2016 year in review: Crude by rail battle comes to an end

*Sigh* The Benicia Herald website has become inaccessible due to security issues. I'm working to try and fix it, but in the meantime, I need a place to host my articles as well as others'. Once the site is working again, I'll migrate everything back over there.

Without further ado, here's the third of the year-end articles I did.

(Originally published in the 1/1/17 edition)

(The Herald closes its year-end coverage with the biggest news story of all.)

   Valero Benicia Refinery’s three-year battle to have its crude oil delivered by train rather than by boat came to an end in 2016. The year saw perhaps the biggest wave of developments for this much-debated proposal. 

   The project, which aimed to extend three Union Pacific Railroad road tracks onto Valero’s property in Benicia to deliver North American crude oil by train, was publicly announced in Feb. 2013 and was expected to be completed by the end of that year. However, strong opposition by residents and environmental groups triggered a debate that persisted over the ensuing three years. Opponents of the project contended that the project would have increased air pollution, fueled climate change, increased greenhouse gas emissions and would been very dangerous in the event of a train explosion- particularly in the wake of an oil train explosion in Quebec shortly after the project was announced as well as numerous others since.  Meanwhile, supporters of the project argued that it would have created temporary jobs in the construction of rails and permanent jobs in the operation of the project, provided $30,000 in tax revenues, operated under current air permits with Bay Area Air Quality Management District and reduced dependence on oil from the Middle East. 

  The year began with the release of the Final Environmental Impact Report, which was meant to act as the absolute draft of the document that addressed the project’s potential effects on the environment. It also included the thousands of letters that resulted from the release of the previous Draft Environmental Impact Report and Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. This document can be viewed at http://www.ci.benicia.ca.us/index.asp?SEC=B7EDC93A-FFF0-4A14-9B1A-1C8563BC256A&DE=26D88AB1-BB3F-4FF2-9924-D38F31BA0EA4&Type=B_BASIC. 

   Then came the Planning Commission hearings in February. The hearings were scheduled over the course of four straight days to accommodate all of those who wished to speak. Following the conclusion of public comments on Feb. 11, the Commission voted unanimously to deny a permit for the project. On Feb. 29, Valero appealed the decision, stating that the commission’s decision was based on grounds preempted by federal law. 

   A series of City Council meetings were held throughout March and April to determine whether the permit should be denied or if the council should wait until Valero could obtain a declaratory order regarding federal preemption from the Surface Transportation Board (STB). Many residents, as well as environmental experts and Union Pacific representatives, spoke at the meetings, and Attorney General Kamala Harris submitted a letter to the city noting that the Planning Commission and City Council have a right to deny the project. Ultimately, the council voted 3-2 to grant Valero’s request for a delay. Councilmembers Mark Hughes, Alan Schwartzman and Christina Strawbridge voted in favor of the delay, while Mayor Elizabeth Patterson and Councilmember Tom Campbell voted against it. Valero was given until September to submit its response from the STB.

   Then in June, a Union Pacific oil train derailed over the Columbia River Gorge near Mosier, Ore. Of the 96 cars, 15 had derailed and several caught fire and burned for more than 14 hours, and 42,000 gallons of oil were spilled, some of which went into the Columbia River. There were no injuries, and Union Pacific agreed to new safety measures in December.

   Due to the cars being the same models proposed by Valero for its project, protesters gathered for a demonstration ahead of the June 7 City Council meeting. The incident turned out to be “a game changer” for at least one councilmember. Strawbridge remarked at a candidates’ forum in September that it would be “very difficult” for her to approve the project.

   Then came the Sept. 20 council meeting. Hours before the meeting, the STB had sent a letter denying Valero’s request because the refinery was not a railroad company and thus could not claim federal preemption. When the time came for the council to make a decision, Patterson and Campbell upheld their votes from April, Strawbridge made good on her earlier stated decision to not approve the project and Hughes and Schwartzman also voted to deny, making the decision unanimous. At its Oct. 4 meeting, the council adopted a resolution officially denying the project.

   One question still remained among residents after the decision: would Valero sue the city as a result? That question was answered in December when City Attorney Heather McLaughlin announced that the refinery would not sue, citing the need to maintain good relations with the city. Patterson expressed her pleasure with the decision in a statement provided to the Herald.

   “I look forward to the promise of those good community relations now that we can put this saga behind us,” she said. “There are many opportunities for us to work together, such as the locations and operations of the local air monitoring that the BAAQMD will be implementing.  We share Valero’s concerns of new residential development on the so-called Seeno site to avoid conflicts. And lastly I look forward to Valero’s proactive participation on our Community Sustainability Commission.”

   

Kamala Harris: City has right to deny Crude By Rail project

  (Originally published in the 4/17/16 edition)

   For the past three years, Valero’s proposed Crude By Rail project- which would extend Union Pacific Railroad tracks onto the refinery’s property to deliver barrels of North American crude oil by train instead of by boat- has triggered a debate in Benicia and beyond. Several notable figures have given their opinions on the project, its most recent opposing statement being delivered by California Attorney General Kamala Harris regarding the city’s right to deny Valero a land use permit.

   Harris- who is also the Democratic frontrunner in the U.S. Senate race to succeed retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca)- had previously criticized the project in 2014 over what she saw as inadequacies in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. On Thursday, Harris submitted a letter to Principal Planner Amy Million authored by Deputy Attorney General Scott Lichtig. In the letter, Harris and Lichtig repeatedly noted that despite Valero’s assertion that the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act would prohibit the city from taking public safety risks into account in determining whether to approve or deny the project, both the Planning Commission and City Council have a right to deny the permit.

   “Due to these impacts, city staff has concluded that the project's benefits do not outweigh its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts,” Harris wrote.

   However, the letter also noted the argument of city staff that federal pre-emption would prohibit Benicia from considering rail-related impacts to make its decision. Harris did not agree with this notion.

   “Where, as here, an oil company proposes a project that is not subject to STB regulation and over which a public agency retains discretionary permitting authority, it would be a prejudicial abuse of discretion for that agency not to consider all of the project's foreseeable impacts in exercising its authority,” Harris wrote.

   Harris also noted that the most serious impacts of the project should not be ignored.

   “For Benicia to turn a blind eye to the most serious of the project’s environmental impacts, merely because they flow from federally-regulated rail operations, would be contrary to both state and federal law,” she opined.

   Harris also noted that while a denial of the project would take away from potential economic advantages for Union Pacific, it would not hurt the company’s railroad operations.

   “Union Pacific has no vested right in the completion of Valero's Project, and denial of 

Valero's project would not prevent or unreasonably interfere with Union Pacific's rail operations,” the letter stated. 

   Harris concluded by stating that the city is permitted in taking discretionary action in determining its decision.

   “In exercising that authority, state law requires the city to analyze and disclose the project's direct and indirect environmental impacts, and thus to be fully informed of the consequences of its action,” she wrote. “The. City has done that here, and its action has not interfered with federally regulated activities. Valero’s assertion that the Planning Commission’s action was illegal is without merit.”

   The letter drew praise from local environmental groups.

   “Attorney General Kamala Harris’ opinion vindicates what the Benicia Planning Commission, the people of Benicia, and our allies have always said -- that we have the local authority to deny this dangerous, unnecessary project,” Andres Soto of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community said. “This also clearly shows that Valero’s request for a delay was a distraction, designed to delay the inevitable vote to deny this project. We expect the Benicia City Council to now deny the continuance and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project.”

   However, Valero employees did not agree with the letter.

   “We remain confident in our views related to the application of federal preemption in this matter,” Chris Howe, a director of Health, Safety, Environment and Government Affairs for Valero, said.

   City Council will be holding a Crude By Rail hearing at a special meeting at 7 p.m., Monday, April 18. The public is encouraged to deliver spoken comments at both this meeting and its regular meeting on Tuesday, April 19. The Council could be delivering a final vote at either meeting, so this is likely the final chance to have your voice heard on this subject. All meetings will take place in the Council Chambers at City hall, located at 250 E L St. 

Train carrying hazardous materials derails in Martinez

(Originally published in the 1/24/16 edition)

   A train carrying sulfuric acid derailed in Martinez Wednesday morning near the Benicia Bridge. No leaks have been reported, although the incident has caused some concerns in Benicia as the Planning Commission plans to hold a hearing on Valero’s proposed crude-by-rail project in two weeks.

   A Union Pacific Railroad train was carrying the hazardous materials to sulfuric acid regeneration provider Eco Services in Martinez at 8 a.m. when three tanker cars were derailed along Mococo Road. It is unknown what caused the derailment. 

   The acid contained contaminated hydrocarbon, but no leaks were reported and no vapors were released.

   As with other train derailments and explosions, this has caused concerns in the refinery-heavy regions of the Bay Area, especially in Benicia where the Planning Commission is going to hold a meeting on Feb. 8 to consider a use permit for the crude-by-rail project. 

   Valero announced the project, which would extend three Union Pacific tracks onto its property to deliver up to 70,000 barrels of North American crude oil a day, in 2013 and was quickly met with backlash over its potential environmental effects. Adding fire to these concerns was an oil train explosion in the Canadian town of Lac-Megantic in Quebec that killed 47 people and destroyed more than 30 buildings in July of that year. Since then, oil train explosions in Casselton, N.D., and Lynchburg, Va., are just a few of the similar incidents that have gotten widespread publicity.

   The sentiments of Benicia have been echoed in other communities. In Pittsburg, the energy company WesPac Midstream LLC had proposed a project to convert a Pacific Gas & Electric tank farm into an oil storage facility which would have delivers from five 104-car oil trains a week. The project was struck down in December. 

   When reached for comment, Valero Public Affairs Manager Sue Fisher Jones said the Martinez derailment had no bearing on the city.

   “The incident in Martinez is not related to, nor does it have any impact on, our operations in Benicia,” she said.

  However, other residents like Roger Straw, who runs the anti-crude by rail blog The Benicia Independent, disagree. 

“The derailment in Martinez involved tank cars full of poisonous sulfuric acid, rolling downhill unattended, just like the runaway train in Quebec that killed 47 people and leveled a downtown,” Straw said. “What does that have to do with crude by rail?  Everything.  Rail cars have carried hazardous materials for years, and the risk to our communities is already great.  If we add to that risk two more 50-car trains every day full of toxic and volatile Bakken crude oil and/or impossibly heavy diluted tar-sands crude, two trains coming in and two more going out every day, we greatly increase the potential for a major loss in our own community and in those communities and wild spaces uprail from here.”

   “This accident at Benicia’s front door is a wake up call,” he added.

   The Planning Commission meeting will be held 6:30 p.m., Monday, Feb. 8, at the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 250 East L St. 

Final crude-by-rail report available for review

(Originally published in the 1/6/16 edition)

   The Final Environmental Impact Report of Valero’s proposed Crude-By-Rail project was released yesterday and is currently available to the public. The hefty three-volume document directly responds to comments made on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. 

   In 2013, Valero Oil Refinery announced to the public its Crude-By-Rail project, which aims to extend three Union Pacific Railroad tracks onto the refinery’s property so that up to 70,000 barrels per day of North American crude oil would be delivered by railroad tank cars instead of by boat. Residents and environmental groups raised concerns over the project’s potential environmental impacts, and per the California Environmental Quality Act, the DEIR was released in June 2014. The document was criticized for its small scope- 69 miles of rail between Roseville and Benicia-, so the RDEIR was released in August of last year. Following the release of both documents, the city opened up a public comment period, where people submitted their opinions through emails and physical letters and voiced their views at special Planning Commission meetings.

   Both the DEIR and the RDEIR yielded thousands of letters from individuals, public agencies, organizations and planning commissioners alike. The comments addressed topics like hazards, air quality, transportation, biological resources, hydrology and geology and noise. Many of the submitted letters were responded to in the FEIR through footnotes, although the document noted that insubstantial comments did not warrant responses.

   “Comments that do not address the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis do not raise a significant environmental issue requiring a response,” the document stated. “Examples of such comments include those that are directed toward the perceived merits or demerits of the project, those that merely express support for or opposition to the project and those that express an opinion without providing facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, expert opinion, or other substantial evidence explaining why the analysis in the DEIR or Revised DEIR was believed to be insufficient.”

 The document also contains revisions to the DEIR and RDEIR, taking some of the comments into consideration. Also included with the document is a CD containing the entire text of both the DEIR and RDEIR.

   Copies of the FEIR are available for review in City Hall’s Community Development Department, located at 250 East L St., and the reference desk at the Benicia Public Library, located at 150 East L St. Electronic copies can also be downloaded at the city’s website at ci.Benicia.us.

   Additionally, the City Planning Commission will be holding a formal public hearing at 6:30 p.m., Monday, Feb. 8 to consider the FEIR and a use permit for the project. Due to a potentially large volume of speakers are scheduled for Feb. 9, 10 and 11, unless all members who wish to speak have their voices heard at the Feb. 8 meeting. All meetings will take place at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at 250 East L St.

2015 in review: Crude-by-rail debate enters fourth year

(Originally published in the 1/1/16 edition)

   As 2016 begins, Valero’s Crude-By-Rail-Project is entering its fourth year of being debated on. The project, which aims to extend three Union Pacific Railroad road tracks onto Valero’s property in Benicia to deliver North American crude oil by train instead of by boat, was publicly announced in Feb. 2013 and was expected to be completed by the end of that year. However, strong opposition by residents and environmental groups triggered a debate that still goes on to this day.

   As 2016 will continue to have more major developments regarding the crude-by-rail project, it is important to understand where the project stands right now, especially with its developments in the last 12 months.

   The biggest news regarding the project was the release of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR). The first Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released in June 2014 to address the environmental and safety concerns that residents had about the project. However, the document was criticized by many, including California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who felt the report’s focus on the 69 miles of road between Roseville and Benicia did not adequately cover the scope of the project’s impacts. The RDEIR extended its focus to include three new routes: from the Oregon state line to Roseville, the Nevada state line to northern Roseville and the Nevada state line to southern Roseville.

   The RDEIR was expected to be released in June 2015, but delays pushed it back to Aug. 31. The new report, after extending its scope beyond the Roseville/Benicia route, found more “significant and unavoidable” environmental impacts, including direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions, the increase of nitrogen-oxide levels in the Yolo-Solano region and increased threats toward protected wildlife species.

   The release of the report, and the public comment period that followed, resulted in a packed City Hall for its Sept. 29 City Planning Commission meeting, where both supporters and opponents of the project turned up in droves. Supporters of the project argue that it would create temporary jobs in the construction of rails and permanent jobs in the operation of the project, provide $30,000 in tax revenues, operate under current air permits with Bay Area Air Quality Management District and reduce dependence on oil from the Middle East. 

   Meanwhile, opponents of the project contend that the project would increase air pollution, fuel climate change, increase greenhouse gas emissions and would be very dangerous in the event of a train explosion- particularly in the wake of an oil train explosion in Quebec shortly after the project was announced as well as numerous others since. 

   Elsewhere in the year, U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Napa) who represents Benicia in the House, co-authored the Crude-by-Rail Safety Act in March to establish safety standards for transporting crude oil by train. Among other things, the bill would aim to make oil train cars more durable and assure that first responders are on hand to handle emergencies. As of press time, the bill has not made it past committee, and government transparency website GovTrack.us believes it has a 4 percent chance of being enacted due to it being sponsored by Democrats, the minority party in Congress.

   The Final Environmental Impact Report is expected to be released in early 2016 to respond to comments on both the DEIR and the RDEIR. Amy Million, the principal planner in the Community Development Department, could not be reached for comment.

   For more information on the crude-by-rail project or to read public comments, visit the city of Benicia’s website at ci.benicia.ca.us.