Tag Archives: Bakken crude

Take Action: Stop Benicia Bomb Trains

Repost from Center For Biological Diversity
[Editor: read the Center’s letter for some excellent points on Valero’s revised draft environmental impact report (RDEIR).  Your comments on the RDEIR are due in Benicia city offices by 5pm Pacific time, October 30, 2015.  – RS]

Center for Biological DiversityStop Bomb Trains in California

Oil trainRight now is a critical moment to stop oil trains in California. Oil giant Valero wants to build a massive terminal for oil trains at its Benicia refinery.

If Valero gets its way, mile-long oil trains carrying explosive and toxic crude will travel daily throughout California. The project’s environmental review admits that impacts from hazardous materials will be “significant and unavoidable.” The risks to health and safety are unacceptable.

We also know that this project is a disaster for the climate. Building a new oil train terminal would lock us into decades of using some of the most carbon-intensive oil on the planet: Canadian tar sands and fracked North Dakota Bakken crude. At a time of extreme drought and intense heat waves, we need to invest in safe and clean energy projects.

Take action here — urge Benicia’s planning department to protect our communities and say no to oil trains in California.  (Click here, then scroll down to send a letter.  See text of letter below.)


Text of the Center’s letter (go here and edit as you like):

I am writing with serious concern about Valero’s proposed oil train offloading facility in Benicia. According to the environmental impact report (EIR), this project would create several “significant and unavoidable impacts” that could harm my community.

For one, bringing oil trains into Benicia is expected to create unacceptable increases in toxic air pollution to towns along the rail route and near the refinery. Specifically the EIR identifies increases in nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, benzene and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). Oil trains of this size typically have three diesel engines emitting the equivalent pollution of 1,500 cars each, or 4,500 per train.

According to the EIR, the cumulative risk of spills, explosions and fires along the Union Pacific mainline “would be significant for all of the tank car designs.” This includes the not-yet-built DOT-117 cars, which require a puncture resistance of only 18 mph even while current speed limits are set to 50 mph in most areas. Just one accident could result in significant loss of life, long-term economic damage and contamination of our precious wetlands and waterways.

The EIR also wrongly assumes the “worst case” scenario is a spill of just eight tanker cars, or about 240,000 gallons. The train that incinerated Lac-Mégantic, Quebec in July 2013 spilled more than 1.6 million gallons of crude (about 60 tanker cars), and accidents in West Virginia, Alabama and North Dakota have also resulted in 20 or more tanker cars catching fire. Without an accurate worst-case-scenario analysis that reflects existing data on recent spills, this project cannot be approved.

The revised EIR also identifies “significant and unavoidable” climate impacts that conflict with California’s existing law to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 80 percent below 1990 levels and move to an 80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. At a time of extreme drought and intense heat waves, we must invest in safe, clean energy rather than dangerous oil infrastructure.

And finally, an analysis of census data has shown that a vast majority of people who will be harmed by this project live in EPA-designated environmental-justice communities — primarily low-income and of color. Approving this project will only add to a legacy of environmental injustice.

For all these reasons, I urge you, the planning commission and city council to deny certification for this EIR and reject Valero’s proposed oil train terminal in Benicia.

Sincerely,

Again, to send this letter to Benicia city planners, click here.

Tests showed rail defect 2 months before W.Va. oil train derailed

Repost from McClatchyDC News

Tests showed rail defect 2 months before W.Va. oil train derailed

By Curtis Tate, October 9, 2015

HIGHLIGHTS:
• Feds identify broken rail as primary cause
• Flaw detected in two prior track inspections
• CSX, contractor will pay $25,000 in fines

Scorched and deformed tank cars await examination by federal investigators at Handley, W.Va., on Feb. 24, 2015. A CSX train carrying crude oil had derailed a week earlier, spilling nearly 400,000 gallons and igniting a fire that kept 100 people from their homes for four days.
Scorched and deformed tank cars await examination by federal investigators at Handley, W.Va., on Feb. 24, 2015. A CSX train carrying crude oil had derailed a week earlier, spilling nearly 400,000 gallons and igniting a fire that kept 100 people from their homes for four days. Curtis Tate – McClatchy

WASHINGTON – Two separate tests in the two months prior to a fiery oil train derailment in West Virginia earlier this year showed the presence of a rail defect, according to a report on the incident.

But neither the railroad nor the contractor who did the tests followed up on the results in December 2014 and January 2015, and the rail broke under a 107-car CSX train loaded with Bakken crude oil. The Feb. 16 derailment near Mount Carbon, W.Va., led to explosions, fires and the evacuation of 1,100 nearby residents.

On Friday, the Federal Railroad Administration said it had issued $25,000 civil penalties against both CSX and Sperry Rail Service, the contractor that performed the rail tests.

The railroad agency recommended that both companies enhance employee training and use improved technology. It also asked CSX to establish a plan to identify and correct track defects on routes used to ship crude oil.

Noting that track flaws are a leading cause of derailments, Sarah Feinberg, the agency’s acting administrator, said railroads hauling hazardous materials need to pay closer attention to track conditions.

“All railroads, not just CSX, must be more diligent when inspecting for internal rail flaws or when contracting out inspection work,” she said in a statement.

In a statement, CSX said it would develop additional inspection processes in collaboration with federal regulators.

“CSX intends to pursue these efforts to their maximum potential as part of our commitment to the safety of the communities where we operate, our employees and our customers,” said Kaitlyn Barrett, a spokeswoman.

According to the agency’s report, 24 of the 27 derailed tank cars sustained significant damage that released oil, fueling fires and explosions even in single-digit temperatures. One resident’s home was destroyed by fire, but no one was seriously injured or killed.

The Mount Carbon wreck was among six oil train derailments in North America this year and one of four in the U.S. All revealed vulnerabilities in the kinds of tank cars used to transport oil, as well as shortcomings in the inspection and maintenance of track and rail car wheels.

In April, the Federal Railroad Administration recommended improved wheel inspections. A broken wheel was suspected in the March 6 oil train derailment near Galena, Ill., though the agency has yet to announce an official cause.

In May, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced its final rule requiring more crash and fire resistance for tank cars used to transport flammable liquids, including crude oil and ethanol.

The recent push for improved track and tank cars in North America followed the July 2013 oil train disaster in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, where 47 people died. On Friday, a U.S. bankruptcy judge approved a $343 million settlement with the families of the victims.

Submit your comment: No oil trains in Benicia, no oil trains in California

Repost from ForestEthics
[Editor:  The link here will take you to ForestEthics’ excellent AND EASY sign-on page, where you can submit your thoughts, concerns and questions  to the City of Benicia.  This is critical NOW, as the Benicia Planning Commission considers whether to permit a new oil train facility in California.  – RS]

Submit your comment: No oil trains in Benicia, no oil trains in California

STOP Crude By Rail in Benicia California!

Right now is a critical moment in the fight to stop oil trains in California. Oil giant Valero wants to build a massive oil trains terminal at its Benicia refinery.

Act now to urge Benicia’s decision makers to reject Valero’s proposed oil train terminal.

Should Valero get its way, oil trains carrying explosive and toxic extreme crude will travel daily through Northern California – including right behind California’s state capitol building – en route to the Benicia refinery. The project’s environmental review even admits that impacts from “hazardous materials” will be “significant and unavoidable.” This risk is unacceptable.

Aside from the public health and safety dangers of oil trains, we know that this project is a disaster for the climate. Building a new oil train terminal now locks Benicia into decades of using some of the most carbon-intensive oil on the planet: Canadian tar sands and fracked North Dakota Bakken crude. At a time when wildfires are raging and the drought continues to worsen, our communities need to invest in safe, healthy, clean energy projects that build climate resilience.

Submit your comments now: No oil trains in Benicia, no oil trains in California.

In the coming weeks, we’ll continue to support grassroots organizing led by Benicians for a Safe & Healthy Community as we prepare for upcoming public hearings on Valero’s oil trains proposal. We hope you consider joining us by attending the Planning Commission hearing on September 29 or volunteering with the campaign.

Thanks for all you do,

Ethan Buckner
ForestEthics Extreme Oil Campaigner

LETTER: Is “Crude by Rail” Good for Benicia?

Is “Crude by Rail” Good for Benicia?

By Craig Snider, September 23, 2015
[A version of this letter appeared in the Vallejo Times-Herald on 10/5/15.]

I’d like to share a few thoughts about Valero’s “Crude by Rail” project.

To recap, the proposal consists of constructing a depot at the Valero refinery to offload crude oil. The crude would come from fracking of shale in South Dakota or from the mining of tar sands in Canada. The shale oil is especially flammable and prone to explosion if derailed. The tar sand oil is extremely toxic. According US Department of transportation regulations, such trains are referred to as “High Hazard Flammable Trains” or HHFT’s. Two trains (100 tank cars total) per day would pass through a portion of the Benicia Industrial Park en route to the new depot. A decision is needed by the City of Benicia whether to allow construction of the depot at the proposed refinery site, or require that the depot be built outside the city and piped into the refinery, or deny the project altogether.

According to the City Manager, the industrial park is the “engine of Benicia” and the best way to generate additional revenue is to “diversify.”   In fact, according to Benicia Strategic Plan, Issue #3 – “Strengthening Economic and Fiscal Conditions,” strategies include “Strengthen Industrial Park Competitiveness” and “Retain and Attract Business.” Yet businesses are already leaving the industrial park for sites that better meet their needs.   I ask: If you wanted to locate your business in an Industrial Park, are you more likely to choose one clogged with 100 tank cars of High Hazard Flammable crude each day, or one without it? Would your customers be comfortable in the presence of such a hazard or would they take their business elsewhere?   Remember, this is the same type of crude that caught fire in 2013, exploded (leaving a .62 mile radius blast zone), and killed 47 people and destroyed the entire downtown of Lac Megantic, Quebec. Most areas of the industrial park and the NE corner of Waters End subdivision would be at risk from a similar blast zone. Would you be more, or less likely to buy a home in a community with the daily presence of HHFTs?

Valero claims that despite chronic violations of air quality, they place a high value on safety. But remember, Valero’s responsibility and control of the HHFT’s begins and ends at the refinery gate. Valero has repeatedly attempted to distance itself from any responsibility for rail shipments of crude. They have cited state and federal law in an effort to wash their hands of any responsibility for accidents that occur beyond their gates. (See Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) appendix H). Yet, the freight railroad business remains virtually unregulated and their safety practices are largely secret. In fact, the Federal Railroad Administration doesn’t know how many rail bridges there are because there is no public inventory of them. Railroads inspect and maintain their own tracks and determine what condition to keep them in, but keep that information secret. And, when state or local emergency managers get information from railroads about oil trains, the railroads ask the government agencies to promise to keep the information from the public.  Why would we want 100 tank cars of highly flammable (and explosive) crude oil rolling through our town each day with no analysis or transparency regarding the safety systems employed by the railroad?

I understand that Valero contributes a major portion of the tax base for our community. Many of our citizens depend on income from Valero. But isn’t it time for all of us to begin weaning ourselves from our fossil fuel addiction? Many of us were sickened by the specter of ISIS militants shelling ancient temples and other World Heritage sites. Yet these acts pale in comparison to the tar sand mining destruction in Canada, which will supply some or all of Valero’s crude by rail. Tar sand mining destroys Boreal forests, leaving a wasteland of toxic chemicals and groundwater pollution that seeps into rivers and streams. Why decry the ISIS destruction, but ignore the vast destruction of natural systems associated with crude by rail? How can an activity that is so destructive to our world be considered “Good for Benicia”? How can unchecked greenhouse gas production, global warming, and the ruin of our planet for future generations be “Good for Benicia”? How can putting the future of our industrial park and our livelihoods at risk be “Good for Benicia”? And finally, what does it say about a community that is willing to profit from such destruction?

Maybe it’s inevitable that the city will approve the project. Shame on us if we do. But if it must be done, the best solution is Alternative 3: Offsite Unloading Terminal. Alternative 3 keeps HHFTs out of Benicia, while allowing Valero to get their crude by rail.   We need to diversify the Industrial Park and make it more (not less) attractive to other businesses. We want an inviting community, not one whose safety is compromised by ill-conceived means of procuring crude oil. It’s one thing to live in the shadow of an oil refinery with it’s own inherent hazards and pollutants. Why up the ante when we don’t have to?

If you would like to voice your concerns about Valero’s Crude by Rail project, attend the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for September 29 at 6:30 pm at the City Council Chambers or send in comments on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report before October 16th. For more information contact Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community at safebenicia.org.