Repost from The Sacramento Bee [Editor: Significant quote: “The resulting funds, estimated at $11 million in the first full year, will be allocated for oil spill prevention and preparation work, and for emergency cleanup costs. The efforts will be focused on spills that threaten waterways, and will allow officials to conduct response drills.” Of course, we won’t need this fund if we simply STOP crude by rail and move toward clean energy. – RS]
California to impose fee on crude oil rail shipments; funds to be used for spill prevention, cleanup
By Tony Bizjak, The Sacramento Bee | Jun. 16, 2014
A crude oil train operated by BNSF travels just outside the Feather River Canyon in the foothills into the Sacramento Valley. Jake Miille / Special to The Bee
California leaders have included several safety provisions in this year’s state budget with the aim of preventing toxic spills and fires as oil companies ship more crude oil on trains through cities and wildland areas.
Beginning in the coming fiscal year, the state will apply a 6.5-cent fee on oil companies for every barrel of crude that arrives in California on rail, or that is piped to refineries from inside the state. The resulting funds, estimated at $11 million in the first full year, will be allocated for oil spill prevention and preparation work, and for emergency cleanup costs. The efforts will be focused on spills that threaten waterways, and will allow officials to conduct response drills.
The budget also separately includes funds to hire seven more rail safety inspectors for the California Public Utilities Commission, PUC spokeswoman Terrie Prosper said.
The 6.5-cent shipping charge will be administered by the state Office of Spill Prevention and Response. “We consider this a great victory,” office administrator Tom Cullen said Monday. Until now, the office’s scope has been confined mainly to coastal areas. “We weren’t positioned in California to prepare for and respond to oil spills on the interior of the state.”
Cullen and others negotiated the shipping charge over the weekend with oil industry officials. The charge, an extension of an existing marine fee, may be the first of several steps California officials take in coming months to improve the state’s ability to minimize oil spills and handle them more effectively when they happen.
Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, said his organization will work with the state on the issue.
“The new revenues, the first place they should go, is to make sure local responders are adequately equipped,” Hull said. “We recognized from the beginning that this is a legitimate issue.”
The safety efforts have taken on urgency as oil companies reveal plans for hundreds of crude-by-rail shipments in California, including a proposal by the Valero Refining Co. to ship 100 crude oil tank cars a day through downtown Sacramento and downtown Davis to Benicia. Details of that plan are expected to be released by Benicia officials Tuesday.
Federal officials have warned that one of the crude oils being shipped into the state, from the Bakken region of North Dakota, appears to be more flammable than typical crude oils. Three recent train crashes and explosions, including one that killed 47 people in the Canadian city of Lac-Megantic last year, prompted federal transportation officials last month to require that railroads notify state emergency officials of large Bakken shipment times and routes.
Central to the state’s safety efforts will be keeping a closer watch on the tracks themselves. The state budget includes seven new rail inspector positions to help the California Public Utilities Commission fulfill its mandate to inspect every mile of rail in the state annually. PUC deputy director of rail safety programs Paul King said his agency has failed in that task some years because of lack of personnel.
With rail crude oil shipments on the rise, it’s critical that the state steps up now, King said. “The Bakken crude in particular is a big problem. This is a lot of volatile material coming in on routes where it hasn’t come in before.”
The state Senate on Monday passed a resolution urging the U.S. Department of Transportation and other federal agencies to write tougher standards for train tank cars and to “prioritize safety over cost effectiveness” in dealing with rail crude shipments. Federal officials have said they intend to improve design standards for rail cars hauling crude oil, but haven’t set a date.
Sens. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, and Lois Wolk, D-Davis, introduced a bill last week that would impose a second shipping fee on oil companies to be used to train and equip “first responders,” such as fire departments and hazardous materials crews, to deal with major spills and fires on railroad lines. The authors have not yet determined the fee amount.
“It’s not a matter of will (a spill) happen, it’s when,” Hill said. “We have to be prepared. We need to provide the resources for first responders to address the emergency.”
A recent state report found that 40 percent of local firefighters in the state are volunteers whose departments generally lack the training and equipment to deal with major hazardous materials spills.
Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, also has authored a bill requiring rail carriers to communicate more closely with state emergency officials about crude oil rail movements.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/16/6488137/california-to-impose-fee-on-crude.html#storylink=c
Crude-oil trains through Davis: It’s time for action
By Lynne Nittler | June 08, 2014
Tank cars carrying crude oil roll through downtown Davis as paradegoers gather on Picnic Day in April. Richard McAdam/Courtesy photo
I’m proud of our city. The Davis City Council took on crude-by-rail transport through our community, just as I have seen it tackle other difficult issues — with the willingness to look beneath the surface, find out what is important and then figure out what to do.
I’m sure the council members would have preferred shrugging off the crude-by-rail problem, leaving it for the federal government to handle, but we citizens pressed them, and to their credit, they became regional leaders.
The problem: The issue isn’t abstract for Davis. If two proposals are approved down-rail from us, we soon could be seeing 180 tank cars coming right through our town every day, carrying the highly volatile North Dakota Bakken crude oil in the older, unsafe DOT111 cars.
A proposed rail terminal at the Benicia Valero refinery would bring 70,000 barrels a day, which equals a train of 100 cars, and a proposed rail spur at the Phillips 66 Santa Maria refinery in San Luis Obispo County would bring another 80 cars per day through Davis on the Capitol Corridor route.
When a group of local citizens approached the Davis Natural Resources Commission in January with our concerns, we found a receptive audience. Those concerns are numerous: unsafe tank cars prone to rupture, uninspected rails, the nature of volatile crude oil and dirty tar sands, oil train exclusion from the right-to-know laws, substantially increased numbers of serious oil train accidents and spills, and skyrocketing projections for the number of oil trains entering California.
The commission elevated the citizen recommendations to the City Council.
City goals: The council listened, and noted that Spokane, Bellingham and Seattle, Washington, and, more recently, Berkeley and Richmond, had all passed resolutions protesting crude-by-rail transport through their cities. They assigned staff to prepare a report and later adopted broad goals including to:
* Actively participate in regional planning activities;
* Assure top-quality fire, police, emergency and other services to promote the health, safety and well-being of all residents and neighborhoods; and
* Create and maintain an environment that promotes safety and well-being.
Based on these goals, on Earth Day, April 22, the Davis City Council took a strong stand and adopted Resolution 14 opposing transportation of crude oil through the city of Davis and adjacent habitat, thus including the Yolo Causeway with its trestle tracks. It is well worth reading the whole document, posted at www.yolanoclimateaction.org or at www.cityofdavis.org under the City Council agenda for April 22. Other cities and counties in our region have requested copies of the Davis resolution as they prepare their own.
Leading the region: Meanwhile, Mike Webb, the staff member assigned to research crude-by-rail, along with City Attorney Harriet Steiner, contacted neighboring jurisdictions of Sacramento, West Sacramento, Dixon and Yolo and Solano counties to alert them also to the dangers. Together, our staff convinced the Sacramento Area Council of Governments to hold a meeting on oil trains on April 17, and that group put the item on the agenda for the next full SACOG meeting.
The jurisdictions divided up the various tasks, mostly focused on public safety, but also on siding storage and getting more information/assistance from Union Pacific, the California Public Utilities Commission and even the refineries. The SACOG representatives who attended the Capital-to-Capital meetings in Washington, D.C., last month took our regional concerns directly to our California elected officials, Reps. Doris Matsui and John Garamendi.
Additionally, our city is pursuing with Union Pacific a high-sensitivity rail situation in Davis where there is a curve and also crossover switches, both requiring an unusual —and dangerous — slower speed of 10 mph.
Comments: The next step is an opportunity for cities and organizations to study the draft environmental impact report for the Valero Project, which will be released Tuesday for public review. Written comments are admitted to the record, and the report authors must respond to each comment, although similar comments may be grouped together. Those who respond have 45 days, probably extended to 60 to 90 days, to submit written comments.
The city of Davis isn’t waiting for the EIR release; it is already planning its comments and inviting neighboring jurisdictions to join them. SACOG members are working together now. We citizens can be grateful that our city is speaking up on behalf of our safety.
The city manager of Lynchburg, Virginia, did not even know that trains of Bakken oil were passing through his town. On April 30, 17 cars derailed and the ensuing flames shot up eight stories high while three cars leaked 25,000 gallons of crude into the James River, a source of drinking water. Fortunately, Davis is taking proactive steps to avert such accidents.
A number of environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Earth Justice, Oil Change International and others will be weighing in on the draft EIR as well, with sharply focused comments on safety, health, water and air contamination, and whatever other weaknesses or unmitigated concerns they find in the EIR.
Time for action! Democracy is, above all, about each of us voicing our concerns. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, the draft EIR provides every individual affected by a decision with a chance to be heard. Every comment letter becomes a part of the EIR document and receives a response in the final EIR.
Therefore, we have serious work to do to become informed about the impact of unit trains of crude oil passing through Davis and to read all or significant parts of the draft EIR document. The time we invest in expressing particular concerns could make a difference in terms of mitigations granted or possibly influence whether the Benicia Planning Commission, and ultimately the Benicia City Council, vote for or against the Valero rail project.
There is a helpful resources document posted for those who wish to read up on crude-by-rail transport at www.yolanoclimateaction.org
Yolano Climate Action will host a workshop on how to respond to a draft EIR, including an instructional PowerPoint presentation by Mike Webb plus tips and discussion on commentary topics for the Valero project DEIR, on Wednesday, June 18, from 7 to 9 p.m. in the Davis Community Church Fellowship Hall, 421 D St.
Looking ahead: The draft EIR for the Santa Maria rail spur project is expected to be released in July, offering a second chance to use newly honed skills!
— Lynne Nittler is a Davis resident and environmental activist.
Repost from The Sacramento Bee [Editor: A MUST READ – excellent background piece. Note multiple references to uprail communities’ concerns about Valero’s Crude By Rail proposal. – RS]
Crude oil rail transports to run through Sacramento region
By Tony Bizjak, June 7, 2014
A crude oil train operated by BNSF travels just outside the Feather River Canyon in the foothills into the Sacramento Valley. Jake Miille / Special to The Bee
Sacramento’s history as a rail town is long and rich. A potential new chapter, however, is creating concern: The city may soon become a crude-oil crossroads.
As part of a national shift in shipping practices, several oil companies are laying plans to haul hundreds of train cars a day of flammable crude through the region on the way to coastal and Valley refineries, passing through neighborhoods and downtowns, and crossing the region’s two major rivers. Saying they’ve been told little about the transport projects, area leaders are scrambling to gather information so they can advocate for local safety interests as several of the rail shipment proposals move forward.
“This is a real issue,” Sacramento Rep. Doris Matsui said this week after holding a recent conference call with fire officials. “Sacramento’s downtown and many neighborhoods sit next to the tracks. The feedback I received on that call is that our locals are not receiving the information they need to be ready for an incident.”
Several of the planned crude-oil trains will share tracks with Capitol Corridor passenger trains. Notably, Capitol Corridor chief David Kutrosky said last week he was not aware of the plans until informed by The Sacramento Bee.
Some of the trains are expected to carry Bakken crude, a North Dakota oil mined with fracking technology. Federal hazardous materials officials recently issued a warning that Bakken crude may be more flammable than traditional oil, citing derailments that resulted in fires, including a catastrophic explosion last year that killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, and leveled half of that city’s downtown.
Subsequent derailments in North Dakota and Virginia, though not fatal, caused fires and evacuations and showed disaster could strike again.
Kirk Trost, an attorney and executive with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, a coalition of six counties and 22 Sacramento-area cities, said he will ask the SACOG board this month to issue a regional statement of concern about the potential rail projects. Trost and other local officials say they want to push oil and railroad companies to be more open about their plans and to work more closely with local leaders on safety issues.
“We’re not trying to stop the movement of crude through the region,” he said. “But if it comes, we want the safety interests of the region to be addressed.”
Those concerns are being echoed across the country as cities, many with downtown rail lines, react to the oil industry’s rapid evolution toward using trains to haul crude oil. The rail shipments spring from increased pumping of inexpensive crude in North Dakota and from tar sands in Canada, which have limited access to oil pipelines.
Federal officials are exploring the ramifications of having so much oil moving by train. The National Transportation Safety Board held April hearings highlighting the inadequacies of the nation’s current fleet of crude oil tank cars. The U.S. Department of Transportation says it plans to propose tougher standards for safer tank cars. Critics like Andres Soto of the activist Communities for a Better Environment group – who calls current crude tankers “rolling beer cans” – say the government isn’t doing enough.
California, with its coastal refineries and huge gasoline consumption, saw its rail shipments jump from 1 million barrels in 2012 to more than 6 million in 2013, according to the state Energy Commission. Those numbers still represent a small portion of crude oil shipments, but energy officials say they expect them to grow.
‘All flammable’
In response, the Governor’s Office has proposed more funding to deal with rail oil spills, and Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, is pushing legislation to require rail carriers to communicate information about the movement and characteristics of crude oil and other hazardous materials, and maintain a 24-hour, seven-day communications center.
Union Pacific railroad officials insist they’re taking action. They say the company has agreed to reduce crude oil train speeds in large cities such as Sacramento, and have spent millions of dollars on safety efforts, including expanded inspections and technology use, such as lasers and ultrasound, and real-time train tracking via track-side sensors.
“We take this very seriously,” UP spokesman Aaron Hunt said. Representatives of Union Pacific and BNSF, another major freight carrier in California, say they conduct ongoing training with local first responders on dealing with hazardous materials.
The railroads, however, are fighting to keep some train movement data from becoming public.
The Federal Department of Transportation issued an emergency order last month requiring railroads currently running trains with large amounts of Bakken oil to notify state emergency responders about train movements. That deadline is this weekend.
Railroads have said they want states to sign a nondisclosure agreement to keep the information confidential, shared only with emergency personnel. California state officials say they will not sign that agreement, but said Friday they do not know what level of information they may receive from the railroads, and are not sure how much information they would make public.
“We want to keep as much information as public as possible. Anything of concern to the public we want to be available to the public,” said Brad Alexander of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. “Since we haven’t received information yet, we don’t know if there is certain national infrastructure risks to (some of the information) being public.”
BNSF officials said on Friday they will submit information to the state. Union Pacific said it does not currently ship Bakken in the state.
Some information about potential future crude-oil rail movements is becoming public. Valero Refining Co. of Benicia in the East Bay plans to run 100 train cars a day carrying crude oil through Sacramento on the Union Pacific rail line starting early next year, according to Benicia city documents. Company officials have been silent on how much of it will be Bakken, simply saying it will be North American crude. Two 50-car crude oil trains will be assembled daily in the Roseville railyard, then run through Sacramento, West Sacramento and Davis to the refinery.
Valero spokesman Chris Howe said his company is focused on safety, and that derailments causing crude oil spills are rare. “We think some of the concerns voiced about transport of particular crudes by rail are a little exaggerated,” Howe said. “There is nothing inherently more dangerous about one crude than another. They are all flammable, and need to be handled carefully.”
He pointed out that the rail transport of less expensive oil from North America will save money and reduce the chance of ocean spills by allowing Valero to cut back dramatically on imports from Africa, the Middle East and South America.
Farther south in California, the Phillips 66 oil company plans to run up to 80 train cars of crude oil daily to its Santa Maria refinery, mainly through Sacramento and the Bay Area. Phillips spokesman Dennis Nuss said rail shipments will keep its refinery competitive as California oil sources diminish. He said the crude will come from a variety of locales, but is not expected to be Bakken. He estimated the trains likely will start running in 2016.
Roseville to Benicia
Two facilities in Kern County – one run by Alon USA, the other by Plains All American Pipeline LP – also plan rail upgrades to allow deliveries of more than 100 tank crude cars a day. Alon did not respond to Bee requests for information, but, according to Kern County environmental documents, trains to the Alon facility will share tracks with the San Joaquin passenger rail service, which runs from Sacramento to Bakersfield. Plains All American Pipeline spokesman Brad Leone confirmed that his company is building a station to handle 104 crude cars daily, with plans to start shipping later this year, but said he did not know what rail lines would be used.
Sacramento already is home to one crude-by-rail transfer station. Sacramento-based InterState Oil has been transferring crude-oil shipments from train cars to trucks headed to Bay Area refineries at the former McClellan Air Force Base in north Sacramento since last September. The company started crude transfers before getting the necessary air-quality permit, local air quality officials said, and Sacramento-area fire officials said they were not initially told about the crude transfer operations.
Local leaders in Sacramento, West Sacramento and Davis say their front-burner concern is Valero’s plan to run two crude oil trains a day through the area. The city of Benicia, the permitting authority for Valero’s plan to build a rail spur to handle more trains, is scheduled to release a draft environmental impact report on the project Tuesday. Trost of SACOG and Davis official Mike Webb said Sacramento area representatives will dig through that report to see how definitively it addresses potential impacts, including derailment and spill risks, on the “up-rail” cities and counties between Benicia and Roseville.
The Sacramento group already has compiled a list of steps it wants taken, and says it hopes to use the moment to make the case that railroads and oil companies must work more closely with cities as the stakes rise.
Trost said the local group will call for a detailed advanced notification system about what shipments are coming to town. Those notifications will help fire agencies who must respond if a leak or fire occurs. Local officials say they also will ask Union Pacific to keep crude-oil tank cars moving through town without stopping and parking them here. The region’s leaders also want financial support to train firefighters and other emergency responders on how to deal with crude oil spills, and possibly funds to buy more advanced firefighting equipment. Sacramento leaders say they will press the railroad to employ the best inspection protocols on the rail line.
So far, the Davis City Council is the only entity in Sacramento that has formally spoken out about the shipments. It recently passed a resolution saying the city “opposes using existing Union Pacific rail lines to transport hazardous crude oil through the city and adjacent habitat areas.”
Davis officials point out that the existing Union Pacific line comes through downtown on a curve that must be taken at reduced speeds. Mike Webb, Davis director of community development and sustainability, said the city of Davis wants to push UP to employ computerized control of train speeds through town, rather than rely on a conductor to reduce speeds manually.
“The city is not opposed to using domestic oil, and the job creation that goes with that,” he said. “We want to be reasonable. Our primary concern is to ensure the highest degree of safety for our community. If trains carrying Bakken crude oil are coming through our community, we want it to be done in the safest way possible.”
Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2014/06/07/3378435/crude-oil-rail-transports-to-run.html#storylink=cpy
Repost from The Davis Enterprise
[Editor: Thanks to Milton Kalish of Davis for referring us to this story in the Davis Enterprise. – RS]
No more oil trains chugging through our town, says Davis City Council
By Elizabeth Case | From page A1 | April 23, 2014
The Davis City Council passed a unanimous resolution Tuesday opposing projects in Benicia and Santa Maria that would increase the number of oil trains running through the city until certain safety issues have been addressed.
If both the Philips 66 Santa Maria refinery project and the Benicia rail terminal proposal are approved, 180 more oil cars will chug daily along Second Street and through downtown. A majority would roll in from Canada and North Dakota, whose Bakken shale oil has been recognized as especially flammable.
To support the opposition, the staff report cites the derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, last year that killed 47 people and caused $1 billion in damage, and the 1.15 million gallons of crude oil spilled in the United States in 2013. In addition, the railroad in Davis has one of the few turns in this area of the corridor, requiring trains to reduce their speeds.
“Given the record of crude-oil rail accidents in recent years, an event such as Lac-Mégantic could have catastrophic effects if it occurred amidst any populated area,” the report reads.
While railroads generally are regulated by the federal government, cities have local control over permits for land use, among others. The Davis City Council resolved to file comments opposing oil project permits “with the objective of ensuring that adequate … safety measures … are in place to ensure the safety and security of residents and visitors of the city of Davis and our adjacent habitat areas.”
The city will simultaneously work with railroad and transport companies, and the U.S. Department of Transportation, to assess and mitigate risk, including outdated rail cars and updated systems to warn operators of upcoming changes in speed.
The resolution’s passage followed a meeting hosted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments on April 17. Berkeley’s city council passed a similar resolution opposing the Philips 66 project and Richmond called for tighter regulations last month.
You must be logged in to post a comment.