Category Archives: Environmental review

Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Environmental review, Public Comment, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

KAT BLACK: Listing of over 64 orgs, public agencies and officials on record with major concerns or opposition to Valero Crude By Rail

By Roger Straw, April 6, 2016
[Editor: BSHC Chairperson Kat Black spent her entire 5 minute public comment at Monday’s hearing listing over 64 entities (below) that have raised serious questions about the adequacy of the EIR and/or the wisdom of granting Valero a use permit.  The list is most impressive, substantiating the April 4 public hearing comment of Davis Environmental Attorney Don Mooney, who said in his 25 years of reviewing 200-300 matters such as this, he has never seen such uniform and widespread opposition.  – RS]

Organizations, Public Agencies and Public Officials on record with major concerns or opposition to Valero Crude By Rail

Comment Before the Benicia City Council
By Katherine Black
April 4, 2016

Good evening Madam Chair and Members of the Council. My name is Katherine Black and I am the Chairperson for Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community.

I have spoken on many occasions against this project before the Planning Commission on various topics, so my comments are already in the record. I just wanted to read a list of organizations, public agencies and public officials that have either had major concerns or have spoken out directly against this project. This is a partial list and are in no particular order. They are:

1. Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community
2. Solano County
3. The Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Management Districts, which consist of

1. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
2. The Butte County Air Quality Management District
3. The Feather River Air Quality Management District
4. The Placer County Air Pollution Control District
5. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
6. The County of Shasta
7. and the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District

4. University of California, Davis
5. California Office of Spill Prevention & Response, and the California Public Utilities Commission
6. Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (Amtrak)
7. California Department of Transportation
8. San Francisco Bay Keeper
9. Safe Fuel and Energy Resources – California
10. Fischer Communications
11. Cool Davis
12. 350 Sacramento
13. 350 Bay Area
14. 350 Marin
15. Communities for a Better Environment – both legally and technically
16. Natural Resources Defense Council – both legally and technically
17. Phil Serna, Sacramento County Supervisor
18. Iron Workers 378 – who withheld support, which is significant because Valero had previously held their community forums on this at their venue
19. Stand – formerly known as ForestEthics
20. The Sierra Club
21. The Center for Biological Diversity
22. Sacramento Area Council of Governments (aka SACOG), and which is an association of local governments in the six-county Sacramento Region. Its members include the counties of El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba and the 22 cities within, who are:

1. Auburn
2. Citrus Heights
3. Colfax
4. Davis
5. El Dorado County
6. Elk Grove
7. Folsom
8. Galt
9. Isleton
10. Lincoln
11. Live Oak
12. Loomis
13. Marysville
14. Placer County
15. Placerville
16. Rancho Cordova
17. Rocklin
18. Roseville
19. Sacramento
20. Sacramento County
21. Sutter County
22. West Sacramento
23. Wheatland
24. Winters
25. Woodland
26. Yolo County
27. Yuba City
28. Yuba County

To continue with the list:

23. Yolo County Board of Supervisors
24. Martinez Environmental Group
25. Richmond Progressive Alliance
26. Global Community Monitor
27. Expert Dr. Petra Pless, from Pless Environmental, Inc.
28. Bay Localize
29. The City of Albany
30. The City of Briggs
31. The City of Briggs Fire Department
32. The City of Gridley
33. The City of Gridley Fire Department
34. The County of Nevada Community Development Agency
35. The Town of Trukee
36. The City of West Sacramento
37. Shasta County Department of Resource Management
38. Community Science Institute
39. Crockett-Rodeo United to Defend the Environment (aka CRUDE)
40. The City of Davis Foundation
41. Sunflower Alliance
42. Pittsburg Defense Council
43. Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
44. Asian Pacific Environmental Network
45. Bay Area Refinery Corridor Collation
46. Attorney General Kamala Harris
47. Other attorneys from 5 different organizations – NRDC, CBE, SF Baykeeper, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club
48. Expert Dr. Phillis Fox
49. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (aka BAAQMD) – individually
50. Feather River Air Quality Management District – individually
51. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District – individually
52. The Placer County Air Pollution Control District – individually
53. Yolo-Solano County Air Quality Management District – individually
54. The Goodman Group
55. Yolo Climate Action

We just heard from:

56. Jessie Arreguin, Berkeley City Council member
57. Alejandro Soto-Vigil, City of Berkeley
58. A representative from State Sen. Lois Wolk’s office
59. Vice Mayor Linda Maio, Berkeley
60. Ellen Cockerin, Sacramento School District Board
61. And lastly – our own Benicia Planning Commission

To add to that, there are thousands and thousands of letters from individuals opposing the project that have been submitted as part of the record, which come from Benicians, neighboring cities, Californians, Americans and even those concerned literally around the world. Now, we also have 4,081 petition signatures of which 1,204 are Benicians.

Are all of these people, organizations, public agencies and public officials wrong? The world is watching Benicia. Think about what this city will look like to your public official colleagues and the others I have mentioned. This city is at a precipice. We can either be the city that is part of the problem by going forward the way the world has been going, which has produced global warming. Or we can be the city that says no – not now, not on my watch, and be part of the solution to it all.

Please do not grant Valero a delay and please uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny this project.

Note: These were received after I spoke

62. League of Conservation Voters of the East Bay
63. Expert Scott Cashen, Senior Independent Biological Resources Consultant
64. Russell Hands, M.D., Chief of Surgery, Kasier, Napa, Solano County

Benicia City Council, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, Crude By Rail, Environmental review, Local Regulation, Public Comment, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail, Yolo County

BENICIA HERALD: Crude by Rail opponents cite large opposition list

Appearing as the front page headline story in today’s Benicia Herald
(no online version, so no link)

Crude by Rail opponents cite large opposition list

By Elizabeth Warnimont, April 6, 2016

At the first of the current round of scheduled hearings regarding Valero Benicia Refinery’s Crude by Rail project at City Hall Monday, a number of government agencies and other groups came forward to express their opposition to the project, adding to a growing list of individuals, government entities and private groups to register their objections. A few individuals and groups also spoke in favor of the project.

During the public comment period, Catherine Black, chairwoman for Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, recited a partial list of groups currently opposing the project. Organizations, public agencies and public officials who have either had major concerns or have spoken out directly against the project, she stated, include, in no particular order:

  • Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community
  • Solano County
  • Air Quality Management Districts (AQMD) including Bay Area, Butte County, Feather River, Sacramento Metropolitan, County of Shasta and Yolo/Solano AQMDs
  • Placer County Air Pollution Control District
  • UC Davis
  • California Office of Spill Prevention and Response
  • The California Utilities Commission
  • The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
  • Amtrak
  • The California Department of Transportation
  • San Francisco Bay Keepers
  • Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California
  • Cool Davis
  • 350 Sacramento
  • 350 Bay Area
  • 350 Marin
  • Communities for a Better Environment
  • National Resources Defense Council
  • Phil Serna, Sacramento County supervisor
  • Ironworkers 378
  • Sierra Club
  • Center for Biological Diversity
  • Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), an association of local governments in the six-county Sacramento region including El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Yolo and Yerba counties
  • The Yolo County Board of Supervisors
  • Martinez Environmental Group
  • Richmond Progressive Alliance
  • Global Community Monitor
  • the city of Albany
  • the city of Briggs and its fire department
  • the city of Gridley and its fire department
  • County of Nevada Community Development Agency
  • the town of Truckee
  • the city of West Sacramento
  • the Shasta County Department of Resource Management
  • Community Science Institute
  • Rodeo United to Defend the Environment
  • City of Davis Foundation
  • Sunflower Alliance
  • City of Pittsburg Defense Council
  • Green Action for Health and Environmental Justice
  • Asian Pacific Environmental Network
  • Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition
  • Attorney General Kamala Harris
  • Yolo Climate Action
  • Berkeley City Council
  • State Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis)
  • Berkeley Vice Mayor Linda Maio
  • The Sacramento School District Board and the Benicia Planning Commission

Numerous supporting documents were also submitted Monday, including examples of court rulings relevant to the question of federal pre-emption.

“We acknowledge that there is a key value for domestic energy production,” Don Saylor, a representative of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors and Sacramento Area Council’s board of directors, said. “That we depend on installations like the Valero refinery here in Benicia to power our economy. We also understand the federal role in railroad regulation. However, we have provided you with legal framework that we hope you consider, that points out your competing authority as a local, land use decision-making body.”

“The bodies that I represent are asking that you uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the appeal before you,” he added.

Many of the concerns voiced at the hearing echoed those of previous hearings, including worn train tracks and heavy (over 150 tons each) crude-carrying trains, populations and environmentally sensitive areas within the “blast zone” that would be destroyed in the event of a derailment involving fire, air pollution from train exhaust, and traffic back-ups from Bayshore Road extending onto Interstate 680.

Concerns that stood out more Monday than they had at previous hearings, in the view of this reporter, included the long-term and widespread impact the Council’s decision will have for the state of California in general, and some particularly vulnerable populations lying in close vicinity to the tracks that would carry the crude-containing rail cars, including schools, homes and downtown areas.

The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is the document that contains reference to all of these concerns, along with the applicant’s (Valero’s) responses to most of them. It is a three-volume work that does not number its pages but adds up to a total of 5.25 inches of paper, printed on both sides.   The document, as well as written and video documentation of City Council and Planning Commission meetings and hearings on the subject, are available to view online at the City of Benicia website, ci.benicia.us.ca or by request at the City Clerk’s office at City Hall, located at 250 East L St.

Cancer, Crude By Rail, Earthquake, Environmental review, Explosion, Flooding, Fugitive Emissions, Health impacts, Health risk assessment (HRA), On-site accidents, On-site infrastructure, Reactive organic gases (ROG), Spill, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

EXPERT REPORT ON LOCAL IMPACTS: Dr. Phyllis Fox rips Valero’s oil train proposal

By Roger Straw, April 5, 2016

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.

Dr. Fox’s table of contents and a significant excerpt follow. (Significant excerpt.) (Complete document.)

I. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

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.

Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Davis CA, Environmental review, Federal pre-emption, Local Regulation, Public permitting, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), Sacramento CA, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

KCRA TV3 ON BENICIA CITY COUNCIL HEARING: Residents remain concerned over crude oil trains in NorCal

Repost from KCRA TV3, Sacramento

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
KCRA 2016-04-05
[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.

The Benicia City Council began a week of public comment on the proposal Monday after the city’s planning commission voted down Valero’s request in February despite the city hall’s support, causing the oil refinery to appeal the decision.

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.