Category Archives: Crude By Rail

SIERRA CLUB: Community Urges Benicia City Council to Deny Valero’s Dangerous Oil Train Proposal

Repost from Sierra Club – The Planet

Community Urges Benicia City Council to Deny Valero’s Dangerous Oil Train Proposal

By Elly Benson, staff attorney with the Sierra Club’s Environmental Law Program, April 6, 2016
Opponents of Valero’s oil train proposal rallied in front of city hall before the Benicia City Council hearing.
Opponents of Valero’s oil train proposal rallied in front of city hall before the Benicia City Council hearing.

On April 4, scores of concerned Californians converged on Benicia City Hall to urge the city council to reject Valero’s plan to transport volatile crude to its Bay Area refinery in dangerous oil trains. In February, local planning commissioners unanimously rejected the proposal, which would send two 50-tanker oil trains through California communities each day. Valero appealed that decision to the city council. Given the intense public interest in the crude-by-rail project, the city council has scheduled four public hearing dates this month.

Before Monday’s city council hearing began, opponents of Valero’s dangerous plan held a rally in front of city hall. Rally speakers included Berkeley City Councilmember Jesse Arreguín and Andres Soto of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, as well as a local business owner and a senior scientist from Communities for a Better Environment, an environmental justice organization. Benicia residents were joined by members of “up-rail” communities (including Sacramento and Davis) who would be endangered by the oil trains rolling through their cities and towns on the way to the Valero refinery. Oil train derailments and explosions have skyrocketed in recent years — including the July 2013 derailment in Lac-Megantic, Canada that killed 47 people and obliterated several city blocks.

Berkeley City Councilmember Jesse Arreguín addressed the crowd at the rally outside Benicia City Hall.
Berkeley City Councilmember Jesse Arreguín addressed the crowd at the rally outside Benicia City Hall.

Inside the city council chambers, public comment began with testimony by a series of elected officials and agency representatives concerned by the risks posed by Valero’s oil train project. Speaking on behalf of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (which represents six counties and 22 cities), Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor urged the Benicia City Council to consider impacts on up-rail communities, including the 260,000 people in the Sacramento region who live within a quarter-mile of the railroad tracks. A representative from the Sacramento City Unified School District noted that 17 schools in the district are within the “blast zone” that would be put at risk by explosive oil trains on the railroad tracks. Other speakers included Berkeley Vice-Mayor Linda Maio and representatives testifying on behalf of up-rail air quality management districts, the City of Davis, and State Senator Lois Wolk.

After the elected officials and agency representatives spoke, residents of Benicia and up-rail communities voiced their concerns about the severe public health and environmental risks posed by Valero’s proposal. Although a few people expressed support for the project, the majority opposed it. Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community presented the city council with a petition — compiled along with the Sierra Club, Stand, CREDO, Center for Biological Diversity, and 350 Sacramento — with 4,081 signatures of people opposed to Valero’s oil train project.
Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community presented the city council with a petition signed by over 4,000 people who are opposed to Valero’s oil train project.
Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community presented the city council with a petition signed by over 4,000 people who are opposed to Valero’s oil train project.

In addition to urging the Benicia City Council to uphold the permit denial, many speakers urged the council to reject Valero’s request to delay the appeal process. At a city council meeting last month, Valero unexpectedly asked the council to put the appeal on hold while the company seeks a declaratory order from the federal Surface Transportation Board regarding the scope of the legal doctrine of preemption. Valero has insisted that federal regulation of railroads means that Benicia is prohibited from considering the project’s impacts on communities and sensitive environments along the rail line (including derailments, oil spills, and explosions).

At the Benicia Planning Commission hearings in February, attorneys from the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Stanford Law School clinic refuted this expansive interpretation of the preemption doctrine, and the commissioners ultimately rejected Valero’s interpretation as overly broad. Notably, the California Attorney General has previously weighed in on the shortcomings of the city’s environmental review, and specifically noted the failure to adequately analyze impacts to up-rail communities. Valero has not offered a compelling rationale for why the Attorney General would request that analysis if preemption renders those impacts irrelevant. The oil industry’s self-serving interpretation of preemption was also recently rejected by planning staff in San Luis Obispo County, who recommended denial of a similar oil train proposal at a Phillips 66 refinery due in large part to the environmental and health impacts along the rail line.

In a letter submitted to the Benicia City Council last week, the Sierra Club and our allies explained why federal law does not preempt Benicia from denying the permit for Valero’s project. The letter also reiterated that the project’s local impacts, especially increases in refinery pollution, require the city to deny the permit. For years, the Sierra Club and our partners have pushed back against Valero’s efforts to hide the true impacts of its oil train proposal — including submitting comments at each stage of the environmental review process. Our allies in these efforts include NRDC, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, Stand (formerly ForestEthics), Communities for a Better Environment, Center for Biological Diversity, SF Baykeeper, and Sunflower Alliance, among others.

Additional city council hearings are scheduled for April 6, 18, and 19, as needed for public comment and council action.

Media: Valero crude oil gets another shot at NorCal railways (KCRA Sacramento, 4/5/16)

Rallying in front of Benicia City Hall.
Rallying in front of Benicia City Hall.

 

COUNCIL HEARINGS: List of 77 speakers – articulate, informed opposition to Valero Crude By Rail

By Roger Straw, April 8, 2016

Council Hearings this week: 77 informed, articulate and often passionate speakers critical of of Valero Crude By Rail

pubcommentOPENThis past week, the Benicia City Council heard public testimony for and against Valero’s Crude By Rail proposal – mostly against.  Video of these comments can be found on the City’s website.

On the two dates combined, Council heard 77 highly critical comments calling for outright rejection of Valero’s proposal or at the very least a much revised and recirculated environmental report. Only 16 speakers favored Valero’s proposal.

On Monday, April 4, Council heard from 52 speakers.  41 were highly critical or completely opposed to Valero’s proposal, and only 11 spoke in favor.  Of the 11 in favor, most either work for or provide services for Valero.

Here is a listing of the 41 who spoke in opposition on April 4, followed by a listing of 36 such speakers on April 6:

MONDAY, APRIL 4  (41 who spoke in opposition)

  • 8 elected and appointed officials from beyond Benicia
    • 1 State of California elected official: Alex Pater, representing Benicia’s State Senator Lois Wolk
    • 4 from uprail communities
      • Don Saylor, Yolo County Supervisor and Sacramento Area Council of Governments past Board chair
      • Matt Jones, Yolo Solano Air District, representing 7 air districts: Butte, Feather, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta, and Yolo-Solano
      • Eric Lee, City of Davis planner
      • Laurie Lipman, representing Ellen Cochrane, Sacramento Unified School District Board
    • 3 from the East Bay
      • Linda Maio, Berkeley Vice Mayor
      • Jesse Arreguín, Berkeley City Councilmember
      • Alejandro Soto-Vigil, representing Berkeley City Councilmember Kriss Worthington
  • 18 residents from uprail communities of Sacramento, Davis and Dixon:
    • Chris Brown, Chris Brown Consulting, Sacramento, representing 30 who rode the bus from uprail communities tonight
    • Maura Metz, Davis
    • Jean Jackman, Davis
    • Maria Cornejo-Gutierrez, Dixon
    • Laurie Lipman, 350 Sacramento
    • JoEllen Arnold, Sacramento
    • Jan Rein, Sacramento
    • Rob Lain, Sacramento
    • Estevan Hernandez, South Sacramento
    • Kathleen Williams-Fossdahl, Davis
    • Jaime Gonzales, Sacramento, Board of Directors, California Student Sustainability Coalition
    • Carol Warren, Dixon, slides of her neighborhood along the tracks
    • Don Mooney, Davis, Environmental attorney
    • Samantha McCarthy, Davis, lives very near the tracks
    • Frances Burke, Davis, lives very near the tracks
    • Elizabeth Lasensky, Davis, powerpoint: From Davis to Benicia: Our Lives Are on the Line”
    • Lynne Nittler, Davis. Notes.  Powerpoint: Oil by Rail Safety in California Report by the state’s Interagency Rail Safety Working Group
    • Rodney Robinson, Davis
  •  3 residents from other communities:
    • Bill Pinkham, Richmond
    • Steven Hallett, Vallejo
    • Deborah Tallin, Lafayette
  • 12 residents of Benicia
    • Marilyn Bardet, Benicians for a Safe & Healthy Community
    • Petition Roll - copies of originals (600px)
      Demonstration roll of local petitions collected by Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community

      Andrés Soto, Benicians for a Safe & Healthy Community (While Mr. Soto spoke, members of BSHC unfurled a demonstration “scroll” of original hand-signed petitions that stretched 4 times the length of the aisle in Council Chambers (see FACEBOOK video). As he concluded speaking, Mr. Soto submitted for the public record BSHC’s list of 4,081 signatures of opponents of the project.)

    • Madeline Koster
    • Teresa Ritz
    • Carol Thompson
    • Bart Sullivan
    • Rick Stierwalts
    • David Jenkins, Benicia Industrial Park business owner
    • Kathy Kerridge, Benicia Community Sustainability Commission member
    • June Mejias
    • Pat Toth-Smith
    • Kat Black, Chairperson, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6  (36 who spoke in opposition)

On Wednesday, April 6, Council heard from 41 speakers. 36 were highly critical or completely opposed to Valero’s proposal, and only 5 spoke in favor. Of the 5 in favor, most either work for or supply services for Valero.

Here is a listing of the 36 who spoke in opposition on April 6:

  • 7 experts, attorneys and organizers
    • Valerie Love, Clean Energy Campaigner, Center for Biological Diversity
    • Elly Benson, Attorney, Sierra Club
    • Ethan Buckner, Extreme Oil Campaigner, STAND (formerly ForestEthics)
    • Greg Karras, Senior Scientist, Communities for a Better Environment
    • Roger Lin, Attorney, Communities for a Better Environment
    • Diane Bailey, Executive Director, Menlo Spark (formerly Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council)
    • Rachael Koss, Attorney, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, representing Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (SAFER)
  • 1 Benicia city official
  • 6 Benicia business  owners, including 3 from Benicia’s Industrial Park, 2 from the Arsenal District and 1 from downtown
    • Giovanna Sensi-Isolani, owner of Fiber-Frolics, downtown Benicia
    • Jack Ruszel, owner, Ruszel Woodworks, Benicia Industrial Park (adjacent to the tracks, no access if blocked in emergency)
    • Hadieh Elias, owner, principal and professional engineer, ESE Consulting Engineers, Inc., in Benicia’s Arsenal District
    • Amir Firouz, principal and structural enginner, ESE Consulting Engineers, Inc., in Benicia’s Arsenal District
    • Ed Ruszel, Ruszel Woodworks, Benicia Industrial Park (adjacent to the tracks, no access if blocked in emergency)
    • Jennifer Kalika Stanger, M.D., family physician in Vallejo, lifetime Benicia resident
  • 22 residents, including 20 from Benicia and 2 from other communities. (Note that 7 of the above listed April 6 speakers are also from Benicia, making a total of 29 Benicians.)
    • Allan Miller, Davis
    • Nancy Finley, Benicia
    • Constance Beutel, Benicia
    • Dona Rose, Benicia
    • Shiela Clyatt, Benicia
    • Larnie Fox, Benicia
    • Eric Ferry, El Sobrante
    • Charles Coleman, Benicia
    • Judi Sullivan, Benicia
    • Dan Smith, Benicia
    • Michelle Rowe-Shields, Benicia
    • Phyllis Ingerson, Benicia
    • Roger Straw, Benicia, The Benicia Independent
    • Jan Cox-Golovich, Benicia
    • Barbara Pillsbury, Benicia
    • Jenette Wolf, Benicia
    • Tom Ruszel, Benicia
    • Rebekah Ramos, Benicia
    • Lisa Reinertson, Benicia
    • Steve Jones, Benicia
    • Craig Snider, Benicia
    • Ruby Wallis, Benicia

BENICIA HERALD: Crude by Rail hearings approaching climax

Repost from the Benicia Herald
Front page headline story in today’s Benicia Herald (not online, no link)
[Editor: This article quotes an unnamed speaker, (Joe Miesch), who stated of Benicia Planning Commissioners, “I was told that a number of them placed anti-Crude by Rail signs on their front lawns.”  This claim is false as far as I know.  I regret that Mr. Miesch and the Benicia Herald spread this unsubstantiated claim.  – RS]

Crude by Rail hearings approaching climax

By Elizabeth Warnimont, April 8, 2016

In the second of three currently-scheduled public hearings at City Hall Wednesday, speakers presented further thoughts and concerns to the City Council regarding Valero Benicia Refinery’s Crude by Rail (CBR) project. The next hearing, continued from Wednesday, will be held on Monday, April 18.

Many of the speakers Wednesday offered further clarification regarding long-standing issues like federal preemption, or presented further detail regarding things like vicinity, crude oil properties and accident statistics. While a few individuals presented heart-felt support of Valero and the project, public opinion continues to appear heavily weighted toward denying the permit.

Compared with the previous session Monday, this one brought forth more information regarding the flaws in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and perhaps less new information regarding the legal preemption issue. A prevalent theme was the broader importance and impact of what would be perceived by some as a community victory over “big oil.”

Another emerging theme Wednesday, one that has been present throughout the hearing process but was previously dwarfed by other issues, was the respect and appreciation that residents, and even members of environmental groups and cities and counties outside of Benicia, have for Valero, the vital role the company has played in Benicia’s economy and the integrity and professionalism of its employees.

“Valero is a good neighbor,” said one speaker. “I have a high regard for Valero as a neighbor. I don’t doubt the competence and integrity of our neighbors who work there, but I do believe the EIR is flawed and the Council should stand by your Planning Commission and their opinions.”

The overall tone of the session was relatively mellow. Perhaps because most issues of high concern have already been so thoroughly examined, as the hearings draw to a close, more speakers Wednesday expressed the broader quality-of-life aspects.

“I’m going to talk to you from my heart today,” one speaker began. “We have to think about the future of the community for our children and our grandchildren.

“Oil is not the future,” she continued. “Valero will (eventually) leave Benicia, and our staff should be deciding what the future is going to be for Benicia. Where we are going to get the money.

“You need to be leaders of the future. Lead us into a clean and healthy future.”

“We shouldn’t have to live in fear,” another speaker said. She and several others Wednesday stated that they lived or worked within the “blast zone,” meaning that in the event of a derailment and explosion, they would be incinerated.

“I have lived in Benicia for 37 years,” one speaker stated. “My family has always felt safe. My grandchildren will attend Robert Semple school in a few years. The school is well within the blast zone, as well as our home. How does one deal with the very real thought of a blast occurring at any given time, and the loss of lives that would occur? There will be no peace of mind. This is not what I would choose for our city.”

One speaker suggested that Valero could elect to become a part of society’s transition away from fossil fuels and actually lead the community in that transition.

“We are on the front lines of a global struggle to either make a swift and equitable transition to renewable energy, or to pay the increasingly dire costs of not doing so sooner,” the speaker began. “Many of us here would favor positive incentives to get Valero and other petroleum interests to take leadership in transitioning us to renewable energy.

“Don’t let anyone tell you we can’t do it,” the speaker concluded. “We must do it.”

New information

At one point during the hearing, Mayor Elizabeth Patterson inquired of City Attorney Heather McLaughlin how the Council could address any new information, specifically “new impacts” presented by one speaker in particular. McLaughlin indicated that she and City staff would address that issue.

“The question is whether or not we need to address it in the EIR,” McLaughlin clarified.

Another apparently new piece of information was presented by Greg Karras, senior scientist with Communities for a Better Environment. Citing his expertise and more than 30 years experience in refinery pollution prevention engineering (credentials presented in writing), Karras offered that the project “is essentially about changing the refinery’s basic feed stock. The project details require that the refinery shift from getting oil it can only get by pipeline or ship, to oil it can only get in project volume from sources in the Bakken, tar sands and Alberta, delivered by rail.”

Yet another new twist actually had nothing to do with the merits of Valero’s application. One 30-year resident accused the Planning Commission of impropriety, and another had some equally harsh words for Council members.

“I question the objectivity of some Planning Commission members,” the first resident stated. “I was told that a number of them placed anti-Crude by Rail signs on their front lawns. A public official who puts a sign on his or her front lawn is a strong advocate and demonstrably biased. Those advocates should not be making major policy decisions. (They) should have recused themselves from voting on the measure.”

“The City Council and the City staff have a responsibility to safeguard the citizens and the community fairly, without favoring one business over the others,” another speaker began. “The staff has been accommodating towards this Valero project from the beginning, starting with a draft mitigated negative declaration that the staff brought to the Planning Commission in June, 2013. The Planning Commission disagreed and asked for a draft EIR. The staff did not issue a request for a proposal for a consultant to prepare the EIR, which is customary, but instead without consulting the Commission or the public, retained ESA (Environmental Science Associates), the same consultant that prepared the EIR for Valero.

“The draft EIR hearings revealed many deficiencies. The City staff again retained the same consultant, ESA, to revise the EIR, instead of a new consultant.”

One of the last people to address the Council Wednesday night identified herself as a Benicia resident and a physician who treats many patients from Benicia at her practice in Vallejo.

“I’m worried about my family. I know this is a difficult decision, but if there’s one thing I’ve learned in my work as a physician, (it is this:) I have the honor of being with people at the ends of their lives, as they are looking back. One thing I see over and over is people who regret the decisions that they made for money, that they made for work, and wish they had made more that supported their families and their communities.

“We (in Benicia) are good people. We’re good neighbors. I see presentations like this and I get worried. I’m worried about my sister in Sacramento. I want us to be good neighbors.”

The next hearing on the Crude by Rail application will be Monday, April 18 at 7 p.m. at Council Chambers, City Hall, 250 East L St. Proceedings also stream live on Benicia TV, Comcast and AT&T. For more information visit the City of Benicia web site at ci.benicia.ca.us or call them at 746-4200.

CAL STATE EAST BAY: Crude oil by rail a possibility in Benicia

Repost from The Pioneer, Cal State East Bay
[Editor:  Excellent, balanced coverage.  Be sure to see new quotes from Benicia Principal Planner Amy Million, Benicia resident Beverly Edmonds, Benicia Economic Development Manager Mario Giuliani, Andrés Soto of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community and Valero’s PR Manager Sue Fisher Jones.  – RS]

Crude oil by rail a possibility in Benicia

By Kali Persall and Vanessa Pineda, Managing Editor and Contributor, April 6, 2016
Photo by Kali Persall/The Pioneer

A controversial proposal by the Valero oil refinery that would bring in thousands of tons of crude oil a day has some Benicia residents seriously questioning whether it’s time to peel the “It’s Better in Benicia” bumper stickers from the backs of their cars and relocate.

Originally proposed in 2013, the project would bring 70,000 barrels of crude oil into the Benicia oil refinery facility by roughly 100 railroad tank cars daily. It would not increase the amount of crude currently brought to the refinery through pipeline and marine vessels, but instead would replace 81 percent of the oil imported by ship. According to Valero, the refinery can process up to 170,000 barrels of oil per day.

Trains have been known to derail, and in cases where crude oil was on board, have killed people, ruined the environment and destroyed the value of entire towns. Benicia residents are divided on whether the transportation developments are necessary and worth the risk to the environment.

The Benicia City Council heard Valero’s appeal for the project on March 15, which was initially rejected the city planning commission, after four nights of hearings and public comment, on Feb. 11 where over 145 people signed up to speak, according to Amy Million, principal planner of the city. The planning commission reviewed the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before unanimously concluding that the potential risks to the environment in the event of a derailment or unloading accident were too significant to justify approval.

After hearing Valero’s appeal a month later, the city council is currently deliberating whether or not to approve the crude by rail project.

Three proposed possible train routes between the Southern California border, Roseville and Benicia would follow the Union Pacific railroad and pass through various cities throughout the state before arriving in Benicia. According to the Revised Draft EIR, project-related train traffic on the train routes would generate nitrogen oxide emissions that could turn into ozone, which could exceed air quality standards in air districts along the routes. This is considered one of the 11 significant unmitigatable impacts on which the planning commission based its decision to deny the proposal.

Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) is a poisonous gas and air pollutant that is emitted by automobiles, industrial sources and fuels that contain nitrogen, such as oil, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. When mixed with volatile chemicals in the presence of sunlight, it can form ozone, also known as smog; a gas that can cause serious respiratory damages when inhaled. According to the EPA, ozone can cause coughing, throat irritation and even reduce lung function, and is one of two pollutants that pose the greatest threat to human health in this country.

Fifty nine letters opposing the project were published in the final EIR, many containing concerns about the harmful effects that rail transportation could have on the environment. Valero’s crude by rail project was proposed shortly after a 74-car freight train carrying crude oil derailed in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, a town of roughly 6,000. Forty-seven people were killed and nearly 6 million liters of oil seeped into the land, water and atmosphere during the fire that ensued, according to the Montreal Gazette. Many residents are worried that a similar disaster could occur in Benicia, a city of roughly 28,000.

“I have a two-year-old grandchild and I worry how this will affect him,” said 16-year Benicia resident Beverly Edmonds, 67. “Will he be living in this lovely place or a toxic, decimated shell of a town or will his health be affected by toxic fumes or the effects of a rail disaster?”

According to Mario Giuliani, the city’s economic development manager, oil refineries were the city’s saving grace when the Benicia Arsenal, a military reservation next to the Suisun Bay, closed down due to lack of funding and employment opportunities in the early 1960’s. According to the city of Benicia, the arsenal was a staging area for several wars and employed thousands of people before its closure in 1964. With the displacement of so many people, the town suffered a major economic downturn according to Giuliani.

According to The Benicia Herald, Humble Oil bought some of the vacant former arsenal land in 1967. Not long after, it changed hands again when it sold to the Exxon Oil Company. The refinery’s presence brought in the oil industry and anchored the economy in Benicia, replacing many, if not all or more, of the jobs that were lost after the arsenal closure, according to Benicia city officials. Valero bought the refinery from Exxon in 2000 and currently provides over 400 jobs. According to the EIR, the project would create 20 permanent full-time jobs and 120 temporary jobs.

From the $3 million in property taxes that the refinery pays the city annually, the city only keeps 24 cents on the dollar and the rest goes to the county, schools and other programs in the area, explained Guiliani.

According to Sue Fisher Jones, public affairs manager of Valero, the Benicia refinery is one of only two in California to earn the Voluntary Protection Program “Star Site” designation, which recognizes organizations that have implemented health and safety programs that successfully control occupational hazards. The refinery earned its title in 2006 and has since passed two recertification audits. The other refinery with this designation is the Valero located in South Los Angeles.

“I have lived in Benicia since 2003 (worked at Valero since 2005) and have never experienced a community Shelter-in-Place,” Jones told The Pioneer. Shelter-in-place is an emergency response plan in which people hunker indoors to avoid hazardous air pollution.

A Facility Profile Report by the EPA revealed that Valero released 1,068,877 pounds of chemicals into the environment in 2014. The total amount released in the United States for that year was 3.4 billion pounds.

Andrés Soto, spokesperson and steering committee member for Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community (BSHC) helped form the organization around the time of Valero’s proposal in 2013. BSHC opposed the project from the beginning and recommended that it be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which requires agencies to identify the potential significant environmental impacts of their projects in an EIR.

The EIR looks at all the potential scenarios and issues of a project and evaluates whether the applicants are equipped to handle them. For example, in the case of a derailment, emergency response teams benefit by knowing what specific type of crude oil is being transported in order to better tackle the specific situation. “The dirtier, the heavier the crude, the more sulfur, creating more noxious emissions,” explained Soto. Valero declined to release the specific type of crude oil to be transported, labeling it a trade secret, according to the EIR.

Giuliani believes that those who don’t support the project don’t necessarily oppose Valero specifically, but oppose the oil refinery process itself. “If they had proposed to bring water in instead, no one would’ve cared,” he said.

Citizens are also concerned about the effect the project will have on the value of property. According to an article in the San Jose Mercury News, a fire at the Richmond Chevron Refinery in August 2012 caused a 14.62 percent drop in property taxes. A 2006 study by Stephen Farber from the University of Pittsburgh confirmed that housing markets are sensitive to real or perceived risks associated with being located close to a site that contains hazardous material, such as a refinery.

Photo by Kali Persall/The Pioneer

“My husband and I probably have another ten good years,” said Edmonds. “At some point we will need to move to something much smaller and easier to care for, or to a retirement home. The money we get from our house will be essential for that.”