Category Archives: Public permitting

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“It is great news for residents of South Baltimore living near rail lines that Targa Terminals has now withdrawn its application for a crude oil terminal permit,” said Leah Kelly, attorney for the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP).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.”

###

 

Benicia City Council written transcripts: April 18, April 19 hearings on Valero Crude by Rail

By Roger Straw, June 2, 2016

CITY COUNCIL WRITTEN TRANSCRIPTS – APR. 18-19 HEARINGS

Benicia, CaliforniaToday, after a lengthy delay, the City of Benicia posted written transcripts of the City Council’s April hearings on Valero Crude by Rail: April 18 transcript and April 19 transcript.  (Note that Valero was in possession of these transcripts before they were released to the public. See Valero’s May 31 petition to the Surface Transportation Board, Exhibit 6, pp. 93-96.)

The documents are fully indexed and searchable. Unlike earlier Planning Commission transcripts, which were released in two formats (full and condensed/indexed), these documents are full, unindexed transcripts.

The April 18 meeting includes final public comments, Valero’s 5-minute closing comment, and the first portion of Councilmember questions of city staff.

The April 19 meeting continues Council questions of staff, and concludes with the Council’s decision to grant Valero’s request for a delay in proceedings until September 20 so that Valero can petition the Surface Transportation Board for a declarative judgement on preemption issues that could prohibit Benicia from denying Valero’s project.

SAN LUIS OBISPO: Phillips 66 rail spur likely to get planning commission approval

Repost from CalCoastNews.com

Phillips 66 rail spur likely to get planning commission approval

May 17, 2016

train carThe San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission has indicated it will approve a scaled-down version of Phillips 66’s proposed rail spur. Commissioners are expected to voted 3-2 in favor of the project at a meeting in September.

Phillips 66 plans to build a rail spur so that crude oil currently delivered by pipeline could be transported to the Nipomo Mesa refinery by train. The proposed project includes a 6,915-foot rail spur, an unloading facility, on-site pipelines, replacement of coke rail loading tracks and the construction of five parallel tracks with the capacity to hold a 5,190-foot train.

Company officials initially proposed five train trips per week to the refinery. Faced with opposition from the public, they scaled down the plan to three trains a week.

On Monday, planning commissioners Don Campbell, Jim Harrison and Jim Irving expressed support for the project. Commissioners Eric Meyer and Ken Topping, who serve at the will of supervisors Adam Hill and Bruce Gibson, oppose the rail spur. A motion to reject the project failed on a 3-2 vote.

The planning commission has already held several meetings on the rail spur project. Hundreds of people have made public comments, the majority of which have been in opposition to the rail spur.

Environmental activists have come from across the state to protest the project. Opponents have stressed the risk of a train derailment and oil spill.

Supporters of the rail spur spoke about Phillips 66’s strong safety record and the jobs the refinery provides.

Phillips 66 officials say oil production is decreasing in California, and the rail spur would allow the company to bring in crude from new suppliers. Company officials have also said Phillips 66 would deliver the additional oil by truck if the county rejects the rail spur.

Still, county staff recommended rejecting the project. Planning staffers said the rail spur could result in oil spills and fires, and the project would generate toxic air emissions that exceed county thresholds.

The next hearing on the project is scheduled for Sept. 22. Regardless of how the planning commission rules, the rail spur project is expected to be appealed to the SLO County Board of Supervisors.

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY: Planning Commission set to APPROVE P66 project; Emergency Town Hall Wednesday

A pair of emails by Stop Oil Trains Campaign, San Luis Obispo

From: “Stop Oil Trains Campaign”
Date: May 16, 2016 3:35 PM
Subject: BREAKING: Planning Commission set to APPROVE P66 project; Emergency Town Hall Wednesday

Incredibly, despite overwhelming opposition, today the SLO County Planning Commission indicated that it is set to approve the dangerous Phillips 66 oil trains project with a 3-2 vote. The hearings have been continued until September, where County Staff must bring forward conditions of approval for consideration and public comment.

But the fight is far from over. Will you join us for an emergency town hall Wednesday at 6pm? [Link removed, event now past.]

Over the past few years, we’ve worked incredibly hard to build a powerful movement together, here in SLO and up and down the tracks. We wrote tens of thousands of public comments, organized dozens of rallies, and spoke out by the hundreds at the Planning Commission hearings. Despite the infuriating vote, we will carry our power with us to the next stage of the campaign when we appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the County Board of Supervisors.

To respond to the Planning Commission’s vote and organize next steps, we’re holding an emergency town hall this Wednesday from 6pm – 8pm at the SLO City Library.

Can you join us? Click here to RSVP [Link removed, event now past.]

We are thankful to the two commissioners (Ken Topping & Eric Meyer) who heard the public outcry, understood the issues, and voted no. While the ultimate Planning Commission vote is disappointing, we know the fight has only just begun. We need to build on our momentum to make sure the Board of Supervisors reverses the Commission’s careless decision, and we need you with us!

See you Wednesday night!

With hope,
Charles, Heidi, Andrew, Mary, Ethan, and Valerie
Stop Oil Trains Campaign
http://stopoiltrains.nationbuilder.com/

From: “Stop Oil Trains Campaign”
Date: May 16, 2016 3:49 PM
Subject: **CORRECTION** clarifying what happened at the hearings

Just writing to clarify exactly what happened at the Planning Commission hearings today. An email was just sent that may have confused folks into thinking the project was approved. The commissioners indicated approval but have not formally voted yet.

Here is the rundown of what happened:
• The commissioners laid out their positions: 3 in favor (Campbell, Harrison, & Iriving) of the project, 2 opposed (Topping & Meyer)
• A motion to deny the permit failed
• Commissioners informally directed staff to amend their recommendations to include conditions for approval
• They ultimately voted to continue the hearings until September 22, where they will reconsider the item with conditions for approval
What today indicates is that the commission is dangerously close to approving the project. We need now more than ever to organize opposition to make sure they do the right thing.

That’s why we’ve invited you to the town hall meeting on Wednesday, May 18 to work on next steps: Click here to RSVP! [Link removed, event now past.]

See you there,

Stop Oil Trains Team

Stop Oil Trains Campaign
http://stopoiltrains.nationbuilder.com/