[The City’s streaming video is slow and stop-and-go on my relatively fast connection. Note that this is a new technology on the City’s website. Maybe the poor service is due to the volume of users accessing the videos at this early time in their posting. We shall see…. – RS]
Phillips 66 oil-by-rail hearing continues next month
By Cynthia Lambert, February 25, 2016 11:11am
HIGHLIGHTS
• After a third all-day hearing, the county Planning Commission will revisit the issue March 11
• Hundreds of speakers have praised or panned the plan to bring crude oil by rail to the Nipomo Mesa refinery
• Supporters stress the refinery’s safety record and jobs; opponents cite environmental worries
A packed room listens to comments on the Phillips 66 oil-by-rail plan Thursday before the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission. David Middlecamp
After a third all-day hearing with more than 100 speakers decrying or praising a plan by Phillips 66 Co. to upgrade its Nipomo refinery to receive crude oil by train, the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission said Thursday that no decision will be made on the project until March 11 — or even later.
The dozens of speakers Thursday were fairly evenly split on either side of the debate, with supporters stressing the need to maintain about 200 “head-of-household” jobs at the refinery, as well as its long track record of safety and that it’s been a good neighbor in the community.
“The actual crude production in California is going down, not going up,” said Richard Black, a training administrator at Phillips 66’s Rodeo refinery in the east San Francisco Bay Area. “We have to make up the difference from somewhere.”
Opponents, meanwhile, said commissioners should not take into account the company’s safety record or personal relationships. Residents and elected officials from communities along the main rail line from San Francisco to Los Angeles have told commissioners they fear a catastrophic train derailment.
“Their plan is an irreversible disaster,” Nipomo resident Nora Lee said. “The effects will be felt instantly with poisonous air pollution.”
The company has applied to San Luis Obispo County to build a 1.3-mile spur with five parallel tracks from the main rail line to the Nipomo Mesa refinery, an unloading facility at the refinery and on-site pipelines.
The public has another chance to speak March 11 — county planning staff believe they’re nearing the end of public comments — and then the commissioners can ask questions, deliberate and even make a decision, or continue the process once again to a future date.
Whatever decision they make is expected to be appealed to the county Board of Supervisors, and a new round of hearings would be held.
The first two days of the Planning Commission hearing, held Feb. 4 and 5, drew hundreds of people to San Luis Obispo from around the state, with many urging the commissioners to reject the project. Planning staff has recommended denial of the project, which as proposed would allow five trains a week, for a maximum of 250 trains per year to deliver crude oil to the refinery.
Each train would have three locomotives, two buffer cars and 80 railcars carrying a total of about 2.2 million gallons of crude oil, according to county planners.
During a previous hearing day, representatives from Phillips 66 urged the commissioners to approve an alternate plan to allow three trains a week instead of five, or a maximum of 150 trains a year.
The county staff report states that three trains a week — or 150 a year — would reduce the significant toxic air emissions to no longer be considered a “Class 1 significant impact” at the refinery, which refers to the highest level of negative impacts referenced in the project’s final environmental impact report.
But emissions of diesel particulate matter would still remain a “Class 1” impact on-site, according to the staff report, and there would still be 10 “Class 1” impacts along the main rail line, such as impacts to air quality, water resources, potential demands on emergency response services and an increased risk to the public in the event of a derailment.
A few residents brought some audio-visuals along: One person showed a news clip of coverage of a massive train derailment in West Virginia last year; another played an audio recording of what he said a “typical crude oil terminal” sounds like, with train wheels squealing along tracks.
“Once an oil train derails and catches fire, you and your town will never fully recover,” she said. “Lac-Mégantic was a peaceful and beautiful community, just like San Luis Obispo.”
In response, supporters of the Phillips 66 project said that heavier crude oil — not lighter crude oil from the Bakken field in North Dakota or Canada that was linked to the Lac-Mégantic disaster and was being carried by a CSX train when it derailed in West Virginia — would be type of crude oil that would be transported and can be processed at the refinery.
The commission heard from more than a dozen Phillips 66 employees who work at the Nipomo Mesa refinery or at the company’s other facilities in California, as well as union representatives and other businesses owners and individuals in support of the project.
Rachel Penny, a safety and health professional at the Nipomo Mesa refinery, said she chose to work in the oil and gas industry because “it’s vital to the economy.”
“In order for us to continue providing energy and improving lives, we need crude oil,” she said, noting that the refinery would not be increasing the amount of crude oil processed at the refinery with the project.
“It is the safest company that I’ve ever worked for,” said Jerry Harshbarger, who works in purchasing. “We still have a strong demand for fossil fuels and stopping this project will not stop that demand.”
Another San Luis Obispo resident said the products of gas and oil could be seen throughout the room, and he urged: “We as a community should work toward how to do this.”
“You drive a car and go up to the pump,” Laura Mordaunt said. “A truck is there filled with gas that is way more volatile. Your vehicle parked in your garage is far more dangerous than this process and yet you continue to drive.”
But another local resident, Gary Lester of the opponent organization Mesa Refinery Watch Group, said Nipomo residents moved there knowing the refinery existed and are not calling for it to be closed.
“We respect you as individuals and the work you do,” he said. “We are objecting to the construction of a loud, dangerous, invasive rail terminal just 3,000 feet from our homes.”
Phillips 66 officials have said that California crude oil production is declining and the company is looking for alternate sources outside the state. According to the company’s website, “The proposed change will help the refinery, and the approximately 200 permanent jobs it provides, remain viable under increasingly challenging business conditions.”
An attorney for Phillips 66 said during a previous hearing that crude oil would still come into California by rail should the project be denied — a point that is included in the “no project” alternative as laid out in the project’s environmental impact report, Phillips 66 officials said.
An average of about 6,800 barrels a day of crude oil is already being delivered by truck from the Paloma rail unloading facility near Bakersfield to a pump station east of Santa Maria, where it is moved by pipeline to the Nipomo Mesa refinery. That could increase to 26,000 barrels a day, according to the environmental document, adding about 100 truck trips a day traveling to the pump station for unloading.
If the rail project does not move forward, it’s likely that additional out-of-state crude oil would be brought to various rail unloading terminals in California and transferred to trucks to deliver to the Santa Maria pump station, according to the environmental report.
If this happened, some impacts would be shifted to the area in and around Santa Maria: trucking would generate higher levels of air emissions, resulting in significant cancer risk to the residences in close proximity to the roads; traffic congestion impacts; and potentially significant impacts to biological and water resources from an oil spill because of a truck accident.
Hotly contested Valero crude-by-rail application denied by Benicia Commissioners
By Joseph Bustos, February 21, 2016
The Benicia Planning Commission rejected a permit application by the Valero Benicia Refinery on Thursday night that would have allowed the refinery to haul upwards of 70,000 barrels of crude oil on two 50 car trains along Union Pacific railroad tracks throughout various Bay Area cities.
Anticipating a large amount of speakers, Benicia’s Planning Commission fielded more than 70 comments from the public across four days of late night public hearings, beginning on February 8th and finally concluding on February 11th.
Against staff recommendation to approve the use permit and certify the project’s Environmental Impact Report, the Commission unanimously voted to reject the project application and did not certify the project’s environmental impact report.
The Commission cited that the project holds highly negative impacts to traffic in the industrial park and economic impacts to adjacent businesses that stand against city health, safety, and quality of life. They also cited the lack of provisions for clean-up costs in case of accidents in Benicia and other cities, creating potential economic strain on Benicia as well as uprail cities.
Other large concerns were the possibilities for rail cars to fall into Sulphur Springs Creek and the bay, as well as technology surrounding rail safety, increases in the cost of insurance coverage for the community, liability risk for property damage, and the construction of the unloading rack in Benicia causing significant traffic and emergency access issues.
The Planning Commission called all of these concerns directly contrary to the city’s general plan, and citied a responsibility to act for the other uprail communities that would be at risk.
Texas-based Valero Energy expressed disappointment with the decision, and are currently looking into a possible appeal. The company has until February 29 to file an appeal to the Benicia City Council.
The controversial proposal first took root in late 2012 and has seen a vast array of detractors from multiple environmental groups and cities through which the railways pass through, citing rail and environmental safety concerns.
Comments continued to pour in by a number of groups all week, demanding that the commission reject Valero’s proposed rail project. Barring action from the City Council, the decision would be a major win for environmental groups lobbying for rejection for the last three years.
In contrast, Valero officials and supporters claimed the installation of an oil by rail program would make the refinery far more flexible and competitive, strengthening Benicia’s economy with more than $350,000 in tax revenue and providing additional jobs. The refinery currently receives crude oil by ship and pipeline, and the proposed rail would have been an additional source of oil transportation rather than completely replacing the other methods.
Valero is currently the largest private employer for the city of Benicia, and constitutes more than 20 percent of Benicia’s general fund revenue.
Tamhas Griffith of the Martinez Environmental Group praised the decision of the Planning Commission and thanked them for listening to concerns of Bay Area communities.
“The Martinez Environmental Group is grateful for the exemplary work of the Benicia Planning Commissioners. In service to their community, each commissioner went above and beyond expectation to render a fair, compassionate, and unanimous judgement that people are more important than company profits,” expressed Griffith.
Griffith added that the denial of the application shows care and concern for communities through which refineries operate and travel through. “It was a hopeful decision for refinery corridor communities who absorb the brunt of daily massive pollution and constant danger.”
Just a few short weeks ago, Martinez was host to a rail incident that saw three tankers carry sulfuric acid derailed near Marina Vista Avenue under the I-680 overpass. Although the tankers fortunately did not leak, the accident again yielded concerns regarding rail safety and monitoring what hazardous materials pass through the city.
Benicia commissioners deny Valero’s crude by rail application
By Irma Widjojo, 02/12/16, 11:45 AM PST
The Benicia Planning Commission receives comments from the public Wednesday night, the third day of the hearing for Valero Benicia Refinery’s crude-by-rail project. About 200 people signed up to speak. IRMA WIDJOJO — TIMES-HERALD
Benicia >> The Benicia Planning Commission has denied the use permit application by Valero Benicia Refinery to bring crude oil by rail against the recommendation of city staff.
After four late-night meetings and hours of public testimony, the commissioners unanimously voted to not certify the final Environmental Impact Report and deny the application for the project.
Protesters hold up signs against Valero’s proposed crude by rail project during a rally Monday at Benicia City Hall. The Benicia Planning Commission began a series of special meetings Monday to consider Valero’s permit application for the project. Irma Widjojo — Times-Herald
“We are feeling great.” said Andres Soto, spokesman for Benicians for Safe and Healthy Community, a grassroot organization in opposition of the project.
“It’s been a three-year battle. We knew we were right the whole time,” Soto said.
Valero has 10 business days, beginning Tuesday due to the holiday weekend, to appeal the decision to the Benicia City Council.
Valero officials said Friday they are evaluating the company’s option for an appeal.
Valero Benicia Refinery General Manager Don Wilson speaks with supporters of the refinery’s proposed crude-by-rail project during a break at the Planning Commission hearing Tuesday night. Supporters can be seen wearing “It’s good for Benicia” stickers or carrying fans with the slogan. IRMA WIDJOJO — TIMES-HERALD
“We are disappointed that the Planning Commission did not agree with the staff recommendation to certify the project EIR and approve the use permit. Most disappointing was the commissioners disregard for the opinions of a multitude of environmental and legal experts who spent over three years to evaluate this project,” said Chris Howe, Valero’s Heath, Safety and Environment director, in an email.
In December 2012, the refinery submitted the use permit application to begin construction to allow up to 70,000 barrels of North American crude oil to be transported via two 50-car trains.
Since then, the project has been met with a strong opposition from a number of Benicia residents, as well as those who live “uprail,” including Davis and Sacramento. The report states that there are 11 “significant and unavoidable” impacts related to the rail transport of the project.
Though city staff said any mitigation to these rail-related impacts are preempted by federal laws, on Thursday the commissioners disagreed with the staff’s findings, calling the law surrounding the issue “murky.”
Many attorneys representing organizations, as well as the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, said Benicia is not preempted by federal laws. One of the arguments is that the applicant for the permit is Valero Benicia Refinery, and not Union Pacific Railroad.
“If Valero doesn’t get the permit, Union Pacific will go on business as usual,” an attorney said.
She added that any mitigation required by the city for Valero’s project will not interfere with the railroad’s current business operation.
Thursday night, city staff again reasserted its position on preemption, stating that any actions by the commission taken surrounding rail-related impacts are not allowed.
“The local agency will run afoul if it adopts a regulation that will indirectly or directly affect the railroad,” said Brad Hogin, an attorney contracted by the city.
The city is also not allowed to deny the project based on these impacts, Hogin said.
A couple commissioners took issue with the staff’s opinion.
“We’re asked to find that the benefits do not outweigh the risk, but we are not allowed to do anything about it,” Commission Chair Donald Dean said. “Do you see how this is a conundrum?”
Commissioner Steve Young, who has been the most vocal during the hearing, also expressed his displeasure.
“You’re very certain in your position, and the other lawyers are very certain of their positions,” Young said. “You’re asking us to make a decision based on what is not a set law.”
They also said there are too many risks that come with the project, citing inadequate methods of assessing the greenhouse gas emission and traffic impacts.
“There are serious flaws with the EIR,” Commissioner George Oakes said. “And to be told at the 11th hour that we have no options on the rail impacts, it’s not nice. … What are we really talking about here? Is it the additional profits for a couple of companies?”
In his conclusion, Young quoted Valero General Manager Don Wilson saying that Valero will not close the refinery if the permit was not approved.
Valero has contended that the project would benefit Benicia economically through the creation of jobs. The additional option to transport crude oil would also make the company more competitive and flexible in the market, officials said.
The commission also has agreed that staff will work with Dean to add the commissioners’ findings into the report.
You must be logged in to post a comment.