Category Archives: Local Regulation

Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Solano County CA, Uprail communities, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Candidates for Solano County supervisor weigh in on Valero crude-by-rail

Repost from the Fairfield Daily Republic
[Editor: Cheers to Supervisor candidates Mike Ioakimedes, Monica Brown and Denis Honeychurch for openly and directly stating opposition to crude by rail. The news article below fails to make clear that Mike Ioakimedes opposes Valero’s proposal and others like it.  Mike is the only Benicia voice in the race and points out the crucial importance of local control over health and safety issues. (See Mike’s Facebook page for more on his CBR position.)  The Benicia Independent ENDORSES Mike Ioakimedes for Solano County Supervisor.  – RS]

Candidates for county supervisor add voices to crude-by-rail plan

By Todd R. Hansen, May 15, 2016

FAIRFIELD — Candidates for the 2nd District Board of Supervisors office are split on the Valero proposal to ship crude-by-rail to its Benicia refinery, while the two 5th District candidates line up with at least conditional support.

The candidates were responding to a question sent by the Daily Republic: “What is your position on the Valero crude-by-rail proposal at its Benicia facility, and why? Also, what role do you believe the Solano County Board of Supervisors should be taking on this matter?”

Incumbent 5th District Skip Thomson said he would back transporting crude oil by rail if all possible safety measures, including the use of retrofitted train cars, are put in place. He said the economic necessity is clear.

He also said the county supervisors must take an active role of lobbying federal officials to make sure the precautions are implemented.

“Again, as a Board of Supervisors member, I must continue to engage our federal representatives to impress upon the U.S. Department of Transportation the importance of the new technology and the need to protect our citizens,” Thomson said.

Michael Reagan, a former 5th District supervisor, said many of the necessary safety measures are in place, that Valero has made promises to adhere to more-stringent safety standards than currently required and that there are economic and environmental benefits to transporting by train rather than ship.

“There is no realistic scenario that eliminates the rail movement of hazardous materials through our communities, which developed around the rail lines. The Valero-Benicia Refinery has long received and shipped petroleum products via this existing rail spur. These include shipments of highly volatile propane and butane produced at the refinery. Other refineries in the Bay Area do so as well,” Reagan said.

“Moving these products, and many other hazardous materials, by rail is efficient, safe and regulated, exclusively, by the federal government, for good public policy reasons.”

Michael Coan, a candidate for the 2nd District seat, also supports the proposal, while Monica Brown and Denis Honeychurch are adamantly opposed. Tamer Totah said his concerns over community safety are stronger than his support of Valero’s business needs.

Mike Ioakimedes, a former Benicia councilman, said the real issue for him is local control over the decision, and said it is a critical question that extends to issues other than Valero alone.

“My position on this question is that we must retain local control in fulfilling our primary responsibility of protecting the health and safety of our citizens and residents,” Ioakimedes said.

“Finally, local control over dangerous cargo transported through our county is not only a critical county issue, it is something that also needs to be addressed at the state level. The Board of Supervisors should have a very active role in protecting local authority over local issues,” he said.

Honeychurch touched on that issue as well.

“I oppose crude-by-rail unless and until public safety issues are completely solved. This matter is in the jurisdiction of the city of Benicia, which has, on a split vote chosen to delay a decision until another agency weighs in on the issue,” he said.

“The role of the Board of Supervisors is advisory only at this point. . . . Most importantly, the county must be prepared for a disaster should one or more of the tanker rail cars explode,” Honeychurch said.

Brown leaves little doubt about her opposition. She said the proposal is just far too dangerous.

“The benefits of this crude-by-rail do not outweigh the numerous significant and unavoidable impacts on up-rail communities’ air quality and hazards. These cities include Roseville, Sacramento, West Sacramento, Davis, Dixon, Vacaville, Fairfield and Suisun City,” Brown said.

“Oil train derailment and explosion have increased dramatically in recent years – including the July 2013 oil train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Canada, that killed 47 people,” Brown said. “The role of any government is to serve and protect its citizens. I see my job on the board as opposing this project because its impact has the potential to hurt many citizens and harm the environment in Solano County.”

Totah likewise expressed concerns about safety.

“I know Benicia has an active (Community Emergency Response Team). I would love to see what their protocol on an oil or chemical spill would be,” said Totah, adding the CERT he is part of specifically avoids such disasters as oil spills. “I am a strong supporter of oil by waterways. I want to be cautious that our cities, neighborhood and environment are safe and enjoyable to all, including businesses.”

Coan backs the plan and cites economic reasons for his decision.

“I support crude-by-rail,” Coan said. “It will help Valero maintain and create the kind of good-paying, local jobs with good benefits that we desperately need in Benicia and here in the county of Solano. Valero’s continued success and vitality affects this county as a whole.”

“In addition to being a major income source of the Benicia’s general fund, Valero employs the majority of its workers from all of Solano County. Most of its workers live in the city of Vacaville. Valero is a source of employment that goes beyond Valero employees in that they hire outside contractors to perform work at the plant all the time,” Coan said.

He added that federal and other safety requirements are in place.

“Crude-by-rail has become a necessity for Valero to be competitive in the California marketplace given all the restrictions that have been put in place,” he said.

The 2nd District includes Benicia, approximately half of Vallejo in the southern section, and the Cordelia, Cordelia Villages and Green Valley areas in and near Fairfield. The 5th District includes a portion of the eastern section of Suisun City, the northern section of Fairfield, a portion of the eastern part of Vacaville, the Elmira area and Rio Vista.

Benicia City Manager, Crude By Rail, Environmental review, Federal pre-emption, Local Regulation, Public permitting, Surface Transportation Board, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Benicia City Manager leaving to take post in Martinez, CA

By Roger Straw, April 30, 2016

City Manager Brad Kilger oversaw Valero Crude By Rail proposal, not sticking around for outcome

Brad Kilger, City Manager of Benicia, 2010-2016
Brad Kilger, City Manager of Benicia, 2010-2016

In Benicia’s Council/Manager form of government, there is no more powerful person than the City Manager.  The Mayor and City Council supposedly run the city, and they do make the final decisions. Some decisions are also made by Commissions, but the real power in Benicia is the city manager.

The CM presides over staff, and staff guides every decision of our elected and appointed officials, making recommendations and consulting with officials outside of public meetings. For instance, the city manager works with the mayor in setting the agenda for every Council meeting.

Brad Kilger was hired as Benicia’s city manager in 2010, and has overseen the Valero Crude By Rail (CBR) proposal from the start. Outwardly, CBR has been routed through the City’s Community Development Department and its Planning Division. Those offices have undergone personnel changes during the lengthy 3½ year Valero process, but Mr. Kilger has remained in charge throughout.

Kilger is due to begin work in Martinez on June 13, leaving only 6 weeks to finish up here in Benicia. As of this writing, no word has been released as to Kilger’s final day in Benicia. Nor have details been given about his rather sudden departure.

Getting out of dodge before a decision on CBR may very well be a smart career move. Everyone expects litigation, which would be any manager’s nightmare, and a loss either way could be expected to leave a blemish on his professional profile.

Kilger was welcomed to Benicia by Council members and citizens in 2010 as a promising new presence, bringing credentials and commitments that offered hope in the area of environmental sustainability. Indeed, his tenure has seen numerous advances on that front. But many of those advances can be credited primarily to the leadership of Mayor Elizabeth Patterson and the Community Sustainability Commission.

City Council during Kilger’s time in Benicia has often been contentious. Collegiality has often been wanting among Council members, and the public has come into fierce conflict with staff over staff’s seemingly blind support for Valero’s CBR proposal.

The City will no doubt bring in an interim. No telling how long the interim will be in charge, but it seems highly likely a permanent replacement would not be in place until January 2017, after elections, and under the authority of a new City Council.

It seems likely the City Council will face a decision on Valero CBR in September with a new and possibly untested interim city manager. If the delay for review by the federal Surface Transportation Board results in a re-write and recirculation of the environmental report with attendant written comments and lengthy public hearings, it could be a real handful for whoever is in charge.

It may be a real challenge locating a qualified candidate who is willing to step in at this critical moment in Benicia’s history.

Benicia City Council, Benicia city staff, Benicia Planning Commission, Contract attorney Bradley Hogin, Crude By Rail, Environmental review, Federal pre-emption, Local elections, Local Regulation, Public Health, Public permitting, Public Safety, Surface Transportation Board, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

EDITORIAL: Valero wins one; attorneys wrangle; opponents get testy

By Roger Straw, April 29, 2016

Valero wins one; attorneys wrangle; opponents get testy

Catching up on recent events

RDS_2015-06-21_200pxSorry, I had to take a little break.  When the Benicia City Council voted 3-2 to put off a decision on Valero’s crude by rail proposal (CBR), it was just a bit too much.

I was deeply discouraged by the majority’s need for yet more information.  Three Council members wish to hear from the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) before making the decision whether to permit a rail offloading rack on Valero property – a project that would foul California air and endanger lives and properties from here to the border and beyond, a project that would clearly contribute to the ongoing effects of global warming.

So I was one discouraged 3½ year supposedly-retired volunteer.  I was in no shape last week to send out my Friday newsletter.

Here, as best I can summarize, is news from the last 2 weeks:

Valero wins one

You will recall that Valero appealed the Planning Commission’s unanimous February decision on crude by rail to not certify the environmental report and to deny the land use permit. Then at the Benicia City Council’s opening hearing on the appeal on March 15, Valero surprised everyone by asking for a delay in the proceedings so that it could ask for guidance from the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB).

City staff recommended against Valero’s request, rejecting the proposed delay as unnecessary and risky, given that the City and Valero could end up with a “stale” environmental report that requires yet another time-consuming revision and more hearings.

Opponents also argued against the delay, noting that the request would be carefully framed by Valero in its own favor, submitted for review to an industry-friendly STB, and result in a judgement that would still be subject to final review in a court of law. Opponents also pointed out the possibly that the delay was a Valero political tactic, given that this is an election year with three members of City Council up for re-election.

At the most recent City Council hearing on April 19, contract attorney Bradley Hogin disclosed that he was not involved in the staff decision to recommend against the delay, and that he disagreed with his employers. Given every opportunity by Council members, Hogin argued at length in favor of the delay. During verbal questioning, Council did not give similar opportunity to Hogin’s bosses to argue against the request for delay.

And guess what, 3 members of Council were convinced by the pleasant instruction of their outside attorney Hogin that we would do well to hear from the STB before rushing (3 years into the process) to judgement.

Win one for Valero.  Council will resume consideration in September.

The attorneys wrangle

We are asked to believe that the big issue here after 3 years of environmental review has nothing at all to do with the earth or the health and safety of you, me, our neighbors or the lands and wildlife.

Supposedly, according to Valero’s attorney and contract attorney Hogin, it’s all about “federal preemption.”  Supposedly, our city officials have no legal authority to impose conditions or mitigations or deny a permit in this case.

However, according to California’s Attorney General and environmental attorneys, “federal preemption” does not prohibit City government from making such land use decisions based on local police powers and the legal requirement to protect public health and safety. Federal preemption protects against state and local authorities regulating railroads. A refinery, says our Attorney General, is not a railroad. Go figure.

Anyway, Valero’s attorney has written several letters on preemption and taking issue with the Attorney General. The Attorney General has written several letters, sticking by its argument. Environmental attorneys have written several letters making similar arguments.

In addition to the letters, Valero’s attorney and Mr. Hogin have testified at length under questioning by City Council members. Environmental attorneys have been given only 5 minutes each to speak at hearings, with little or no back and forth questioning from City Council members.

Everyone I have talked to expects this decision to end up in court, whether or not the STB issues a ruling, and regardless of which way they rule.

Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community gets testy

Like me, I suspect, members of our local opposition group, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community (BSHC) were highly disappointed and discouraged by the Council vote to delay for Valero and the STB.

In interviews and online statements that followed the April 19 Council vote, some BSHC members were quick to presume that the 3 Council members who voted for delay would also support Valero when it comes to a final vote in September.

Of course, a 3-2 vote favoring Valero in September is not the only possible outcome. Some would say that the next 5 months might best be spent respectfully reminding Council members of facts of the case, and encouraging them to make the right decision.

Those of us who have spent countless hours opposing Valero’s dirty and dangerous proposal have known all along that it is an uphill battle, that the odds are against us, that big business prevails all too often against the interests of health, safety and clean air.  But look what happened at our Planning Commission.  There is hope.

It seems to me that the presumption of a negative outcome can only serve to harden Council members’ attitudes and opinions.  But I may be wrong.

Some will continue to argue that Council members should be made to feel the public’s disappointment, that outrage and pessimism is understandable, and that an obvious implication is that unhappy voters will have their say in November.

I’m convinced that hardball politics and small-town respect for decision makers will need to co-exist over the next few months. Come September, we shall see.

Crude By Rail, Derailment, DOT-111, Earthjustice, Explosion, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Local Regulation, Rail accidents, State regulation

Earthjustice map: Crude-by-rail Across America

Repost from Earthjustice.org
[Editor: I’m reposting this map today – it was recently updated and still highly relevant.  Earthjustice’s map shows Major Crude-by-Rail Accidents since 2012 (Red Symbols) and communities opposing Crude-by-Rail (Green Symbols).  – RS]

More crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail incidents in 2013, than was spilled in the nearly four decades since the federal government began collecting data on such spills.

Since late 2012, as hydraulic fracturing and tar sands drilling created a glut of oil, the industry has scrambled to transport the fossil fuel from drill sites to the east and west coasts, where it can potentially be shipped overseas to more lucrative markets.

The increase in oil rail traffic, however, has not been matched with increased regulatory scrutiny. Oil trains are not subject to the same strict routing requirements placed on other hazardous materials; trains carrying explosive crude are permitted to pass directly through cities—with tragic results. A train carrying Bakken crude oil derailed in the Quebec town of Lac-Mégantic on July 6, 2013, killing 47 people in the small community.

In the absence of more protective regulations, communities across the country are beginning to take matters in their own hands.

Legal Cases

Earthjustice represents groups across the country, fighting for protections from crude-by-rail:

FAQs: About Crude-By-Rail

Q. What are DOT-111s?

DOT-111s are rail cars designed to carry liquids, including crude oil, and have been in service in North America for several decades. They are prone to punctures, oil spills, fires and explosions and lack safety features required for shipping other poisonous and toxic liquids. As crude production in the United States has surged exponentially in recent years, these outdated rail cars have been used to transport the crude oil throughout the country.

The U.S. and Canadian government recognized decades ago that the DOT-111s were unsafe for carrying hazardous materials, finding that the chance of a “breach” (i.e., loss of contents, potentially leading to an explosion) is over 50% in some derailment scenarios.

U.S. and Canadian safety investigators have repeatedly found that DOT-111s are unsafe and recommended that they not be used for explosive or hazardous materials, including crude oil; however, the U.S. government’s proposal to phase out these rail cars fails to take sufficient or immediate action to protect the public.

Q. What is Bakken crude oil?

Bakken crude refers to oil from the Bakken shale formation which is primarily in North Dakota, where production has skyrocketed in recent years due to the availability of newer hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) techniques. The increase in the nation’s output of crude oil in 2013, mostly attributable to Bakken production, was the largest in the nation’s history.

Bakken crude is highly flammable, much more so than some crude oils. Today, Bakken crude moves in “unit trains” of up to 120 rail cars, as long as a mile and a half, often made up of unsafe DOT-111s.

Q. Are there alternative tank cars available?

Transporting Bakken crude by rail is risky under the best of scenarios because of its flammability. But legacy DOT-111s represent the worst possible option. All new tank cars built since October 2011 have additional some safety features that reduce the risk of spilled oil by 75%. Even so, safety investigators, the Department of Transportation, and the railroad industry believe tank cars need to be made even safer. Some companies are already producing the next-generation rail cars that are 85% more crashworthy than the DOT 111s. Petitioners support the safest alternatives available, and expect that the ongoing rulemaking process will phase out all unsafe cars.

In the meantime, an emergency prohibition on shipping Bakken crude in DOT-111s—which virtually everyone acknowledges is unreasonably dangerous—is required immediately. (Read about the formal legal petition filed on July 15, 2014.)

Q. What steps have U.S. and Canadian governments taken?

The U.S. government recognizes that Bakken crude oil should not be shipped in DOT 111 tank cars due to the risks, but has done shockingly little to limit their use.

In May 2014, the DOT issued a safety alert recommending—but not requiring—shippers to use the safest tank cars in their fleets for shipments of Bakken crude and to avoid using DOT 111 cars. Canada, in contrast, responded to the Lac Mégantic disaster with more robust action. It required the immediate phase-out of some DOT-111s, a longer phase-out of the remainder, and the railroads imposed a surcharge on their use to ship crude oil in the meantime.

In the absence of similar standards in the U.S., the inevitable result will be that newer, safer cars will be used to ship crude in Canada—while the U.S. fleet will end up with the most dangerous tank cars.