The document has an index at the top, but no page numbers. Here’s a quick guide:
Page 2 – Association of Irritated Residents vs. Kern County Board of Supervisors ruling
Page 8 – League of Conservation Voters East Bay
Page 9 – Benicia Chamber of Commerce
Page 10 – Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (summary of the lengthy letter to follow…)
Page 13 – Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (on Valero’s appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny the project)
pp. 13-48 Attorney Rachel Koss letter
pp. 49-315 Expert comments by Dr. Phyllis Fox (Table of Contents on pp. 50-50, Summary and Conclusions on pp. 52-54. See her report on the BenIndy here.)
pp. 316-427 Expert comments by Environmental Biologist Scott Cashan (Report on pp. 316-324; bio on pp. 325-331; attachments on pp. 332-427.)
Page 428 – Letter from Valero alleging a misinformation campaign [Editor’s note: look who’s talking!]
Pages 432-456 – Individual letters for and against the appeal and the delay request.
When time allows I will break out additional significant and interesting pieces from this huge document and post on the Project Review page. Stay tuned for more!
The Benicia Independent is in receipt of the 92-page expert analysis of Dr. Phyllis Fox, submitted yesterday to the City of Benicia. As of this posting, the report has not been posted on the City’s website.
The report focuses primarily on the many significant local impacts and risk factors. This is highly important, in that the Council is being urged to ignore all of the crucial uprail factors of health and safety that have been identified.
City staff, paid consultants, the City’s contract attorney and Valero have all cited federal law that protects railroads from local or state regulation. Together, they claim that Benicia’s City Council may not deny or mitigate Valero’s plan based on anything beyond Valero’s small boundary.
Nearly a dozen opposing attorneys have testified to the contrary, asserting that Benicia has every right to deny a permit to a company like Valero that is NOT a railroad, and to condition any approval on local government and police powers to protect the health and safety of the community and those affected by impacts of the project.
Should the Council choose to ignore uprail impacts, Dr. Fox’s lengthy listing of local impacts will offer a clear path for a decisive vote to reject Valero’s proposal. Taken together, the horrific uprail impacts alongside these daunting on-site health and safety impacts make a convincing case for denial.
Short of denial of the land use permit for the project, Dr. Fox has shown the many fatal flaws and inadequacies of the EIR. She calls for it to be revised and recirculated yet again.
II. ON-SITE ROG EMISSIONS ARE SIGNIFICANT ……A. On-Site Fugitive Railcar ROG Emissions Are Significant ……B. Feasible Mitigation For On-Site Fugitive Railcar ROG Emissions ……C. Storage Tank ROG Emissions …………1. Tanks Violate BAAQMD Rule 8-5 …………2. Feasible Tank Mitigation
III. ON-SITE TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT OFF-SITE HEALTH RISKS
IV. PUBLIC SAFETY AND HAZARD IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT ……A. The EIR’s Quantitative Significance Risk Assessment Is Incorrect and Unsupported …………1. The Santa Barbara County CEQA Guidelines Are Misapplied …………2. The Santa Barbara CEQA Guidelines Are Not Solely Applicable …………3. The EIR’s Quantitative Risk Assessment Is Unsupported ……B. Off-Site Risks from On-Site Accidents Are Significant …………1. Number of Injuries …………2. Number of Fatalities …………3. Feasible Mitigation ……C. The EIR Fails to Evaluate All Feasible Types of Accidents ……D. The EIR Fails to Evaluate All Feasible On-Site Accident Scenarios …………1. Accidents During Train Maneuvering at Unloading Facility (Impact 4.7-3) …………2. Accidents During Line Hookup And Crude Oil Transfer (Impact 4.7-4) …………3. BLEVE (Thermal Tear) ……E. Accidents at Other Project Facilities Were Excluded …………1. Crude Oil Pipeline …………2. Crude Tank Farm …………3. Access Road ……F. Factors Contributing to Hazard Impact Significance …………1. The Location …………2. Ignition Sources …………3. External Events …………4. Centroid Location …………5. Other Rail Traffic
V. FLOODING IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT ……A. Flooding Could Increase Hazards ……B. The Project Could Increase Flooding ……C. Flood Mitigation ……D. The EIR Fails to Address Benicia General Plan Requirements
SIGNIFICANT EXCERPT(footnotes removed here):
[Benicia’s] Community Development Director (CDD) concluded “the Project’s on-site impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level and all the findings can be made to approve the Use Permit.” Thus, Staff recommended that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s denial, certify the FEIR, and approve the Use Permit (3/9/16 CDD Memo).
SAFER requested that I review the CDD’s conclusions, focusing on on-site impacts. My analysis of the record and additional analyses, documented below, indicate that the Project will result in significant on-site impacts that have not been disclosed in the EIR. These include:
• Significant on-site emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) from railcar fugitives;
• Significant on-site ROG emissions from change in service of existing crude oil storage tanks;
• Significant cancer, chronic, and acute health impacts from benzene emitted from railcar fugitives;
• Significant off-site injury and fatality impacts from on-site accidents;
• Significant off-site flooding impacts from on-site infrastructure and railcars; and
• Significant off-site injury and fatality impacts from on-site accidents caused by seismic shaking.
Thus, the EIR must be revised to disclose these impacts, impose all feasible mitigation, and be recirculated.
Valero crude oil gets another shot at NorCal railways
Benicia City Council begins another week of public comment on new proposal
By Vickie Gonzalez, Apr 05, 2016, 12:41 AM PDT
[Link takes you offsite to KCRA’s video.]BENICIA, Calif. (KCRA) —Crude oil traveling through Northern California is getting another chance of becoming a reality as an oil company offers a new proposal to the Benicia City Council.
Valero wants two 50-car trains to transport tens of thousands of barrels of crude oil daily to its refinery in Benicia, passing through cities like Davis, Sacramento and Roseville, a request that has met with stiff controversy.
Valero Health, Safety and Environment Director Chris Howe said if the permit is approved, the added energy supply could be up and running following six months of construction.
Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor said the oil would pass through Davis and Sacramento stations, which are the top two trafficked passenger rails from San Francisco to Chicago.
“Right across the rail you see low-income housing. Just feet from us is the downtown core and there is student housing,” he said.
Saylor serves on the board for the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.
He said of the 2.4-million residents in the six county region of Sutter, Yuba, Placer, Yolo, Sacramento and El Dorado counties, close to 500,000 are within a quarter-mile radius of a railway:
-260,000 are residents
-200,000 work in the area
-28,000 are students in the area
“That quarter-mile is relevant because that’s the blast zone,” Saylor said.
The supervisor appreciates the energy value this could bring, as well as the potential jobs, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of safety.
“If there is cost associated with improved safety, then that cost seems a reasonable factor for Valero,” Saylor said.
A major issue is railways are federally governed. Local jurisdictions are prohibited from imposing additional safety requirements and Valero maintains it has met every federal regulation.
However, Saylor wants the oil refinery to take added safety measures and bear the burden of risk as opposed to the community doing so, something Valero is not required to do.
Monday’s public comment at Benicia City Hall included groups of Davis and Sacramento residents who made the trek to Solano County.
“I think it’s often (that) decisions are made in favor of big money and power,” Davis resident Jean Jackman said.
A bus of dozens of Davis residents were among the organized groups.
“Those oil tanker cars are not certified for the highly flammable crude oil that they are planning to transport,” Davis resident Kathleen Williams-Fosseahl said.
Valero said that’s not true and will use higher-quality trains to transport crude oil, a much-needed staple in California regardless of the opposition.
A decision ultimately will be made by the city of Benicia. The city council is expected to vote later this month. Public hearings are scheduled to continue through the week.
On March 31, five environmental attorneys and a host of experts and others (including Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community) sent the Benicia City Council this strong 3-page letter of opposition to Valero’s oil trains proposal. (For a much longer download, see the Letter with Attachments [13 MB, 214 pages].)
Attorney signatories:
Jackie Prange, Staff Attorney for Natural Resources Defense Council;
Roger Lin, Staff Attorney for Communities for a Better Environment;
George Torgun, Managing Attorney for San Francisco Baykeeper;
Clare Lakewood, Staff Attorney for Center for Biological Diversity;
Elly Benson, Staff Attorney for Sierra Club.
Others signing the letter:
Ethan Buckner, ForestEthics;
Katherine Black, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community;
Janet Johnson, Richmond Progressive Alliance;
David McCoard, Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter;
Jessica Hendricks, Global Community Monitor;
Colin Miller, Bay Localize;
Denny Larson, Community Science Institute;
Nancy Rieser, Crockett-Rodeo United to Defend the Environment;
Steve Nadel, Sunflower Alliance;
Kalli Graham, Pittsburg Defense Council;
Richard Gray, 350 Bay Area and 350 Marin;
Bradley Angel, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice;
Sandy Saeturn, Asian Pacific Environmental Network
SIGNIFICANT EXCERPT:
The City Council can, and must, uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous decision to deny the use permit for the Valero crude-by-rail project. Federal law does not preempt the City from denying the permit for this project. Furthermore, the City should not tolerate Valero’ s delay tactic of seeking a declaratory order from the Surface Transportation Board (STB). As explained below, the STB does not have jurisdiction over this project and will almost certainly decline to hear Valero’ s petition for the very same reason that preemption does not apply. Finally, even if preemption were to apply here, the project’s on-site impacts, especially the increases in refinery pollution, require the City to deny the permit.
You must be logged in to post a comment.