Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Phillips 66, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Maria Refinery, Take Action

SLO: Another hearing scheduled for opponents of Phillips 66 oil-by-rail plan

Repost from KCBX FM, Central Coast Public Radio
[Editor:  Significant quote: “I think that they have a strong argument in the sense that we do need every job. We do need well paid jobs. But, we’re being asked to make a choice between the long-term health and safety of our community and these specific jobs. And that’s a choice no American should ever have to make.”  – Eddie Scher of ForestEthics. Hearings will continue on February 25.  – RS]

Another hearing scheduled for opponents of Phillips 66 oil-by-rail plan

By Daniel Park, February 5, 2016

KCBX_listenThe San Luis Obispo Planning Commission wrapping up public comment Friday after hearing from hundreds of people voicing opposition to an oil-by-rail plan over a two day period.

Not everyone has been heard though, so commissioners must carry those over to the next scheduled meeting on February 25, 2016.

Opposition to the Phillips 66 plan to increase the number of trains carrying crude oil to refinery near Nipomo got a major boost Friday as well.

Phillips 66 plans to bring crude oil by train to their Santa Maria refinery. CREDIT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Opponents received a key endorsement, as the California Coastal Commission sent a letter to the SLO Planning Commission urging members to reject the proposal based on adverse impacts to the environment.

If the Planning Commission votes no and the company appeals, the proposal could eventually end up before the Coastal Commission, which has regulatory authority over coastal land use.

Supporters say the proposal’s economic benefits would outweigh the potential costs.

Phillips 66 spokesman Dennis Nuss said Friday, the plan will provide jobs and maintain the area’s energy production.

“There’s been a decline in both onshore and offshore California crude oil productions, so additional reliable sources of crude are required to ensure that the refinery can continue to meet those critical energy needs and support jobs in the community,” Nuss said.

If approved, Phillips 66 said it will hire 200 people for construction jobs, as well as 12 permanent positions in its refinery.

Opponents say jobs aren’t worth the project’s potential damage.

Eddie Scher, the spokesperson for ForestEthics, an environmental organization that demands environmental responsibility from corporations, said that the choice between jobs and the environment isn’t fair.

“I think that they have a strong argument in the sense that we do need every job. We do need well paid jobs,” Scher said. “But, we’re being asked to make a choice between the long-term health and safety of our community and these specific jobs. And that’s a choice no American should ever have to make.”

Commissioners won’t make a decision until after hearing from everyone later this month.

Phillips 66 says it will pursue other options, should it’s proposal fail.

Crude By Rail, donner, Donner Summit CA, Dunsmuir CA, Feather River Canyon, Public Health, Public Safety, Redding CA, Rocklin CA, Roseville CA, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), Sacramento CA, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail, West Sacramento CA

Sacramento Bee: Area leaders accuse Benicia of failing to take steps to help protect cities

Repost from The Sacramento Bee

Sacramento officials challenge Benicia oil train project

By Tony Bizjak, February 5, 2016 11:30AM

HIGHLIGHTS
•  Valero Refining company wants to ship two 50-car oil trains daily through Northern California
•  The trains would pass through downtown Sacramento and other local cities
•  Sacramento area leaders say Benicia has failed to respond to rail cities’ safety concerns

This train is a crude oil train operated by BNSF. The train is snaking its way west through James, California just outside of the Feather River Canyon in the foothills into the Sacramento Valley. Photo taken June 5, 2014 by Jake Miille
This train is a crude oil train operated by BNSF. The train is snaking its way west through James, California just outside of the Feather River Canyon in the foothills into the Sacramento Valley. Photo taken June 5, 2014 by Jake Miille

Sacramento leaders this week accused the city of Benicia of failing to take any steps to help protect cities against potential oil spills from daily train shipments an oil company wants to run through Northern California.

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments, representing six local counties and 22 area cities, sent a letter Thursday to Benicia, saying that city’s environmental impact analysis of a rail plan by Valero Refining Co. is inadequate and represents “a non-response” to Sacramento’s safety concerns.

The challenge comes the week before the Benicia Planning Commission is scheduled to hear Valero’s controversial request for a permit to make changes at its Benicia refinery to allow it to receive two 50-car trains a day of crude oil from North America fields. The train shipments will replace current oil deliveries via ocean vessels.

The trains would travel through Rocklin, Roseville, downtown Sacramento, West Sacramento, Davis and other rail cities en route to the the refinery. It is not clear which route the trains will take east of Roseville, but potential routes include the Feather River Canyon, Donner Summit and via Oregon through Dunsmuir and Redding.

As more and larger crude oil shipments have ramped up in the United States in recent years, the number of oil spills and fires has increased as well. Several have produced major fires, including one that killed 47 people in a Canadian town two years ago. Cities along rail lines across the United States have been demanding more protections.

Benicia recently released an environmental analysis that concluded the trains would create a “potentially significant” hazard to the public from oil spills and fires, but said a spill is likely to only occur once every few decades.

Benicia city planning department officials wrote that they believe federal rail regulations prohibit the city from denying the project or placing restrictions because of concerns about rail safety. City officials also noted that Valero is the city’s largest employer and that it provides “a large source of revenue for the city.”

Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor, who signed the SACOG letter, said Sacramento officials are not asking Benicia to reject the plan, only to take legal steps to require the shipments are handled as safely as possible, including requiring rail companies use stronger tanker cars with safety mechanisms, and that the trains use new computer safety controls called “positive train control.”

Saylor pointed out that local emergency responders apparently will not be allowed to know when the trains are coming through.

“Our concern is about the 500,000 people in the 6-county area that live within a half mile of the rails, people who are exposed to potential risk,” Saylor said.

Sacramento officials and officials in other rail-line cities nationally have also called for requirements that companies take more steps to “stabilize” volatile North Dakota oil before it is shipped.

Benicia city officials have declined comment pending upcoming city hearings on the subject. Officials have set aside several nights in a row, beginning Monday, Feb. 8, for public comment on the plan. Those hearings are expected to be heavily attended by people arguing for and against the proposal.

Benicia’s approach contrasts with the way San Luis Obispo County is handling a similar crude oil train project. County officials there have recommended the county’s Planning Commission reject a proposal from Phillips 66 for changes at its local refinery that would allow it to bring oil trains on site. Those shipments would go through both Northern and Southern California, including the Sacramento area. The Phillips refinery currently receives oil via pipeline.

In a report, San Luis Obispo planning staff wrote they do not believe the economic and other benefits from the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable negative environmental impacts the project would cause. County officials listed the potential for elevated cancer risk from added air pollution near the tracks in the county and elsewhere in California.

“The project would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public and the residents of San Luis Obispo County due to the increase of hazardous accidents as a result of the project,” the county planning staff wrote in a report issued on Monday.

Hearings are ongoing over that project. SACOG sent a letter this week as well to San Luis Obispo County saying that –if the project is approved –the county should imposed “a full complement of mitigation measures addressing our safety concerns.”

Phillips 66 recently announced it will reduce the number of annual train shipments it plans to make from 250 to about 150.

Benicia Planning Commission, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Crude By Rail, Environmental Impacts, Environmental review, Final Draft Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Local Regulation, Public Safety, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) highly critical of Valero oil train EIR

By Roger Straw, February 5, 2016

BREAKING: Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) highly critical of Valero oil train EIR

SACOGThe Benicia Independent is in receipt of a Sacramento Area Council of Government letter sent on February 4, 2016 to the City of Benicia, but not as yet posted on the City’s website. The letter is severely critical of the City’s Final EIR, and calls for the Benicia Planning Commission to “provide full and adequate responses to our comment letters,” and “to fully evaluate all measures to mitigate the significant environmental impacts that this Project will inevitably have on our communities and our residents.”

The letter is signed by SACOG Immediate Past Chair Don Saylor.  SACOG represents 22 cities and 6 counties in the Sacramento area.

The letter begins by summarizing  two previous letters sent to Benicia, one in 2014 commenting on the original Draft EIR, and another in 2015 commenting on the Revised DEIR.  The 2015 letter claimed that the City did not adequately respond to their first letter.  “…we submitted a second comment letter citing the mandate in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to describe all mitigation measures that could, if implemented, minimize significant environmental effects. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15 I26(c), 15126.1 (a).) We urged the City to adopt all feasible mitigation measures that will protect our communities before the catastrophic events forecast by the RDEIR occur. We noted that nearly one quarter of our region’s population lives within one-half mile of the crude oil shipments.”

This new 2016 letter continues with criticism of the Final Draft EIR, “…we appreciate that the City finally acknowledges the substantial risk to our region resulting from the crude oil shipments. However, the FEIR still fails to adopt a single mitigation measure to address the impacts of the Project and the FEIR fails to adequately respond to our letters.”

The letter concludes with five detailed examples of “the inadequacies and misstatements in the Responses to our comment letters.”

Taken together, these inadequacies point out what may be understood as “fatal flaws,” indicating that the EIR should be revised and recirculated yet again, or thrown out for a fresh start.

Or … as in my opinion, the project should simply be dropped.

Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Environmental Impacts, Final Draft Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Local Regulation, Public Safety, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

BREAKING: City of Davis urges Benicia to refuse to certify Valero oil train EIR

By Roger Straw, February 5, 2016

BREAKING: City of Davis urges Benicia to refuse to certify Valero oil train EIR

City_of_DavisThe Benicia Independent is in receipt of a City of Davis letter sent on February 3, 2016 to the City of Benicia, but not as yet posted on the City’s website. The letter is severely critical of the City’s Final EIR, and calls for the Benicia Planning Commission to decline to certify the massive 3-volume document.

If Benicia declines to certify the EIR, Valero would have to revise the environmental study yet again, or withdraw.  Many believe that Valero would instead appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the Benicia City Council in hopes of a more favorable hearing.

The Davis letter is signed by Assistant City Manager Mike Webb, who writes, “These trains will travel…on the UPRR main railroad track which runs through the city of Davis, immediately adjacent to the Davis downtown area and to residential areas. The rail line also runs immediately adjacent to the University of California Davis campus.”

The heart of the letter reads, “Davis requests that Benicia reject the adequacy of the Final EIR (FEIR), decline to certify the FEIR, and send it back to staff to fully analyze mitigation measures for safety, as set forth in Davis’ and SACOG’s earlier letters and then to impose the measures suggested by SACOG and Davis, as well as any additional measures that are feasible.”

Webb calls upon Benicia to act responsibly: “As we have seen occur in other communities, a derailment and the potential for fire, explosion, and train upset is real and should not be ignored. It is the obligation of public agencies to safeguard all their communities to the best of their abilities.”

The letter continues with highly critical comments about the EIR, “Davis submits that the Final ElR is legally inadequate….When a lead agency disagrees with a comment, the response must address comment in detail. The lead agency must provide a good-faith, reasoned analysis; conclusory statements without facts are not adequate. The FElR fails to meet this  standard.”

Giving two detailed examples of the FEIR’s failure to address Davis’ previous comments, the letter concludes, “Benicia and Valero have the authority and ability to adopt measures that will be effective. The City of Davis again urges Benicia, for the safety of all the residents of this region, to reject the Final ElR as inadequate under CEQA and to analyze and adopt the feasible mitigation measures that are available in order to reduce the significant adverse impacts posed by this Project.”

For safe and healthy communities…