Tag Archives: Yolo County CA

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Crude By Rail, DEIR, Valero Benicia Refinery

Yolo County Board of Supervisors critical of Valero Draft EIR

[Editor: The Yolo County Board of Supervisors submitted an incredibly important letter to the City of Benicia critical of the Draft EIR for Valero Crude by Rail.  In their letter, the Board lays out the importance under California law of taking into account indirect impacts beyond those of the immediate project, including “upstream” communities along the rails in Placer, Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, and Contra Costa counties.  Benicia organizers offer profound thanks to our “uprail” neighbors whose health and safety concerns are also ours.  Below is a brief excerpt.  For the full document in PDF format, click here.  – RS]

Yolo County Board of Supervisors

July 15, 2014

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND E-MAIL

Amy Million, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
250 East L Street
Benicia, CA 94510

RE: Valero Benicia Crude by Rail

Dear Ms. Million:

Yolo County has reviewed the City of Benicia’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) related to the project at the Valero Oil Refinery that would result in the daily delivery of 70,000 barrels of oil by rail to the Refinery (the “Valero Project”). The Valero Project would move approximately 80% of Valero’s crude deliveries from ocean tankers to railways that traverse through our local communities and sensitive environmental resources.  Notwithstanding the change in where the oil is traveling, the DEIR pays little attention to the potential upstream effects of increased oil by rail shipments through Placer, Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, and Contra Costa counties.

As discussed below, the DEIR provides only a brief review of the environmental, safety, and noise effects on upstream communities. This DEIR justifies this cursory analysis because the effects are “indirect” and not in the Project’s immediate vicinity.  […continued…]

Crude By Rail, Derailment, donner, Draft EIR, Explosion, Public Comment, Valero Crude By Rail, Yolo County

Yolo County Supervisors send letter to Benicia critical of Draft EIR

Repost from The Sacramento Bee
[Editor: This story is also covered on the Woodland Daily Democrat.  – RS]

Yolo supervisors challenge Benicia on crude oil train plans

By Tony Bizjak, Jul. 15, 2014
GVH2EIRKB.3STF
Steve Helber / The Associated Press | Several CSX tanker cars carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire along the James River near downtown Lynchburg, Va., in May. Emergency officials are pressing railroads for more information on oil train schedules and routes so they can be prepared.
ad more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/15/6558895/yolo-supervisors-challenge-benicia.html#storylink=cp

In a letter to be sent this week, Yolo County officials accuse the city of Benicia of failing to adequately review the potential for oil spills and fires resulting from a plan by the Valero Refining Co. to run two daily trains carrying crude oil through the Sacramento region to its Bay Area refinery.

A recently published environmental report by Benicia concludes the project will not cause any significant negative impact to cities and habitat up the rail line. That finding was based on an Illinois professor’s analysis saying a train incident causing an oil spill might happen only once every 111 years between Roseville and Benicia.

The Yolo letter, approved Tuesday by the Board of Supervisors, calls that analysis inaccurate and irrelevant because it doesn’t explore the potential magnitude of oil spills. A crude oil train crash and explosion last year in Lac Mégantic, Canada, killed 47 people and leveled several blocks of downtown.

“A catastrophic explosion and spill in a populated area is different from a 100-gallon spill in a shipyard that is quickly cleaned up,” the Yolo letter states. “Without considering the second half of the risk analysis, the (report) cannot conclude that the risk of a spill is insignificant.”

The Yolo board was split, 3-2, on sending the letter. Yolo Supervisor Matt Rexroad opposed the letter, saying he believes the risk of a spill is small and the county should focus its time on issues where it will have more impact. “There is only so much we can have an impact on,” he said. “You allocate resources (based on) how big you think risks are. I don’t know this one is worth fighting.”

Board Chairman Don Saylor took the opposite tack, saying the issue presents clear safety concerns for communities, businesses and people alongside the railways. “The fact is that a single spill or fire in Yolo County in areas such as downtown Davis, the campus of UC Davis or the many other communities in our region could result in significant property damage and injuries,” Saylor wrote in an email to The Sacramento Bee.

Other local cities and counties are expected to issue comments challenging the Benicia rail plan environmental analysis, which was published last month. Benicia officials have set a Sept. 15 deadline for receiving reactions. If its plans are approved, Valero officials have said they plan to begin train shipments early next year. The transports are among the first of what California officials say is an expected boom in crude-by-rail shipments through the state, prompted by the lower cost of North Dakota and Canadian crude.