Public to have 45 days to comment after Aug. 31 release of review of controversial project
A revised version of the Valero Crude-by-Rail Draft Environmental Impact Report is due to be released Monday, Principal Planner Amy Million said.
The revision is the latest step in a series of actions that began in early 2013, when Valero Benicia Refinery applied for a use permit to extend Union Pacific Railroad lines into its property so crude oil could be delivered by rail car.
That oil would replace the same volume of barrels brought in by tanker ship, the refinery said, and no other operations would be changed.
The project involved other modifications, such as adding an off-loading rack that would remove oil from parallel rows of rail cars; adding pipeline; and employing other methods to reduce the chance of spillage.
The refinery said it expected 50 to 100 additional rail cars to arrive up to twice a day, brought in at a time of day when there would be little impact on traffic. The trains would carry 70,000 barrels of North American crude each day, replacing shipped barrels from foreign sources, the refinery said in its use permit application.
The refinery also said that increases in emissions from locomotives would be more than offset by the reduction in emissions from oceanic tanker ships.
At the time, Charlie Knox, the city’s former director of community development, said if the permits were approved quickly, the project could be operational by early 2014.
However, during subsequent Planning Commission and City Council meetings, enough members of the public asked for a more comprehensive environmental impact report (EIR) to dig deeper than the mitigated negative declaration report that had been presented as a way to comply with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
The initial draft, or DEIR, of the document initially was expected to be completed before the end of 2013, but extensive public comment from those on both sides of the issue delayed its completion, and the document wasn’t released until June 17, 2014.
After many residents said 45 days wouldn’t be enough to examine and offer comments on the DEIR, the Planning Commission extended the official public review period on the hefty document.
That panel also conducted several hearings of its own, giving the public a chance to speak in person in addition to offering written comments. The hearings filled the Council chamber, and overflow seating was arranged in the City Hall courtyard, Commission Room and several conference rooms.
Nor were Benicia residents the only ones to weigh in on the topic. Representatives of cities uprail from Benicia told the Planning Commission that locomotives going through their communities en route to Benicia would emit greenhouse gases that wouldn’t be offset by reduced shipping.
Others expressed fear that rail cars weren’t strong enough to prevent explosions should those carrying volatile Bakken crude get overturned in a derailment, and questioned whether emergency preparations have been sufficient.
State Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, said Benicians were “wise” to demand the EIR, but said the first draft wasn’t adequate.
Writing a letter after the public comment period had closed, Attorney General Kamala D. Harris urged a rewrite of the DEIR, too.
While U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Napa, hasn’t commented directly on the project, he and other members of Congress have asked Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx to make crude shipments by rail safer.
Some residents used the opportunity to complain about conventional-fuel vehicles and the traffic the additional rail cars would create in Benicia’s Industrial Park. Others spoke about the importance of Valero to Benicia, as an employer, taxpayer and donor to community causes.
The controversial project also touched Mayor Elizabeth Patterson.
City Attorney Heather McLaughlin worried about the mayor’s email alerts, to which some residents subscribe, that Patterson used to provide information about the Crude-by-Rail Project and other subjects of interest to Benicians.
Last year, McLaughlin urged Patterson to recuse herself from participating in any decision-making on the topic, pointing to the potential of a later lawsuit on the basis of possible bias on the part of the mayor.
Patterson, citing advice from her lawyer, refused to recuse herself.
Since the original application and subsequent debate, both official and otherwise, environmental interest groups as well as the refinery have conducted public meetings about the project; those opposed have staged protests and assembled periodic marches that went through Pittsburg, Martinez, Richmond and other cities.
Such public participation isn’t unusual, Amy Million said: “I was not involved in prior EIRs with the city. I believe the Arsenal and Benicia Business Park generated a good amount of public interest.”
Public comments as well as answers to questions have been incorporated in the DEIR that will be released Monday, she said. The Recirculated DEIR (RDEIR) is a new document that only addresses the portions of the original DEIR that needed to be rewritten.
Million said it’s not a complete DEIR rewrite. In fact, it’s less than 300 pages, she said, including appendices that make up a third of the document.
The DEIR in total is 1,470 pages.
“The RDEIR includes additional risk analysis of transporting crude by rail and addresses comments regarding impacts beyond Roseville, which were not included in the DEIR,” Million said Tuesday.
It will be released for a new 45-day comment and circulation period, Million said. As with the original DEIR, this document will be presented to the Planning Commission for review, and that panel will accept comments at its public hearing and add observations of its own.
When those comments are collected, they’ll be incorporated into the final version of the environmental report, Million said.
“Once the Final EIR is ready, it will go before the Planning Commission for certification,” she said. “The use permit and EIR only go to the City Council on appeal.”
She said 20 paper copies of the document will be made available at no charge on a first-come, first-served basis.
Copies also will be placed at Benicia Public Library, 150 East L St., and at the Community Development Department at Benicia City Hall, 250 East L St., where individuals can read it.
In addition, a PDF copy that can be downloaded as well as read will be added to the city website, www.ci.benicia.ca.us.
Will Gregory says
Who will our public officials trust on environmental issues at the city, state and planetary level?
More valuable oil company news and information for our community and appointed and elected representatives to seriously consider in their decision making process….
“Big Oil spent $6.2 million lobbying CA officials in year’s first six months ”
” Big Oil is currently spending over $1 million per month to fight legislation and regulations to prevent future oil spills, to protect our drinking water supplies from contamination by fracking waste water, from cleaning up the air, and from protecting marine protected areas from offshore oil drilling. ”
” Oil companies funnel most of their California lobbying money through WSPA,(Western States Petroleum Association) the industry’s trade association, but they also spend additional money through their own lobbyists. In addition to their WSPA contributions, Chevron spent $1.5 million lobbying for influence over California laws in 2015’s first six month, according to Sarah Rose, Chief Executive Officer of the California League of Conservation Voters, in a letter to supporters. ”
“That means two spots on California’s top-five list for big-spending lobbyists belong to Big Oil,” noted Rose.”
“Big Oil spent a total of $266 million influencing California politics from 2005 to 2014, according to an analysis of California Secretary of State data by StopFoolingCA.org, an online and social media public education and awareness campaign that highlights oil companies’ efforts to “mislead and confuse Californians.” The industry spent $112 million of this money on lobbying and the other $154 million on political campaigns.”
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/08/19/18776399.php
Will Gregory says
Who will our public officials trust on environmental issues at the city, state and planetary level?
More valuable oil company news and information for our community and appointed and elected representatives to seriously consider in their crude-by-rail decision making process….
“Battle Lines Form in California Over Ambitious Climate Change Bills”
“Environmental lawmakers face off with oil and gas industry over bills designed to crack down on emissions”
“California lawmakers are preparing to face off with the state’s powerful fossil fuel industry in a battle over two potentially groundbreaking climate change bills
”
The more contentious legislation in question, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB350), would increase California’s share of electricity from renewable energy sources to 50 percent and reduce the state’s use of oil in half by 2030—the equivalent of removing 36 million cars and trucks from the roads over the next 15 years—through new technology and more efficient planning.”
“The second piece of legislation, the California Global Warming Solutions Act (SB32), would raise mandates for oil refineries and power companies, among other big polluters, to lower their greenhouse gas emissions.”
“Introduced by state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, SB350 has picked up a slew of endorsements from state lawmakers—including California Governor Jerry Brown—along with a firestorm of opposition from oil and gas industry lobbyists.”
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/08/28/battle-lines-form-california-over-ambitious-climate-change-bills