By Donna Beth Weilenman
Staff Reporter
Benicia Planning Commission will resume its public hearing of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the proposed Valero Crude-By-Rail project at its meeting Thursday.
The Commission listened to public comment at its July 10 meeting until 11:30 p.m., giving speakers five minutes each to talk.
However, the Council Chamber was filled to capacity, and overflow seating was set up in the City Hall courtyard, its Commission Room and in conference rooms, where those attending could hear other speakers.
Those who still wanted to speak on the matter were asked to return in August to address the Commission, Principal Planner Amy Million wrote in her July 28 report.
The 54 residents who filled out comment cards but were unable to speak last month will be called on Thursday to speak.
Those who did not speak July 10 but who didn’t fill out comment cards also may speak, and those who prefer to send written comments may address them to Million at the Community Development Department of City Hall;, 250 East L St., Benicia 94510.
Comments may be emailed to Million at amillion@ci.benicia.ca.us, or faxed to her at 707-747-1637. The public has until Sept. 15 to weigh in on the DEIR.
The hearing Thursday is focused less on the crude by rail project and more on the document, for which the city contracted with ESA, a firm with an office in San Francisco, to determine how the proposed project would affect the environment and to meet requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
The draft report, more than an inch thick, was released June 17.
“This EIR is an informational document that, in itself, does not determine whether the project should be approved, but informs local officials in the planning and decision-making process,” the consultants advised in the report.
The DEIR said the Crude-By-Rail project would provide an alternate means of delivering crude oil feedstock to the refinery. Locally, the project would reduce greenhouse gas emissions as rail replaced maritime traffic.
However, increasing the number of trains between Santa Rosa and Benicia would affect communities beyond South Solano County, the report noted.
The project would extend Union Pacific Railroad tracks on Valero Benicia Refinery property to accommodate delivery of crude from North American sources.
Should the project get built as proposed, up to 70,000 barrels of day of North American-sourced crude oil would arrive daily by rail, replacing marine vessel delivery of the same amount of crude that is delivered to the refinery’s marine terminal, the report said.
The report said the project would not change existing refinery operations or the amount of crude the refinery would receive or produce, and said the plant would continue to meet requirements of existing rules and regulations governing oil refining, including the state of California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
Assuming that the average ship holds 350,000 barrels, the project would displace as many as 73 ship deliveries and as much as 25,550,000 barrels in a 365 day year, the report said.
Based on the three-year deliveries from Dec. 10, 2009 to Dec. 9, 2012, annual marine vessel deliveries would be reduced by as much as 82 percent, the report said.
The refinery already has pipeline in place and has some existing Union Pacific Railroad rail tracks which provide access to the refinery and the Benicia Industrial Park. The refinery uses tank cars to receive chemicals used in refining and to ship refined products out, the report said.
The project would install a new tank car unloading rack capable of handling two parallel rows of tank cars, transferring that crude oil to the refinery. A liquid spill containment sump would have the capacity to contain the contents of at least one tank car. Existing liquid spill containment for tanks abutting the tank car unloading facilities would be modified to allow installation of the unloading facilities.
Construction would be on the northeastern part of the main refinery property between the eastern side of the lower tank farm and the fence adjacent to Sulphur Springs Creek.
Part of the existing containment berm for the tank field would be removed and a new concrete berm would be built about 12 feet west of the existing earthen berm, the report describes.
The project would install about 8,880 track feet of new track on refinery property – three new track turnouts and one crossover. and would realign about 3,560 track feet on the refinery.
New rail spurs and parallel storage and departure spur would be built between the east side of the lower tank farm and the west side of the fence along Sulphur Springs Creek.
Also part of the project are crude oil offloading pumps and pipeline, and associated infrastructure, spill containment structures, a firewater pipeline, groundwater wells and a service road.
It includes the construction of 4,000 feet of 16-inch diameter crude oil pipeline and 8,800 feet of rail.
Should the project be approved, construction is expected to take 25 weeks, involve about 121 construction employs working daily until the project is finished. Afterwords, it would provide jobs for 20 more employees or contractors, the report said.
Refinery officials have said the project would create a net increase in full time jobs.
If built, the refinery would be able to accept up to 100 tank cars of crude oil a day in two 50-car trains entering refinery property on an existing rail spur that crosses Park Road.
The crude would be pumped to existing crude oil storage tanks by a new offloading pipeline that would be connected to existing piping within the property.
“Valero would ask UPRR to schedule Valero’s trains so that none of them cross(es) Park Road during the commute hours of 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.,” the report said Valero would operate the project components 24 hours a day, seven days a week and every day of the year.
The North America-sourced crude would arrive in Benicia through Roseville, where cars would be assembled into a train specifically for shipment to the refinery. Valero would own or lease the tank cars (a common custom), and Union Pacific would own the locomotives that pull the train.
Although regulations adopted by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), crude oil shipped by rail must be shipped in tank cars built to the DOT-111 specification, Valero officials have promised they would use sturdier and reinforced tank cars labeled 1232.
The report looked at alternatives to the project as the refinery described what it wanted to do in its application.
Those include a “no project alternative,” in which case nothing new would be built and no crude oil would arrive by rail. In that alternative, the report said, air emissions, both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases from marine vessels would remain unchanged from current operations.
“Compared to the project, the ‘no project’ alternative would result in higher emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases within California,” the report said.
But past Benicia and on to Roseville, the project would have “significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality,” the report noted.
Unlike in Benicia, there would be no comparable reduction in marine vessel traffic to compensate for increased locomotive emissions, the report said.
The consultants wrote in the DEIR that spills and derailments would cause minimal risks.
Valero wrote its land use permit application in December 2012.
Benicia’s Department of Community Development has been receiving public comments since May 30, 2013, when the city released an initial study and draft of a mitigated negative declaration about the project’s impacts on the area.
Letters and statements began arriving from both individuals and such agencies as AMPORTS, which operates the Port of Benicia, the Natural Resources Defense Council, CalTrans, Communities for a Better Environment and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 180, California Public Utilities Commission, Cement Masons Local 400 and other labor organizations. Through July, nearly 30 individuals wrote in as well.
Opponents began a series of meetings, petitions and rallies, spurred by the July 6, 2013, fatal runaway oil tanker train explosion that killed 47 in Lac-Megantic, near Quebec, in Canada.
Among the first meetings was one planned by the Good Neighbor Steering Committee that took place shortly after the Lac-Megantic tragedy, during which members of the Natural Resources Defense Council described their concerns on oil transport by rail.
In February, Andres Soto, organizer of Communities for a Better Environment, announced the formation of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, www.safebenicia.org, which he described as a group of citizens who opposed the project.
Several environmental groups organized a series of four monthly Refinery Corridor Healing Walks marches accompanied by Native American drumming and prayers, that began at Pittsburg Marina Park and continued to Martinez, Benicia, Rodeo and Richmond in protest of crude by rail as well as the Keystone XL Pipeline.
City meetings on the matter, such as the July 11 Planning Commission meeting, drew wall-to-wall attendance, divided among those who favored the project and those who opposed it. However, concerns aired at the meeting led Benicia to discard the mitigated negative declaration in favor of the more comprehensive Environmental Impact Report.
Valero brought in its own set of panelists to two public meetings, one before the draft environmental report was released, and a second meeting June 30, after the city released the document.
Among those speaking to the public at those meetings were Valero Fire Chief Joe Bateman, Liisa Lawson Stark, director of public affairs for Union Pacific Railroad and Phillip Daum, a senior managing consultant and engineer whose company investigates freight and transit railroad accidents, including the Lac-Megantic crash, a later fiery derailment at Casselton, N.D., involving trains carrying soybeans and crude.
The refinery and those advocating for the project have developed their own website that describes the project and encourages support, www.beniciacbr.com.
That site said the project would need 121 construction workers each day for 25 weeks, and would generate a net 20 employee or contractor jobs. Proponents also have said the project would reduce dependence on foreign crude sources and promote energy independence without changing refinery operations, the amount of crude brought to Benicia.
Despite these multiple public meetings and announcements by both Benicia and other agencies, as well as coverage by local papers, radio and television stations, specific online commentaries and social media postings, one resident said Benicians still have not heard about the Valero project.
In a letter dated July 21, Jan Cox Golovich wrote the Planning Commission to ask that a flyer be inserted in the Benicia water bill that letters be sent to all Benicia households.
“I am writing to request that the Planning Commission take the lead in informing the citizens of Benicia about Valero’s Crude By Rail Proposal,” she wrote.
“I recommend that the applicant cover the costs of printing and postage,” she added.
“Based on my interactions with a wide variety of people in the community, it has become increasingly clear that a large number of Benicians do not have any knowledge or accurate information about the project,” she wrote.
“Due to its huge potential impact to the community, it is imperative that all residents are informed of this project and have the opportunity to voice their opinion. I request that this issue be taken up at the next Planning Commission meeting.”
Comments received Thursday will be addressed in the final version of the environmental impact report, which must be adopted if the Valero project is to receive a use permit.
No vote on the matter will be taken. Residents may submit comments on the environmental report through Sept. 15.
In other matters before the Planning Commission, the panel will designate its representative to the Benicia Vulnerable Assessment and Adaptation Plan Community Advisory Group, which will participate with city staff and a project consultant in developing ways to address the city’s weaknesses in coping with climate change.
If You Go
The Benicia Planning Commission will meet at 7 p.m. August 14 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 250 East L St. Information about the Valero Crude-By-Rail project is available on the city’s website, www.ci.benicia.ca.us.
Thomas Petersen says
Looks like the days are numbered for the CBR project. Great news, as now my property value won’t take a dive.
Bob Livesay says
This project will be approved by the City Council. It does appear emotions have set in on the Planning Commission. That is not a problem it will be appealed to the council and approved.