■ Capacity crowd offers pro, con views in commission meeting that is continued 2nd time
THE COUNCIL CHAMBER was filled, and others were seated elsewhere throughout City Hall for Thursday’s meeting.
Donna Beth Weilenman/Staff
After hearing hours of comments and testimony from the proposed project’s supporters and detractors, the Planning Commission decided to continue the hearing a second time, to its Sept. 11 meeting, to give more people — including commission members — a chance to weigh in on the environmental document.
As they did when the hearing first was opened July 11, members of the public filled the Council Chamber at City Hall, which has a capacity of 120, including the commission, staff members and those handling the recording and broadcast of the meeting.
Between 20 and 30 were seated in the Commission Room and another dozen or more were in a City Hall conference room, where they could watch the proceedings on a screen. Nearly 20 more sat in the City Hall courtyard, where they could hear an audio broadcast. More than 70 chose to spoke Thursday.
Unlike the practices at past meetings, city staff kept the Council Chamber doors locked until about 6:15 p.m. while additional sound equipment was put in place. Once the room was filled, those attending the hearing were directed to side rooms.
Despite the packed City Hall, several speakers said Thursday that people in Benicia remained unfamiliar with the project, and many didn’t even know it had been proposed.
The project initially was proposed after Valero wrote its land use permit application December 2012. The Benicia Department of Community Development has been taking public comment since May 30, 2013.
Public comment on the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) will be taken until the close of business on Sept. 15.
The project would add 8,880 feet of rail and would modify or expand some of the refinery’s infrastructure. Once completed, it would enable the refinery 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.
Using photographs, maps and some animation, Ed Ruszel, who owns a business near the proposed construction site, showed how railroad tracks in the city’s industrial area have been reduced, changing from loops that circulated trains around the area to cul de sacs.
He said the project would impact trafic more significantly than described in the DEIR, especially along commercial driveways and along Interstate 680 and major Industrial Park roads, such as Bayshore Road.
He criticized the contention that the twice-a-day trains that would arrive and depart the refinery would have little or no impact on traffic, saying Union Pacific Railroad won’t agree to limits on volume of product it ships or frequency, routing or configuration of its shipments.
In general, railroads are governed under federal law, not by state or local agencies or regulations.
Ruszel said the DEIR presumes the railroad and refinery will operate flawlessly as the oil cars are brought in, unloaded and depart. “The notion that longer trains and increased train traffic will reduce auto traffic is absurd and intentionally misleading.”
Marilyn Bardet, speaking briefly for Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, one of the organizations that opposes delivery of crude by rail, said some issues were “obscured” in the DEIR, especially those affecting railside cities besides Benicia.
“The local and regional impacts spiral out,” she said.
Bardet was one of several who told the commission that the state had little regulatory authority over locomotives or how many would be used. “Union Pacific is not part of the application,” she said. “Union Pacific logistics and performance is pivotal.”
Because trains and railroads are regulated at the federal level as interstate commerce, she said, Valero would have little control over Union Pacific, the railroad the refinery would hire to deliver the crude.
“This cast doubts on the DEIR,” she said, adding that “the report didn’t discuss the threat of derailment and of flammable liquid in the Industrial Park.”
Bardet called the project a “local, undesirable land use,” or “LULU.”
Roger Straw, publisher of an online website dedicated to opposing the Crude-by-Rail Project and members of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, challenged the DEIR’s statistics about the likelihood of derailments and spills, calling those numbers “an insult.”
Straw also questioned the safety of the reinforced tanker cars the refinery has promised to use instead of those currently in use. He urged putting the process on hold until only new tank cars and stronger federal rail regulations are in place.
Bibbi Rubenstein, also with Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, disagreed with project supporters that allowing Valero to bring in crude by train would provide any significant jobs, either during construction or once the operation started.
More supporters of the project spoke than detractors. Among them was attorney John Flynn, who said he has been helping Valero Benicia Refinery during the environmental review process. Flynn reminded the commission that the DEIR applies to elements over which the city has control — not those it doesn’t. “Context is essential to any fair discussion,” he said.
In answer to those who sought to delay the project until new federal guidelines are adopted to improve the safety of rail delivery of crude oil, he said rule changes “can’t be the reason to delay,” because Benicia can’t control the federal government.
“Does that mean … that you don’t have a voice?” he said. “No.” But people need to express those concerns to the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in Washington, rather than to a city panel.
“The city has drafted a DEIR it can be proud of,” he said.
Don Cuffel, the refinery’s environmental engineer, repeated several residents’ frustration that some of the DEIR’s findings were that some air quality impacts were “significant and unavoidable.”
“It sounds ominous,” he said; however, he explained that phrase is a California Environmental Quality Act term to note that certain thresholds would be exceeded by the project.
And those thresholds differ by county, he said, and numbers that might indicate no impact in Placer County could be considered “significant” in Yolo County.
The air quality differences caused by the project in those areas would be the equivalent of 10 round trips from Benicia to Tahoe in a diesel recreational vehicle, Cuffel said.
“That doesn’t seem quite so fearsome,” he said.
LINED UP in front of Benicia City Hall, spectators wait for the doors to open to the Planning Commission meeting.
Donna Beth Weilenman/Staff
Cuffel said that word meant no mitigation was available to Benicia or Valero because the situation is governed at the federal level, not the state or city level.
“I hope this brings peace of mind,” he said.
The volatility of crude oil brought in from the Bakken fields of North Dakota also worried some who spoke Thursday. But Cuffel said Valero Benicia Refinery has been shipping more volatile chemicals than the light, sweet Bakken crude.
Even before Valero bought the original Humble refinery, he said, the plant had been shipping butane and propane, “which are more volatile than any crude.”
Some speakers were not reassured.
Ramón Castellblanch joined others who were skeptical of the information provided by the refinery to ESA, the city’s consultant that composed the DEIR.
While some contended the consultant had started with a desired goal and found statistics to match, or accused the refinery of manipulating numbers, Castellblanch pointed out that Valero Energy, the local refinery’s owner, had paid millions to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2005 for air pollution violations, and that in 2008 and 2009 the Benicia refinery was cited for 23 violations.
Such characterizations were countered by other speakers, such as Larry Fullington, who described the Benicia refinery’s history that dates to 1969, when Humble built the plant.
For the past 45 years, Fullington said, the refinery has not experienced any overturned oil tanker car.
“Valero is one of the safest in the nation,” he said, joining those who pointed out the refinery is the only one of two in California — the other also belongs to Valero — to be certified by the California Occupational and Safety Act as an approved Voluntary Protection Program Star site. Valero Benicia Refinery has been earning that designation since 2006.
“They truly care about safety,” Fullington said.
Union Pacific Railroad, the company that would be transporting crude oil should the project be approved, “is one of the most prestigious firms,” he said.
Fullington noted that some critics had expressed fears that the project could lead to an event similar to the 2013 Lac-Megantic tragedy, in which an unmanned runaway train derailed as it sped along the tracks and killed 47 people in Quebec, Canada.
But circumstances in Benicia “aren’t even close,” he said.
Several speakers had described the July 6, 2013, Lac-Megantic incident in which a crude-carrying, 74-car train had been left unmanned but with one locomotive running to provide power to air brakes.
Emergency responders had responded to reports of smoke and fire. The locomotive was shut off, and the train again was left unattended. Without the air brakes, the train began rolling down the hill and picked up speed as it approached Lac-Megantic.
The train derailed and exploded.
At least five of the 47 who died were thought to be incinerated; 30 buildings were destroyed and water lines were severed and couldn’t be repaired until December of last year.
On Thursday, Giovanna Sensi Isolani called crude-carrying trains “rail bombs” as she spoke against the project, and Alan C. Miller demanded the refinery build a rail bypass that would set rail traffic back from heavily populated areas.
But Fullington explained how Benicia’s circumstances were different.
“Valero is on level land,” he said, and trains going in and out of the refinery would travel at 10 mph or less. At that speed, he said, a car that derailed simply would sit on the road bed.
Nor, he said, would a train be left alone, as it was in Lac-Megantic: At several public meetings, refinery officials have said no train would be left unattended.
Fullington said the refinery also had stated it would use the reinforced tank cars that are sturdier than the current Department of Transportation-111 model. The reinforced types are numbered 1232, and he said the ones Valero would use would be manufactured by reputable companies.
And by bringing North American crude to Benicia, he said, the company would help the nation reduce its dependence on oil from other countries.
James Bolds, a rail car specialist who had traveled from Montgomery, Texas, to speak, said he had been hired by Valero to develop specifications, review drawings and review the cars it would use for its project. He described the 1232 car as being made from high-strength steel, with reclosing valves, head shields and other features that make it stronger than the DOT-111 car.
Others remained unconvinced, saying the DEIR didn’t delve deeply enough into possible seismic disturbances; into who would be responsible for the cleanup and liability of any accident; whether train safety could be assured along the Feather River and other places California has considered high risk for derailment; or why the city was considering the project before new federal regulations for tanker cars, rail inspection and automatic systems were in place.
They weren’t swayed by supporters’ reminders that Valero annually contributes about a quarter of the city’s General Fund revenues, and that it had donated more than $13 million to area charities in 10 years; that the refinery employs 450 people, contracts for another 250 and supports 3,900 others; or that the project would provide temporary jobs to 120 construction workers and create 20 permanent jobs at the refinery.
But to those who spoke out against “big oil,” Art Gray, a shift supervisor at Valero, said, “The refinery is made up of people like me. My front yard is 150 yards from the refinery fence line.”
Explaining that the DEIR “finds this to have a positive effect,” he asked the commission, “Let us compete against other refineries.”
Rather than wrapping up the hearing as it kept going until early Friday, the commission unanimously decided to continue the opportunity to take public comment at its Sept. 11 meeting, at which commissioners also would be given a chance to speak.
Donna Beth Weilenman/Staff
Sharing is caring!
Thank you, Marilyn Bardet, Roger Straw and others, Valero is the same outfit that blows black sooty “flarings” on bad days, and guess what? The wind rosette doesn’t always carry it downwind to Antioch, Pittsburgh, or the Central Valley, and besides why should it?
Sorry, 1/3 to 1/2 of Germany’s domestic power comes from Solar. Again the US is behind…I’m NOT a supporter of Frakking either. Where are the wind machines in this prolific, “Windy corridor”? Polluting, high-risk oil belongs to an era of buggy whips and whale oil. Bring on solar and wind energy, not nukes or Bakken Crude or Frakking and Benicia gets my vote.
Peter – how many times does one need to write it? Wind and solar energy are not transportation fuels. I know of only a hand full of solar powered aircraft, with light gossamer wings and seating for 1. The Benicia refinery does not make fuel for power generation except for the small fraction that may be used to power a home generator. It makes transportation fuel. Gasoline for your cars, diesel fuel for trucks and farm equipment to feed the world and get that food to market. It makes jet fuel for commercial airlines, and military use. Global humanitarian aid leaving from Travis AFB most likely comes from Benicia. We provide fuel for the city police and fire departments. We provide fuel for Cal Fire ground and aerial firefighting equipment. I have yet to see a solar powered fire engine capable of pumping thousands of gallons of water on a structure fire.
Germany is a world leader when it comes to solar electricity production, but they still need machinery running on hydrocarbons to manufacture the panels and get them installed.
Global humanitarian aid leaving from Travis AFB most likely flies with the jet fuel produced in Benicia.
Benicia Dave:
The more wind and solar, the more clean electrical, non-polluting energy we can have, the more electric vehicles we can have, the lesser carbon footprint, the lesser dependency on crap fuels like Bakken Crude. This is NOT ROCKET Science…think Green, QUIT THINKING OILY PETROLEUM, fossil fuels, this is not yesterday. We are already screwing with tomorrow…pb
Peter – we are in agreement we need more wind and solar power – more electric cars, more renewable energy BUT we live in a hydrocarbon based world economy. There is not enough land mass in the United States to support a fully solar/wind generated electrical grid. I don’t even think hydrogen could keep up on a global scale. We need to continue to work towards these ends, but the global economy will not shift to another source of energy until the current supply runs out. It’s human nature. I think when that shift happens, it will be preceded by a global population correction the likes our species has never experienced.
“There is not enough land mass in the United States to support a fully solar/wind generated electrical grid.”
Sorry BD, that is a false statement.
It would take coverage of 0.03% of land surface with solar arrays to provide electricity for the entire planet.
Thanks, I read a similar number…the cretins and druids of the non-science crowd really likes their Petro stock income, nothing like an Oily day to make their joy just buoyant…on Spare the Air Days especially…I’m reminded of old harpooners with whale oil lamps in tow,. just overjoyed to be rendering down their latest caught slice of fresh whale blubber….Kinda makes ya teary-eyed don’t it?..
pb
Prove it. Give us the FACTS. You never know we might just acknowledge the facts.. Thanks.
That’s approximately 1/2 the size of Maine.
Yeah, I saw an ad somewhere on the Internet showing a small square in the Sahara Desert, in North Africa somewhere and that was was all it would take, full of solar panels to power a humongous part of Europe…it’s about time to get the cretins and druids out of the media and let the truth be known about renewables. Border Collies are brighter than many of our worthless members of Congress and the Supreme Court…pb
It would not be hard for others to do the homework on this, Perhaps do a search on the internet. Or, not. I’m indifferent.
Not a problem, healthy news and disgusting lies are everywhere..the seeker finds what he or she wants to find. Every fast, progressive boat has a few barnacles wanting a slow existence in a stinking pond somewhere…Cretins and druids don’t always prevail even if they think they hold the only cards…pb
Benicia Dave,
There is no source of energy attainable that is not going to have some level of adverse environmental impact. That being the case we need to consider which detrimental affect impacts the fewest.
Folks are singing praise to the sun, but:
Emerging solar plants scorch birds in mid-air
From the above link: Estimates per year now range from a low of about a thousand by BrightSource to 28,000 by an expert for the Center for Biological Diversity environmental group.
Spit the difference in that number, call it 14,500, from one solar plant, a plant large enough for 140,000 homes. Now multiply that by the number of plants of this type. The total is not pretty
There, are of course far less damaging ways to derive energy from the sun. But plants such as this are getting a lot of support from “Green Energy” advocates.
detrimental affect …
Opps, meant effect.
Need to correct that before the grammar Nazi’s come out.
Peter said: 1/3 to 1/2 of Germany’s domestic power comes from Solar
Peter, if you have a stat that supports that statement, I would welcome to see it. You may be confusing the increase in solar production, vs. the overall production of energy from renewable sources.
Consider:
http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=9958New Record for Renewable Energies in Germany
For the first time Germany’s power production from renewable energy sources exceeded the 25-percent mark.
BDEW reported that wind energy remained the largest contributor of renewable energy, accounting for 9.2 percent (2011: 7.7 percent), followed by energy from biomass with 5.7 percent (2011: 5.3 percent) and solar energy with 5.3 percent (2011: 3.6 percent). Solar energy saw the biggest increase, up to 47 percent from previous year.
Livesay: You quibble incessantly over trivialities, chronically negative over the evolution of the species…I read that solar in Germany was that high, well over the US, maybe they meant renewables. Get with the future, you’d carp over the rising or setting of the sun. You moan about Matt Talbot’s opinion on cities he’s visited. Your carping is irrelevant. pb
Sorry, Dennis, that sounded so much like Livesay, I thought those comments were his. You two are becoming mirror images of each other.
pb
Peter said: Sorry, Dennis,
Apology accepted Peter, it has long been evident that you do not really pay attention anyway, s so. I do appreciate that you have now confirmed as much.
BTW, were you able to find a source to back up that comment about 1/3 to 1/2 of all energy in Germany is derived from solar?
I do look forward to seeing that..
Dennis:
It was one of 10,000 sound bytes I read in the last 14 days. Since when are you so factually oriented anyway? Do you only contest everything a moderate-liberal has to say but accept all the non-science carping that individuals like Livesay belch forward? Your agenda is well known, Dennis, what’s your point? Or do you really have one? Have you ever thought of writing for your own community paper since you no longer live in Benicia? Wouldn’t your locals really prefer to hear from you?
PB
What, and get chased out of another community?
Dennis: That reminds me, where are you geographically? I wanna write for your local paper. I suspect they might need some great moderately liberal, Op-Ed opinions…you DO have a local paper, right? Please hurry, I’ve got some great stuff in the pipeline called “In a Piper Cub at 100 feet.”
Peter Bray
Peter Bray said: It was one of 10,000 sound bytes I read in the last 14 days. Since when are you so factually oriented anyway?
Probably since I stopped being a Democrat.
DDL
PS: How does one read a sound byte?
Maybe it wasn’t a sound byte, but a bug bite..Were you forced from the Democrats Party due to low test scores or what was it about W and Cheney that told you you might have made the wrong decision?
U-turns are still an option in political traffic you know…wait til Perry goes to court for his abuse of power charge though…Maybe Christie will rebound from his bridge mess? Maybe Hillary will get an awesome hairstyle? The options of watching politics are so much more awesome than another night of Fox News aren’t they?
You quibble incessantly over trivialities
Pointing out that your stated facts are wrong is a “triviality”? : LOL
Now I understand why you still worship at the altar of 0bama
Dennis: No, I’m following Rick Perry closely now…with his new glasses he really does look brighter!n But he’d better clear up his current indictment, Hillary may rub his nose in it in 2016.
PB
It wasn’t a fact, Dennis, it was a sound byte and you fell for it too. But naturally you had to contest it. Like you’re some kind of Authority on something. The last thing I read of yours was a big hullaballoo about wooden cheeseboards in Wisconsin.. Yes, that was really cutting edge important (no pun intended), Dennis and just occupied me like for hours! Wow! Cheeseboards in Wisconsin! WOW! Can I follow that on CNN? Maybe the New Yorker will pick it up? Or the LA Times? Or the Vallejo paper?
PB
Peter said: It wasn’t a fact, Dennis, it was a sound byte and you fell for it too.
No I didn’t, you did. I knew it was total BS, as soon as I read it and proved it.
“Facts” are kind of important Peter, I would have thought you were taught that in Engineering school.
The last thing I read of yours …just occupied me like for hours!
That explains it. Good luck with your dyslexia.
Work on your humor, Dennis, your monitoring and criticizing everyone else’s viewpoint might be a corroding case of low self esteem…acquire a few more customer flights at 30,000 feet, maybe your disposition and aspirations will improve…all mankind and Hillary may not be your perennial enemy or adersary
“A corroding case of low self esteem”
Bingo
Spades are spades and trowels and shovels all have their places too….pb
Dennis:
Do your own homework. I’m no bean counter for you. Everything I quote is run-of-the-mill broadcast daily over the Internet. De-tune yourself from Fox News crap and smell the coffee and then the roses in that order. Democrats, Obama, and Hillary’s Boogeymen might not be living under your every bed.
pb
The big problem with the meeting was it was about the DEIR and not contributions from any company in Benicia. All of that will come later.The speakers should have stuck to the issue which was the DEIR. Even thou I am proValero and support the Three Rail Project on Valero property as in the past emotions, what ifs and wrong info by the the opponets and also some folks that talked about everything but the DEIR. It was a very pro Valero crowd and those folks did a good service for Valero The opponets were very into emotions and what ifs and forgot the fACTS in the DEIR. They did not do a very good job. The meeting overall was very well controlled with no out burst of contemp triggered by emotions. The Valero backers had the experts and destroyed the anti fossil fuel crowd with a big defeat based on facts and not emotions. This is just part of the process and expect a long drawn out process. It will eventually go to the council for a final decision. But guess what that will not end it. I do hope cooler heads prevail and this project is approved and moves forward in an orderly manor. If that is the case the opponets will have an opportunity in 2016 to bring candidates to the election process and try to take over the council. That will not happen. Just a thought on what to expect in two years.. Mayber,E, maybe not. It was a very good meeting and productive inspite of the drifting by both sides.
All the folks that comment and state so called fACTS. I have no problem with that but at the same time should I just take it as fact?. A great big no. I do not care who comments and states factcs. that is fine. Just give us the resourse to verify or the commentor can give the resourse. Just help us out on your fact based statement and we might just join your group. But not before fact based references.. I do not think that is to much to ask.. .
Sometimes the great proclaimers need to live by their proclamations. Otherwise it is just an offering of ineffectual evangelism.
You are correct they got hammered. my interpretation because I was there. Were you ?
And to be a little more specific in lay terms = ?
pb
Yet another emotional response.
Here’s a reality check for those of you against fossil fuels, the Valero project, ect. ect. Yes, maybe we are too dependent on fossil fuels, but the jobs the petroleum industry provides cannot be duplicated by a shift to a “renewables” future. And whether the pay scale can be duplicated, either, is in serious doubt. After all take a look at the why the Bakken oil region has attracted so many people to work there (even in rather difficult winter weather conditions): MONEY. Last I checked fast food establishments are having to offer $15.00+ an hour just to get people to fill out employment forms. All the serious money is to be made driving trucks and working out the in oil fields.
Whether or not the Valero Benicia project gets the OK (I think it will pass by a slim margin), oil companies are going to find ways to bring oil in via rail as long as imported oil is more expensive than domestic oil + transportation costs. They will go to more expensive “second and third choices” if they have to. Remember, the Brown administration has not said “no” to oil by rail…
If the Valero project is shot down I fully expect them to try again with a project on a smaller scale. Financially, it’s not in their best interest to give up unless they plan to sell the refinery to someone else (which is not likely anyway). There are crude oil by rail projects elsewhere in the state that have either already been approved or will likely be approved. Valero did withdraw it’s application for a crude oil by rail terminal at it’s refinery in Southern California but that’s because they have a new agreement with another oil company for rail and, especially, pipeline access.
BTW while I’m at it I will say I think the WesPac Energy project in Pittsburg will never make it to the construction stage. It’s a good idea, but the crude oil unloading location doesn’t make much sense. Too bad since that area really needs all the good paying jobs they can get. The Valero project makes much more sense to me.
Al
“”Financially, it’s not in their best interest to give up unless they plan to sell the refinery to someone else (which is not likely anyway).””
Good comment. I do believe that stating anything to the contrary can just be construed as scare tactics.