By Roger Straw, Benicia Independent Editor, 8/31/15
UPDATED September 4, 2015
Here you can download documents from the City of Benicia’s website. They are the official documents submitted by Valero and/or prepared by City consultants, including the Report itself, eight appendices and ninety (!) reference documents. (Documents submitted by citizens and others commenting on the proposal may be found on our Project Review page.) Caution: many of these are huge downloads.
The Recirculated Draft EIR – released August 31, 2015
By Eric Killelea, August 4, 2015
Williams County Commissioners – Top Row: Barry Ramberg, Wayne Aberle, Martin Hanson. Bottom Row: David Montgomery, Dan Kalil
WILLISTON —The Williams County Commission on Tuesday refused a proposed 992-acre rail spur and transload facility in Pherrin Township northeast of Williston.
The board voted 3-2 against the facility aimed to set up south of 57th Street Northwest.
“I don’t think it’s necessary,” said Commissioner Martin Hanson, who based his vote to oppose the project on environmental and safety concerns and the township’s recommendation for denial of the project. “I don’t think it’s needed.”
Hanson’s remarks come as state officials report North Dakota produces nearly 1.2 million barrels of crude oil per day, of which about 700 bpd is shipped by rail. State officials want to continue pursuing the build-out of pipelines as another means of transportation, but think rail is still needed to transport crude oil out of state. Rail traffic has increased 233 percent from 2005 to 2012.
Previously speaking on behalf of the applicant, Jordon Evert, of Williston-based Furuseth, Kalil, Olson and Evert Law Firm, said “reputable companies” in the oil patch had shown interest in the project that could accommodate 40 percent natural gas liquids, 50 percent dry goods (frack sand, pipe and perhaps agricultural commodities) and 20 percent oil. Evert said Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway had not formally announced its support, but its representatives had confirmed its interest in the project.
“This facility would be needed,” Evert said during a commission meeting in June. “But these oil companies are afraid, or don’t want to commit to anything in writing until the project is approved.”
Commissioner Dan Kalil was absent during that June meeting when the commission voted 2-2 in deadlock.
He previously abstained from voting on the county planning and zoning commission because his son works for the Furuseth, Kalil, Olson and Evert Law Firm. The commission on Tuesday allowed him to vote on the project after deciding there was no conflict of interest because the outcome would not welcome personal gain.
“Is this the new normal? Is this the new old? Are we going to see a ramp-up in activity?” asked Kalil, who also voted against the project. “Those are the factors going into this and we don’t know these things.”
Commissioner Barry Ramberg agreed with Hanson and Kalil and their thinking the project could be brought to the board in the next several years if the need to transport crude-by-rail continued.
“Time will tell,” said Chair David Montgomery, who joined Commissioner Wayne Aberle in voting in approval of the project.
By Christina Jedra, July 8, 2015, 9:57pm
Port Deposit, MD — A Norfolk-Southern train transporting crude oil heads north through Port Deposit past a railroad crossing near the U.S. Post Office. Amy Davis / Baltimore Sun (Amy Davis / Baltimore Sun)
The City Council held its first public hearing Wednesday on the safety of shipping crude oil through Baltimore, with environmental advocates expressing concern about the practice.
“Right now, we are in a blast zone,” said Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “City Hall is in a blast zone.”
According to advocates, 165,000 Baltimore residents live within a one-mile radius of train routes that are potentially vulnerable to explosions from crude oil train derailments.
City Council Vice President Edward Reisinger said the informational hearing was called to evaluate the threat the shipments pose to the city.
Reisinger said recent derailments — such as one in Quebec in July 2013 that killed 47 people in a massive explosion — are cause for concern. He also pointed to an April 2014 derailment in Lynchburg, Va., that spilled thousands of gallons of crude oil into the James River.
The hearing Wednesday evening at City Hall lasted about two hours. Dozens of advocates — many from the climate action network and Clean Water Action — held a rally outside earlier.
“It’s not a matter of if another oil train will derail … it’s only a question of when,” said the Rev. Amy Sens of six:eight United Church of Christ.
The Maryland Department of the Environment recently denied an application by a Houston-based company to ship crude oil through Baltimore’s port terminal near Fairfield. A Connecticut-based company, Axeon Specialty Products, ships tens of millions of gallons of crude oil through the terminal.
It’s not known how much crude oil is shipped through the city or state. Norfolk Southern and CSX sued the state agency to prevent it from releasing the information.
Tidwell said the “No. 1 thing” advocates want is transparency — knowing the quantities, routes and times that hazardous materials are transported in local areas.
Trisha Sheehan, the regional field manager of Moms Clear Air Force, said she would like to see trains rerouted away from “vulnerable populations,” such as hospitals and schools, and a transition to renewable energy sources.
City emergency management officials answered questions for council members. Executives from rail companies, including Norfolk Southern and CSX, also were invited to attend.
Jon Kenney, a community organizer for the climate action network, said the hearing was necessary to raise public attention.
“Residents of Baltimore want [the council] to take action on oil trains in their communities,” Kenney said. “We have been talking to community members who live along the rail routes, and they are concerned. The rail companies are keeping everyone in the dark.”
Reisinger said the council can take little action to influence the sorts of shipments made along rail lines. Still, he said, it is important to discuss how prepared the city and the companies are to safeguard communities from future accidents.
Dave Pidgeon, a spokesman for Norfolk Southern, said company officials recognize that communities like Baltimore look to them to operate the rail lines safely. He said Norfolk Southern has long had a record of safe delivery of hazardous materials.
“This country depends on the railroads to operate safely,” he said. “That is something we have to shoulder.”
He declined to say how much crude oil Norfolk Southern transports through Baltimore, citing safety concerns, among other reasons. Crude oil makes up less than 2 percent of the company’s total traffic, he said.
He said the company works to make sure the shipments it delivers are carried on tank cars that meet the strictest safety standards.
“We have no choice,” Pidgeon said. “We have to haul hazardous material, including crude oil. If a customer gives us a tank car that meets safety standards, we have to haul it. There’s no question.”
Billion Dollar Project Will Bring Millions Of Tons Of Coal To Area Next To Bay Bridge Toll Plaza
By Christin Ayers, July 1, 2015 9:15 PM
OAKLAND (CBS SF) — Coal is so polluting that demand for it as an energy source is way down in the U.S. The industry has to increase exports to survive. To do that we’ve learned it’s got its eye on the Bay Area.
On the grounds of the old Oakland Army Base a transformation is underway. A new billion dollar rail and marine terminal, called the “Trade and Logistics Center” will open in just three years as a world class hub for the export of bulk commodities, mostly to Mexico, Japan and China
“It’s going to be great for Oakland,” said Jerry Bridges. He’s been hired by the developer to run a project centerpiece, a rail to ship transfer facility right next to the Bay Bridge toll plaza. “Our goal is to have soda ash moved through the facility, pot ash, borax, umm sodium concentrate, coal.”
Coal, Bridges says will be a big part of it. He says he’s close to signing a lucrative contract with 4 counties in Utah to receive and ship out 3 million tons of coal a year. “And let me just say about the coal out of that region: It’s the highest quality coal in the country, and thereby it’s the highest quality coal in the world.”
Coal is already exported through a private transfer yard in Richmond, where it sits in open rail cars right next to homes. Residents are complaining about the coal dust, an air pollutant known to cause asthma and cancer. But Bridges says his terminal will be different. “Every commodity that ships through our facility will arrive at the facility on the railroad in covered rail cars,” he said.
But Jess Dervin-Ackerman of the Sierra Club is skeptical. “They could promise to do that and then not do it,” she said. “Nowhere in the U.S. is coal transported with covered rail cars so how can we know that they can actually do that and protect the community,” she said.
And she says it’s not just about Oakland and the Bay Area. The coal will release tons of greenhouse gases in Mexico and China. “What we are saying is not in anybody’s back yard. We want to leave the coal in the ground,” she said.
Oakland leaders agree. In fact they’ve voted to divest in coal. But we’ve learned they may have tied their own hands when it comes to this deal. The development agreement they signed says “all approvals shall be made by the city administrator,” which leaves the city council and the public out of the loop, even though the city owns the land that the terminal will be built on.
“Right now we are just focusing on getting it built,” said Mayor Libby Schaaf’s spokesperson Erica Derryck. KPIX5 asked her if the mayor was comfortable with coal exports being part of the project. Her response: “I think it’s too early to say what exactly is going to be part of the commodity group that will be coming through the facility.”
But KPIX 5 obtained an email that shows the mayor is working behind the scenes to put the kabosh on the coal deal. “I was extremely disappointed to hear Jerry Bridges mention the possibility of shipping coal into Oakland,” she writes to the developer. “Stop it immediately.”
But Jerry Bridges says he has no plans to back down. “The CEQA entitlement gives us every right to build and transport what we need to transport in order to be a viable and feasible project,” he said.
The project’s developer and landlord, prominent Oakland businessman Phil Tagami, turned down our request for an interview. In a statement he says it’s not up to him to decide what comes through the new terminal, it’s up to the man he hired to run it, Jerry Bridges.
Phil Tagami’s complete statement:
The City of Oakland approved an agreement to create the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT), a multi-commodity bulk marine terminal at the former Oakland Army Base, in 2012. The City’s agreement with California Capital & Investment Group (CCIG) was comprehensively analyzed and endorsed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and reflects a modern, industry-standard marine terminal facility and operation that is consistent with state and federal law. Nothing has changed since the 2012 approval. OBOT’s construction and operations are designed consistent with the lawful expectations of potential customers – accommodating three or four of the full spectrum of approximately 15,000 bulk commodities regulated by federal law. This is standard industry practice and uniform at marine terminals throughout the United States.
In analyzing OBOT’s development under CEQA, the City imposed a comprehensive series of mitigation measures and conditions that the terminal operator will adhere to. No commodity may be transported through OBOT without full compliance with all applicable state and federal regulations.
CCIG is constructing OBOT, but is not and will not be the terminal operator. Neither CCIG nor any prospective terminal operator has made commitments to shipping any particular commodity through the terminal at this point in time. But, the issue is not about any single commodity. The City reviewed and approved OBOT as proposed. And in reliance on those approvals, CCIG and others have made binding and enforceable commitments to deliver OBOT for operations as entitled to ensure the viability of the entire revitalization plan for Oakland’s working waterfront.
