Benicia nixes Valero’s plan to run crude oil trains through Sacramento, Davis and Roseville
By Tony Bizjak, September 20, 2016 10:25PM
A train carrying 98 tankers of crude oil passes through midtown Sacramento. Jake Miille
The Benicia City Council on Tuesday unanimously rejected a controversial plan by the Valero Refining Co. to ship crude oil trains through Sacramento and other Northern California cities to its bayside refinery.
The 5-0 vote, taken after four years of bitter debate, represents a victory for environmentalists and offers relief to Sacramento-area leaders who said the oil trains would put local residents and habitat at risk of a catastrophic oil spill and fire.
The Valero proposal, if approved, would have sent up to two 50-car crude oil trains rolling daily through Roseville, downtown Sacramento, Davis and other rail cities, as well as along mountainsides in the Feather River Canyon.
“I’m over the moon,” Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor said Tuesday night. “The community of Benicia, in the crosshairs of history, made one of those decisions that will make a difference for the country. They stood up and said the safety of our communities matters.”
Sacramento County Supervisor Phil Serna said he believed letters and legal briefs from local leaders, as well as lobbying by Sacramento-area activists, played a role in persuading the Benicia council to say no to that city’s biggest employer. “I’m very pleased,” he said.
A coalition of environmental groups, including Benicia-area residents, Stand.earth, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, issued a statement Tuesday night calling the decision “a victory for the right of communities to say no to refineries’ dangerous oil train projects.”
Valero officials expressed disappointment with the decision. The company had previously said it likely would challenge an adverse decision in court, but it did not indicate Tuesday what its next steps will be.
“After nearly four years of review and analysis by independent experts and the city, we are disappointed that the city council members have chosen to reject the crude by rail project,” company spokesman Chris Howe wrote. “At this time we are considering our options moving forward.”
Increased oil train shipments in the United States and Canada in the last five years have led to a serious of crashes and explosions, including one that killed 47 people in a small Canadian town three years ago. Federal officials have issued new safety regulations, but officials in many rail cities have said the government has not gone far enough to ensure safer shipments.
A Benicia environmental impact report last year concluded that the trains would pose significant health and safety risks along the rail line, but also concluded that a harmful spill would be a rare event.
Benicia City Council member Christina Strawbridge said she made up her mind this summer after a Union Pacific crude oil train derailed in Mosier, Ore., causing an explosion and fire that forced evacuations in the area. She called that “a game changer for me” because the rail company involved was UP, the company that Valero would use, and the rail cars that punctured were newer, supposedly safer models.
“The railroad industry has not kept up with safety standards,” Strawbridge said.
Councilman Mark Hughes commended Valero for its safety record, but added: “That said, bad things do happen. At this point, there is too much uncertainty (for) me.”
The Valero refinery currently receives its oil via marine shipments and pipeline. The oil company applied in 2012 for a permit to build a rail transfer station on its refinery grounds to allow it to receive oil via train. Officials said it would help the refinery remain competitive in a changing oil industry.
The Benicia planning commission denied Valero’s request earlier this year, citing safety issues for up-rail cities, as well as concerns about negative impacts to a creek in Benicia and to the city’s nearby industrial park. The denial also included concern about the possibility of an explosion at the refinery.
Valero appealed that decision to the City Council. It also asked the federal Surface Transportation Board to issue a ruling saying that Benicia does not have the right to deny Valero’s request to build a rail transfer station. The oil company argued that federal interstate commerce regulations preempt cities from saying yes or no on rail-related projects.
In a statement issued Tuesday, the Surface Transportation Board denied Valero’s request, pointing out that Valero is not a railroad company, so it could not claim federal pre-emption protection for its transfer station project. The board issued further “guidance,” however, warning that cities cannot unreasonably interfere with rail transportation.
Several city council members said they were waiting for the transportation board’s comments before deciding on Valero’s request. The council instructed city staff to come back with a list of findings to support their denial. Several council members cautioned that those findings should focus on safety concerns at the Benicia site rather than risks to rail cities, saying that locally focused findings would be easier to defend in court if Valero sues the city.
A similar hearing is set for Thursday in San Luis Obispo County, where Phillips 66 is proposing a rail transfer station at its refinery that will allow it to ship crude oil via train, some of it likely through Sacramento and other northern California cities.
We did it! Opponents of Valero’s oil train proposal gathered in City Hall on the night of Benicia’s historic vote to STOP crude by rail. September 20, 2016. Photo by Emily Jovais
Surprise unanimous vote – no to oil trains
Valero’s dirty and dangerous proposal to bring in Bakken and Tar Sands crude oil on trains from North Dakota and Canada is dead.
Opponents of the proposal worried and wondered for months whether a 3rd swing vote could be found on Benicia’s 5-member City Council. On Tuesday night, the wondering came to a sudden fairy tale conclusion: a unanimous vote to deny the land use permit and stop the project dead in its “tracks.”
Benicia City Council, September 20, 2016. Photo by Constance Beutel.
Benicia’s City Council vote follows a February unanimous vote of its Planning Commission vote to deny the project. Valero appealed the February decision to the Council, then received a six month delay to request backing from the federal Department of Transportation’s Surface Transportation Board (STB).
On Tuesday night, following a motion to deny by Council member Tom Campbell and seconded by Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, Council members Christina Strawbridge, Alan Schwartzman and Mark Hughes all expressed mounting concerns about on-site health, safety and environmental concerns. City staff was directed to revise it’s resolution to deny the project, and to return for a final vote on October 4. [NOTE: A revised version of the resolution was presented at yesterday’s Council meeting, taking into account yesterday’s STB decision. The revised version is not yet available in digital format on the City’s website.]
Which brings us to the OTHER SURPRISING, BREAKING NEWS:
Earlier on Tuesday, the Surface Transportation Board issued a statementdenying Valero’s petition for a declaratory order. On May 31, Valero submitted a petition asking the STB to rule that the Benicia Planning Commission’s unanimous February 11 decision denying Valero’s oil train proposal is preempted by federal law. Yesterday, the STB denied Valero’s petition for declaratory order.
“The Board finds here that there is no preemption because the Planning Commission’s decision does not attempt to regulate transportation by a “rail carrier.” The Board’s jurisdiction extends to rail-related activities that take place at transloading (or, as here, off-loading) facilities if the activities are performed by a rail carrier, the rail carrier holds out its own service through a third party that acts as the rail carrier’s agent, or the rail carrier exerts control over the third party’s operations.8 The record presented to the Board in this case, however, does not demonstrate that Valero is a rail carrier or that it is performing transportation-related activities on behalf of UP or any other rail carrier at its off-loading facility.”
Citing arguably similar case law, the STB repeatedly points out that Valero is not a “rail carrier” and that Valero would not be “performing offloading under the auspices of a rail carrier.”
Further, the STB rules that “Valero has not demonstrated that the Planning Commission’s decisions unreasonably interfere with UP’s common carrier operations.” Under federal law, “accordingly, this situation…does not reflect undue interference with ‘transportation by rail carriers’ within the Board’s jurisdiction.”
The STB ruling also provided guidance on the issue of preemption as it applies to any mitigations and conditions of approval that directly impact rail operations. The ruling strongly restated federal preemptory powers on any mitigation measures or conditions of approval that would “regulate Union Pacific’s rail operations on its lines.” But it went on to say, “State and local regulation is permissible where it does not unreasonably interfere with rail transportation….Localities retain their reserved police powers to protect the public health and safety so long as their actions do not discriminate against rail carriers or unreasonably burden interstate commerce. For example, local electrical, plumbing, and fire codes are generally applicable.”
The STB’s guidance continues, “State and local action, however, must not have the effect of foreclosing or unduly restricting the rail carrier’s ability to conduct its operations or otherwise unreasonably burden interstate commerce.” And finally, “If the offloading facility were eventually to be constructed but the EIR or the land use permit, or both, included mitigation conditions unreasonably interfering with UP’s future operations to the facility, any attempt to enforce such mitigation measures would be preempted…”
The exact definition or meaning of “foreclosing or unduly restricting” and “unreasonably interfering with” was not spelled out in yesterday’s STB ruling.
On Tuesday, September 20, the US Department of Transportation’s Surface Transportation Board (STB) issued a statementdenying a Valero Benicia Refinery petition for a declaratory order. Valero’s petition asked the STB to rule that the Benicia Planning Commission’s unanimous February 11 decision denying Valero’s oil train proposal is preempted by federal law protecting the authority of rail carriers. Yesterday the STB denied Valero’s petition in no uncertain terms.
“The Board finds here that there is no preemption because the Planning Commission’s decision does not attempt to regulate transportation by a “rail carrier.” The Board’s jurisdiction extends to rail-related activities that take place at transloading (or, as here, off-loading) facilities if the activities are performed by a rail carrier, the rail carrier holds out its own service through a third party that acts as the rail carrier’s agent, or the rail carrier exerts control over the third party’s operations.8 The record presented to the Board in this case, however, does not demonstrate that Valero is a rail carrier or that it is performing transportation-related activities on behalf of UP or any other rail carrier at its off-loading facility.”
Citing arguably similar case law, the STB repeatedly points out that Valero is not a “rail carrier” and that Valero would not be “performing offloading under the auspices of a rail carrier.”
Further, the STB rules that “Valero has not demonstrated that the Planning Commission’s decisions unreasonably interfere with UP’s common carrier operations.” Under federal law, “accordingly, this situation…does not reflect undue interference with ‘transportation by rail carriers’ within the Board’s jurisdiction.”
The STB ruling also provided guidance on the issue of preemption as it applies to any mitigations and conditions of approval that directly impact rail operations. The ruling strongly restated federal preemptory powers on any mitigation measures or conditions of approval that would “regulate Union Pacific’s rail operations on its lines.” But it went on to say, “State and local regulation is permissible where it does not unreasonably interfere with rail transportation….Localities retain their reserved police powers to protect the public health and safety so long as their actions do not discriminate against rail carriers or unreasonably burden interstate commerce. For example, local electrical, plumbing, and fire codes are generally applicable.”
The STB’s guidance continues, “State and local action, however, must not have the effect of foreclosing or unduly restricting the rail carrier’s ability to conduct its operations or otherwise unreasonably burden interstate commerce.” And finally, “If the offloading facility were eventually to be constructed but the EIR or the land use permit, or both, included mitigation conditions unreasonably interfering with UP’s future operations to the facility, any attempt to enforce such mitigation measures would be preempted…”
The exact definition or meaning of “foreclosing or unduly restricting” and “unreasonably interfering with” was not spelled out in yesterday’s STB ruling.
Article 1: An Overview of the Crude-by-Rail project
(Click for a PDF version.)
Preface:
According to the proposed Valero crude-by-rail project, 100 rail cars a day of Bakken crude oil will be delivered to the Benicia Valero refinery every day, 365 days a year. As each rail car of Bakken crude oil has been shown to have the explosive power of two million sticks of dynamite,1 we believe that citizens of Benicia should be aware of and understand the risks associated with the project as only one crude by rail accident in Benicia, or elsewhere associated with this project, will negatively impact Benicia, forever.
Public Information As the proposed Valero crude-by-rail project, if implemented, will touch and impact many lives here in Benicia and beyond, we have decided to write a series of articles as public information to help the public understand the risks associated with the current engineering design of the Bakken crude by rail oil offloading facility and storage. This first article is a general overview of the Valero crude by rail project covering general risks and design concerns that will be viewed in more depth in later articles.2
Key Points Due to Bakken crude being a more volatile compound than regular crude oil, the transportation and storage of Bakken crude has special logistical considerations and should be treated differently than regular crude. The Bakken rail cars will be positioned within a few feet of local businesses. Local businesses and public areas are located within the blast zone of the rail cars. Millions of gallons of Bakken crude will be stored in existing tanks, which are spaced very close together and are located within a few hundred feet of Benicia residents, and in relatively close proximity to Robert Semple Elementary School.
Bakken crude oil is about as explosive as gasoline
Bakken crude oil (Bakken crude) comes from the Bakken formation, which is one of the largest contiguous deposits of oil and natural gas in the United States. The Bakken formation is an interbedded sequence of black shale, siltstone and sandstone that underlies large areas of northwestern North Dakota, northeastern Montana, southern Saskatchewan and southwestern Manitoba.3 Due to this rock structure, Bakken contains a considerable amount of volatile gases, which make Bakken crude about as flammable and explosive as gasoline.4 This simply means that unlike regular crude oil, for safety Bakken should be transported and stored in manner similar to other highly flammable liquids such as gasoline.
Fig. 1 Overview of the proposed crude-by-rail offloading and storage locations (Click to enlarge)
An aerial view of the proposed Valero crude by rail project
Figure 1 illustrates an overview of the proposed crude-by-rail offloading and storage locations.5 As is illustrated in figure 1, the proposed offloading location of the rail cars containing the Bakken crude would be located adjacent to the Valero property line parallel to East Channel road. The Valero refinery property line is separated from East Channel road by Sulfur Springs Creek, which is a small creek. Sulfur Springs Creek is not a buffer zone but is rather a wildlife habitat that is accessible to the public and is used by people for recreational and educational purposes.
As illustrated in the upper right corner of figure 1, when the rail cars arrive, they would be positioned in a line parallel to East Channel road in a location a few feet adjacent to the Valero property fence line, and positioned within a few feet of Sulfur Springs Creek, East Channel road, and existing parking lots and their associated businesses that front East Channel road.
As also illustrated in figure 1, the offloaded Bakken crude would be piped to existing crude storage tank farm located as shown in the lower right corner of figure 1. The tank farm contains crude storage tanks that appear to be between 100 and 220 feet across, and are capable of storing several millions of gallons of Bakken crude. As shown, the proposed Bakken crude tank farm is located within a few hundred feet from Benicia homes.
Moreover, a review of figure 1 shows that there is a buffer zone of undeveloped land (shown as light green lines for color and light gray for black and white) on the west and south sides of the refinery (except for the tank farm on the south-east corner). The proposed locations for the volatile Bakken crude to be shipped, offloaded, stored, and processed on the site are located on the sides of Valero refinery with the least buffer distance to adjacent non-Valero businesses, on the north side (along the East Channel road) and the south-east tank farm extension. Because of this, the design seems to be a step backwards in terms of land use planning, at the expense of the safety of Benicia citizens and local business.
The Bakken crude offloading facility proposal positions rail cars very close to other onsite explosive fuel sources and offsite local businesses
Figures 2A-C, illustrate the location and general design of the proposed Bakken crude offloading facility. Figure 2A shows an aerial view of Valero’s proposed Bakken crude offloading facility,6 figure 2B shows the plan view of the proposed facility, and figure 2C shows an aerial view of the proposed facility and its proximity to Benicia businesses, such as Conco, Praxair, Insight glass, and other businesses. As illustrated in figures 2A-2C, the rail cars delivering the Bakken crude would be positioned within about 200 feet of these and other local businesses that front East Channel road.
Figure 2A, An aerial view of Valero’s proposed Bakken crude offloading facility (click to enlarge)Figure 2B, the plan view of the proposed facilityFigure 2C, an aerial view of the proposed facility and its proximity to Benicia businesses, such as Conco, Praxair, Insight glass, and other businesses
The distance between the local business and the rail cars is critically close considering the potential power of a Bakken crude rail car explosion
Each rail car being used to deliver Bakken crude is designed to hold about 34,000 gallons of crude oil.7 Due to their shape and construction, rail cars can explode in pretty much any direction, so it is good to look at the case where the car explodes like a bomb, radially. Figure 3 shows a mapping of radiant heat from a rail car explosion.8 Each dotted circle represents the thermal energy that would be produced from an explosion of just one of the rail cars holding Bakken crude.
Figure 3, a mapping of radiant heat from a rail car explosion, showing Sulfur Springs Creek, East Channel road, and nearby businesses. (click to enlarge) fronting East Channel road are within the blast radiuses
Figure 3 also shows that Sulfur Springs Creek, East Channel road, and businesses fronting East Channel road are within the blast radiuses (blast zones), which could lead to serious injury or death for people located in and around those businesses, adults and children enjoying Sulfur Springs Creek, and people traveling along East Channel road adjacent to the rail cars. For example, expert Phyllis Fox states in her report to the city of Benicia, that “….based on this analysis, individuals along East Channel Road and Industrial Way within the thermal radiation 5 and 10 kW/m2 circles would suffer serious injuries and fatalities….”9
In addition, because of the close proximity, the adjacent onsite storage tanks, rail cars, and other facilities are within the blast zones. For example, figures 2A-C and 3 show that crude storage tanks 1739, 1720, 1716, 1718, and 1719 are within the blast zones. Because of the close proximity between the rail cars and the tanks, a blast from a rail car filled with Bakken crude would likely damage and/or ignite the fuel in at least one of those tanks which could lead to catastrophic chain reaction onsite explosions which would likely extend outside the Valero property line.
The current proposed design does not consider vulnerability to external attacks
Unfortunately, due to today’s terrorist activities, terrorism and acts by individuals on society must be considered when designing a project that if attacked could lead to significant injury or death of citizens. Here, as illustrated in figures 2A-2C, the location of the proposed facility and position of offloading rail cars is directly adjacent to a public street, East Channel road. As such, due to the relatively fragile construction of the rail cars and their explosive power when loaded with Bakken crude, the rail cars are vulnerable and easy targets to attack from persons positioned outside the refinery. For example, it would be easy for a person to position himself or herself on East Channel road and fire a weapon at one or more of the rail cars. Please note that a consequence of this added vulnerability would likely include countermeasures to restrict access to areas adjacent to the offloading facility thereby eroding civil liberties of Benicia businesses and residents to access public and private areas of the city.
Figure 4, a closer aerial view of the Bakken crude storage tanks. (click to enlarge)
Due to the change from regular crude to Bakken crude, the Bakken Storage tanks are spaced very close together and too close to the public for public safety:
Figure 4 provides a closer aerial view of the Bakken crude storage tanks. The storage tanks range from about 100 feet to about 220 feet in diameter and are spaced about 200 feet apart. These tanks were originally designed and spaced to hold regular crude oil. Due to the change in oil from regular crude oil to much more volatile Bakken crude, these storage tanks do not seem to be spaced far enough apart to mitigate the effects of a Bakken crude explosion. For example, according to a report from “World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology” to mitigate the effects of an explosion the safe recommended distance between tanks holding gasoline is between 181 meters to 904 meters (594 feet to 2,966 feet).10
Further, one of the accident scenarios mentioned in the environmental impact report (EIR), a thermal tear, could result in injuries and fatalities at the nearest residence at Lansing Circle, approximately 2,000 feet northwest of the northern end of the Project site. An accident at Tanks S-1701 to S-1708, which would store the imported crude oil, could additionally result in injuries and fatalities in the Hillcrest neighborhood, about 1,000 feet from the nearest residence on Hillcrest Avenue.11 These accident scenarios should be considered.
What to do now:
If you are concerned about Valero’s crude-by-rail project, please contact the Benicia city council members to voice your concern. The contact information for the city of Benicia city council may be found at http://www.ci.benicia.ca.us.
Footnotes:
1 Bomb trains – the scariest threat you didn’t know about (retrieved 9/17/16 from http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2016/Bomb-Trains/) 2 Most of the information for this article may be found at http://www.ci.benicia.ca.us/index.asp?SEC=B7EDC93A-FFF0-4A14-9B1A-1C8563BC256A. 3 Bakken formation: News, Map, videos and information sources (retrieved 9/17/2016 from http://geology.com/articles/bakken-formation.shtml) 4 Why Bakken Oil Explodes. (retrieved 9/17/16 from http://www.sightline.org/2014/01/21/whybakken-oil-explodes) “The PHMSA findings were corroborated by the industry-oriented Bakken Shale blog, calling it “flammable like gasoline.” The “flash point”—the lowest temperature at which ignition can occur—is lower for Bakken oil than for lower grade crude oils, which means that Bakken crude is particularly flammable. The post also warns that when flammable gases are dissolved in oil, the oil should be “degasified” before transportation.” 5 Nov. 2013 Valero Ap., Figure 2-2 6 Valero crude by rail project plans (retrieved 9/17/16 from http://www.ci.benicia.ca.us/vertical/sites/%7BF991A639-AAED-4E1A-9735-86EA195E2C8D%7D/uploads/Project_Plans_ONLINE_VERSION.pdf) 7 DOT-111 tank car (retrieved 9/17/16 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOT-111_tank_car) 8 Figure 7A. Comments on Valero’s Appeal of Planning Commission’s Denial of Valero Crude-by-Rail Project by Dr. Phyllis Fox, Ph.D., PE, April 4, 2016. 9 Comments on Valero’s Appeal of Planning Commission’s Denial of Valero Crude-by-Rail Project by Dr. Phyllis Fox, Ph.D., PE, April 4, 2016. Page 31. 10 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Chemical, Molecular, Nuclear, Materials and Metallurgical Engineering Vol:8, No:2, 2014 11 Comments on Valero’s Appeal of Planning Commission’s Denial of Valero Crude-by-Rail Project by Dr. Phyllis Fox, Ph.D., PE, April 4, 2016. Page 27.
You must be logged in to post a comment.