Category Archives: Environmental review

Crude By Rail, Derailment, Environmental review, Explosion, Fire, Pacific Northwest

BIG WIN: Washington state judge denies Shell appeal on rail project review

Repost from Reuters

Washington state judge denies Shell appeal on rail project review

HOUSTON | By Kristen Hays, May 21, 2015 11:34pm BST

A judge on Thursday denied Royal Dutch Shell’s appeal of a ruling that a proposed oil-by-rail project at its Washington state refinery must undergo a full environmental review, just two weeks after a crude train derailment caused a fire in North Dakota.

Shell had appealed a February ruling from a Skagit County Office of Land Use Hearings examiner that the plan to move 70,000 barrels per day of inland crude to its 145,000 bpd Puget Sound refinery in Anacortes must be comprehensively reviewed.

In 2014, the county said the project did not need that much scrutiny to get a permit, prompting challenges from several environmental organizations.

On Thursday, a Skagit County Superior Court judge denied Shell’s appeal, according to court officials.

The denial came two weeks after an eastbound crude train derailed in North Dakota, the latest in a spate of fiery mishaps since 2013 that have stoked fears about moving oil by rail.

Shell had sought to limit the review’s scope to exclude railroad issues overseen solely by federal regulators, but said it remains committed to working with the county and other agencies to finish the permitting process.

Shell’s refining competitors in Washington have been bringing in U.S. crudes by rail since 2012 to displace more expensive imports and declining Alaskan oil output. Shell was the last to seek oil-by-rail permits in late 2013, but by then opponents had taken notice of train crashes and safety concerns.

The rail issue is not Shell’s only concern in the state. The company also faces opponents to its plan to use the port city of Seattle to ready rigs before they travel to the Chukchi Sea off the north coast of Alaska.

(Reporting By Kristen Hays. Editing by Andre Grenon)
City of Benicia, Crude By Rail, DEIR, Environmental review, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Valero Benicia environmental report delayed again – not likely to withstand further scrutiny

By Roger Straw, Editor, The Benicia Independent

Valero Benicia Crude By Rail environmental report delayed for review of new federal regulations

Valero_Crude_by_Rail-Project_Description_March_2013_(cover_page)The City of Benicia issued an announcement on May 21, 2015 delaying its release of a revised draft environmental impact report on Valero Benicia Refinery’s proposal to construct an offloading facility for delivery of crude by rail.

With this delay, The City will now have spent more than two and a half years processing Valero’s proposal and responding to the objections of concerned residents, experts and nearby officials.

Valero’s application for a use permit came to City staff in December, 2012.  In May of 2013, Benicia’s Community Development Director issued a Notice of Intent and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, concluding that the proposal with mitigations was so benign as to not even need environmental review.

Following outcries and organized opposition, the City commenced a full environmental review in August, 2013.  The Draft EIR was released after several delays in June, 2014.   That review received an avalanche of critiques, including expert local analyses, professional review and letters from residents and area governing bodies and a highly critical letter from the California Attorney General.

After yet another lengthy delay, the City announced in February 2015 that, in response to the magnitude of public criticisms, project consultants would revise the DEIR and release it by June 30, 2015 for recirculation and another 45-day public comment period.

According to the City of Benicia’s Thursday announcement, the new 2-month delay (until August 31, 2015) will give consultants “time to include additional analysis of the new regulations announced on May 1, 2015 by the Department of Transportation to strengthen safe transportation of flammable liquids by rail.”

The City consultant’s analysis, seemingly favoring Valero’s proposal from the outset, will likely make the case that new federal safety standards strengthen environmental protections for this project and improve Valero’s chances for landing a use permit.  This analysis, of course, will come under heavy fire due to the inadequacy of the new federal rules, and likely will not withstand the scrutiny of Benicia citizens, officials and regional authorities and stakeholders.

All along, leaders of Benicians For a Safe and Healthy Community (BSHC) have stressed that Valero’s proposal is fatally flawed as shown in a list of significant DEIR failures, including the longstanding lack of adequate federal safety regulations governing rail transport of high hazard flammable liquids (see especially Section 2, #3, pp. 13-15).

More recently, BSHC has joined a chorus of national and international environmentalists and elected officials who are dismissive of the new (May 1) rules issued by the Department of Transportation.  (See NYTimes article.)  The new rules fail to adequately govern oil train routing, speed, braking systems and public notification, and leave entirely too many years for retirement and retrofitting of unsafe tank cars and the design and manufacture of tank cars to newer, safer standards.

BSHC and others have called for an immediate moratorium on all shipment of crude oil by rail, and a speedy transition to clean and renewable energy sources that will “leave the oil in the soil.”

The City’s announcement:

“The anticipated release of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) on the Valero Crude by Rail project has been postponed to August 31, 2015.  The delay will provide the City with the necessary time to include additional analysis of the new regulations announced on May 1, 2015 by the Department of Transportation to strengthen safe transportation of flammable liquids by rail. The RDEIR will have a 45-day comment period, beginning August 31, 2015, which will include public hearings where the community may comment on the RDEIR. After the comment period closes, the City will complete the Final EIR which will include responses to all comments on the original Draft EIR and the RDEIR. The Final EIR and the project will then be discussed at subsequent public hearings.”

Crude By Rail, Environmental review, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Benicia’s crude-by-rail environmental impact report delayed

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald 

Benicia’s crude-by-rail environmental impact report delayed

By Times-Herald staff report, Posted: 05/21/15, 7:21 PM PDT

Benicia >> City officials announced Thursday a delay in the release of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Valero Benicia Refinery’s proposed crude-by-rail project.

The report, which was anticipated to be released June 30, is now planned to be recirculated Aug. 31. The Department of Transportation instituted new regulations on the transport of flammable liquids by rail on May 1 and city officials are looking to factor in those new rules into the report.

Comments on the updated sections will still take place for 45 days following the report’s release in August, including public hearings. The final report will be completed after all comments are in and subjected to further public hearings once the finalized version is completed.

If the project is approved, Valero Benicia Refinery will be allowed to transport crude oil through Benicia via two 50-tanker car trains, rather than shipping the crude oil by boat.

Air Quality, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Environmental Impacts, Environmental review, Explosion, Fire, Public Health, Public Safety, Rivers, Tar sands crude

New York says no to Albany oil terminal expansion; Riverkeeper responds

Press Release from Riverkeeper New York
[Editor: This from our contact in Albany: “New York State rescinds the Global expansion NegDec (aka, FONSI) and declares the application incomplete.  Cites air issues, spill response issues, potential “significant adverse impacts on the environment”, and EPA concerns.  Letter from the State attached.”  –  RS]

Riverkeeper Responds to Decision Regarding Albany Oil Terminal Expansion

For Immediate Release: May 21, 2015
Contact: Leah Rae, Riverkeeper
914-478-4501, ext. 238

Riverkeeper applauds the decision by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation regarding the proposed expansion of Global Companies’ rail-to-barge transfer terminal at in Albany, which would facilitate the transport of heavy “tar sands” crude oil. Riverkeeper calls on the state to follow through on what they’ve begun today and promptly issue a “positive declaration” requiring an environmental impact statement.

“It is good for New York State that the DEC came to a proper decision in one of the most important environmental matters facing the state. We look forward to participating with the state on a full public safety and environmental review that is robust and protective of our communities and our waterways.”

The shipment of tar sands crude oil would pose a whole new level of risk to the Hudson River. In the event of a spill, the toxic, sinking crude would mix into the water column and be unrecoverable.

A lawsuit filed by Riverkeeper and other groups in June 2014 challenged the DEC’s decision not to require an environmental impact statement. Riverkeeper had reminded the DEC that state law required an environmental impact statement on the proposal due to the significant environmental and public safety impacts, ranging from air pollutants to the increased risk of fire and explosion in downtown Albany. The DEC’s own Environmental Justice Policy requires that nearby communities be consulted and informed about proposals that may affect them so that those communities can be meaningfully involved in their review.