All posts by Roger Straw

Editor, owner, publisher of The Benicia Independent
Chlorine, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Ethanol, Evacuation, Explosion, Hydrochloric acid, Liquified petroleum gas, Propane

BUFFALO NEWS: The next train derailment could be far more disastrous

Repost from the Buffalo News

Another Voice: The next train derailment could be far more disastrous

By Jean Dickson & Larry Brooks, March 24, 2016 – 12:01AM

The March 1 train derailment in Ripley should serve as a warning to all residents of Western New York, and especially to those living close to the rail lines.

Many people give no thought to the passing freight trains that run along the Lake Erie shore, through our suburbs, and around the Beltline, which runs through Buffalo’s dense Black Rock, North, East Side and South neighborhoods with tracks crossing the Buffalo River in several places.

A century ago, there were even more tracks through the city, but the trains carried passengers and freight, which was mostly heavy and inert, such as grain, coal and lumber. If a car derailed, the only people hurt were those standing along the tracks. Now the freight includes huge quantities of hazardous chemicals, including chlorine gas, hydrochloric acid, ethanol, liquefied petroleum gas, propane and petroleum crude oil.

In Ripley, residents were very lucky that no spark lit up the ethanol and propane tank cars that derailed. In Lac-Megantic, Quebec, in July 2013, people were not so lucky: 47 people died when petroleum crude oil exploded and a large part of the town was burned. The downtown area is not yet habitable almost three years later, due to soil and water contamination.

Firefighters in Ripley knocked on doors to evacuate residents, but this took some time. The cars derailed at 9:30 p.m.; a resident interviewed by WBFO said he was awakened and evacuated at 11 p.m. If the cars had exploded, as in Quebec, this would have been much too late. In Buffalo, the number of people to evacuate would greatly exceed the 50 or so households evacuated in Ripley.

Ripley residents were also lucky that no tank cars of poisonous gas derailed. If one car of chlorine gas had burst open, it would have killed people for miles around, depending on wind conditions, even without a fire.

In Buffalo, this hazardous freight crosses more than 30 bridges, most of which are 100 or more years old. They belong to companies such as CSX and are used by many railroad companies. Some are in decrepit condition, rusty and dropping chunks of concrete on our roads as they fall apart.

While this railroad infrastructure is in corporate hands, the public has little influence on its condition. Before a deadly derailment occurs, we must do everything possible to inspect and repair bridges and to reroute the hazardous freight away from populated areas.

In the long run, we should make every effort to decrease the use of such hazardous chemicals.

Jean Dickson and Larry Brooks live adjacent to Beltline tracks in Buffalo.
Benicia City Attorney Heather McLaughlin, Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Public Comment, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Valero’s delay request – what will happen on April 4?

By Roger Straw, March 18, 2016

Valero’s delay request – what will happen on April 4?

City_of_Benicia_logoAs of this writing, there is much confusion over Valero’s March 15 request at City Council to delay consideration of their appeal of the Planning Commission’s unanimous rejection of their Crude by Rail proposal.

Earlier today, several independent inquiries were sent to City staff asking what will happen next. City Attorney Heather McLaughlin responded to all in a single email, in which she attempted to give some direction to the public. Her answers left much still to be determined. We may learn more later, as she wrote, “Staff will be preparing a staff report for the April 4 [City Council] meeting. We hope to publish it by close of business on March 28.” [Staff reports and Council packets can be found on the City’s City Council page.]

McLaughlin listed questions and gave her answers in bold, below:

  1. Could you please tell me if the City’s code describes the situation of a request for a delay of an appeal by an appellant contesting planning commission decisions  made under a CEQA review of a project?  If so, what are the rules governing such a request? If there are no rules that address such a request, what authority does the council have to either approve or ignore Valero’s request for delay in a hearing process?  Section 1.44.040 (F) of the Benicia Municipal Code allows the City and the appellant to agree to extend the time for hearing an appeal.  The City’s agreement would have to be made at a public meeting if the appeal, like here, is to a person or body that holds regular meetings.  Regular meeting rules would apply like public comment before taking action. 
  2. Would Valero’s request for delay constitute an action under the purview of CEQA, since the CBR Project is still under CEQA review via Valero’s appeal at this point?  No CEQA review would be required for delaying the project. 
  3. If the City Council agrees to Valero’s requested delay, would this mean that the public hearings and all submissions/comments under CEQA would be continued into the indefinite future until such time as Valero receives whatever word on preemption from the Surface Transportation Board? This decision would be up to the Council. Staff does not have a recommendation at this time. 
  4. Would information from the STB on preemption be considered “new information”, and if so, would that response from STB have to be incorporated in a revised FEIR under CEQA?  Depending on what an STB decision might say, the City may or may not decide to revise the FEIR.  The City Council will make this decision after considering any STB decision. 
  5. If the Council continues the hearings and takes public testimony on previously scheduled days (April 4th, 6th, 19th), would future hearings be held after Valero receives info from the STB? In other words, how would the public be informed of new information rec’d, (if any)?  The City Council will have to take any future action on the project at one or more noticed meetings.  There will be opportunity for public comment until the public hearing is closed.
  6. Will the City Council hold two public hearings on the project to receive public comments – one regarding Valero’s request for a continuance and another on the project? The City Council will determine the process.  Staff does not have a recommendation at this point. 
  7. Will the City Council first consider Valero’s request to delay the appeal before the public hearing on the appeal begins?  Please see the answer to 6RK above.
  8. Will the public have the opportunity to comment on Valero’s request for delay of the appeal? Yes.  Public comment will be allowed before the Council decides. 
  9. If the request to delay the appeal is granted, will the scheduled public hearing on the appeal be cancelled?  Please see response 3MB above. 
  10. If the request to delay the appeal is denied, will the public hearing then proceed as scheduled? Yes.

My summary:  Every time the City Attorney says Council will decide and staff has no recommendation at this time, it means staff will probably confer (with Council members?) and make a more or less decisive staff recommendation, which the public will not know until March 28. This applies to questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. So – my opinion – there’s not much information here.

What we DO learn, without much surprise, is that:

  1. Question 1: The City attorney upholds Valero’s right under city code to request a delay. See item F: “The time limits in this section may be extended if the applicant(s) and appellant(s) agree.”
  2. Question 2: The City attorney holds that “no CEQA review would be required for delaying the project.” It might be good to get a CEQA expert’s opinion.
  3. Question 8: Public comment will be allowed on the delay.
  4. Question 10: If the delay is denied, hearings on the appeal will proceed as planned.

Council rally and hearing 4.4.16 (125)SO … It seems clear that significant important decisions will be made at the City Council hearing on April 4.  Plan to attend – our Council members need to know how we feel about health and safety here in Benicia.  You can RSVP on Eventbrite or on Facebook.

Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Local Regulation, Surface Transportation Board, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail, Valero Energy Corporation

MARILYN BARDET: Valero delay tactic – unnecessary interference in local politics

Guest Editorial by Marilyn Bardet, March 16, 2016

Valero delay tactic – unnecessary interference in local politics

Marilyn Bardet
Marilyn Bardet

Last night, March 15th, the first hearing of the Benicia City Council was held on Valero’s appeal of the unanimous vote of the planning commission to deny certification of the final EIR and the proposed Crude By Rail Project, a permit for which would allow construction of a rail terminal on Valero property that would serve to off-load two 50-car trains each day loaded with domestic shale oil and/or Canadian tar sands.

After the staff gave its usual synopsis of Valero’s proposal, the planning commission’s chair, Don Dean, gave an excellent overview of the commission’s work over three years of public review, summarizing the arduous process, first begun in 2013, when the public and commissioners questioned City staff’s recommendation to adopt a grossly flawed Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration. The commission’s inquiry continued following the drafting of a full EIR in 2014, that was then followed by review of a Revised EIR in 2015 — all of which entailed long hours of public hearings and study of volumes of written comment letters from Benicia residents and comments and testimony provided by public agencies, environmental organizations and government representatives. (See benindy.wpengine.com/project-review/ for links to the public record.)

After Don Dean’s presentation, it was Valero’s turn to present their appeal. In all previous testimony, and in their official letter of appeal, which had been submitted to the City in the wake of the final planning commission hearing in February, Valero has asserted that under federal preemption, requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be superseded, hence that any impact evaluations or determinations regarding mitigations directly or indirectly involving rail would be considered irrelevant and unenforceable. In their appeal letter, Valero went so far as to describe the commission’s decisions for denial as representing an “abuse of discretionary powers”, insisting that commissioners had virtually ignored the full authority of federal preemption.

Thus, it was to be expected that Valero’s Don Cuffel would repeat “the Valero basics” about why the Project would be safe and economically beneficial, while pointing to what Valero considers the various errors of “the opposition”, including those representing opposing legal views presented in the course of public hearings.

But the twist came when attorney John Flynn took the podium and surprised the council, city staff and the public by announcing that Valero was now recommending “a delay” in the appeal process they’d initiated, to allow time for them to petition the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) for the agency’s perspective on the scope of federal preemption law governing rail operations. They admitted the delay could take at least three months.

Under the dubious premise that delaying their appeal would benefit everybody, Valero argued that getting an opinion from the STB would “help” the City make the correct decision with regard to the limits of their jurisdictional authority imposed by preemption.

But what kind of ‘benefit’ would delaying the appeal process really represent, given that Valero claims that preemption essentially neuters our city council’s authority and obligation under CEQA to protect the health and safety of residents, and thus to uphold most important goals and policies of the Benicia General Plan?

Council members Mark Hughes, Christina Strawbridge, Alan Schwartzman and Tom Campbell, and Mayor Patterson, each questioned why Valero had not petitioned the STB previously, when either the Draft EIR or Revised EIR were being developed. Valero didn’t seem to have an answer.

But “politics” are in the air, and Valero Energy Corp, headquartered in San Antonio TX, is now gambling politically, apparently seeking to produce what could be considered a “pre-trial” test of their own legal opinion on preemption right at the time of our local elections. Interference in local politics in order to push permitting of their dangerous Crude By Rail Project is not acceptable and must be challenged!

Make no mistake: Valero hopes to bank on setting a precedent, right here in Benicia, that would affect municipalities of every size and stripe across California and the US seeking to protect their communities from the risks of dangerous oil trains plowing through their urban cores and rural landscapes.

Valero’s “recommendation for delay” is a bald political tactic:
• Delay is NOT necessary for the City Council to reach an informed decision on the Crude-By-Rail Project;
• Delay does NOT serve City staff or the public;
• Delay ONLY serves the financial and broad political interests of Valero Energy Corporation.

Please come to the April 4th council hearing to voice your concern:
• To support the authority and requirements of CEQA — for the public’s right to full disclosure of impacts, for enforceable mitigations and feasible project alternatives;
• To support our planning commission’s consensus judgment resulting in a unanimous vote to deny certification of the Final EIR and deny the project permit;
• To support the authority of our City to protect our community’s health and safety and uphold the Benicia General Plan;
• To deny Valero’s appeal and audacious corporate attempt to interfere in local politics for their own gain.

— Marilyn Bardet, Benicia

Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Maria Refinery, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

ETHAN BUCKNER: Derailing Big Oil’s Plans for San Luis Obispo and Benicia

Repost from STAND (Stand.earth, formerly ForestEthics)
[Editor:  Apologies for not posting this sooner – great wrap-up of the February Benicia Planning Commission hearings by our friend Ethan Buckner.  – RS]

Derailing Big Oil’s Plans for San Luis Obispo and Benicia

By Ethan Buckner, Extreme Oil Campaigner, February 18, 2016
Andrés Soto of Benicians for a Safe & Healthy Community leads a rally outside the Benicia Planning Commission Hearings on February 8, 2016

In early February, two California planning commissions held hearings and faced decisions on permitting dangerous new oil train projects. In both cases local grassroots groups, supported by people and organizations across the state, spoke loudly and clearly against the projects. The question then became, would commissions listen?

San Luis Obispo is a town of 46,000 on the Central Coast between LA and San Francisco. Three years ago the Phillips 66 refinery, just south of town, proposed a new train terminal to bring in five oil trains a week, about 10 million gallons of crude. Around the same time in Benicia, a town of 27,000 in the Northernmost reaches of San Francisco Bay, Valero proposed an almost identical oil train terminal. Trains traveling to either refinery would travel right through downtown SLO or Benicia, and through the downtowns of cities and towns across California.

So for three years grassroots activists in both cities — as well as in cities all along the rail lines – have built campaigns to stop these dangerous proposals. And in early February the Planning Commissions for Benicia and San Luis Obispo held hearings to allow citizens, industry and others to comment before commissioners made decisions on the permits that would allow or deny the projects.

Staff reviewed roughly similar data in both cases, but came to starkly different conclusions. In Benicia, staff recommended that commissioners approve the Valero oil train plan. In San Luis Obispo, county staff recommended that commissioners deny the Phillips 66 proposal. But the decision, of course, lies with the commissioners.

On February 4 and 5, hundreds of Californians descended from all corners of the state to San Luis Obispo to speak at SLO Planning Commission hearings on the proposed project. During two impassioned days of public testimony, commissioners heard from dozens upon dozens of teachers, nurses, students, firefighters, elected officials, and neighbors. A highlight of the day was testimony from Gabby Davis, a high school student from Paso Robles, who told commissioners, “oil trains are dinosaurs, and dinosaurs belong in museums.”

At noon on Thursday, February 4, 600 rallied behind signs and a 90-foot-long inflatable oil train, making front page news. The rally highlighted the breadth of opposition to oil trains and reflected how communities across the state and the nation are tied together by the rail lines. By the end of February 5, only a fraction of those signed up to speak had delivered public comments. The decision remains pending and hearings will continue February 25.

In Benicia, Planning Commission hearings kicked off on Monday, February 8. For four consecutive nights hundreds of Benicia residents and allies flooded the hearing chambers to urge commissioners to deny Valero’s proposal. After a dramatic final night of hearings on Thursday, February 11, the Benicia Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the project’s land use permit.

The decision by the Benicia Planning Commission came despite unrelenting pressure from big oil and railroad lobbyists, even city staff. The city attorney reminding the commission over and over again that Valero’s tax contributions constitute a quarter of the city general fund. But late into the night, when the commissions finally got their chance to speak, they spoke with one powerful voice. They tore apart the project’s faulty environmental review and questioned the motives of city staff and their attorney. They expressed gratitude for the tremendous display of public opposition and affirmed the actual charge of their commission: to protect the health and welfare of the community.

In a dramatic moment, Commissioner George Oakes, who had listened intently during the four days of the hearings, said “I don’t want to be complicit with what has become a social nightmare across the country. What we are talking about here is some additional profit for a couple of companies.” Commissioner Susan Cohen Grossman followed up on Oakes’ comment by saying, “I don’t want to be the planning commissioner in the one city that said screw you to up-rail cities.”

The hearing was a beautiful display of democratic and thoughtful local governance. Today, the Benicia Planning Commission released this extraordinary resolution affirming the project’s denial. The denial will most certainly be appealed to the Benicia City Council, so it’s not over yet — but this is a victory worth celebrating.

The heroes here are the tireless and passionate leaders of Benicians for a Safe & Healthy Community, Mesa Refinery Watch Group, the ProtectSLO Coalition, and many, many others. These folks built community power that proves that no matter where big oil tries to go next with their dangerous oil train plans, there will be people power there to stop them.