Category Archives: Valero Benicia Refinery

Crude By Rail, Emergency Readiness & Response, Lac-Mégantic, Valero Benicia Refinery

NPR: First Responders Unprepared For Another Train Disaster

Repost from National Public Radio
[Editor: I remember with horror the breaking news last July of the catastrophic derailment and explosion in Lac-Mégantic.  Here in Benicia, we were preparing for a public forum to help residents understand the environmental impacts associated with our Valero Refinery’s bid to begin shipping crude oil by rail.  Lac-Mégantic was a shock, and a wake-up call.  Ever since that day, our concerns have expanded – crude by rail brings environmental disaster, and piles on catastrophic risk for everyone along the rails from the Midwestern provinces and states to the refinery.  – RS]

First Responders Unprepared For Another Train Disaster

By David Schaper, July 6, 2014

One year after an oil train derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, some firemen and first responders say they still don’t have the training or manpower to handle a similar disaster.

Transcript

LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST:

Ever since that Canadian train derailment, first responders all across North America wonder, what if it happens here? And as NPR’s David Schaper reports from this side of the border, many say they don’t have the training, the equipment or the manpower necessary to respond to an oil train disaster in their cities and towns.

DAVID SCHAPER, BYLINE: The images of that fiery blast that incinerated much of Lac-Mégantic’s downtown last summer still haunt many first responders.

GREGG CLEVELAND: It’s one of those things that certainly keeps me up at night.

SCHAPER: La Crosse, Wisconsin, fire chief Gregg Cleveland is watching one of the dozens of freight trains that rumble through the heart of the city of about 52,000 people every day. Many of the trains are hauling crude oil, some stretching more than a mile long, tank car after tank car full of volatile Bakken crude.

CLEVELAND: I think anytime that you have the railroad with the amount of hazardous materials in Bakken crude oil, the question is not if, but when.

SCHAPER: La Crosse is a long and narrow city nestled between the Mississippi River to the west and towering sandstone bluffs to the east, which presents unique challenges. An oil train could derail in the river or in a large environmentally sensitive marshland or in bluff-side neighborhoods that would be cut off from the only escape route over the tracks. Gregg Cleveland says, his professional firefighting force has a hazmat response team, but…

CLEVELAND: We really need more people trained in response to railroad incidents. We have virtually no foam, and the equipment that we have cannot apply the large volumes of foam that we would need in a railroad emergency.

SCHAPER: Furthermore, La Crosse has the only hazmat response team in west central Wisconsin. So along hundreds of miles of railroad track, the fire chief says, it could be up to small-town volunteer departments to initially try to contain an oil train spill and fire.

CLEVELAND: They’re not going to have the resources to do that. I think that’s a pretty safe assumption.

SENATOR HEIDI HEITKAMP: If we are going to do this right, we need to have a nationwide evaluation of the readiness.

SCHAPER: That’s Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. Her state is producing most of the oil that is shipped by rail, and the amount has increased more than 6,000 percent over the last five years. She’s sponsoring a bill that would identify best practices for first responder training and equipment.

HEITKAMP: And then we need to figure out how do we get the resources to the local firefighters, how we get the training to the local firefighters and how do we institutionalize this because crude oil is not going to go off the trains anytime in the future.

SCHAPER: Heitkamp is also pushing for extra funding for first responder training, which the railroad industry is also stepping up to provide.

HEITKAMP: And it’s our goal with the training that those first responders have as realistic an experience as possible.

SCHAPER: Lisa Stabler is president of the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado, which is part of the American Association of Railroads. Under an agreement with the federal Department of Transportation, the center is providing enhanced crude by rail disaster training for firefighters from around the country, free of charge. Stabler says the program will include hands-on training with real derailed tank cars going up in flames.

LISA STABLER: And that allows them to learn and, if necessary, to make mistakes in a very safe environment so that they don’t mistake make mistakes when they’re out trying to take care of an incident with the public.

SCHAPER: Back in La Crosse, Wisconsin, fire chief Greg Cleveland applauds the increased training efforts. But he wonders why this didn’t happen sooner, given that dozens of trains carrying explosive crude already roll through his city every week.

CLEVELAND: Quite honestly, we’re playing catch up very quickly here.

SCHAPER: And Cleveland notes that costly training and equipment needs will be with his community, just like the oil trains, for quite some time to come.

David Schaper, NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, Crude By Rail, Valero Benicia Refinery

FOX40 News: Valero Tries to Sway Public Opinion at Crude by Rail Meeting

Repost from FOX40 News, Sacramento / Stockton / Modesto
[Editor: Video coverage of Valero’s meeting, including background footage of crude by rail explosions and an interview with Andrés Soto, spokesperson for Benicians For a Safe & Healthy Community.  – RS]

Valero Tries to Sway Public Opinion at Crude by Rail Meeting

By Doug Johnson, 6/30/14


BENICIA – Valero Energy is building its case to transport highly flammable crude oil through northern California, and held a public meeting Monday night in Benicia.

Critics of the plan are worried about the worst-case scenario of a derailment and potential explosion, much like incidents in North Daktoa, Virginia and a deadly disaster in Quebec in 2013.

More than a hundred people came to Monday’s meeting. Valero says the benefits outweigh the risks, but others aren’t sure.

“We believe that there’s sufficient flaws with this draft instrument impact report,” Andres Soto, with Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, said.

Valero’s plan is to transport crude oil through Roseville, Sacramento and Davis to its refinery in Benicia. Soto says Valero isn’t saying how ready first responders would be if a derailment were to happen.

“There’s no real response to the question about the insufficient  capacity of the Benicia Fire Department,” Soto said.

The energy company argues that its own, private fire department will train other departments in cities the trains pass through.

Valero said only four trains a day would pass through Benicia, 20 new, local jobs would be created and there’s an environmental benefit to using trains.

“Having crude delivered by rail versus marine deliveries today will result in lower emissions in the Bay Area and California,” Valero’s Benicia Refinery Safety Director Chris Howe said.

The company also wants rail inspections increased and speeds through populated areas to be lowered.

Soto says that’s not enough.

“Their window looked at a 40 year period when this stuff has only been on the rail for the past two years,” he said.

The City of Benicia will hold a vote once a 45-day public comment  period is up on Aug. 1.

Benicia City Council, Benicia Community Sustainability Commission, Valero Benicia Refinery

Valero slurps up grant money that was recommended for smaller non-profits; City Council approves

From Benicia Independent reader Judi Sullivan of Benicia
[Editor: Note that the City Council was definitely NOT unanimous in its approval of the money grab by Valero.  Councilmember Schwartzman proposed the deal.  He, along with Councilmembers Hughes and Strawbridge voted in favor; Mayor Patterson and Councilmember Campbell opposed.  – RS]

Letter to the Editor

By Judi Sullivan, 6/27/14

It’s important for us, as citizens, to be aware of what our city staff and council members are doing, as they are the rule makers for our town.  After attending last week’s June 17th   City Council Meeting, I became concerned with how the annual grant proposals introduced by the Community Sustainability Commission were addressed by this governing body.

The Agenda for the evening was to go over the grant proposals that had been submitted to the CSC which then made recommendations for granting seven of the 13 proposals.  They presented the Council with three well-delineated tiers of charted options, noting the ones they felt most qualified to be awarded with the monies available, although stated all that were submitted had their merits.

Financial backing for these yearly distributed grants comes from a large legal settlement made between The Good Neighbor Steering Committee, a small group of volunteers from the Benicia citizenry, and the Valero Refinery.  It was amended in 2010 to include the City of Benicia as a third party in the settlement agreement.   Members from the GNSC initiated the CSC, which is currently an advisory committee to the City Council and as such, was the overseer of the grant funding process.

The CSC’s vision for the purpose of these grants was to create a ripple effect throughout the community by promoting programs that offer alternatives in how to be more individually and community-wise sustainable in line with The City of Benicia’s Climate Action Plan.  Special emphasis was placed on proposals dealing with reducing water/energy/green house gases.  This included projects that would educate the public on these issues. The groups chosen for funding by CSC were typically grassroots non profits and small businesses that met the above criteria, giving top priority to those seeking funding who did not have an adequate source of financial assistance available to bring their worthy proposals to fruition.

One grant stood out from the rest.  It was from Valero.  Their proposal asked for around $857,000 to install a water-reducing boiler unit.  To accept this proposal would have taken the entire amount of money set aside for grants this year.   Although Valero has the right to apply for a grant, one might ponder why Valero, the 4th largest oil company in the US, would be in competition with small grassroots non-profits and smaller businesses for one of these grants?  Especially considering that the monies available for these grants comes from the settlement with Valero.  Apparently, as part of the settlement agreement, they have a right to compete with the other grants presented, yet they are not to be given special privilege for receiving one.   As it turned out, most of the council session was focused on issues surrounding their request, in lieu of most of the other grants, which got little or no floor time.

If Valero’s boiler unit is built, it would cause a major reduction in water usage for the refinery.  That easily fits the water reduction aspect of the grant criteria.  Since the refinery uses fifty percent of our city’s raw water supply, and our city received no water allotment from the state this year, there is a pressing need for all of us to reduce requirements for our city’s water.  For the first time in our history, we are relying upon stored water.

The issue concerning offering Valero a city-funded grant to install a new boiler stems from the fact that Valero has ample funds to complete this desired project on their own.   It has been revealed that making this change to their facility would pay for itself in a year’s time with a million dollar water cost savings to the refinery.  When one contemplates the short and long term benefits to Valero, and consequently, to our city, one is led to wonder why the decision to make this change didn’t happen long before now as part of a cost effective business plan?

As a city, do we want to set a precedent for having our grant funds disproportionately doled out to highly profitable corporations who don’t need our financial assistance to make the needed difference in lieu of giving attention to our other grant proposals which are deemed valuable but are unable to operate without grant approval? Are we missing the point of providing these grants?  Are we dishonoring the intrinsic value of the other grants because they can’t possibly compete with what a large corporation can do?  Is it really necessary to make a “deal” with Valero in order to get our other programs funded?

The proposed “deal” brokered by Councilman Schwartzman with Valero General Manager, John Hill during the session was certainly handled in an unorthodox manner.  Since this situation was written up in the June 19th edition of the “Benicia Herald” about the City Council Meeting, details of that discussion won’t be repeated here, although it might be fair to say it would appear that this “deal” may have been discussed privately by those promoting it prior to the meeting without the full knowledge of others who would normally be part of such negotiations.  One of those excluded parties was GNSC, who was not informed of this plan, nor was their perspective welcomed.   This was highly irregular since they are the originators of the settlement agreement that has provided the funds being debated.  They are still involved, by law, with carrying out all aspects of the settlement along with the city and Valero.

Supposedly, the delayed decisions on approval of grants will be taken up once again at the next City Council Meeting in July.  If you have a vested interest in grants up for approval this year, you might want to pay closer attention to what is happening.

As we know, The City Council has the power of the vote, but we as citizens have the right to voice our opinions on such matters.

Judi Sullivan

California Regulation, Crude By Rail, Emergency Readiness & Response, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Rail accidents, Valero Benicia Refinery

Sacramento Bee editorial: First steps on oil train safety, but more to do

Repost from The Sacramento Bee
[Editor: The Bee’s editorial board hit the nail on the head, but not hard enough.  Which is to say, the editors have joined with the chorus of legislators who want a good patch job for train wrecks that they presume are unstoppable.  Oil train safety would be best guaranteed by pressing the federal government to ban oil trains.  Allowing these “bomb trains” to rumble through our communities approaches criminal recklessness, and should be stopped.  Big business does not – or at least should not – dictate the direction we take as a nation.  – RS]

Editorial: First steps on oil train safety, but more to do

By the Editorial Board   |  Jun. 19, 2014
G092G6L04.3Staff Photographer
Assemblyman Roger Dickinson of Sacramento announced legislation in April to require more disclosure to emergency officials of oil shipments by rail. Randall Benton

These are not all the steps that are needed, but it’s good to see the Legislature trying to get ahead of a potential (oil) train wreck.  As part of the budget they approved Sunday, legislators added seven rail safety inspectors. They also included a 6.5-cent fee proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown on each barrel of crude oil that comes to California by rail. The $11 million or so raised annually will be used to prevent and clean up oil spills, especially in inland waterways.

On Monday, the state Senate passed a resolution urging the federal government to pass laws and rules to protect communities from oil train accidents, including tougher standards on tank cars, and to put “safety over cost effectiveness.” That sends an important message because so far, federal officials have not required enough of railroads and oil companies – either in safety measures or public disclosure – to keep pace with a rapid increase in rail shipments of oil extracted through hydraulic fracturing, especially in Canada and North Dakota.

But there’s more that California officials can do.

Sens. Jerry Hill of San Mateo and Lois Wolk of Davis have a bill for a second as-yet unspecified shipping fee on oil companies to fund training and equipment for firefighters and other first responders. A recent state report found that 40 percent of local firefighters are volunteers who generally don’t have the resources to handle major hazardous material spills.

First responders often don’t have all the information they need, either, as reporting by The Sacramento Bee has made clear. Assemblyman Roger Dickinson of Sacramento is pushing a bill to require companies to tell emergency officials about crude oil shipments. The latest version does away with an exemption from the state public records law; instead it says reports would be deemed “proprietary information” that could only be shared with “government personnel with emergency response, planning or security-related responsibilities on a need-to-know basis.”

Time is of the essence since oil trains could be running through the Sacramento region later this year. Valero Refining Co. is seeking approval to route two 50-car oil trains a day through Roseville, Sacramento, West Sacramento and Davis to its refinery in Benicia.

An environmental impact report released Tuesday offers some reassurances but no guarantees. The draft report concludes that while a crash or spill could be catastrophic, the likelihood of an incident is “very low.” The probability of a spill of 100 gallons or more along the 69 miles between Roseville and Benicia is calculated at once every 111 years.

Yet, it has happened elsewhere – six major oil train crashes in North America just in the last year, including the horrific fireball in Quebec that killed 47 residents.

More than 135,000 people in Sacramento and 25,000 in Davis live within a half-mile of rail tracks, the Natural Resources Defense Council reported Wednesday. They’re counting on legislators to do all they can to make sure oil trains pass safely through our cities.