Benicia Herald report: What Valero said

Repost from The Benicia Herald
[Editor’s note: please see the Benicia Independent’s PROJECT DOCUMENTS page for Valero’s handouts.  Also note that there was plenty of opposition to Valero’s proposal at this meeting.  For coverage, see other media accounts.  – RS]

Valero: Reinforced tanker cars would be used to bring crude to Benicia

by Donna Beth Weilenman

Oil would come from unspecified North American sources, public told

If Valero Benicia Refinery gets permission to transport some of its crude by rail, the oil would come from North American sources and would arrive in tanker cars that are stronger than the ones that comply with current federal regulations, refinery officials said Monday.

The refinery and its Community Advisory Panel organized the public meeting to explain the project as well as to reassure residents who have worried about the type of crude — whether heavy and sour Canadian tar sands oil or lighter, sweeter and more volatile Bakken field oil — the trains would bring into the refinery.

Valero has sought permission for a three-track extension so some of the crude it processes can be brought to the refinery by rail instead of by ship or pipeline, two methods the refinery already uses.

Valero also already ships some of its products out by Union Pacific trains, Don Cuffel, Valero Benicia Refinery manager of the Environmental Engineer Group, said Monday.

Cuffel described the proposed project as extending an existing rail line that would become divided into three tracks on refinery property, built to accommodate 50-car trains.

He said the tanker cars would be divided into two groups of 25, placed on two of the tracks. The third track would be for storing empty cars awaiting departure.

Oil transferred from the rail cars would enter the refinery’s own tank, pipeline and refining system, Cuffel said. He declined to specify exact sources of that crude, citing anti-trust regulations and a reluctance to reveal “proprietary” information to competitors.

However, he said, the refinery could be in the market for any North American oil that met the specific gravity and sulfur content limitations set by Valero’s permits.

That includes the possibility of oil from both the Bakken fields and Canada — neither of which, taken by themselves, falls within Valero’s permitted limits on raw materials.

However, any blend of crudes that meets the right levels of gravity and sulfer could be shipped to the local refinery, Cuffel said.

“Any viable crude we can safely refine, we will,” he said.

But current permits wouldn’t let Valero produce additional emissions, he noted.

“Opponents allege they would increase, but that’s not true,” Cuffel said. “Locomotives emit less than ships,” and emissions would decline during delivery on a per-barrel basis, he said.

Nor would refinery emissions themselves increase during processing, because the Bay Area Air Quality Management District restricts how much in emissions the refinery can produce, he said.

The refinery already has reduced its sulfur emissions by 95 percent and nitrogen oxide by 55 percent by the installation of a flare gas scrubber, Cuffel said.

“This does not change the process, just the delivery of the crude,” he said of the crude-by-rail project. “There is no change to the refining process.”

Nor would the move increase Valero’s output. The refinery is restricted to producing no more than 165,000 barrels a day, Cuffel noted.

Valero Benicia Refinery General Manager John Hill said Valero receives 350,000 barrels of crude by ship every five to seven days. The rail project, if approved and built, would substitute 70,000 barrels daily in crude brought in by train.

It would provide 120 construction jobs while the project is built, and a net increase of 19 permanent jobs compared to current staffing, Hill said, once crews begin unloading oil from rail cars instead of from ships.

Should a spill or derailment occur, how it would be handled would depend on where the accident happened, said Chris Howe, the refinery’s director of health, safety, environment and government. If it is on Valero property, the refinery’s own emergency responders would be responsible for handling its effects, though Valero has emergency response agreements with surrounding communities, including Benicia.

The refinery’s safety department is equipped to handle medical, fire and hazardous materials emergencies, Howe said, and has a staff that includes state-certified firefighters and emergency medical technicians.

“We train with the Benicia Fire Department,” he said, and Valero employees have assisted the municipality’s fire department through mutual-aid agreements, such as during the 2007 Big O Tire Store fire and a wildfire last year on Reservoir Road.

“We respond to emergencies with any agency,” Howe said.

If an emergency happened off Valero’s property, Union Pacific Railroad would take the lead in the response, he said, but Valero’s teams would be available to assist not only in Benicia but as far north as Roseville, where the railroad maintains one of its largest yards.

Both the refinery and the railroad stressed they were taking safety seriously.

Cuffel reminded the audience that for the third year, Valero has been determined by California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) to qualify as a Voluntary Protection Star Program recipient.

He told the audience that Valero Benicia Refinery deals daily with raw materials and products that are considered hazardous materials, but does its work with a risk management approach.

“We manage risk,” he said. “Crude is a toxic material. It’s all about managing risk.”

Railroads come under federal jurisdiction, not that of states, counties or cities, something that has surprised and at times frustrated speakers at Benicia City Council and Planning Commission meetings.

Unlike freight delivery trucks, trains are told by the federal government what they can deliver.

“We are a Class One freight carrier,” said Liisa Lawson Stark, director of public affairs for Union Pacific Railroad. Federal law requires UP to carry such cargo as crude oil. “It’s not an option.”

Its dispatching center is in Omaha, Neb., which she compared to a “gigantic traffic control center.”

In response to inquiries about spills, she said all — even minor ones that don’t require emergency responses — are reported “as a matter of practice.”

Another speaker, Phillip Daum, senior managing consultant and engineer at Engineering Systems Inc., has investigated freight and transit railroad accidents and the cargo and carrier cars involved.

Daum participated in the probes of last year’s fatal derailment and explosion of a runaway oil train at Lac-Megantic, Quebec, Canada, spending a dozen days there documenting information.

He also was part of the investigation into the fiery incident at Casselton, N.D., in late December, in which a soybean train derailed and an oil train crashed into it and exploded while traveling on a parallel track. And Daum was involved in the inquiry into the Plaster Rock, New Brunswick, Canada derailment in January.

He said Monday he was unable to speak about some of the findings of those investigations, because they are ongoing. But he said the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, Canada’s Transportation Safety Board and the Department of Homeland Security are collaborating on a tank car safety project and getting “information from the accidents and studying to evaluate what works and what doesn’t.”

He said the safety project has the endorsement of the Association of American Railroads, and car suppliers and shippers are anxious to see “what can be done.”

Daum said other decisions may be made based on information from those accidents, such as increasing track inspections or slowing speeds for trains with more than 20 crude-carrying cars, or placing tanker cars among other types of rail cars instead of having trains with just one type of car.

“The biggest thing is, there is a lot of effort going into understanding the accidents,” he said, with the U.S. Department of Transportation, the NTSB and Congress “working to improve crude by rail.”

None of the accidents Daum has investigated involved Union Pacific trains, though the North Dakota collision involved BNSF trains that also travel in the Bay Area.

In February, BNSF announced it would buy up to 5,000 crude oil tank cars with safety features, including thicker walls, stronger ends, better pressure valves and other features that exceed industry standards that were upgraded in October 2011 to meet the recommendations of the AAR trade group.

Daum praised BNSF’s move in that direction, calling the company “a leader” in the move to safer tanker cars.

He expected the industry and its regulators to follow that lead. “I have confidence in the process,” he said.

BNSF’s move to buy cars is unusual in the industry — most railroads only own tracks and locomotives. The cars they pull are usually owned either by the client companies themselves or they are leased from other companies.

Stark said UP is one of those railroads that doesn’t own cars. But it supports Association of American Railroads’s stand in calling for sturdier oil cars, she said.

Saying UP has joined AAR’s recommendation for the Department of Transportation’s adoption of stronger tank car standards, she said, “We don’t waver on that.”

She said UP has a strong safety record on transporting myriad types of cargo, especially hazardous materials.

“Safety is our number-one priority — safety for the public, for our employees and our customers. Everything is treated as important with regard to safety,” she said.

The oil would not come in DOT-111 tanker cars, such as the ones that exploded and burned in 2013 in the Lac-Megantic incident, said Tom Lam, Valero senior staff project engineer and project manager.

Instead, he said, about 5,000 upgraded models with reinforced exteriors that exceed federal specifications have been ordered by the refinery. “They are based on the new design with extra protection,” he said.

Some of the residents’ concerns about the environmental impact of the project are expected to be addressed in the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) now being developed by the city of Benicia to meet California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.

When scheduled, Monday’s meeting was intended to be a public forum taking place in the middle of the public comment period after the release of the draft EIR.

But the city announced earlier this month that the report, initially expected to be released late last year or in January, won’t be ready until April.

That’s because of both the scope of the review and the quantity of comments and questions Benicia received and must address in the report.

The draft EIR, led by the city of Benicia, analyzes the project’s effects on multiple areas of the community, from construction equipment fumes and locomotive exhaust on air quality to how spills might taint neighboring marshland.

It’s also looking at local traffic patterns, noise production, bird nesting seasons, how any discovered cultural artifacts would be protected and how any other harmful aspects of the project would be avoided or mitigated.

One of those attending Monday asked about the traffic impact, particularly as it would affect Bayshore Road businesses.

Stark said UP would schedule the trains late in the day, and an earlier traffic study recommended against train arrivals at peak commuter times or at lunch.

Not only does the railroad have to consider those constraints, it also must deal with freight and Amtrak traffic — including the Capital Corridor commuter from the Bay Area to Sacramento — on its tracks.

Initial studies conducted before the EIR began indicated five construction areas and one operating area would need mitigation, but nothing was found to be of significant impact, said Lynn McGuire, Environmental Resource Management’s Western Division air quality and climate change consultant.

Some members of the audience asked how an earthquake would affect the trains and cars full of oil, a topic being explored in the EIR after initial examinations indicated that even a magnitude 7 quake would shake an oil-laden train only 2 inches, Cuffel said. “It wouldn’t topple a car,” he said.

After the EIR is released and the public comment period closes, the city will decide whether to certify the EIR, Cuffel said.

However, the refinery also will be dealing with other regulators, such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which must decide whether to authorize the project’s construction and operation.

Howe said this won’t be the only informational meeting Valero will have on its project.

“We will have a meeting after the EIR is released,” he said.

Martinez Environment Group: Report on Valero meeting

Repost from Martinez Environment Group, mrtenvgrp.com

There was a full house at tonight’s Valero-sponsored meeting in Benicia about their crude by rail project. Most alarming: refinery reps confirmed that all North American crude types could come to their facility by rail. However, they could not list what types of crude were in fact being delivered because that is “proprietary” information. Additionally, they could not provide detailed information about all routes the trains would take.

Valero meeting TODAY 3/24, 6:30-7:45pm

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald
[BenIndy editor’s note: Everyone should attend this meeting, to hear Valero explain itself, and to share with Valero’s managers and employees the genuine questions and concerns we have about crude by rail.  The criticisms of Valero’s proposal are many and varied, and represent the concerns of everyday folks and highly trained scientists and professionals.  See Project Review.  To join with others who oppose crude by rail, sign the petition here or at SafeBencia.org. – Roger Straw]

Community meeting planned in Benicia on Valero crude-by-rail project

By Tony Burchyns, Vallejo Times-Herald 03/19/2014

BENICIA — The Valero Community Advisory Panel will host a community meeting Monday to discuss Valero’s controversial crude-by-rail project.

According to Valero Benicia refinery officials, the meeting’s purpose is to inform the community, especially Benicia residents, about what Valero believes is the importance of the project, both to the refinery and the city.

It will be held from 6:30 to 7:45 p.m. at Ironworkers Union Local 378, 3120 Bayshore Road. Because of limited space, RSVPs are required by calling 707-654-9745 or via email to info@beniciacbr.com. For more information, visit www.beniciacbr.com.

The panel consists of Valero officials and members of the City Council, school board, business community and community at large. It was established by an agreement executed in 2000 between the city and Valero to provide an ongoing means of communication about issues of mutual concern.

The subject of the meeting will be Valero’s proposed rail off-loading facility that would allow the refinery to receive up to 70,000 barrels of crude oil per day by train. The project’s draft environmental impact report is due out next month.

Project critics have raised concerns about rail safety and the possible use of highly flammable Bakken crude from North Dakota. Critics also have raised concerns about the possible use of Canadian tar sands oil, regarded as more polluting than other crudes.

An opposition group, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, have organized events and launched a website — www.safebenicia.org — to give voice to these concerns.

Valero officials, however, have repeatedly said the project wouldn’t increase emissions. They argue it would generate jobs and help the refinery stay competitive through better access to North American crude stocks.

Phillips 66 Santa Maria: “crude-by-rail strategy3”

Repost from CalCoastNews.com, San Luis Obispo County

Phillips 66 rail project – explosive risks far outweigh the benefits

March 24, 2014
OPINION By MESA REFINERY WATCH
GROUP CHAIR PERSON LINDA REYNOLDS

rail oil

In 1955, San Luis Obispo County approved a plan to bring crude oil to its Nipomo Mesa Santa Maria Refinery via pipeline. Over the years, the Nipomo refinery was operated by Conoco Phillips, without issue, under agreed-upon limitations and protections.

In 2012, Conoco Phillips spun off Phillips 66 as a separate company. On the cover of its very first annual report, that new company’s executives stated “We’re taking a classic in a new direction.” That direction has become painfully evident with the company’s proposed “rail terminal project” for the refinery in Nipomo, which, as far as its impact on SLO County, would be a dramatic transformation in Phillips’ business model and method of operation.

Their revamped corporate business model is to maximize profits by turning our nation’s rail lines into inherently unsafe “tank car pipelines” to take advantage of the new flood of lower-cost Canadian tar sands 1 and domestic fracked crude oils.

The scope of what Phillips intends:

And that’s the strategy Phillips intends to implement at their Nipomo refinery. Instead of bringing in crude by pipeline, they propose bringing in a half-billion gallons (488,000,000) of crude per year, via 20,800 rail tank cars. In addition, those cars may very well contain Bakken crude — the explosive crude that has destroyed lives, property and the environment in towns across the U.S. and Canada. Phillips has repeatedly refused to rule out the delivery of Bakken crude to its Nipomo refinery.

Plus, the crude would travel through SLO County via DOT-111 cars — tankers that federal officials have called “tragically flawed, causing potential damage and catastrophic loss of hazardous materials during derailments.”2

We suggest you view the devastating impact these trains have already had on communities. Go to this site – http://tinyurl.com/mmbotzu.

The mile-long trains would move from north to south through SLO County. Here are just some locations where citizens could almost reach out and touch the tank cars, and the approximate distances:

• The Fairgrounds in Paso Robles (500 feet).

• Paso Robles’ downtown City Park (500 feet).

• Templeton Park (1,000 feet).

• The Santa Margarita elementary school (500 feet).

• Cal Poly (across the street).

• SLO City Hall (2,000 feet).

• French Hospital (right next door).

• SLO County regional airport (3,000 feet).

• SLO’s Los Ranchos elementary school (in their backyard)

• Pismo Beach Premium Outlets (2,000 feet).

• Pismo Beach’s downtown restaurants (1,400 feet).

• Pismo Beach North Beach Campground (1,000 feet)

• Pismo Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove (across the street)

• Grover Beach’s busy junction of Highway 1 and Grand Ave. (right next door)

• Oceano Beach’s busy junction of Highway 1 and Pier Ave. (right next door)

• Arroyo Grande’s Lopez High School (1,300 feet)

We believe the vastly increased risks that this proposal brings to the citizens and businesses throughout SLO County and the Central Coast are unacceptable. The risks of massive explosions, fires, oil spills, and air, noise, odor and light pollution, enormously outweigh the benefits the plan bestows on an individual business entity — that is, Phillips 66. Any honest risk, benefit analysis would lead to that conclusion.

It’s not about “jobs,” it’s about implementing a crude-by-rail strategy:

Phillips is holding the specter of lost jobs (they employ 140 people) over the heads of the citizens and officials of SLO County, should the Nipomo rail terminal project be denied. Let’s look at the issues:

• Phillips has said they require the project because California crude oil sources to feed their pipeline have been in decline for more than 20 years, since 1987. This time-span was stated by Phillips at the February 24th South County Advisory Council meeting, so they’ve known about the decline for more than two decades.

• Yet, around 2009, Phillips applied for a 10 percent increase in production at their Nipomo refinery, all to be brought in via pipeline. So why, if they knew for two decades that there was a decline in their raw material, would they recently apply for an increase in production, specifically from pipeline sources?

• The reason — the entire “declining California crude” argument, accompanied by the potential loss of jobs, is a red herring. It’s designed to distract us from the real reason they have for bringing in crude oil by rail.

• In fact, while California crude oil production has declined somewhat as a source for their refinery, the amount of crude processed at Nipomo in 2012 was exactly the same as it was 10 years prior in 2003, and it all continued to come in via pipeline. In addition, applications now abound in SLO County for new crude oil drilling sites.

• The real reason for requesting a Nipomo RAIL terminal, is that Phillips “corporate” has changed their business model. And their executives have proudly called it their “crude-by-rail strategy 3.” Their desire is to take advantage of low-cost, high-profit, extremely volatile, fracked shale oil. And the only way to quickly implement it all is via “crude-by-rail.”

Our health and safety trumps Phillips’ new business model:

Phillips wants to introduce a “new normal” into SLO County. That new normal includes potential explosions, fires, pollution and health hazards that do not currently exist here.

If a company that had never conducted business in SLO County came to the supervisors and planning commissioners tomorrow, with the same new business model and associated risks, we’re certain it would be rejected. The safety and well-being of our citizens trumps the new direction in which Phillips intends to take us all. That’s why our planning commissioners must vote “no project.”

1 – http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23366256/canadian-tar-sands-crude-heads-bay-area-refineries

2 – http://www.schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=345384&

3 –Phillips 66 2012 Summary Annual Report; page 27

For safe and healthy communities…