From Benicia Independent reader Judi Sullivan of Benicia
[Editor: Note that the City Council was definitely NOT unanimous in its approval of the money grab by Valero. Councilmember Schwartzman proposed the deal. He, along with Councilmembers Hughes and Strawbridge voted in favor; Mayor Patterson and Councilmember Campbell opposed. – RS]

Letter to the Editor

By Judi Sullivan, 6/27/14

It’s important for us, as citizens, to be aware of what our city staff and council members are doing, as they are the rule makers for our town. After attending last week’s June 17^thCity Council Meeting, I became concerned with how the annual grant proposals introduced by the Community Sustainability Commission were addressed by this governing body.

The Agenda for the evening was to go over the grant proposals that had been submitted to the CSC which then made recommendations for granting seven of the 13 proposals. They presented the Council with three well-delineated tiers of charted options, noting the ones they felt most qualified to be awarded with the monies available, although stated all that were submitted had their merits.

Financial backing for these yearly distributed grants comes from a large legal settlement made between The Good Neighbor Steering Committee, a small group of volunteers from the Benicia citizenry, and the Valero Refinery. It was amended in 2010 to include the City of Benicia as a third party in the settlement agreement. Members from the GNSC initiated the CSC, which is currently an advisory committee to the City Council and as such, was the overseer of the grant funding process.

The CSC’s vision for the purpose of these grants was to create a ripple effect throughout the community by promoting programs that offer alternatives in how to be more individually and community-wise sustainable in line with The City of Benicia’s Climate Action Plan. Special emphasis was placed on proposals dealing with reducing water/energy/green house gases. This included projects that would educate the public on these issues. The groups chosen for funding by CSC were typically grassroots non profits and small businesses that met the above criteria, giving top priority to those seeking funding who did not have an adequate source of financial assistance available to bring their worthy proposals to fruition.

One grant stood out from the rest. It was from Valero. Their proposal asked for around $857,000 to install a water-reducing boiler unit. To accept this proposal would have taken the entire amount of money set aside for grants this year. Although Valero has the right to apply for a grant, one might ponder why Valero, the 4^th largest oil company in the US, would be in competition with small grassroots non-profits and smaller businesses for one of these grants? Especially considering that the monies available for these grants comes from the settlement with Valero. Apparently, as part of the settlement agreement, they have a right to compete with the other grants presented, yet they are not to be given special privilege for receiving one. As it turned out, most of the council session was focused on issues surrounding their request, in lieu of most of the other grants, which got little or no floor time.

If Valero’s boiler unit is built, it would cause a major reduction in water usage for the refinery. That easily fits the water reduction aspect of the grant criteria. Since the refinery uses fifty percent of our city’s raw water supply, and our city received no water allotment from the state this year, there is a pressing need for all of us to reduce requirements for our city’s water. For the first time in our history, we are relying upon stored water.

The issue concerning offering Valero a city-funded grant to install a new boiler stems from the fact that Valero has ample funds to complete this desired project on their own. It has been revealed that making this change to their facility would pay for itself in a year’s time with a million dollar water cost savings to the refinery. When one contemplates the short and long term benefits to Valero, and consequently, to our city, one is led to wonder why the decision to make this change didn’t happen long before now as part of a cost effective business plan?

As a city, do we want to set a precedent for having our grant funds disproportionately doled out to highly profitable corporations who don’t need our financial assistance to make the needed difference in lieu of giving attention to our other grant proposals which are deemed valuable but are unable to operate without grant approval? Are we missing the point of providing these grants? Are we dishonoring the intrinsic value of the other grants because they can’t possibly compete with what a large corporation can do? Is it really necessary to make a “deal” with Valero in order to get our other programs funded?

The proposed “deal” brokered by Councilman Schwartzman with Valero General Manager, John Hill during the session was certainly handled in an unorthodox manner. Since this situation was written up in the June 19^th edition of the “Benicia Herald” about the City Council Meeting, details of that discussion won’t be repeated here, although it might be fair to say it would appear that this “deal” may have been discussed privately by those promoting it prior to the meeting without the full knowledge of others who would normally be part of such negotiations. One of those excluded parties was GNSC, who was not informed of this plan, nor was their perspective welcomed. This was highly irregular since they are the originators of the settlement agreement that has provided the funds being debated. They are still involved, by law, with carrying out all aspects of the settlement along with the city and Valero.

Supposedly, the delayed decisions on approval of grants will be taken up once again at the next City Council Meeting in July. If you have a vested interest in grants up for approval this year, you might want to pay closer attention to what is happening.

As we know, The City Council has the power of the vote, but we as citizens have the right to voice our opinions on such matters.

Judi Sullivan

Civil disobedience, Crude By Rail, Take Action

Civil disobedience train protest in Maine: “competing harms defense” fails in court ruling

June 28, 2014 Roger Straw

Repost from The Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal, Lewiston, Maine

Judge denies competing harms defense to couple charged in Auburn train protest

Christopher Williams, Lewiston-Auburn |Saturday, June 28, 2014

AUBURN — Two protesters who said they sat on railroad tracks last year in an effort to stop an approaching train carrying dangerous crude oil won’t be allowed to argue at trial that their actions were justified because those actions would have prevented a more serious harm from occurring.

Justice Joyce Wheeler wrote in a nine-page decision this week that Jessie Dowling of Unity and Douglas Bowen Jr. of Porter are barred from using a so-called “competing harms” defense.

The two had argued at a May hearing in Androscoggin County Superior Court that they considered the act of criminal trespass to be of lesser harm than allowing a train hauling explosive cargo to pass through an urban area.

County prosecutors had filed a motion aimed at blocking that defense tactic.

Wheeler wrote that the defendants failed to show the four elements needed to successfully argue that defense at trial.

The defendants had testified that they feared another explosion in Auburn similar to that which occurred at Lac-Megantic, Quebec, in July 2013. They said they didn’t have time to pursue legal avenues to stop the train from passing through Auburn.

Although they believed that would create a risk of harm to people there, the two defendants were required to show “as fact that such physical harm is imminently threatened,” Wheeler wrote in her court order.

They were unable to show that because “their action was weeks in planning and they had no idea whether the train was even in Maine at the time of their action,” Wheeler wrote.

Bowen had testified that had he “actually believed there was an imminent threat, he would have gone to police and rescue, which he did not do, thereby undermining his claim of an imminent threat,” Wheeler wrote.

Dowling had said in court that she believed there was a high probability that the train would explode that day, but she didn’t call police or rescue, “undermining her concern of catastrophic danger,” Wheeler wrote.

The two defendants “failed to demonstrate that there were no other alternatives” to sitting on the railroad tracks, Wheeler wrote.

The case is expected to be put on the next trial list.

Roughly 70 protesters demonstrated outside the Androscoggin County Courthouse last month before and during the hearing.

Dowling and Bowen were arrested Aug. 28, 2013, by local police when they refused to leave the railroad tracks on which they sat.

With the competing harms defense no longer an option, prosecutors will be tasked at trial with proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants trespassed criminally.

Bowen had testified that he had been told the train was traveling through Auburn on its way to Canada from the Midwest and his group had exhausted all legal means to stop it.

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Local Regulation

Martinez Environmental Group: Volatile crude by rail IS a concern

June 28, 2014 Roger Straw

Repost from The Martinez Gazette, Letters

‘Volatile crude by rail IS a concern’

June 26, 2014

Dear Editor,

The front page headline of the June 14-15 edition of the Martinez News-Gazette read: “Crude by rail not a local threat, CAER director says.” The article covered the recent City of Martinez Public Safety Committee, which convened to examine the Bakken crude by rail issue. The meeting was dominated by CAER director Tony Semenza, who is also principal of a consulting firm that serves a number of major local refineries.

Mr. Semenza was quoted “… there is one train, with up to 100 tanker cars, that originates in Stockton every 7-10 days and ends up at the Kinder Morgan facility in Richmond, traveling via the tracks that parallel Highway 4.” In other words, this train is going right through Martinez! It rolls over the (rusty) Alhambra trestle carrying 3,000,000 gallons of Bakken crude, the same oil that has been exploding all over North America and that killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. According to maps recently released by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an explosion by an oil train on that track would threaten thousands of Martinez residents and endanger five schools located within the zone of impact.

Minimizing the issue by only focusing on the one present train ignores recent trends and projections for the near future. Only one train now. There were none this time last year. Next year, if the refineries have their way, there very well could be a drastic increase of oil train traffic through our town. Nationally, crude oil train traffic is skyrocketing, from 9,500 carloads in U.S. in 2008 to 434,000 in 2013. California crude-by-rail rose an incredible 506 percent just from 2012 to 2013, with a further 24-fold increase expected by 2016. Accidents have also increased across the country.

Just in the past 11 months, there have been nine major derailments of oil trains, involving explosions, evacuations and spills. These trains spilled over a million gallons of crude oil, more than spilled by railroads in the past 37 years combined. And with crude-by-rail projects pending all around Martinez in Benicia, Pittsburg, Rodeo and Santa Maria, we will see more than just one train every 7-10 days. So, let’s not minimize the risk. Volatile crude by rail IS something we need to be concerned about here in Martinez.

The disappointing part of the Martinez Public Safety Committee meeting was the decision by Mike Menesini and Anamarie Avila Farias to not immediately elevate the issue to the full City Council, despite the current threat to our health and safety. If you live anywhere near the tracks, check out www.mrtenvgrp.com for more information, and write or call your city council to ask them to do something meaningful on this issue quickly. Other Bay Area cities have passed resolutions opposing the passage of crude by rail. Martinez needs to do the same.

Signed,

Martinez Environmental Group Members Aimee Durfee, Tom Griffith, Bill Nichols, Jim Neu, Kathy Petricca, Guy Cooper, Nancy Peacock, Karen & Arnie Wadler

Canadian regulation, Crude By Rail, DOT-111, Hazmat notification, Short-line railroads, Tank car design

Canada Announces Rules for Transporting Dangerous Goods by Rail

June 28, 2014 Roger Straw

Repost from The Wall Street Journal

New Measures Mandate Tank Cars That Carry Crude Oil to Be Built with Thicker Steel Walls

By David George-Cosh, June 27, 2014

TORONTO—Canadian Transport Minister Lisa Raitt announced new rules Friday aimed at bolstering safety measures for transporting dangerous goods, such as crude oil, over the country’s railway networks.

The new measures include updating safety-reporting requirements for rail companies operating in Canada, mandating tank cars that carry volatile crude be built with thicker steel walls, and improving data-reporting requirements for railways.

Canadian and U.S. regulators have urged the rail industry to improve safety measures after several recent accidents involving trains carrying crude, including last year’s derailment of a crude-carrying train in rural Quebec in July, which killed 47 people.

“Our government is committed to railway safety and the safe movement of dangerous goods,” Ms. Raitt said in a statement. “The upcoming regulations will further strengthen safety in Canada’s already robust transportation system.”

A spokesman for Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. said the company was reviewing the announcement and that it has a “strong” set of existing safety measures it discloses to the federal government.

Jim Feeny, a spokesman from Canadian National Railway Co. said that its position on safety disclosure “largely aligns” with the federal government’s proposals, but it was also reviewing the announced measures.

The new rules announced Friday will include amendments to legislation to require DOT-111 tank cars to abide by new standards such as thicker steel walls and better top protection to reduce spills in a derailment.

The ministry will also require the country’s short-line railroads to upgrade their safety-management disclosure by providing Transport Canada with the same reports on safety risks that the country’s major rails provide. The proposal affects 35 railways in Canada, Transport Canada said.

Transport Canada is also requesting that Canada-based railroads provide measurable data such as maintenance and repair records to the federal government that could better address safety risks before they occur.

Friday’s measures follow a series of steps Ms. Raitt announced in April to improve rail transport in response to recommendations made by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada after its investigation of last year’s Lac-Mégantic tragedy.

The federal government also ordered older DOT-111 tank cars to be phased out or retrofitted in three years, and added a requirement that all crude oil shipments include emergency response plans.

It is unclear how many DOT-111 cars operate in Canada, but the Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association says that there are 228,000 general-purpose tank cars in service in the U.S. known as DOT-111s.

The U.S. has adopted tougher classification standards for shipping crude-by-rail that but hasn’t curbed the use of older DOT-111 tank cars on the country’s tracks despite last year’s deadly accident in Quebec and more recently, a fiery derailment in Lynchberg, Va.