Yolo supervisors challenge Benicia on crude oil train plans
By Tony Bizjak, Jul. 15, 2014
Steve Helber / The Associated Press | Several CSX tanker cars carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire along the James River near downtown Lynchburg, Va., in May. Emergency officials are pressing railroads for more information on oil train schedules and routes so they can be prepared.
ad more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/15/6558895/yolo-supervisors-challenge-benicia.html#storylink=cp
In a letter to be sent this week, Yolo County officials accuse the city of Benicia of failing to adequately review the potential for oil spills and fires resulting from a plan by the Valero Refining Co. to run two daily trains carrying crude oil through the Sacramento region to its Bay Area refinery.
A recently published environmental report by Benicia concludes the project will not cause any significant negative impact to cities and habitat up the rail line. That finding was based on an Illinois professor’s analysis saying a train incident causing an oil spill might happen only once every 111 years between Roseville and Benicia.
The Yolo letter, approved Tuesday by the Board of Supervisors, calls that analysis inaccurate and irrelevant because it doesn’t explore the potential magnitude of oil spills. A crude oil train crash and explosion last year in Lac Mégantic, Canada, killed 47 people and leveled several blocks of downtown.
“A catastrophic explosion and spill in a populated area is different from a 100-gallon spill in a shipyard that is quickly cleaned up,” the Yolo letter states. “Without considering the second half of the risk analysis, the (report) cannot conclude that the risk of a spill is insignificant.”
The Yolo board was split, 3-2, on sending the letter. Yolo Supervisor Matt Rexroad opposed the letter, saying he believes the risk of a spill is small and the county should focus its time on issues where it will have more impact. “There is only so much we can have an impact on,” he said. “You allocate resources (based on) how big you think risks are. I don’t know this one is worth fighting.”
Board Chairman Don Saylor took the opposite tack, saying the issue presents clear safety concerns for communities, businesses and people alongside the railways. “The fact is that a single spill or fire in Yolo County in areas such as downtown Davis, the campus of UC Davis or the many other communities in our region could result in significant property damage and injuries,” Saylor wrote in an email to The Sacramento Bee.
Other local cities and counties are expected to issue comments challenging the Benicia rail plan environmental analysis, which was published last month. Benicia officials have set a Sept. 15 deadline for receiving reactions. If its plans are approved, Valero officials have said they plan to begin train shipments early next year. The transports are among the first of what California officials say is an expected boom in crude-by-rail shipments through the state, prompted by the lower cost of North Dakota and Canadian crude.
Benicians win first victory in opposition to crude-by-rail ‘bomb trains’
KPFA Weekend News, 07.12.2014
On Thursday, Citizens of Benicia, California won a 45-day extension of the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report regarding Valero’s plan for bringing tar sands and shale oil to its Benicia Refinery. Activists opposing the shipments began calling them “bomb trains” after explosions around the U.S. and in Canada.
KPFA/Ann Garrison: Andrés Soto, could you tell us what happened at the Benicia Planning Commission meeting on Thursday evening?
Andrés Soto: Yeah, two things occurred. One was that the local group Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community held a rally that was designed to commemorate the 47 people who lost their lives at Lac Mégantic a year ago. It was part of a national campaign along with Forest Ethics, as well as a rally before going into the meeting.
KPFA: Regarding Lac Mégantic, that’s the community in Quebec where 47 people died after a crude by rail car blew up?
Soto: Crude by rail train.
KPFA: Train.Soto: A crude-by-trail train derailed, and a number of cars exploded, and the town burned for four days, and 47 people were essentially incinerated. Some of their bodies were never found.
KPFA: OK, what happened when you got into the Planning Commission meeting, in Benicia.Soto: Once in the meeting, the Planning Commission had to deal with a couple of ideas. One was whether or not to extend the public comment period from the 45 days it is now to 90 days, and that occurred on a 4 to 2 vote, so the public was allowed to have a longer public comment period.
Before the Benicia Planning Commission meeting on July 10, Benicia residents commemorated the 47 lives just over a year ago, when a crude-by-rail train derailed and cars carrying Bakken shale oil exploded in Lac Mégantic, Quebec.And the other action was, they started to take comment from the public on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on Valero’s crude-by-rail project. They only were able to listen to about five or six people by the time they got around to that at 11:30 pm, so the meeting is going to be continued, and the public will be allowed to give more testimony at their next meeting in August. The crowd was overwhelmingly anti crude-by-rail. The Valero forces were able to turn out a few folks, mostly from the building trades unions, but the bulk of the people who were there were opposed to it. There was also an opportunity for people who live uprail, in Roseville and Davis and Vacaville and places like that. They allowed those folks to actually offer their commentary first, before the Benicia residents, because they had come from such a long way.
So we think we’re in a good place right now and looking forward to the next meeting.
KPFA: If you’re opposing crude by rail, then you’re basically opposing the transport of shale oil and tar sands oil from the middle of the country, right?
Soto: Correct. Valero and Union Pacific have teamed up to begin to try to deliver Bakken crude and tar sands crude, Bakken crude from North Dakota, and tar sands crude from Alberta, Canada by rail down here since there is no Keystone pipeline to the West Coast. And in the city of Benicia, Valero wants to shift from getting all of its oil delivered by ships, at their port, and converting to getting it all by rail. And we believe this puts the CIty of Benicia and the surrounding communities and theSuisun Marshat an unnecessary risk. And our position is that they ought to leave that stuff in the ground, that just because they can get it out doesn’t mean we want it.What we support is a just transition from a fossil fuel based economy to one based on the expansion of renewable energies.
KPFA: And that was Andrés Soto, Benicia resident and organizer with Communities for a Better Environment.In Berkeley, for Pacifica, KPFA Radio, I’m Ann Garrison.
Comment period on crude-by-rail extended to 90 days
July 11, 2014, by Donna Beth Weilenman
OPPONENTS of Valero’s Crude-by-Rail Project rallied in front of City Hall on Thursday, holding sunflowers to honor the residents of Lac-Megantic, Quebec, Canada, who died in a fiery train accident in 2013. | Donna Beth Weilenman/Staff
Benicia Planning Commission decided Thursday to double the amount of time the public will be able to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Valero Crude-by-Rail Project, to 90 from 45 days.
And rather than keep Thursday’s meeting going until those who filled City Hall had a chance to speak, the panel also extended its public hearing on the report to its next regular meeting, Aug. 14.
About 300 attended the meeting, filling the City Council Chamber, the commission room, a conference room and the City Hall courtyard. Some attended a rally in front of City Hall beforehand, many hoisting placards that called for an end to crude oil deliveries by rail.
Of these, 74 carried and waved sunflowers in memory of those who were killed one year ago in the fiery derailment of a runaway train that was carrying crude oil in Lac Megantic, Quebec, Canada.
A smaller number of Valero supporters handed out brochures explaining the project.
Valero Benicia Refinery applied early last year for a use permit that would allow the company to build three sections of track so Union Pacific Railroad could deliver crude on its trains that travel through Roseville to Benicia.
After an initial study, the city chose to have the Environmental Impact Report composed to meet California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements in determining how the project would affect multiple facets of the environment.
The initial draft of the EIR has been circulating since June 17, and the public comment period originally was to last 45 days. But by a 4-2 vote, with Chairperson Donald Dean and Commissioner Belinda Smith opposing, the commission agreed with the majority of 31 speakers who asked for more time to study the thick report.
During Thursday’s four-and-a-half-hour meeting, many of the speakers advocated for or against the project. The commission’s primary duty was to listen. Its only decisions Thursday were about how long to give the public to comment on the DEIR, and whether to continue the meeting when it became clear that not all in attendance would have time to speak.
The commission won’t decide whether to certify the environmental report or issue a use permit for the project until public comments and questions are addressed in the document’s final version, which is being prepared by San Francisco-based consultant ESA.
Artist Jack Ruszel, who said his woodworking company at 2980 Bayshore Road employees 25 who work near the proposed project site, called the draft environmental report “distorted,” and a “travesty and an insult.”
“They want you to be their stooges,” he told commissioners during his passionate speech. “They want you to rubber stamp it. You are in their way.”
Though Dean tried to limit Ruszel to the five minutes other public speakers had been given, the artist pressed his case. “It’s our duty to be stewards,” he said. “I implore you to examine this morally and see this as a global issue.”
Admitting he had become emotional about the project, he said, “Don’t damn us with this for years to come.”
In contrast, Pierre Bidou, Benicia’s former police chief, a City Council member and member of the Benicia Unified School District Board of Trustees, spoke quietly to the commission before handing over 100 signatures of those favoring the project.
“Valero is a true friend of this community,” Bidou said, cautioning against taking action that could be detrimental to the refinery, which provide 25 percent of Benicia’s General Fund revenues through taxes.
Bidou, who said he has lived in Benicia for 52 years, described Benicia’s condition when the refinery was built by the Humble Oil company a few years after the U.S. Army closed the Benicia Arsenal, a major employer.
“When Humble came here, this city was starving,” he said. “You really need to think deep and hard about this.”
He wasn’t the only Valero supporter. Rich McChesney described how his employer, Performance Mechanical Inc., was involved in the refinery’s massive maintenance turnaround and its fluescrubber project, which McChesney managed.
He praised Valero for its “culture of safety, quality and integrity,” and said, “We like it when we go there.”
McChesney said the refinery’s highest concern was safety for employees, contractors and community, and that its quality “is second to none.” He urged the commission “to move this thing along.”
Maria Teresa Matthews also called Valero a responsible company that had provided Benicia the information it requested in formulating the DEIR, and urged the panel to consider only facts of the report when deciding whether to issue a use permit.
Jim Riley of Operating Engineers Local 3 said that Californians can’t yet set aside all their combustion engine vehicles. “We’re not ready.” Until then, he said, “the Valero plan is valid. It makes sense.” Like Bidou, he handed to the commission 100 signatures of project supporters.
Many of the 13 who spoke about the DEIR before the meeting closed at 11:30 p.m. came from Davis and Roseville, communities through which crude-carrying trains would to travel on their way to Benicia, should the project be approved.
At an audience member’s suggestion, the commission gave those who had traveled from outside Benicia the first opportunity at the microphone during the limited meeting time.
Most of the visitors joined Ruszel in opposing the project and criticizing the DEIR.
Barbara Burr, of Davis, disagreed with the document’s contention that trains could not be regulated by state or local agencies. “The California Public Utilities Commission has the authority to control the speed of trains,” she said.
Burr criticized the report for failing to address cumulative effects of the project and others, and she called for a moratorium on crude-by-rail terminals.
Elizabeth Lasensky disagreed with the report’s expectation of few to no derailments. She cited a 2003 incident in Davis in which a speeding train collided with another, resulting in a cleanup that disrupted Amtrak’s passenger trains.
Another incident in 2009 involved the turnover of two cars that spilled tons of wine into a residential area, Lasensky said.
Reminding the commission that Davis and other uprail communities would receive no benefit but could experience some hazards from the Valero project, she said, “We like Davis, and we would like it to stay the way it is.”
Others asked whether Valero would have enough liability coverage to address the impacts of spills or crashes, and expressed frustration that CEQA allowed the refinery to submit trade secrets to the city for use in developing the environmental report, even though that information was then withheld from the public.
During the first half of the meeting, speakers were asked to express whether the report’s public comment period should remain at 45 days or be expanded.
Many asked for more time, reminding the panel that the draft’s release coincided with family vacation time. In fact, Commissioner Belinda Smith said she would be on vacation a few hours after the meeting closed.
Jon Van Landschoot, a member of the Historic Preservation Review Commission who spoke as a resident Thursday night, said the report had been expected by mid-2013, and only was finished and made public last month.
To read its 1,450 pages in 45 days, the original public comment period, would require digesting 32 pages a day, he said. Expanding the comment period to a total of 90 days would reduce that to 16 pages a day.
“You need as much time to review this as they had to make it,” he said.
Though most commissioners agreed, Dean and Smith opposed, suggesting that the project had been subject to several public meetings and extending the comment period might generate more quantity, but perhaps no greater quality of comments.
The public also heard from Benicia staff and consultants, including those representing ESA.
Valero’s fire chief, Joe Bateman, and Benicia Fire Department Chief Jim Lydon described how their two departments have trained to handle fires, spills and hazardous materials, addressing some of the public fears that Benicia could experience a Lac-Megantic-type incident.
“We are prepared today to respond to any emergency,” Bateman said, explaining that his employees already have helped Benicia fight fires and have assisted in neighboring refineries’ emergencies.
Kat Wellman, who had presented a longer explanation at a Planning Commission workshop on the CEQA and environmental reports, gave an abbreviated version Thursday.
Bradley Hogin, special CEQA counsel, confirmed that under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, the federal government, not regional or city agencies, regulates railroads, and explained how the applicant’s trade secrets can’t be made public in the DEIR, even when they are used as part of the environmental study that has led to the document.
Leaking that information would benefit Valero’s competitors, he said, and could lead to unintentional violations of antitrust laws.
Don Cuffel, Valero Benicia Refinery manager of the Environmental Engineer Group, addressed another public concern, that the project would increase emissions in the Bay Area.
Delivering crude by rail instead of by ship would reduce emissions by 225,000 tons every year, or 10 percent of the current emissions, the DEIR noted.
It also said reducing oil shipments by tanker ship more than compensates for locomotive emissions, but uprail communities would experience locomotive pollution and risks without any benefit.
Cuffel said that increase was the equivalent of 10 round trips by diesel recreational vehicle from Benicia to Tahoe.
He added that the refinery has 700 cards from those who like the project, and said the DEIR was “a tremendous amount of work for a valuable project.”
Because of the commission vote, the public has until Sept. 15 to submit questions and observations to Principal Planner Amy Million in the Community Development Department of Benicia City Hall, 250 East L St.; fax them to her at 707-747-1637; or email her at amillion@ci.benicia.ca.us.
Panel extends Valero’s draft EIR public comment period through Sept. 15, 2014
By Tony Burchyns | July 11,2014
Katherine Black, left, the steering committee chairperson for Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, displays her ‘Stop Crude By Rail’ sign as she talks with Anne Smith of Fairfield at a protest outside the Planning Commission meeting in Benicia on Thursday. (MIKE JORY — VALLEJO TIMES-HERALD)
BENICIA>>Citizens from as far away as Davis and Roseville attended a packed public hearing in Benicia on Thursday night on Valero’s disputed crude-by-rail project.
The purpose of the hearing was for the Planning Commission to hear public comments on the project’s roughly 1,500-page draft environmental impact report that was released on June 17.
If approved, the project would allow Valero to ship up to 70,000 barrels of crude daily by rail from Roseville to its Benicia refinery. Opponents in the Bay Area and uprail communities have raised concerns about oil train risks while supporters contend the project would be safe and keep the refinery competitive.
Crude-by-rail opponents Katy Polony, of Oakland, left, and Ann Puntch, of Rodeo, enter Benicia City Hall on Thursday for a hearing on Valero’s proposal to ship up to 70,000 barrels of crude by rail daily to its Benicia plant. (MIKE JORY — VALLEJO TIMES-HERALD)
“This proposal in particular is really disturbing because of the number of crude-by-oil trains that are going to be coming through the area,” Nancy Rieser of Crocket Rodeo United to Defend the Environment said before the meeting. “The agencies, both local and federal, that feel so comfortable endangering local communities disappoint and shock me.”
Others voiced support for the project, which refinery officials claim will create new jobs and generate millions of dollars in local tax revenues. Valero officials also contend the project would reduce air pollution in the Bay Area by replacing smoggier boat shipments of oil with rail deliveries.
“I think all the questions have been asked and answered and it means lots of jobs for the people of Benicia and Solano County,” said Greg Partch, business manager for the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 343 based in Vallejo. “We’re here to show our support for the project and we want it to go through.”
The meeting lasted more than four hours and required overflow seating to be set up outside the City Council chambers.
Because of the sheer number of people wishing to speak, the commission scheduled a second public hearing for Aug. 14.
Project opponents, who dominated the hearing, held 47 sunflowers representing the number of people killed in last summer’s oil train explosion in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. Before the meeting, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community and other opposition groups held a vigil outside of City Hall in remembrance of those killed.
Valero supporters, while outnumbered at the hearing, brought petitions with hundreds of signatures from area residents backing the project.
After several speakers asked for more time to review the lengthy environmental report, the commission voted 4 to 2 to extend the public comment period through Sept. 15. The original deadline was Aug. 1.
The panel also received written requests from the city of Davis and the Sacramento Council of Governments to allow more time to respond to the report.
“Not all members of the community are technically versed … and they would like more time,” Commissioner Stephen Young said. “I think it’s only reasonable we provide that extra time.”
Commissioners Don Dean and Belinda Smith opposed the length of the extension, contending that the added time would not boost the quality of the comments.
However, commissioners George Oakes, Susan Cohen Grossman, Suzanne Sprague and Young supported the move after Valero officials couldn’t persuade them to deny the extension.
Another hearing will be required at the end of the comment period to consider accepting the report and issuing permits for the project.
You must be logged in to post a comment.