Category Archives: Local Regulation

Coal trains, Crude By Rail, High Hazard Flammable Trains (HHFTs), Local Regulation, Oil trains

City proposes fining railroad for all oil and coal trains passing through

Repost from The Columbian
[Editor: Check out the Resolution to be considered by the Spokane City Council on Monday, July 25 (from the Council agenda).  The resolution begins: “A Resolution requesting that the Spokane County Auditor to hold a special election on November 8, 2016 in conjunction with the scheduled general election to submit to the electors of the City of Spokane a  proposition regarding the enactment of a new section 10.08.068 of the Spokane Municipal Code, relating to a prohibition on the transit of oil and coal trains through specific areas of the City of Spokane.” A series of powerful WHEREASES follow.  – RS]

Spokane may fine railroads shipping oil or coal through town

July 21, 2016, 6:01 AM

SPOKANE – The Spokane City Council is thinking of fining railroad companies that ship crude oil or coal through downtown Spokane.

The companies would be fined hundreds of dollars for each train car under a law the city council will consider placing on the November ballot.

The Spokesman-Review says the proposed law would make such shipments a civil infraction punishable by a fine of up to $261 for each train car.

The City Council will vote Monday on whether to add a law that would authorize fines for oil and coal train operators to the November ballot.

Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Public Comment, Public permitting, Take Action

Targa Withdraws Plans For Crude Oil Terminal In Baltimore

Email and press release from Jon Kenney, Maryland Community Organizer, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, July 11, 2016 11:03AM
EMAIL:

Victory! Targa Resources formally withdraws permit to construct oil terminal in Baltimore!

Hi everyone,

I wanted to share some very good news to start the week. On Friday afternoon, Targa Resources formally withdrew their permit to construct a new crude oil shipping terminal in the Fairfield area of South Baltimore, which will keep out hundreds of millions of gallons of crude oil from being shipped through the city.

This was a result of the combined effort of many groups and community members, but lead the Environmental Integrity Project and CCAN. EIP submitted technical comments on their draft permit last year, and CCAN submitted hundreds of public comments and turned community members out to a public hearing. While there are still crude oil trains moving through the city, this is a great step forward in the fight.

Congrats to everyone involved! Please see the press release below for details, and be sure to send the news to your networks!

Best,
Jon

PRESS RELEASE:

COMPANY WITHDRAWS PLANS FOR CRUDE OIL TERMINAL IN BALTIMORE

Decision by Texas-based Targa Terminals Reduces Dangerous Bakken Oil by Rail Through City

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 11, 2016
Media contacts: Tom Pelton, Environmental Integrity Project, 443-510-2574 or tpelton@environmentalintegrity.org
Kelly Trout, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, 240-396-2022, kelly@chesapeakeclimate.org
Jennifer Kunze, Clean Water Action, 410-235-8808. jkunze@cleanwater.org

Baltimore, Md. – Environmental groups today applauded a decision by a Houston-based company to withdraw plans for a crude oil terminal in the Fairfield area of South Baltimore that could have shipped over 383 million gallons of crude by rail through the city and the Chesapeake Bay.

“It is great news for residents of South Baltimore living near rail lines that Targa Terminals has now withdrawn its application for a crude oil terminal permit,” said Leah Kelly, attorney for the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP). “Bakken crude oil is volatile and potentially dangerous, and this permit would have allowed one 35-car train per day of Bakken crude to travel through South Baltimore neighborhoods to the terminal.”

Shipments by rail of crude oil from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota have been involved in several large explosions since 2013 following train derailments, including an explosion in the Canadian town of Lac-Megantic that killed 47 people and destroyed the downtown area, and, last month, an explosion and fire in Oregon’s Columbia River Gorge that resulted in an evacuation and, reportedly, cancelation of the last week of school in a nearby town.

Late on Friday, July 8, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) informed EIP that Targa had withdrawn its request for a permit to ship crude oil through its existing terminal in the Fairfield area of South Baltimore.

“This is a victory for Baltimore communities and for the climate,” said Jon Kenney, Healthy Communities Organizer with the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “Thanks to citizen and legal pressure, Targa has terminated its plan to ship more dangerous crude oil out of Baltimore, and bring a new surge of oil trains through our communities. However, we know there are still thousands of gallons of crude oil rolling through Baltimore every week, putting communities in danger. As a next step, the City Council must act on legislation requiring health and safety studies of oil trains.”

Targa Terminals applied in 2014 for a permit from MDE that would have allowed crude oil shipment and storage at its Fairfield terminal. The company specifically requested approval to handle

In May 2015, MDE put its review of Targa Terminals’ crude oil permit application on hold in response to legal comments filed by attorneys with EIP on behalf of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Sierra Club, and Chesapeake Bay Foundation. MDE said at the time it was not moving forward with any further review “until the department receives additional information from the company.”

On June 29, 2016, Targa Terminals withdrew that application rather than provide the information required by MDE. In a responsive letter dated July 8, 2016, MDE advised the company that, until a crude oil permit is granted, the company is “prohibited from receiving, storing, and/or transferring crude oil at the Baltimore Terminal.”

“We’re happy and relieved that Targa Terminals has chosen not to pursue constructing a crude oil storage and loading facility in South Baltimore,” said Jennifer Kunze, Maryland State Organizer for Clean Water Action. “If it had been constructed, this would have increased the air pollution in an already-overburdened area of Baltimore, where neighbors just won the fight to stop construction of the nation’s largest trash-burning incinerator. It also would have meant more trains carrying volatile crude oil through South and Southwest Baltimore, neighborhoods where people’s homes, parks, churches, and businesses are just yards from the tracks – putting them at risk of an explosion if one of those train cars derailed.”

###

 

Crude By Rail, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Local Regulation, Regional regulation, Surface Transportation Board, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

DAVIS ENTERPRISE: Area agencies oppose Valero oil train petition

Repost from the Davis Enterprise

Davis joins regional agencies in opposing Valero oil train petition

By Felicia Alvarez, July 10, 2016

In the latest addition to the turbulent saga of Valero Refining Company’s proposal to expand a crude oil-by-rail train route through the Sacramento-Davis region to a refinery in Benicia, the City of Davis, Yolo County, and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments have submitted formal letters opposing the Valero’s latest moves to approve the project.

The local agencies are joined by a formidable coalition opposing Valero’s project, including State Attorney General Kamala Harris, the cities of Oakland and Berkeley, and a number of air quality management districts.

The letters oppose Valero’s most recent steps to push through the crude-by-rail proposal and expansion of their Benicia refinery.

Last February saw the Benicia Planning Commission unanimously vote down the project’s environmental impact report. Valero decided to take it to the federal level, petitioning the Surface Transportation board for a federal preemption [by] the railroads.

Preemption would allow the company to expand its operations to transport oil through Davis along Interstate 80 toward the refinery in Benicia. It would also include routes that travel to San Luis Obispo, Bakersfield, and several other projects in Oregon and Washington.

The route of the most local concern would see 100-car trains travel through Old East Davis, downtown Davis, and the south end of UC Davis each day.

Last Friday, the City of Davis delivered its own letter to the Surface Transportation Board opposing Valero’s proposal. The city signed alongside Yolo County, Oakland, Berkeley and SACOG.

Fighting to maintain local control of planning and zoning management of the proposal in the interest of public safety, the letter states:

“Valero’s complaints do not actually pertain to rail operations at all. They pertain to the operations of oil refineries within California, refineries that wish, for their own financial benefits, to be exempted from compliance with state and local environmental and planning laws.”

The local agencies go on to argue that granting preemption is outside of the role of the board to rule on an oil refinery’s obligations.

The Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District decried Valero’s petition as well, drafting a letter alongside the Butte, Sutter, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta and Bay Area air quality management districts. 

The letter points to the project’s revised draft environmental impact report, which lists the additional air quality impacts that would be felt across multiple air districts if additional railcar trips were made across the region.

” … federal preemption prohibits the mitigation of project emissions either directly from locomotives or indirectly through the purchase of emission offsets,” the letter states, adding that this is what prompted the air quality districts to oppose the petition.

Yolo Solano AQMD’s letter goes on to echo the city’s argument that Valero is not a rail carrier, and therefore is not eligible to receive a preemption on the railroads from the Surface Transportation Board.

The Benicia City Council is slated to give the oil train proposal another hearing in September.

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Local Regulation, Surface Transportation Board, Union Pacific Railroad, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Union Pacific sends letter to Surface Transportation Board in support of Valero

By Roger Straw, June 17, 2016

Union Pacific letter to the Surface Transportation Board in support of Valero Benicia Refinery

Related imageOn June 17, Union Pacific Railroad (UP) sent a letter to the Surface Transportation Board ” in support of the request of Valero Refining Company…for the Board to institute a declaratory order proceeding.”

UP is the railroad that would carry dangerous and dirty North American crude by rail through California’s mountain ranges, wildlands, towns and cities to Valero Refinery in Benicia, if Benicia’s City Council gives approval in September. Local observers here in Benicia have seen UP upgrading its infrastructure at great expense in anticipation of a Valero permitting success.

The UP letter is plain in its financial motivation, and says nothing about the health and safety of the earth or its inhabitants. The railroad asks for a free hand in all operations, direct or indirect, involving rail transport of hazardous materials.