I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY BENICIA WILL RISE UP and be known across the nation as the Little City that said “No” to Big Oil, putting human life and environmental stewardship above human greed and the insatiable quest for increased profits. What a proud day it would be if Benicia said the risk to the thousands living up-rail is too high a price to pay.
Because it is too high a price to pay. The effect on the environment from a spill or explosion would be an unmitigated disaster, a fire that cannot be extinguished, a toxic slick destroying every living thing.
Crude-by-rail has been called “a disaster in the making” by more than one expert. A railway safety consultant has warned, “We’ve got all kinds of failings on all sides, inadequacies that are coming to light because trains are blowing up all over the place.” The Federal Railroad Administration is able to inspect only two-tenths of 1 percent of railroad operations each year. With 140,000 rail miles across the nation, regular inspection of the tracks is impossible.
The Department of Transportation has yet to provide regulations for crude-by-rail transport. Expect pushback from the rail industry. Safety measures such as “positive train control” (PTC) were recommended 45 years ago, yet the technology operates on only a tiny slice of America’s rail network. The railroads have preempted local control and can make routing decisions without public disclosure.
Meanwhile, aging rail trestles and lines such as the one through Feather River Canyon — lines that were never constructed for such heavy traffic — continue to be used with greater frequency. The New York Times reported last month that “400,000 carloads of crude oil traveled by rail last year . . . up from 9,500 in 2008. . . . From 1975 to 2012, federal records show, (railroads) spilled 800,000 gallons of crude oil. Last year alone, they spilled more the 1.15 million gallons.”
Scott Smith, a scientist whose work has focused on oil spills, has studied samples of the Bakken crude oil from three accident sites. He may be the only expert outside the oil industry to have analyzed this crude. All the samples he studied share the same high levels of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and alkane gases in exceptional combinations. Smith says 30 percent to 40 percent of Bakken crude is made up of toxic and explosive gases. “Any form of static electricity will ignite this stuff and blow it up,” he said.
The Wall Street Journal, based on its own analysis, reported that Bakken has significantly more combustible gases and a higher vapor pressure than oil from other formations. Basically, its flash point is dangerously low, and a chain reaction from tank car to tank car is inevitable.
Examining the draft environmental impact report (DEIR)
Pay attention to the wording in Valero’s proposal: “The Project would not increase the amount of crude oil that can be processed at the refinery . . .” It never says the amount of crude oil that “is being processed” at the refinery. In the DEIR, page 3-2, it says: “The Refinery’s crude oil processing rate is limited to an annual average of 165,000 barrels per day (daily maximum of 180,000 barrels) by its operating permit.” That is a huge increase from the 70,000 barrels per day that it says are processed now. With the 70,000 by rail per day, add 18 vessels shipping 350,000 barrels per vessel — that equals 6,300,000 barrels, a total of 31,850,000 barrels per year — thus an increase in processing, and hence in emissions.
We have read in a Bay Area newspaper that “Valero was named by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this year as one of California’s top distributors of dangerous substances. It was second to the ConocoPhillips refinery in Rodeo as the most profligate disseminator of poisons in the Bay Area, releasing 504,472 pounds of toxic substances into the air, water or ground. It was the 10th biggest source of chemicals and pollutants in the state, according to (a) report released in January.
“Almost half of the violations cited by the (Bay Area Air Quality Management District) between 2011 and 2012 involved excessive short-term emissions and valve leaks on tanks.”
According to the DEIR, Section 4.1-23: An unmitigated, significant and unavoidable air quality violation, with a net increase in Nitrogen oxides and ozone precursor emissions would result from transporting crude by rail through the communities up-rail within the Sacramento Basin: in the Yolo-Solano, Sacramento Metropolitan and Placer County Air Quality Management Districts.
How can we, in good conscience — or even legally — violate the air quality of our neighbors to the north by authorizing these shipments? And not only would we affect their air quality, we also would authorize the transport of a highly toxic, corrosive, flammable material in 36, 500 tank cars, each weighing 143 tons when loaded with crude oil — an annual total of 1,460 locomotives weighing more than 7,150 tons when loaded — through these communities, over rails that were never built for and have never carried such heavy traffic, all for the sole purpose of satisfying human greed?
Valero’s net income rose 28 percent in the first quarter of 2014; net income to shareholders jumped to $828 million, while revenues rose to $33.6 billion. If you are telling me that Valero needs this project to stay competitive, you haven’t looked at the facts.
A closer look at ‘job creation,’ one of the claimed benefits to the community from crude-by-rail
The addition of 20 full-time jobs at the refinery will be the result of switching from crude by vessel to rail delivery. There will be 72 fewer vessel deliveries, in which crude is pumped directly from a ship at the dock into pipes and storage tanks in one operation. Instead, there will be 36,500 tank cars per year to be emptied at the refinery, coupling and uncoupling 100 tank cars per day.
Let’s be clear, these are HAZMAT jobs. Not only would you be unloading one of the most toxic substances on the planet, breathing in toxic “fugitive emissions” from the tank cars, you also would be in direct contact with the toxic emissions from 730 locomotives per year. The only thing appealing about these new jobs will be the “good pay” (they are never described as “good jobs”), because they are hazardous, arduous, truly nasty jobs.
Section 4.6.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Another one of the project’s “benefits” much proclaimed by Valero is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Valero states that crude by rail would “improve air quality in the Bay Area.” They are not lying — this is a carefully worded deception. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is a huge area encompassing every county that touches the Bay, the entirety of every county except for Sonoma and Solano counties. This is the area in which they can legally claim to improve air quality.
The mitigating factor here is the reduced number of oil tankers traversing the Bay. What they calculated were the emissions from 72 ships that will no longer be sailing across 49.5 miles — from the sea buoy outside the Golden Gate to the Valero dock in Benicia and back out again. (That’s 99 miles total for each of the 72 tankers.) They were allowed to subtract those Bay Area emissions from the direct emissions that will be generated right here from construction of the rail terminal, the unloading of crude oil and the 730 locomotive engines moving through the Industrial Park.
This, then, gives Valero a “less than significant” increase in emissions (DEIR Table 4.1-5) — but in reality, while reducing emissions out in the Bay they will be increasing them right here where we live and breathe by 18,433 metric tons per year (DEIR Table 4.6-5). This may be legal in terms of the permitting process, and good news for sailboats on the Bay, but for the people of Benicia and especially for any businesses located in the Industrial Park, it is a terrible deal.
What people need to understand is that this “mitigation” in the “Bay Area” has been used to offset the very real pollution that will happen right here in our city. That pollution is not reduced by one particle, except on paper. To tell us that this is a “benefit” to Benicia is hugely hypocritical and a manipulation of the facts. Do not be deceived. Know that the pollution in this city will increase as a result of crude by rail, and the “mitigation” out in the Bay actually works against us. And if you have a business in the Industrial Park, you will be in the thick of it.
Further emissions and omissions
The DEIR, page 4.1-21, states: “. . . locomotives generate more emissions than marine vessels per mile, per 1,000,000 barrels of crude oil delivered each year, of ROG (reactive organic gas), NOx, (nitrogen oxide), CO (carbon monoxide), PM10 and PM25 (particulate matter of differing micron size).” Estimates are vague regarding all this pollution. We are supposed to take comfort, however, in the decrease in marine emissions from fewer oil tankers traveling from Alaska, South America and the Middle East, which according to this document is supposed to offset all but the lethal NOx from the trains. It’s fancy figuring, subtracting what is happening on the ocean blue from the reality of emissions from 1,460 locomotives, each traveling more than 1,500 miles, that would be added to the terrestrial U.S., directly to hundreds of communities, farms and forests along the railways. The impact would, in fact, be “significant and unavoidable.”
But all this is avoidable — if Benicia declares a moratorium on crude by rail.
I have a dream today . . . that could all too easily become tomorrow’s nightmare.
Sue Kibbe is a longtime resident of Benicia’s Highlands district.
Peter Bray says
Thank you, Sue Kibbe, I agree.
Peter Bray
Benicia, CA
Will Gregory says
Beyond the climate change deniers—
From the above article
“I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY BENICIA WILL RISE UP and be known across the nation as the Little City that said “No” to Big Oil, putting human life and environmental stewardship above human greed and the insatiable quest for increased profits.”
From the post below: more information-i.e. energy news– for Ms. Kibbe and our appointed and elected leaders to seriously consider…
“Dealing a “severe blow” to the export of coal out of the Pacific Northwest, the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) on Monday rejected a critical permit for the construction of Ambre Energy’s Morrow Pacific export terminal on the Columbia River.”
“Ambre’s dirty coal project would have sent hundreds of coal trains through the region, thousands of coal barges down the Columbia River, and further disrupted our climate with dangerous carbon pollution,” writes water conservation group Columbia Riverkeeper. “DSL’s decision is a defining win for clean water, salmon, and our communities.”
“Northwest communities and leaders agree: coal exports are not in the best interest of the region,” said Arlene Burns, city council president of Mosier, Oregon. “Throughout Oregon and the Northwest, thousands of business owners, elected officials, doctors, faith leaders and others have demanded that Governor Kitzhaber and the State of Oregon protect Oregon families and frontline communities from the dangers of coal exports. Today, those calls were answered.”
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/08/19/victory-local-action-coal-export-terminal-rejected-oregon
Peter Bray says
Finally, somebody, somewhere gets bright! Thank you, Oregon!
pb
Bob Livesay says
Dream, dream , dream
Al Wister says
Sue, you really know nothing about railroads so don’t pretend for one second you do.
All the talk about “aging trestles” is pure BS. I have a friend who works for Union Pacific in their maintenance of way department. There no NO bridges or trestles on UP that cannot handle heavy loads in either Northern or Southern California on mainline track or busy branch lines. UP has in fact replaced several bridges, in the last 5-7 years, that the old Southern Pacific RR let get into disrepair.
You want to talk about the railroad in Feather River Canyon?? OK. Back when the Western Pacific RR owned the line through FRC (prior to their merger with UP in 1983) there were a lot of derailments, because the WP was a small railroad and didn’t have the financial resources to keep the line in top shape. They got behind in wood tie replacement and when they did replace ties didn’t space them close enough together on curves to keep the rails from getting out of gauge. This was especially true when WP began running unit corn trains from the midwest to Turlock and Stockton. Those trains tended to beat the track up. So several years after the merger Union Pacific began installing concrete ties (as well as special heavy duty rail from Japan) in the FRC. Guess what? The derailment problem the WP had stopped completely. UP has spent a fortune upgrading and maintaining the roadbed and tracks of the old WP over the last 30 years. The tracks are in the best shape they’ve ever been in. They have to be. Union Pacific runs 90-100 car unit grain (usually corn) trains to multiple locations in the Central Valley on a weekly basis, often several per day. Each train weighs anywhere from 12,000 to 15,000 tons. This has been going on for YEARS yet there hasn’t been a single derailment nor has there been any major freight train derailment in the FRC. Oil trains usually weight in the 9,000 to 11,000 ton range (depending on the number of cars) so if the track can handle 14,000 ton grain trains it can handle 10,000 ton oil and ethanol trains.
Lot’s of twisted facts in the rest of your dream sequence concerning locomotive emissions too. The statement regarding the 1,460 locomotives is ridiculous. It ignores the obvious: when the economy is good there are more cars, ships, trucks and trains moving. More emissions will occur. Union Pacific is taking long haul trucks off the highway and moving those products by rail, which reduces emissions. But you ignored that. How convenient…
AL
Al
Bob Livesay says
Excellent comment Al. Emotion filled OP ED do get the job done. Repeating what has been told to you without research is what the anti fossil fuel fol;ks do. This OP ED did more harm than good for the anti fossil fuel crowd. I have been saying this all along. No facts, jkust what ifs and emotion. thanks Al
DDL says
Very helpful information Al!
It continues to surprise me how misinformation is propagated so quickly. Ever since the NY Times piece referenced came out, the number of 9,500 RR carloads was taken as gospel truth, with seemingly no independent verification.
From the article: The New York Times reported last month that “400,000 carloads of crude oil traveled by rail last year . . . up from 9,500 in 2008. . . .
The actual number is closer to 6,000 per week!:
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on Association of American Railroads.
Matter says
Emotion vs. fact. Science vs. politics. I side with facts and science. We need carbon based fuels for the next 100 years. It is cheap and efficient. Transporting by rail is low cost, reliable, and safe. Mistakes will happen. Nothing is 100% assured. Those are the facts.
This article, while genuine in attempt, is based on emotion and supports a hidden political goal.
Bring in the oil by rail. It will help the poor by creating jobs and help lower energy costs and boost the economy. Benefits far outweigh the risks.