Category Archives: Public Comment

Crude By Rail, Final Draft Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Public Comment, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

FIRST-HAND REVIEW: Benicia Planning Commission hearings Wednesday night

By Roger Straw, February 11, 2016

Wednesday’s meeting was all public comment.  Comments were overwhelmingly in opposition to Valero’s proposal.

Comments included powerful remarks by attorney Elly Benson of the Sierra Club and two exceptional speakers from the Stanford Law School representing the Center for Biological Diversity, Claudia Antonacci and Rylee Kercher  These three echoed and reinforced comments made on Tuesday by attorney Jackie Prange  of the Natural Resources Defense Council and attorney Rachael Koss of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (on behalf of SAFER California).  All took exception to Benicia’s contract attorney Brad Hogin, who has promoted a view of federal law that would preempt Benicia’s Planning Commission from considering mitigations for onsite or offsite impacts, and would virtually tie the City’s hands from denying Valero its use permit.

Commissioners heard in-person comments by Berkeley Vice-Mayor Linda Maio,  City of Davis planner Eric Lee, and Yolo-Solano Air District Planning and Air Monitoring Manager Matt Jones.

Other regional experts and advocates opposing the project included Ethan Buckner of ForestEthics, Greg Karras of Communities for a Better Environment, Chris Brown of Chris Brown Consulting in Sacramento, Amiee Durfee and Tamhas Griffith of Martinez Environmental Group and Janet Johnson of Sunflower Alliance and Richmond Progressive Alliance.

In addition, overwhelmingly anti-project testimony was given by 25 informed and often eloquent residents of Benicia, and at least 8 from Davis/Sacramento.  Only 6 pro-Valero speakers offered comments. 

The closing comment, nearing midnight, was spellbindingly mysterious at first.  A Benicia homeowner and businessman, Ehren Herguth, came to the mic and introduced himself.  Helguth is highly credentialed as a clinical lipid specialist (CLS) and described himself as an “advocate for energy production, oil analyst, lube specialist.” He owns an oil, gas and chemical services lab in Vallejo and has extensive experience in testing hazardous materials including various kinds of crude oil. After setting us up at length with detailed technical comments – we were holding our breath, pretty much presuming he’d be for the project – he described Valero’s proposal as “desperate” and urged the Commission to vote no! He was the last speaker.

Wow.  A climactic finish on an exhilarating night of testimony.

Under Benicia rules, the last word in public testimony was given to the proponent as rebuttal, which meant five more minutes for Valero’s Don Cuffel.  Cuffel pointed out that Valero cannot begin exporting crude oil without a new permit.  He didn’t mention that there would be nothing prohibiting Valero from applying for such a permit, nor did he promise that they wouldn’t.  And he didn’t dispute that the new facility Valero is proposing and the less frequently used marine port would serve such purposes well.

Cuffel obfuscated truth by stating that with oil train explosions and fires, firefighters don’t need to “let them burn out.”  Note Cuffel’s use of the word “out.”  Of course firefighters don’t wait until the fires are completely out – but it is indisputable that first responders have on many occasions recently waited for hours and even days before getting near enough to safely apply foam.

Cuffel continued with a repetition of claims that noxious emissions would be lower, and he defended the use of seriously deficient CPC 1232 tank cars, claiming that Valero would always stay a step ahead of federal safety requirements.  He said nothing to assure Commissioners that new stronger federal requirements would be in place anytime soon, nor that Valero would take any new steps to purchase or lease tank cars that are safer than CPC 1232s.

It must’ve been a long hard night for City staff, contract attorneys, EIR consultants, and Valero executives, all of whom suffered severe criticism for their work in analyzing the project’s potential impacts, recommending approval, and developing the proposal in the first place.

For what comes next, see YET ANOTHER Planning Commission meeting – what to expect on Thursday.

Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Final Draft Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Public Comment, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Adams Broadwell attorneys on behalf of SAFER California: critical review of Valero FEIR

By Roger Straw, February 10, 2016
[See also the update section below for exhibits added later today.  – RS]

On February 8, 2016, the law firm Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo sent the City of Benicia of a lengthy and detailed review, highly critical of the City’s Final EIR on Valero Crude By Rail. (Warning – this is a 10 MB download.)

The letter is written on behalf of “Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (‘SAFER California’) and individuals who reside and work in the City of Benicia.”  It features individual reviews by well-known environmental experts Dr. Phyllis Fox and Dr. Petra Pless.

The Benicia Independent has created an INDEX to the document which is lengthy and is followed by extensive supporting attachments (see text version below).

Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo – INDEX
PDF Page # Description
1 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cordozo comments, cover letter
2 I. Interest of Commenters
3 II. The City’s responses to comments are inadequate
5 III. The City’s application of federal preemption is overbroad & conflicts with the constitutional exercise of traditional police powers
12 IV. The city still lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions in the FEIR regarding the project’s significant impacts and still fails to incorporate all feasible mitigation measures necessary to reduce such impacts to a less than significant level
36 V. The FEIR still fails to analyze all feasible alternatives
38 VI. The FEIR fails to disclose the project’s inconsistencies with the City’s general plan
40 VII. The FEIR fails to disclose the project’s inconsistencies with the general plans of uprail cities and counties
43 VIII. Conclusion
44 Attachment A: Findings for denial (Exhibit C)
57 Attachment B: Responses to Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cordozo comments
60 Attachment C: Dr. Phillis Fox, Comments on FEIR
62 I. Summary & Conclusions
65 II. Failures to analyze air quality impacts on different types of crude
71 III. Underestimate of ROG estimates
85 IV. Southern route not  analyzed
97 V. Alternatives to the project
98 VI. Mitigations not required
106 Attachment D: Dr. Petra Pless, Review of FEIR
107 Cover letter
108 I. Inadequacies of project description & EIR analyses not adequately supported
112 II. Failures to mitigate air quality impacts – construction
119 III. Failures to mitigate air quality impacts – operations
164 IV. The EIR’s Health Risk Assessments Are Substantially Flawed and Fail to Identify Significant Impacts
181 V. Recommendation
182 Attachment F-1, REVISED ASSUMPTIONS FOR Year 2014 Daily Line Haul Locomotive Criteria Pollutant Emissions -100 Railcars per Day per EIR Methodology
185 Attachment F-2 Project characteristics, assumptions, and locomotive emissions according to Phillips 66 SMR CBR FEIR and Valero Benicia CBR FEIR
187 Locomotive Emissions

UPDATE:

On Feb. 10, the City of Benicia posted extensive additional Exhibits to the SAFER California Letter of February 8, 2016.  See below, or go to the City’s page.  [#53 and #62 are broken links.  I will fix if/when I get better information.  – RS]

Pless_Exhibit_F1_-_F21
Ex._1_SJVAPCD_Authority_to_Construct_Application_ Review_Bakersfield_Terminal_2012-07-25
Ex._2_Emissions_Rail_Car_Fugitives_Revised
Ex._3_Rasmussen_et_al
Ex._4_Targa_Project_ISMND_FINAL_02242012
Ex._5_Midland_Valves_for_Pressure_Cars
10. Phillips Rail Spur Project FEIR December 2015
14. Impl_doc
17.(2) Tec_development_doc_final_2000
17. Impl_doc
18. ep724-stb-data-spreadsheet
20._RA_05-01_SPRD_Peformance_Saa_Nov_05
22. (b)_4185_Field_Guide_To_Tank_Cars1-opt
22. CH2ThresholdsTables5-2015
26._H51A Executive Summary
36._Improving_Securement_in_Hazardous_Materials
36. (1)2014_crude_by_
36. (2)2015_crude_by_
36. (3)2013_crude_by_
36. (4)2012_crude_by_
36. (5)2011_crude_by_
36. (6)2010_crude_by_
36. (7)2009_crude_by_
45. Phillips Rail Spur Project FEIR December 2015
52. __102634-west-coast-seein
53.
58._vi.
59. (1)ethylene-oxide-4pg-brochure
59. (2)ethylene-oxide-4pg-brochure
61._c79122pirol-newsAr
62. tsocorpsite.files.wor…tesoro-dot-120-fact-sheet
63.
66. RAR1201
68._SP16188_2014060840

Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Davis CA, Final Draft Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Local Regulation, Public Comment, Public permitting, Roseville California, Sacramento CA, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

KCRA: Residents voice concerns over proposed rail transport in Benicia

Repost from KCRA News, Sacramento
[Editor:  This report suffers from a few errors of fact, but is a welcome bit of coverage.  Very few news reports have surfaced following last night’s important hearing.  I wasn’t able to embed the video of reporter Tom Miller.  Go to KCRA to watch.  – RS]

Residents voice concerns over proposed rail transport in Benicia

Two 50-car trains would move through cities like Sac, Davis

By Tom Miller, Feb 08, 2016 11:58 PM PST

KCRA 2016-02-08BENICIA, Calif. (KCRA) —A push to bring crude oil on trains through Northern California to the Bay Area has many residents in the towns and cities it would pass through worried about the environmental and safety risks that go with it.

Valero Energy Corporation is asking the Benicia Planning Commission to approve $55 million in upgrades to its local refinery.

The project would allow two 50-car trains, each carrying 35,000 barrels of crude oil, to unload at the refinery each day.

The crude would come from all over the continent and would be carried through major urban centers like Sacramento, Roseville and Davis.

“We are not confident that the cars that are being used for this transport will safely transport them through our communities, our sensitive habitat, along the rivers and streams in our region,” Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor said.

According to Saylor, 500,000 people live within a half-mile of the tracks in El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties.

An environmental impact report found eight “potentially significant impacts” that could be addressed with mitigation measures and 11 “significant and unavoidable impacts.”

Both categories include environmental effects on air quality and biological resources.

However, in the unavoidable impacts section, the report lists greenhouse gas emissions in addition to hazards and hazardous materials.

The report states the project could pose a significant threat to the public or environment in an accident involving a spill.

The report goes on to say, “Although the risk of such an occurrence is extremely low, the potential consequences of such an event could be extremely high.”

In 2013, 47 people were killed in Quebec, Canada, after a crude oil train derailed there.

Saylor is worried a similar incident could happen in Northern California.

“The highly volatile substances included within this transport could be very damaging to our communities, to our businesses (and) to our homeowners,” he said.

Valero insists that’s unlikely in Northern California. The company plans to use upgraded train cars and said its crude oil is less volatile.

“Some of the early concerns about rail safety are based on scenarios that wouldn’t exist in our project,” Valero’s Heath, Safety and Environment Director Chris Howe said.

The company, which contributes 20 percent of the money in Benicia’s general fund, currently employs 500 people within the city.

Howe said the upgrades at the refinery would create 120 temporary jobs during the anticipated five months of construction and 20 new, permanent jobs.

However, Howe said ultimately it is not Valero’s responsibility when it comes to assuring the public a disaster would not occur in Northern California.

“We look to the railroad to safely deliver that material to our refinery, but I point out that marine deliveries in the bay, much larger volumes, will be reduced in risk through the delivery of crude by rail,” he said.

Despite the environmental concerns, Benicia city staff recommended the planning commission approve the Valero project.

On Monday, Benicia City Hall was filled with more than a 100 people, hoping to weigh in on the proposal.

Elizabeth Lasensky carpooled from Davis with nearly a dozen others, hoping her anti crude-by-rail stance would be heard by the commissioners.

“Every time a train goes through, our probability is increased, and that’s just for an explosion,” Lasensky said. “We still have to deal with the air pollutants and the noise pollution.”

Because of the number of residents hoping to voice their concerns, the planning commission has scheduled public comment sessions every day through Thursday, when it’s expected to vote on the project.

Crude By Rail, Public Comment, Revised Draft EIR (RDEIR), Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

City of Benicia posts new comments on Valero Crude By Rail

By Roger Straw, Benicia Independent Editor, 3 December, 2015

City posts new comments – important letter from Fire Chief of West Sacramento

These new letters were posted on the City of Benicia’s Crude by Rail page today.  See link below, along with the index I created.  Alternately, you can go to the Benicia Independent Project Review page.  (See also the LATER UPDATE below, on older letters that are now posted on the City’s website.)

Public Comments October 31 – December 2, 2015

Index to comments 31-10-15 - 2-12-15
Index, Oct 31 – Dec 2

2.1MB, 103 pages, posted on the City’s CBR page under “Additional Public Comments.”  (Index, click here) 

This PDF document includes:

    • An important letter from Fire Chief John Heilmann, writing on behalf of the City of West Sacramento (pages 2-10).  The letter strongly endorses the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ October 30 critique of the RDEIR.
    • 86 identical CREDO-generated letters from individuals far and wide (including 3 from Benicians), “Reject Valero’s dangerous oil trains project.”  These 86 can be added to 1976 such letters received previously, for a total of 2,062.  There is WIDESPREAD and growing opposition to Valero’s dangerous and dirty proposal and to oil transport by rail in general.
    • 3 identical VALERO-generated letters (2 from Benicians), “I support the Valero Crude by Rail project.

LATER NOTE:  On December 4, 2015, the City of Benicia posted some older comments on Valero’s RDEIR that had previously not been released.  In Part 4 of comments received Oct. 24-30, 2015, the City had listed the names of those who sent identical letters in response to 3 different appeals, but did not actually post each individual letter.  Now the letters are also available:

(Here is the original Part 4, Public Comments October 24- October 30, 2015 Part 4, missing the individual identical letters)