IN RESPONSE TO JIM LESSENGER’S OPED OF JULY 4, “Open letter to the City Council: Support CBR,” I write today urging Benicia to deny the proposed Valero Refinery Crude-by-Rail Project until all safety measures listed below are in place.
I have been carefully following the proposed Benicia project, reading articles from a wide variety of sources including many reports and, most recently, the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
I follow a number of environmental topics closely, particularly those related to climate change. I am on the board of Cool Davis, a nonprofit organization that helps the city of Davis implement its Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.
I have an “uprail” perspective that is important to add to the conversation on the Valero proposal, as the impact of the daily trains would be significant in my community.
I have six reasons Benicia should deny the CBR project. They are as follows:
1. The project is far from contained within Benicia’s 3,000-acre Industrial Park.
Benicia is fortunate to have a buffer area of industries and vacant land around Valero Benicia Refinery. Valero has even promised that the oil trains will not cross city streets during Benicia’s rush hours (though neither Valero nor the city of Benicia can enforce that promise).
Davis and other uprail communities are not so fortunate. The trains will pass through downtown Davis, including residential neighborhoods, the center of downtown, university housing and the entire Mondavi Performing Arts Complex and Conference Center.
Train travel through Davis is made more dangerous because there is a curve with a 10-mph left-handed cross-over between the main tracks several hundred feet east of the Amtrak station, right downtown. All other crossovers on the line are rated for 45 mph. This 10-mph spot in particular is an accident waiting to happen.
While the trains would hopefully avoid rush hour in Benicia, that will surely not be the case for all uprail communities.
2. Valero owns the property but should not be allowed to set profits ahead of public health and safety.
No corporation operates in a vacuum. Valero’s decision to import North American crude has profound effects beyond its own improvement that cannot be ignored.
Valero’s change to crude by rail from crude by ship would allow it to import both Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude, and would add additional dangerous trains to the tracks all the way back to their points of origin, most likely in North Dakota or Alberta, Canada. That means the trains endanger and disrupt towns and cities across our country on their way to Benicia. These tracks are already impacted by oil trains taking precedence over trains transporting grain and other local crops and commuter trains. More importantly, people are endangered by the highly volatile Bakken crude — there have been 12 significant derailments since May 2013, with six explosions — and our precious marshes and waterways are threatened by the possibility of toxic spills of tar sands bitumen, which quickly sinks to the bottom and cannot be removed. The Kalamazoo River, Mich. cleanup of 1 million gallons of leaked tar sands dilbit is still unsuccessful after four years and $1 billion.
In California, the trains would come over the Sierra Nevada Mountains or wind through the Feather River Canyon (rated as a “rail high-hazard area” by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services), or possibly even come from Oregon down through Redding and Dunsmuir, site of a 1991 derailment of a fertilizer tank car that killed fish for 40 miles. In any of these routes, major rivers would be crossed where an accident could contaminate much-needed drinking and irrigation water.
3. The project will clearly affect the environment.
A wider view of “environment” raises serious concerns. California considers the cradle-to-grave lifecycle of products. Extracting, refining and burning heavy, sour crude is a nasty job, start to finish. That’s why tar sands is called a “dirty” fossil fuel, noted for its energy-intensive carbon footprint. This deserves a full discussion which is beyond the scope of this letter. The recently completed Valero Improvement Project was intended to allow the refinery to handle refining the heavy, sour crude as efficiently as possible, which is laudable, but that is not to say it is a clean process. Setting aside the forests destroyed and the unlined toxic tailing ponds leaking into the waterways in Canada at the point of extraction, we must note that processing tar sands bitumen will produce more of the byproduct petcoke that is so polluting it cannot be burned in the U.S. (It can be sold abroad and burned for energy there. Ironically, when it is burned in China, some of the smog blows back across the ocean to Southern California.)
The heavy crude is high in sulfur and toxic metals, which corrode refinery pipes. The Richmond refinery fire in 2010 was traced partly to corrosion from refining tar sands. Emissions must be carefully monitored to ensure toxic fumes do not escape to neighborhoods or endanger workers.
The 2003 “improvement” project enabling Valero to refine heavy crude opened the door for California to refine more of the world’s dirtiest bitumen, running contrary to our state goals under AB 32 to conserve energy and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by moving to renewable energy sources. In fact, according to California Energy Commission figures, California reduced its total consumption of oil from 700 million to 600 million barrels in the last year, primarily through conservation — i.e., adopting lower-emissions vehicles and Energy Star appliances, changing transportation habits to walk-bike-public transport, and making our buildings more energy efficient. We are moving away from our dependence on oil by reducing our consumption of it.
4. The project will be safer, but not safe.
The outgoing chair of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has some strong words for the rail industry and the way certain hazardous liquid is transported.
Deborah Hersman’s strong remarks are tied to older-model rail tank cars known as DOT-111s, which carry crude oil and ethanol through cities across the U.S. and Canada. Hersman told an audience that DOT-111 tank cars are not safe enough to carry hazardous liquids — in fact, she said her agency issued recommendations several years ago. “We said they either need to remove or retrofit these cars if they’re going to continue to carry hazardous liquids,” Hersman said on April 22, 2014.
Right now, four California legislators are urging the Department of Transportation to take action on critical safety measures. After a hearing of the joint houses of the Legislature on June 19 chaired by Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, Congressmembers John Garamendi, D-Davis, Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, Mike Thompson, D-Napa, and George Miller, D-Martinez, sent a letter to Anthony Foxx, secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, stating that “we cannot allow communities to be in danger when viable solutions are available.”
The summary of their requests, dated July 1, 2014, is as follows:
• Provide a report on the level of compliance by the railroad and petroleum industry to the May 7 Emergency Order.
• Issue rulemaking that requires stripping out the most volatile elements from Bakken crude before it is loaded onto rail cars.
• Expedite the issuance of a final rulemaking to require the full implementation of the Positive Train Control (PTC) technology for all railroads transporting lighter crude, and provide a status report on the progress of PTC implementation to date.
• Expedite the issuance of rulemaking that requires phasing out old rail cars for newer, retrofitted cars.
The Benicia decision comes at a critical moment. Benicia’s approval of the Valero proposal before DOT takes action would undercut what our legislators are trying to do to protect not just Benicia citizens, but all uprail citizens all across the U.S. Regulating that the volatility of crude be reduced will force the industry to build small processing towers — aptly called stabilizers — that remove natural gas liquids (a product that can be saved and sold) from the crude before it is loaded, as they do in other parts of the country (Eagle Ford shale reserves in Texas, for example).
Obviously, creating this necessary infrastructure will increase the cost of Bakken crude. The industry will no doubt balk at the additional expense, as will the refineries. On the other hand, it’s immoral to expose many millions to explosive trains of Bakken crude when there is a remedy! One Lac-Mégantic tragedy is enough.
The trains rumbling into Benicia are the first trains to pass daily through our region to the Bay Area, but others will follow. The approval of this project cannot be viewed in isolation. This fall the DEIR will be available for review for the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery Rail Spur Project that would bring another daily train through my community in Davis, through yours in Benicia, across the aging Benicia rail bridge, along the beautiful Carquinez Strait, through the East Bay and on down the Capitol Corridor to San Luis Obispo County. Based on California Energy Commission data, the Sacramento Bee says we can expect five to six trains daily in the next few years as California receives 25 percent of its crude by rail.
We put ourselves at grave risk to proceed with any rail projects now until we firmly lock in place the safety measures requested by our U.S. congressmembers. In this country, protection for the public must come first.
5. The CBR proposal makes no economic sense for Benicia and for the nation.
We live in a WORLD economy. Rather than destined for domestic purposes, the refined oil from all five Bay Area refineries is sold on the world market for greatest profit. That’s why gasoline rates at the pumps have not decreased during this oil boom.
Considered from the perspective of the weather of our planet, which will become a pivotal concern in the coming years, it makes no sense, financial or otherwise, to extract another drop of fossil fuel from the Earth. We need to put all our attention on renewables and conservation, and cut back drastically on our oil consumption. Realistically, this means refineries will need to produce far fewer products, and the oil extraction frenzy will die down.
6. The Valero refinery cannot befriend Benicia and then turn around and foul the air, risking the health and safety of our children.
Valero may mean well when it makes charitable contributions, but its intentions mean little if it then creates unsafe conditions for those who are in receipt of its generosity. It is not surprising that salaried employees, wage earners and grant recipients would stand up in favor of most anything proposed by the “friendly giant.” But it is incumbent on us all to look at the big picture — and a big picture that contains oil trains is not a pretty one.
In summary, I recommend a “no” vote on the Valero Crude-by-Rail Project until all safety measures requested by our four local congressmembers in Washington are firmly in place, and enough new tank cars are designed and produced to safely convey the crude oil from its source to Benicia, ensuring that no communities or waterways are in danger.
This “no” vote would send a strong message to DOT that their work is urgent, and that the regulations they make will be closely monitored. A “yes” vote, however, would undercut the important work our legislators are doing on our behalf.
Lynne Nittler lives uprail from Benicia in Davis. She devotes much of her time to Cool Davis, a nonprofit that focuses on helping Davis reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to a changing climate and improve the quality of life for all. She has followed the oil train issue closely since last September.
Sharing is caring!
Reason #1 is reason enough alone. Few realize that this issue is not just about Benicia. This is a national issue. Even if the project is ultimately approved, it does not mean that crude by rail won’t have a much bigger battle to contend with.
Beyond business as usual—
From the above article:
‘But it is incumbent on us all to look at the big picture — and a big picture that contains oil trains is not a pretty one.”
Ms. Nittler
Thank you for this excellent analysis on crude-by-rail.
Below more information ( the big picture–) for our appointed and elected leaders past and present to consider
“Oil By Rail = Runaway Exploding Trains Across North America”
“Based on the oil industry’s history of neglected pipelines, faulty oil rigs, unmaintained refinery equipment, and countless oil disasters, we know that the industry couldn’t care less about you and me, or the impact it has on our air, land, and water. The reckless exploitation of our national rail network is just another sign that oil companies put profits over people.”
“Most of the US rail network was built 100 or more years ago. While rails have been modified and maintained over the years to carry the average number of rail cars per train all over the country, there have been little to no modifications done to the existing rail network to account for the over 4,000% increase in traffic. The number of cars and the weight of the tracks have a huge impact on the structural system—an impact that has not been addressed over the last six years.”
“A single oil train will carry 100 or more rail cars loaded with three million gallons of crude oil—enough to fill four and a half olympic-sized swimming pools. When so much explosive oil is put on a single train, and sped down tracks that haven’t been upgraded for this increased traffic, every oil train is a huge concentration of risk.”
http://explosive-crude-by-rail.org/learn-more/
Beyond business as usual—
From the above article:
‘But it is incumbent on us all to look at the big picture — and a big picture that contains oil trains is not a pretty one.”
Ms. Nittler,
Thank you for this excellent analysis on crude-by-rail.
Below more information ( the big picture–) for our appointed and elected leaders past and present to consider…
“Oil Train Blast Zone Website Lets You See Your Proximity to Bomb Trains”
Note: To the reader, list an address in the Blast Zone in the Industrial Park for a wake-up call —
“These oil trains are an unacceptable threat, especially because we don’t even need this extreme oil,” says Paglia. “Oil use in the US and Canada is down, climate risks are up, and when you put these things together the only sane thing to do is ban these exploding trains.”
“Meanwhile, Big Oil is saying the trains are safe with claims that Bakken crude is no different than any other crude oil and lobbying against new regulations in private meetings at the White House.”
“This battle between the communities along the tracks and the oil and rail companies was summed up well by the chorus of a song played at the Albany vigil. “Bomb trains, bomb trains, how many lives will be sacrificed, for Big Oil’s corporate gains?”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/07/10/oil-train-blast-zone-website-lets-you-see-proximity-bomb-trains
Beyond Valero- and crude-by rail–The bigger picture–Planetary survival
More information and news for our past and present appointed and elected officials to seriously ponder…
“With 2°C Target Falling Swiftly Out of Sight, Inaction on Climate a ‘Crime Against Humanity”‘
“By ignoring the need to prevent a breach of the 2C tipping point, the point beyond which scientists are unable to predict the sheer scale of impacts on our food production, our homes and our lives, politicians will effectively signing the death sentence for millions. Paris will go down in infamy as the scene of a modern day crime against humanity.”
“The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that on current emissions trends, the planet is now on target for a temperature increase of 4.8C or more by 2100 — a level of warming that would drive dramatic increases in hunger, extreme weather, species loss, and waves of climate-fueled migrations of tens of millions of people.
“In order to even come close to meeting the 2C target, the IPCC has said that global annual carbon emissions must fall by 40 to 70 percent by 2050 compared to 2010 levels – and to zero or below by 2100. Currently, governments are not even close to such commitments.’
Key question: How will our local officials vote on crude-by rail? Will they vote for the status quote i.e. short term private oil profits or will they see the ‘bigger picture” and vote to save the planet?
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/06/07/2degc-target-falling-swiftly-out-sight-inaction-climate-crime-against-humanity
Beyond Valero- and crude-by rail–The bigger picture–Planetary survival
More climate change information and news for our past and present appointed and elected officials to seriously ponder…
“We will have a fossil fuel-free economy by 2100…” That being said, even if the G7 nations do phase out fossil fuels by the end of the century, it won’t be enough to prevent severe damage to the planet – and to the human race.”
“Michael Mann,… one of the world’s leading climate scientists, estimates that we only have until 2036 – 21 years – to prevent the Earth’s temperature from rising 2 degrees Celsius, the standard cutoff point for “acceptable” levels of warming.””After we cross that 2 degrees Celsius threshold, global warming will lock in with devastating consequences for every single living thing on this planet.”
“Other scientists, like James Hansen, have an even gloomier view of how much more warming the planet can take.”
“In a recent interview with… for example, Hansen called the 2 degrees Celsius number “nonsense” and warned that it’s “a prescription for disaster.”
“Hansen now argues that we need to lower the limit of “acceptable” warming to 1 degree Celsius – a number we’re already dangerously close to reaching.”
“Whether you agree with James Hansen that we need to limit warming to 1 degree Celsius or with Michael Mann that we need to focus on 2 degrees, one thing is clear: We must stop using fuels way before the end of the century if we want to stave off total climate devastation.”
Key questions: Who will our local leaders trust on crude-by-rail? The spin from the oil company CEO’s, the American Petroleum Institute? Or the words, work and research of two of the most respected climate scientist on the planet?
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/31263-stop-drinking-the-climate-denial-cult-s-kool-aid
Beyond Valero–The bigger picture–the health and safety of our “little city.”
More crude-by-rail information and news from the post below for our past and present appointed and elected officials to seriously ponder…
” Oil Trains Don’t Have to Derail or Explode to Be Hazardous, Doctors Warn”
“In May, hundreds of doctors, nurses and health-care professionals from Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) called on Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Oregon Gov. Kate Brown to take a stronger position against proposed oil-by-rail shipping terminals in their respective states, in order to insure the health and physical security of families and communities there.”
“We are dealing with a product [oil] that is harmful to human health at every single step along the process of extracting, transporting, storing and using it,” said Dr. Mark Vossler, a cardiologist and chairman of the Department of Medicine at Evergreen Hospital in Kirkland, Washington.
“The known risks associated with oil-by-rail transport pose an unacceptable threat to human health and safety.”
“Vossler, who is also one of the lead authors of the Washington PSR/Oregon PSR position statement on crude oil transport and storage, and volunteers his time with WPSR’s climate change task force, added, “The health risks of water fouled by fracking, of exploding trains and storage tanks, of oil spills at sea and the dispersants used in the clean up, and of the everyday relentless actual use of the product in terms of a continuing rising carbon dioxide content in our atmosphere should be completely unacceptable.”
Key questions: Who will our local leaders trust on crude-by-rail? The spin from the oil company CEO’s, the American Petroleum Institute? Or the words, work and research of the doctors and nurses of the renowned group-Physicians for
Social Responsibility?
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31258-oil-trains-don-t-have-to-derail-or-explode-to-be-hazardous-doctors-warn
How does this compare to the alternative of crude by rail to ship to the bay to smaller ships to the dock which is much closer to downtown? When do we see the comparison? Until we get that we don’t know which is worse.
-Beyond Valero- and crude-by rail–The bigger picture–Planetary survival
The Public Trust Doctrine: “I wasn’t breaking the law that day—I was enforcing it!”
From the post below: more “important” climate change information and news for our past and present appointed and elected officials to seriously ponder about our future…
“If protecting the earth’s climate is in the long- term interest of all humanity, why have the efforts to cut GHGs to a climate-safe level been defeated for a quarter-century? The answer lies primarily in our long-evolved world order—the overall patterns by which we have organized our life on earth.”
“Governments, corporations, and other dominant institutions are not evolved to provide for either the long-term interests or the common interests of the world’s people. These dominant institutions have grown and prospered by pursuing the short-term interests of their citizens and stockholders (or often just a small, dominant elite among them) in competition with the citizens and stockholders of other companies and countries. They are not designed or structured to pursue any wider human or global interest. Moreover, their time horizon is determined not by the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren but by the next election cycle or quarterly report. To their leaders, sustainability means getting through the next couple of years without loss of elections or profits.”
“The public trust doctrine,.., provides a powerful basis for a constitutional insurgency on behalf of climate protection. It maintains that the atmosphere is the common property of present and future generations. All governments have the highest level of duty to protect it as a public trust and prevent its being wasted either by other governments or by third parties. The public trust doctrine provides a way to clearly define the just duties of each country. The climate protection movement can validly argue that governments are in violation of this duty and that citizens have the right and responsibility to enforce the protection of the atmosphere against climate destruction. Civil disobedience to protect the planet against global warming is an act of law enforcement against governments that are complicit with the wast- ing of the atmosphere. The public trust doctrine] maintains that the atmosphere is the common property of present and future generations.”
Key questions: Who will our local leaders trust on crude-by-rail? The spin from the oil company CEO’s, the American Petroleum Institute. Or, will our local representatives use the Public Trust Doctrine in their decision making process when it comes time to vote on crude-by rail?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/12/reversing-climate-change-what-will-it-take/
Question for all you oil by rail foes. What exactly do you think is coming into Benicia daily on those ships? Lollipops and Ice Cream Cones?
-MO
Beyond the lollipops and ice cream cones—
The Public Trust Doctrine: “I wasn’t breaking the law that day—I was enforcing it!”
From the post(s) below: More crude-by-rail news and information for our citizenry and our appointed and elected representatives (past and present) to seriously consider..
“Blocking the Bomb Trains: Nationwide Protests On Lac-Megantic Anniversary”
Key quote:
“It’s corporate greed versus the common good, whether it’s rail safety or climate change.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/07/06/blocking-bomb-trains-nationwide-protests-lac-megantic-anniversary
http://kron4.com/2015/07/06/protesters-against-oil-trains-detained-at-benicia-martinez-rail-bridge/
From the post(s) below: More valuable “crude-by-rail” news and information for our citizenry and our appointed and elected representatives (past and present) to seriously consider..
“Partly in response to the Obama Administration’s weak regulations, ForestEthics and CBE are organizing a “Stop Oil Trains Week Of Action” starting July 6, the second anniversary of the Lac-Mégantic, Quebec oil train disaster that killed 47 people. Organizers say that over 100 events are being planned by volunteers across the country who are calling for stricter rules on oil trains to protect their communities.”
ForestEthics’ Eddie Scher told DeSmog that he doesn’t think there’s any way to safely move crude oil by train, and enumerated two primary reasons.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/07/07/minority-low-income-communities-bear-disproportionate-share-risk-oil-trains-california
From the post(s) below: More valuable “crude-by-rail” news and information for our citizenry and our appointed and elected representatives (past and present) to seriously consider..
It’s Been Two Years Since This Deadly Oil Train Explosion. What’s Changed?
“It was the second anniversary of what’s become the town’s defining tragedy, when a unit train carrying 72 tankers of highly volatile crude oil derailed and exploded. There were fires, fumes, and an approximately 1.5 million gallon oil spill — emergency responders described a “war zone.” A “river of burning oil” ran down city streets and engulfed buildings in flames. Today, there are still scars on the soul of the town.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/07/3677550/lac-megantic-two-year-anniversary/