Category Archives: Public Safety

Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, Crude By Rail, Federal pre-emption, Local Regulation, Public Health, Public permitting, Public Safety, Sacramento CA, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

VALLEJO TIMES-HERALD: Public comments on Valero’s appeal

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald
[Editor:  Many thanks to the Vallejo Times-Herald and reporter Irma Widjojo for her late-night service to our communities, covering hearings on this incredibly important issue of statewide and national significance. We can only wish the major news outlets in the Bay Area and Northern California were so inclined.  Oh, and … great photo!  – RS]

Public comments on Valero’s appeal

By Irma Widjojo, 04/05/16, 6:28 PM PDT
Irma Widjojo - Times-HeraldMembers of Benicians for Safe and Healthy Community unravel a scroll of signed petitions against Valero Benicia Refinery 's proposed crude-by-rail project during the group's public comment slot Monday night at the Benicia City Council Chambers.
Members of Benicians for Safe and Healthy Community unravel a scroll of signed petitions against Valero Benicia Refinery ‘s proposed crude-by-rail project during the group’s public comment slot Monday night at the Benicia City Council Chambers. Irma Widjojo — Times-Herald

Benicia >> About 50 people spoke Monday night to voice their opinion on Valero Benicia Refinery’s proposed project as the public comment period of the appeal hearing began.

Like previous public comment periods on the issue, the Benicia City Council Chambers was packed for the hearing, causing a number of people to be asked to listen from the overflow areas.

The City Council is being asked to consider the Planning Commission’s decision to deny Valero’s use permit application for the crude-by-rail project and to not certify the project’s Environmental Impact Report, or EIR.

Elected officials from surrounding areas, representatives from governmental and other agencies and spokesmen for organized groups were allowed to speak first at the meeting.

About 30 people came by a chartered bus from Sacramento and the “uprail” cities to oppose the project and spoke.

A local grassroots organization Benicians for Safe and Healthy Community also used a visual prop during its address in the form of a scroll of papers containing more than 4,080 signatures of those who are against the project.

At a March hearing, an attorney working with Valero on the project said the company intends to send a request for an opinion from the Surface Transportation Board on the issue of federal preemption in relation to the project.

At the end of the hearing, later in April, the council will also decide if it will wait to make a decision on the appeal after the Surface Transportation Board, or STB, returns with a declarative order.

The staff has recommended for the council not to wait because the agency’s decision can be appealed in court and waiting would risk for the EIR to become stale.

Those who support the project are urging the council to wait, while the other side ask for a decision to be made at the end of the hearing.

“Too much money and time have been spent on this process,” a speaker said. “Let’s not postpone it further.”

At stake is the ability for the refinery to bring in two 50-car trains a day carrying up to 70,000 barrels of North American crude oil. The company’s oil is now being transported into the city by marine vessels and pipeline.

Those who supported the project say Valero has been a good neighbor in Benicia and that the project is needed for the company to remain competitive.

The refinery said the $50 million project would result in about 120 temporary construction jobs and 20 full-time jobs, as well as generate tax revenues for the city.

However, those who are against the project said the risks outweigh the benefits.

In fact, the project EIR states that there are 11 “significant and unavoidable” impacts, though staff and Valero have said they cannot be mitigated because they are rail related and are preempted by federal laws.

The Planning Commission, however, disagreed, and denied the project.

Public comment will resume Wednesday at 7 p.m. at City Hall, 250 E. L St., and the hearing will then continue April 18 and 19, if necessary.

Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Public Health, Public permitting, Public Safety, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Public Comments on Valero Crude by Rail April 4-5

By Roger Straw, April 5, 2016

Benicia, California

Today the City of Benicia released new letters and reports on Valero Crude by Rail received by the City on April 4-5, 2016.  The city’s PDF document is 19.4 MB and 456 pages. (The document is sometimes slow to download from the City’s website.  A copy may be downloaded more quickly here.)

The document has an index at the top, but no page numbers.  Here’s a quick guide:

    • Page 2 – Association of Irritated Residents vs. Kern County Board of Supervisors ruling
    • Page 8 – League of Conservation Voters East Bay
    • Page 9 – Benicia Chamber of Commerce
    • Page 10 – Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (summary of the lengthy letter to follow…)
    • Page 13 – Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (on Valero’s appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny the project)
      • pp. 13-48 Attorney Rachel Koss letter
      • pp. 49-315 Expert comments by Dr. Phyllis Fox (Table of Contents on pp. 50-50, Summary and Conclusions on pp. 52-54.  See her report on the BenIndy here.)
      • pp. 316-427 Expert comments by Environmental Biologist Scott Cashan (Report on pp. 316-324; bio on pp. 325-331; attachments on pp. 332-427.)
    • Page 428 – Letter from Valero alleging a misinformation campaign  [Editor’s note: look who’s talking!]
    • Page 443 – Letter from California State Senator Lois Wolk
    • Pages 432-456 – Individual letters for and against the appeal and the delay request.

When time allows I will break out additional significant and interesting pieces from this huge document and post on the Project Review page.  Stay tuned for more!

Crude By Rail, Derailment, Explosion, Insurance and liability, Public Safety, Risk Assessment, Worst case scenario

Oil Train Insurance: Washington State and the Billion Dollar Disaster

Repost from STAND

Oil Train Insurance: Washington State and the Billion Dollar Disaster

By Alex Ramel, extreme oil campaign field director, March 28, 2016
WA Dept of Ecology

Washington is now one of only two states that requires railroads to disclose whether they have sufficient insurance to cover a “reasonable worst case spill.” This is a step in the right direction. But the new rule falls far short of requiring enough insurance to cover a catastrophic oil train derailment, spill and explosion.

The new State rule requires that any major rail company operating in Washington — today, only BNSF — report whether they have sufficient financial resources or insurance to cover the costs of an oil train spill of around $700 million (smaller railroads have smaller requirements). That’s better than nothing, which is what most states have. But it’s not nearly enough.

The deadly Lac Megantic oil train disaster cost more than $1 billion (see page 98 in the federal regulations) and the cost of rebuilding is more like $2.7 billion. As terrible as the Lac Megantic disaster was, and it was a heartbreaking catastrophe, a worst case oil train disaster in Washington could be even much worse.

Washington State’s failure to require railroads to pay the full and true cost of doing business in Washington is an even greater concern if it becomes a precedent in other states. The confusing, undefined phrase “reasonable worst case” appears to have already been copied into a proposed bill in the New York State Assembly.

The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration suggested that a disaster inside a major city could cost $12.6 billion (see page 110). What could a $12 billion derailment look like? BNSF runs oil trains within 20 yards of Safeco Field in downtown Seattle during Mariners games when fans are in the stands.

Insurance monetizes risk, assigning a direct cost to risky behavior and assigning financial value to safety. What would your homeowners insurance company do if you wanted to unload oil tanker trucks in your driveway? They would raise your rates (astronomically) or cancel your policy. Railroads, which operate without requirements to carry adequate insurance, make decisions about assuming risk without an important financial feedback loop. If railroads had to be properly insured for the risk to life, property, and the environment from oil trains, there would be far fewer or zero oil trains.

Last year BNSF was fined for 14 spills and leaks and for failing to report problems along the track in Washington. The summer before that three oil tank cars tipped over in downtown Seattle. Over the last two years four BNSF oil trains have derailed and either spilled or exploded in Casselton, ND, Galena, IL, Heimdal, ND, and Culbertson, MT. Under usual circumstances a safety record like that should lead to a very awkward conversation with an insurance agent. And an already expensive, high-risk policy should get even more expensive. But BNSF doesn’t seem to carry enough insurance to cover the real cost of an oil train disaster, and they don’t seem to care.

BNSF has already intimated that they don’t think that the state should be able to require insurance, and it is likely that the company will challenge the rule. The railroad wants the cost of insurance and the calculation of possible damages kept off of their books. That means that in addition to living with the risk, the public is also asked to shoulder the cost. That’s the most unreasonable proposition yet.

Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Public Health, Public permitting, Public Safety, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

HUGE INFLUX OF REPORTS AND LETTERS OF OPPOSITION – City of Benicia website

By Roger Straw, March 31, 2016

I will be pulling individual reports and letters from the City’s latest posting.  For now, please download from the City website:

  • March 25-31, 2016 PART 1 [Here’s a quicker download.] (10MB, 250 pages, with index on page 1 for both Part I & Part II. Some pages are searchable, but not all.  Pages 2-4 are the letter from Attorney Rachel Koss on behalf of Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (SAFER).  The remainder is a letter from Senior Scientist Greg Karras from Communities for a Better Environment [and some of his attachments].)
  • March 25-31, 2016 PART 2 [Here’s a quicker download.]
    (36.6MB, 234 pages [not indexed – see page 1 in Part I].  Some pages searchable, but not all.  Pages 1 through 188 are a continuation of the CBE attachments.  Individual comments begin on page 189.