repeatedly told the commissioners that they unquestionably lack any authority to deny the permit based on these rail impacts — and went so far as to say that mere disclosure of these impacts could be unlawful.

Attorneys from the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Stanford Law School clinic testified at the hearing, refuting this expansive interpretation of the preemption doctrine and urging the commissioners to reject it. Before voting to deny the project, several commissioners expressed skepticism that they are legally required to turn a blind eye to the grave dangers that oil trains pose to up-rail communities. One commissioner told the contract attorney that his interpretation of the preemption issue is “180 degrees different” from the view expressed by other attorneys. (Using more colorful language, another commissioner noted: “I don’t want to be the planning commissioner in the one city that said ‘screw you’ to up-rail cities.”)

Linda Maio, Vice Mayor of the City of Berkeley, California, speaking to the Benicia Planning Commission.

For years, the Sierra Club and our partners have pushed back against Valero’s attempts to conceal the true impacts of its oil train proposal. The City initially tried to approve the project without conducting full environmental review. In 2013, we submitted comments challenging that course of action, which contributed to the City’s decision to circulate an “environmental impact report” (EIR) for the project. We then submitted comment letters identifying major flaws in the the draft EIR (2014), revised draft EIR (2015), and final EIR (2016). Our allies in these efforts include Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, NRDC, ForestEthics, Communities for a Better Environment, Center for Biological Diversity, Sunflower Alliance, and SF Baykeeper, among others.

The Attorney General also weighed in on the inadequacies of the City’s environmental review — specifically noting the failure to adequately analyze impacts on up-rail communities. And the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, which represents 6 counties and 22 cities, characterized the City’s environmental review as “a non-response” to its public safety concerns about oil trains traversing the Sacramento area.

After voting to deny the project, the Planning Commission issued a resolution identifying 14 deficiencies in the final environmental impact report. The resolution also concluded that “Staff’s interpretation of preemption is too broad….” (Notably, just a few days before the Benicia hearings, hundreds of people converged on San Luis Obispo to urge county planning commissioners to reject a similar oil train proposal at a Phillips 66 refinery. In direct contrast to the position adopted by the Benicia planning staff, the San Luis Obispo county planning staff recommended denial of the project — due in large part to the environmental and health impacts along the rail line. The San Luis Obispo planning commissioners are expected to vote on the Phillips 66 proposal in March.)

Valero has until February 29th to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the Benicia City Council.

Benicia residents came to City Hall to voice their opposition to Valero’s oil train project.

Benicia City Council, Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Valero Crude By Rail: What’s next in Benicia?

February 19, 2016 Roger Straw

By Roger Straw, February 19, 2016

Now that the Benicia Planning Commission has rejected Valero’s oil train proposal, most observers expect that Valero will appeal the decision to the City Council. Valero has until February 29 to appeal.

Speculation is ripe in Benicia and beyond as to the probable outcome of a City Council appeal. The Council is made up of only 5 members. Longtime Benicians will offer best guesses as to a likely vote, but no one knows.

City Council members’ votes will come in the context of Planning Commission hearings in which those who spoke out thoughtfully and passionately against Valero’s project far outnumbered Valero supporters. A unanimous and incredibly popular Planning Commission vote has brought out a great number of expressions of appreciation. Thanks and congratulations have been pouring in to local opponents of the project and to the Commissioners themselves. Of course, Council members are in no way bound to honor local opinion, but …

More context: if Valero appeals, the Council will consider the appeal in an election year. Two Council members and the Mayor are up for reelection, and all have announced they will run. Odds are it will be pretty hard to run a successful campaign in Benicia if you have voted in favor of Valero’s dangerous and dirty crude oil trains.

A few have speculated that Valero might prefer to NOT appeal the Planning Commission decision. Valero’s strategy might be to remove the controversial issue from electoral politics, and hope for a more favorable City Council election outcome in November that would seat a pro-Valero Council. Valero could then make a new run at the Planning Commission in 2017. This would of course require a whole new EIR costing Valero a lot of money. But other factors, including the low price of oil in current markets and the surging regional and national opposition to crude by rail, could swing Valero in this direction.

We should know by February 29. Meanwhile …

Many have raised questions about the City’s procedures if/when Valero appeals the decision to the City Council.

On Feb. 14, I wrote to Benicia Principle Planner Amy Million, City Clerk Lisa Wolfe and Planning Commission Chair Don Dean, asking the following questions. (Ms. Million’s Feb. 17 answers follow in italics.)

During the CEQA review, you carefully logged our letters for the public record. Anticipating that Valero will appeal, residents will continue to be on alert, and will want to communicate with Council members. Should letters on the issue still be sent to you? Or maybe to the City Clerk? Million: Letters regarding the project should still be sent to me for inclusion in the project file, etc.
The vote on the FEIR was to NOT certify, but the Commission avoided using the language of remanding the document for further study and recirculation. Is the CEQA process done now, or does it continue – for the public record – during the preparation of findings, and after that, during a Council appeal? Million: If the Planning Commission decision is appealed to City Council, the Council will consider both the denial of the use permit and the decision to not certify the EIR based on the deficiencies identified by the Commission.
Will you or the City Clerk continue to send notices on the process to those of us who signed up for email notification? I’d like to see the Commission findings as soon as they are finalized, and I would assume they will be posted to the Community Development’s CBR page. But beyond that, will updates be posted timely there, or maybe somewhere else? Million: The Community Development Department will continue to maintain the CBR webpage. We will provide a copy of the resolution when it is available.

The Benicia Independent ~ Eyes on the Environment / Benicia news & views

Monthly Archives: February 2016