Benicia Planning Commission, DEIR, Valero Crude By Rail

Benicia Planning Commission & public weigh in on Valero CBR

The Benicia Planning Commission completed the third of its public hearing sessions on Valero’s Crude By Rail proposal last night, and closed the hearing at a decent hour, around 10:15pm.  Thanks to everyone who attended and contributed!

In an unusual move, the Commission chose to hear from Commissioners first, then the public.  City staff refused to allow commissioners to engage the EIR consultant or staff in questions and answers.  Commissioners’ comments and questions were to be added without response into the public record, just as any member of the speaking public.

(Editor: My review of Commissioner comments appears first.  See farther below for a summary of select citizen comments.)

Those in attendance opposing Valero’s proposal were highly encouraged by the quality and quantity of comments pointing out the many inadequacies and omissions of the Draft EIR.  Every Commissioner asked serious questions, as did members of the public.

The first to speak was Commissioner Steve Young, who read from prepared notes.  The Benicia Independent obtained a copy of Mr. Young’s 14-page written comments, downloadable here.  Young asked 35 penetrating questions covering in detail:

    • Environmental Impacts of Transporting Bakken Shale or Tar Sands oil
    • Possible Increase in amount of oil refined and associated increases in emissions
    • Lack of Disclosure of Documentation for Greenhouse Gas (GHG ) Calculations
    • GHG Emissions in Bay Area vs. GHG Emissions in Benicia
    • Calculation of GHG emissions for trains
    • Air Quality Impacts
    • Cumulative Impacts
    • Traffic Impacts
    • Impact on FAST Transit
    • Emergency Preparedness
    • Emergency Planning and difficulty in fighting oil fires of Bakken Crude
    • Financial responsibility of cleanup
    • Explosiveness of Bakken Crude
    • Rail Cars, Tracks and Positive Train Controls
    • Rail Cars – Positive Train Controls
    • Likelihood of Oil Spill

With apologies for any errors or misunderstandings to the other Commissioners, I will try to summarize their spoken concerns.

Commissioner Belinda Smith was openly disappointed that she was not allowed to engage the consultant and staff in questions and answers.  She raised questions about

    • the adequacy of the site description
    • the condition of roads on the site
    • groundwater runoff
    • numbers of trains that would share the rails
    • timing of train crossings
    • train deliveries during “turnarounds”
    • numbers of trains carrying other hazardous materials
    • the “no-project alternative”
    • tank car design from North Dakota to Roseville
    • noise impacts on birds and other businesses in the Industrial Park
    • bird count review after impact and mitigations if they don’t return
    • Indirect emissions: definition of “immediate” and “other” vicinities
    • rainwater protection from contamination, runoff and containment
    • Benicia firefighter training for emergencies
    • Lack of detailed analysis of cumulative impacts

Commissioner Suzanne Sprague agreed with many of Young’s and Smith’s comments and questions, adding only that, as an attorney, she had concerns about the DEIR’s omission of analysis of case law regarding outlying communities and federal preemption.

Commissioner Cohen-Grossman raised four issues:

    • What impact will the project have on the new bus hub on in the Industrial Park?
    • Why would the DEIR even mention a possible impact and then not discuss it because of federal preemption?  (Example: the alternate project analyses)
    • Traffic: Benicia’s General Plan calls for level of service D, but the DEIR only uses outlying roads in its analysis.
    • Huge increase in volume of hazardous materials shipments will require emergency readiness.  Sept. 29 Solano County meeting.

Commissioner George Oakes offered comments on financial issues:

    • Financial responsibility – who owns the crude at every step, from its source in the upper midwest to Valero?
    • Who indemnifies the product along the rail lines?
    • Who in the City is indemnified?
    • How much insurance does each person handling the crude (from offloading laborers to executives) need?
    • The railroad in the Lac-Megantic disaster had only $25 million insurance and went bankrupt quickly.  The people are paying.  How to guard against this here?

Commission Chair Don Dean listed several concerns:

    • Regarding cumulative impacts of hazardous materials in the event of accidents: the DEIR (§ 5-17) analyzes two accidents at the same time but doesn’t make sense.  Cumulative impacts are additive  not multiplicative.
    • How can we understand impacts or cumulative impacts without knowing the nature of the material being shipped?  Information in the document is not sufficient even in light of preemption.
    • Biological resources (§ 5-1) has more information in this section about hazardous materials than in the HM section…

Ten citizen comments critical of the DEIR and Valero’s proposal raised significant questions for the project consultant.  The Commission heard from Adela Fernandez, Charles Davidson, Greg Karras (Communities for a Better Environment), Dr. Jim Stevenson, Shiela Clyatt, David Jenkins, Paul Reeve, Shoshana Wechsler (Sunflower Alliance), Donna Wapner (public health educator) and Linda Lewis (local realtor).  Especially significant comments included the following:

Greg Karras, for 30 years Senior Scientist for Communities for a Better Environment:

    • The proposed offloading racks would be located too close to onsite refinery hazards, for instance, only 50′ from a large storage tank, 100′ from another.  Multiple tank fires would be a possibility.  It is highly unusual these days to see a project proposed with such onsite refinery hazards.
    • False assumption that ONLY marine emissions will be offset by local train emissions.  Offsets not real.  Significant local impacts AND global climate impacts.
    • California pipeline crude will also be replaced by North American crude.  This is a tar sands project with huge impacts, ignored by DEIR.
    • Hidden information on the mix of crude sources.

Dr. Jim Stevenson spoke on the nature of risk.  Risk has to be understood both quantitatively and qualitatively.  The DEIR discusses cumulative risk in quantitative terms but does not analyze the potential for catastrophic (qualitative) impacts, involving chemical releases and massive explosions.

Shiela Clyatt spoke about the economic impacts, including the possibility of businesses leaving the Industrial Park due to traffic congestion issues and safety concerns.  Other economic impacts would include a general drop in property values as Benicia takes on a riskier image for home buyers.

David Jenkins, a business owner in the Industrial Park, spoke very personally about the impact Valero’s proposal would have on his business.  He outlined concerns including possible storage of tank cars while not offloading; traffic congestion; lack of control over Union Pacific (including the distinct possibility of MORE than two trains per day; massive spills and explosions.  He also called for signed warranties by Valero and UP guaranteeing financial coverage of all damages in the event of accidents.

Shoshana Wechsler gave the most inspiring speech of the night, raising significant and detailed technical questions about the DEIR while setting Valero’s proposal and Benicia’s decision-making into a wider global context.  Read it here.

Donna Wapner offered comments from her perspective as a public health educator (Health Science professor at Diablo College).  She highlighted the DEIR’s lack of mention of potential earthquake impacts, and pointed to the massive and lingering economic impacts following Three-Mile Island and Love Canal, mentioning that there are STILL 1000 lawsuits in play today over the Love Canal toxic waste dump disaster.

Linda Lewis, a Benicia realtor, agreed with the comments expressed earlier by Dr. Jim Stevenson, and simply asked, “Can you guarantee I will be safe?  And my community?”

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, DOT-111, Federal Regulation (U.S.), U.S. Department of Transportation

Groups sue over oil shipments in older rail cars

Repost from The Bismarck Tribune, Bismarck, ND

Groups sue over oil shipments in older rail cars

September 11, 2014

SEATTLE (AP) — Environmental groups sued the U.S. Department of Transportation on Thursday over the shipment of volatile crude oil in older railroad tank cars.

Accident investigators have complained for decades that the cars are too easily punctured or ruptured when derailed, leading to spills.

The lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club and ForestEthics says the agency failed to respond to a legal petition the groups filed in July. That petition sought an emergency order to prohibit crude oil from the Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana and elsewhere from being carried in older tank cars, known as DOT-111s.

A spokesman with the Department of Transportation, Kevin Thompson, declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

Since 2008, there have been 10 significant derailments in the U.S. and Canada in which crude oil has spilled from ruptured tank cars. The worst was a runaway oil train that exploded in the Quebec town of Lac-Megantic a year ago, killing 47 people.

The federal government in late July proposed rules that would phase out tens of thousands of older tank cars that carry crude oil and other highly flammable liquids.

But that process could take several years, and in the meantime, shipments of crude oil in older rail cars are putting small towns and major cities along the rail lines at risk, the groups said.

“That’s just far too long given the risks,” said Patti Goldman, a lawyer with Earthjustice, which is representing the groups.

The groups had asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to order the agency to respond to its July petition within 30 days.

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Local Regulation

Vancouver City Council passes oil moratorium

Repost from The Columbian

Vancouver City Council passes oil moratorium

Unanimous vote approves emergency six-month measure
By Stephanie Rice, September 11, 2014
An oil train passes through Vancouver. The Vancouver City Council on Thursday unanimously passed an emergency six-month moratorium on new or expanded facilities that would accept crude oil. The moratorium won’t affect the oil transfer terminal proposed by Tesoro Corp. and Savage Companies that’s currently under review by the state. (Steven Lane/The Columbian)

The Vancouver City Council on Thursday unanimously passed an emergency six-month moratorium on new or expanded facilities that would accept crude oil.

The moratorium won’t affect the oil transfer terminal proposed by Tesoro Corp. and Savage Companies that’s currently under review by the state.

While the six-month moratorium was straightforward — a public hearing will be Oct. 20, and it will expire March 10, 2015, unless extended by the council — a last-minute filing muddied the issue.

The special council meeting was announced Wednesday in accordance with a state law requiring 24-hour public notice. It was meant to head off plans by NuStar Energy L.P. of San Antonio to apply to start storing crude oil at its two bulk tank terminals in Vancouver, one at the port and one at 5420 Fruit Valley Road.

At 3:30 p.m. Wednesday, a preliminary application was filed by NuStar with the city, said Brent Boger, an assistant city attorney.

Boger said he doesn’t know whether a pre-application qualifies the project as vested, and therefore exempt from the moratorium.

A pre-application signals interest to do a project in the city. During a pre-application conference, the applicant learns what the city would require before permits would be issued so the applicant can decide whether to go forward with an application.

Without a moratorium, NuStar would be allowed to store crude oil under current city zoning, Boger said.

Jon Wagner, a senior planner, told the council he hadn’t had enough time to thoroughly review the thick packet submitted by NuStar.

NuStar has handled jet fuel, antifreeze, diesel, methanol and other products at its Vancouver terminals, but not crude oil. In April, NuStar submitted an application for an air quality permit with the Southwest Clean Air Agency to convert a tank at each of its locations to handle crude oil.

The terminals would receive oil by rail, and then ship it out by barge.

NuStar spokesman Chris Cho said Thursday the potential crude-by-rail project at the Vancouver terminal is in the early stages of development, but a pre-application was submitted for a building permit to start the lengthy permitting process.

“If we receive regulatory approvals to build the facility, we anticipate it would handle an average of 22,000 barrels per day — approximately one-third the capacity of one unit train per day,” Cho said. “This project would provide revenue to the port, create jobs, bring more low-cost crude to the region, and further support U.S. energy independence. It would also be a state-of-the-art facility that would be operated safely, in accordance with NuStar’s very high safety standards,” Cho said.

Cho emphasized that NuStar operates rail facilities at many terminals and invests in safety equipment, technology and specialized training for employees and ensures trains comply with all regulatory safety standards.

Aside from the NuStar questions, the council focused on wanting the six months to discuss how crude petroleum facilities should be regulated. The proposed moratorium referenced Bakken crude oil, but Councilor Anne McEnerny-Ogle suggested the moratorium cover all crude oil facilities and other councilors agreed.

The only councilor who objected to the moratorium was Bill Turlay, but he changed his mind and voted with his six peers.

Initially, Turlay, speaking to the audience that filled the council chambers, said he remembers when many of them showed up to protest coal trains.

Now it’s oil trains, he said.

Critics of the Tesoro-Savage facility cite many concerns, including potential oil spills, the volatility of North Dakota Bakken crude and global climate change.

Turlay, who believes that carbon dioxide has only a negligible effect on climate change, said instead of rushing to a moratorium he wants a public debate about causes of climate change. His comments prompted laughter and groans from the audience.

Turlay said he does have concern about safety, but trusts the rigorous review by the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council weeds out any dangerous proposals.

Councilor Jack Burkman pointed out to Turlay that smaller projects need city, not state, approval. Those smaller projects don’t have to be reviewed by the state evaluation council, and that’s the point of enacting a moratorium.

Councilor Alishia Topper told Turlay the council was doing what he said he wanted, which was to slow down and carefully weigh the pros and cons of additional regulations.

When it came time for roll call, Turlay said he changed his mind and voted “yes.”

In June, the City Council voted to formally intervene in the EFSEC process, a legal maneuver giving the city the right to present evidence and appeal.

The council also approved a broad policy statement opposing any proposal that would result in an increase of Bakken crude oil being hauled through Clark County.

Tesoro-Savage wants to build an oil-by-rail terminal that would receive an average of 360,000 barrels of crude per day at the port.

Eventually, the evaluation council will make a recommendation to Gov. Jay Inslee, who will approve or deny the project.

While the city’s moratorium won’t stop the Tesoro-Savage project, Vancouver resident Jim Luce, a former chairman of EFSEC who opposes the oil terminal, said it could influence Inslee.

“It sends a signal to the state — and the governor — that the Vancouver City Council is not enthusiastic about siting oil terminals in its backyard,” Luce said Thursday.

Erin Middlewood contributed to this article.

Crude By Rail, DOT-111, Local Regulation, Tank car design

New Jersey town council presses for moratorium on use of older tank cars

Repost from NORTHJERSEY.COM
[Editor: Significant quote by Teaneck Town Councilman Mark Schwarz: “‘If we’re all going to sit here and wait for our [Legislative] District 37 leadership and Congress’ to act, ‘then we’re going to die of old age.'”  – RS]

Teaneck Council presses for moratorium on use of older tank cars on oil trains through town

SEPTEMBER 11, 2014, BY AARON MORRISON

TEANECK — Local officials are pushing for a moratorium on the use of old tankers to carry millions of gallons of highly explosive materials on rail tracks through town.

Tank cars lining the CSX tracks near Cedar Lane in Teaneck in May. Fifteen to 30 oil trains pass each week through 11 Bergen County towns.
Tank cars lining the CSX tracks near Cedar Lane in Teaneck in May. Fifteen to 30 oil trains pass each week through 11 Bergen County towns. | CHRIS PEDOTA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

Residents and members of the Township Council have expressed concern about the safety risks posed by crude oil traveling in substandard railcars that federal regulators have cautioned against.

The Record has reported that at least 7 million gallons per day of highly combustible Bakken crude oil comes through 11 Bergen County towns — Northvale, Norwood, Harrington Park, Closter, Haworth, Dumont, Bergenfield, Teaneck, Bogota, Ridgefield Park and Ridgefield – on the CSX River Line.

Concerns over the crude on the railways have mounted in recent months after a series of fiery accidents and derailments in North Dakota, Alabama and Virginia. Last summer, 47 people were killed when a train carrying Bakken crude derailed in a small Quebec town.

The Teaneck Council passed a resolution Tuesday night calling for the temporary ban until federal regulators have deemed the tankers adequate. Though ceremonial, the council hopes neighboring North Jersey communities will join in amplifying the message.

“The transportation of this material in such close proximity to homes, businesses and our water supply, raises serious public safety concerns and requires that we take immediate action to eliminate this hazard,” the resolution states.

Mayor Lizette Parker on Tuesday night said the township should hold federal lawmakers accountable, while other members of the council asked for development of a township emergency response plan, in the event of a derailment.

“This is a safety issue that needs to be important to them,” Parker said. “We do have the power of influence. And I don’t mean the seven of us” on the council. “I mean the 39,000 of us.”

Councilman Jason Castle urged his colleagues to consider an emergency management plan he said he circulated “two sessions ago.”

“My daughter just started school at the Rodda Center — she’s at the preschool there and the tracks run right by the Rodda Center,” he said.

Councilmen Henry Pruitt and Mark Schwartz said the township should find other strategies that don’t rely on action from officials in Trenton and Washington.

“If we’re all going to sit here and wait for our [Legislative] District 37 leadership and Congress” to act, “then we’re going to die of old age,” Schwartz said.

Enlisting other towns

While New Jersey officials declined to reveal the number of trains that travel on the rail line, citing security risks, documents provided by New York State officials showed between 15 and 30 oil trains are entering Bergen County from Rockland County each week. The trains also travel through Hudson, Essex, Union, Middlesex, Somerset and Mercer counties, according to a map on CSX’s website.

Rail executives this year agreed to more track inspections and a reduction in train speeds in highly populated areas, but they haven’t been swapping out their fleet of old tanker cars. Even though the National Transportation Safety Board has called the tankers inadequate for transporting such flammable materials, federal officials are only recommending that railway companies stop shipping crude in the old cars.

Two weeks ago, the Teaneck Council asked Township Manager William Broughton to send letters to the other Bergen County municipalities along the CSX line. Broughton told the council he had not received any responses as of Tuesday.

The manager also said the township is already working with CSX “on this issue of preparedness and response.” This week, CSX paid for one of the township’s deputy fire chiefs to attend safety training in Pueblo, Colo. The course deals specifically with fires from crude oil, Broughton said.

Residents at Tuesday’s meeting praised the council’s attention to the issue. Some even vowed to take drastic measures to stop the trains from coming past their homes and businesses and force federal reforms.

“I will personally sit on those tracks, and anyone else who wants to can join me,” said Paula Rogovin, who organized a protest at one of the railway bridges in town.

For safe and healthy communities…