Category Archives: Local Regulation

Milton Mayor: residents ‘will be lying down on the tracks’ to prevent surprise railyard plan

Repost from The Hamilton Spectator

Milton residents ‘will be lying down on the tracks’ to prevent surprise CN plan

By San Grewal, March 17, 2015
MILTON MAYOR
MILTON MAYOR Gordon Krantz says his town has been “blindsided” by a CN plan to have a facility between Britannia Rd. and Lower Base Line that would bring 1,500 trucks and four additional trains into Milton every day. Zoe McKnight,Torstar News Service

A “David and Goliath” battle is shaping up in Milton, where the Toronto Star has learned CN is about to announce plans for a 400-acre rail distribution centre that throws a wrench into the region’s carefully crafted growth management strategy.

Milton’s mayor and top bureaucrat are vowing the town will not go down without a fight.

“We have 50,000 residents, 20,000 houses planned for the area north of this (intermodal) facility. CN came in last week and pronounced that they are going forward — no formal application, no formal announcement,” said Milton’s chief administrative officer, William Mann.

“We know they are announcing it on Thursday. When Milton residents hear about this, they will be lying down on the tracks.”

Mann said the town, one of Canada’s fastest growing municipalities, has been told that CN, as a former Crown corporation, still has a certain power to circumvent municipal planning as governed by the province of Ontario.

Mann and Mayor Gord Krantz told the Star the town has been “blindsided” by the plan for a facility between Britannia Rd. and Lower Base Line that the town says would operate 24/7, transferring containers between trains and trucks. The town says it would bring 1,500 trucks and four additional trains into Milton every day, on CN-owned land that isn’t supposed to be used for such a facility according to Milton’s planning strategy.

Under Sustainable Halton, the region’s widely lauded plan for growth management, the land has been earmarked for strategic employment, with a mix of residential and commercial development surrounding it, as well as environmentally protected lands.

“It’s completely contrary to what we had planned,” Krantz said. “If I knew what was being proposed by CN I certainly wouldn’t be purchasing. Or if I already purchased one (of the newly built homes) and I wanted to get out from under it — I can imagine the possible legal battles.”

But Krantz is vowing to do everything the town can to fight CN, even if the rail giant has the federal government on its side, along with its powers to ignore local planning jurisdiction.

Referring to the tale of David and Goliath, Krantz said: “We all know how that story ended. I’ve got my one shot ready.”

He said Milton is already working with Halton Region and other partners on a legal strategy, but said he didn’t want to tip his hand.

CN responded to the Star’s questions about the project with a brief statement: “CN owns approximately 1,000 acres of land in the Milton, Ont., area. As part of its ongoing business operations, CN continually reviews its facilities and real estate holdings to ensure they are adequate to accommodate growth in its various businesses. Such is the case with CN’s Milton property. CN has no further comment at this time.”

One of the world’s largest rail companies, CN has a market capitalization of almost $71 billion.

CN had proposed a similar project in 2001 — preceding the province’s strategy to manage growth — that was withdrawn after the town and region identified major issues with it, according to a news release from the Town of Milton.

Multiple sources told the Star the CN plan is to be unveiled Thursday at a breakfast event hosted by the local chamber of commerce. As the MP for Halton riding, Federal Transport Minister Lisa Raitt represents Milton. A statement from the ministry to the Star said only that Raitt would attend the Chamber event Thursday “and looks forward to the presentation.”

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing was asked whether the province would guarantee a public consultation and that provincial environmental and safety rules as well as municipal planning processes would be complied with. A spokesperson said the ministry, and the Ministry of Transportation, “have been advised by CN that they are revisiting the need for an intermodal yard in the Town of Milton … CN has not provided the province with specific details of their proposal.”

With concern mounting over rail safety in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic disaster and more recent fiery derailments of trains carrying crude oil, Krantz and Mann said they have been disheartened by the province’s unwillingness to address the CN plan.

When asked if he has an idea of what would be passing through the area, Krantz said: “That’s a good question. We don’t know what’s going to be transported.”

Beyond the negative impact on surrounding property values, and environmental and safety concerns, the development industry is going to be extremely upset with CN’s decision, he said.

“You ain’t seen nothing yet. Wait until the developers, especially in the residential sector, hear. I suspect their reaction will be something like mine.”

Mann said Milton has behaved like the model municipality for Ontario’s Places to Grow Act, which established managed population growth targets throughout the GTA. The town has grown from about 7,000 residents in 1971 to 84,362, according to the 2011 census.

“We could go to over 400,000 under Places to Grow. Places to Grow is all about taking your fair share. Now, upward of 500 acres of employment land and all the residential around it, could be taken out of the picture. That means the rest of the GTA will have to pick up that population.

“This plan has nothing but negative consequences for Milton, from a community perspective.”

Washington county puts the brakes on a new oil-train facility

Repost from High Country News

A Washington county puts the brakes on a new oil-train facility

In the wake of recent oil-train derailments, Skagit County wants Shell to do a full environmental review.

Jeremy Miller, March 12, 2015

BACKSTORY
Railroad cars full of flammable crude oil are rattling through the West, hauling more than six out of every 10 barrels produced in the Bakken to refineries, according to a 2014 report. Washington state has already seen a major uptick in oil-train traffic and at least one derailment. Shell Oil wants to build a new facility north of Seattle that would take in six 100-car locomotives per week (“Flash point,” HCN, 11/24/14).

FOLLOWUP
Last month, following West Virginia’s massive oil train derailment and explosion and reports of a Bakken train leaking oil in Washington, Skagit County blocked Shell’s proposed facility until the company completes a full environmental review. The U.S. Department of Transportation predicts an average of 10 oil train derailments per year over the next two decades. But the recent drop in oil prices means fewer trains are rolling out of the Bakken; perhaps — at least for now — there’s less chance of another disaster.

Rodeo, California: Phillips 66 project faces additional lawsuits

Repost from The Contra Costa Times
[Editor: see also Communities for a Better Environment sues CCCounty and P66 and Lawsuit filed to Stop Tar Sands in the Bay Area.  – RS]

Rodeo: Phillips 66 project faces additional lawsuits

By Tom Lochner, 03/06/2015 06:03:54 AM PST

RODEO — A second organization has sued to block a propane and butane recovery project at a Rodeo refinery, and a third announced it would do so as well Thursday.

Rodeo Citizens Association filed suit Thursday in Contra Costa Superior Court, Martinez against Contra Costa County and the Phillips 66 Co., contending Phillips wants to transport heavy and dirty tar sands crude by rail from outside the state to a sister refinery in San Luis Obispo County and pipe the semi-refined oil to Rodeo. The association further contends that a county-approved Environmental Impact Report fails to note that the project would increase air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

On Wednesday, Communities for a Better Environment sued the county and Phillips 66, contending the project is part of a grander plan to process heavy, dirty tar sands crude that would come to California by rail.

Phillips 66 spokesman Paul Adler said Thursday he had not seen the Rodeo Citizens Association suit and therefore could not comment on it. On Wednesday, commenting on the CBE suit, Adler had called that organization’s allegations “inaccurate and misleading.”

“Following two years of careful analysis by the Contra Costa County board (of Supervisors) and its expert staff, claims that this project is a crude by rail project were dismissed,” Adler said Wednesday.

Also on Thursday, Safe Fuel Energy Resources of California, a group representing workers at the Rodeo refinery, sued the county and Phillips 66 in Superior Court, Martinez, according to an announcement by the firm Public Good PR LLC. The group contends, among other allegations, that Phillips 66 wants to bring in tar sands crude from out-of-state and that the county improperly “piecemealed” its review of the Rodeo project from other Phillips 66 projects and neglected to analyze the cumulative levels of the various projects on air quality and human health and safety.

The timing of Safe Fuel Energy Resources’ filing was not known as of late Thursday.

Communities for a Better Environment sues Contra Costa County and Phillips 66

Repost from The Contra Costa Times

Rodeo refinery project subject of legal challenge

By Tom Lochner, 03/04/2015 11:37:08 AM PST

MARTINEZ — An environmental group has sued Contra Costa County over its approval of a propane and butane recovery project at a Rodeo refinery, contending it is a piece of a grander plan to process heavy, dirty tar sands crude that would come to California by rail.

Phillips 66, which owns the Rodeo refinery and another refinery near Santa Maria, in San Luis Obispo County, is a co-defendant in the suit, filed Wednesday in Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez by Communities for a Better Environment. The two refineries together constitute the two-part San Francisco Refinery, according to the Phillips 66 website.

“Phillips 66 cannot meet its propane recovery objective without switching to a lower quality feedstock, like tar sands, and without other Phillips 66 projects to assist in that overall switch,” CBE attorney Roger Lin said in a news release.

CBE has said that the refinery, with the acquiescence of authorities, seeks to “piecemeal” what the environmental group describes as “a tar sands refining project that could worsen pollution, climate, and refinery and rail explosion hazards.” The environmental impact report, CBE contends, “hid the project from the public and failed to mitigate its significant environmental impacts.”

A rail spur project at the Santa Maria refinery, designed to receive about five trains a week, each with about 80 tank cars of crude oil, is under review by San Luis Obispo County.

The trains could arrive at Santa Maria from the south, via the Los Angeles basin, or the north, possibly along the shores of San Pablo and San Francisco bays and through San Jose.

Crude oil is partially refined at the Santa Maria refinery, then sent on to Rodeo via a 200-mile pipeline.

Phillips 66 spokesman Paul Adler said Wednesday that the Board of Supervisors got it right on Feb. 3 and that its decision “will help ensure the long-term viability of the Rodeo Refinery and the many jobs it provides.”

“Our plans for this project reflect our company’s commitment to operational excellence and safety while enhancing the competitiveness of the facility,” Adler said in an email.

“Following two years of careful analysis by the Contra Costa County board and its expert staff, claims that this project is a crude by rail project were dismissed,” Adler added. “Continued allegations by Communities for a Better Environment that this is a crude-by-rail project are inaccurate and misleading.”

Officials at County Counsel Sharon Anderson’s office could not immediately be reached for comment.

Along with the Rodeo project’s environmental impact report, the Board of Supervisors on Feb. 3 rejected two appeals of a November 2013 county Planning Commission-approved use permit for the project. The appellants were CBE and the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger on behalf of the Rodeo Citizens Association. The board vote was 4-1, with Supervisor John Gioia voting no.

The Rodeo project calls for installation of new equipment to recover and sell propane and butane instead of burning it as fuel at the refinery or flaring off excesses.

Phillips 66 has said the project would reduce emissions of several pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, partly by using cleaner-burning natural gas as refinery fuel and because sulfur would be extracted to prepare the propane and butane for sale.

The new equipment would include a hydrotreater, six storage vessels and two new rail spurs related to shipping the recovered propane and butane out of the refinery in tank cars.