THE CITY OF BENICIA issued an announcement on May 21, delaying its release of a revised draft environmental impact report on Valero Benicia Refinery’s proposal to construct an offloading facility for delivery of crude by rail. With this delay, the city will have spent more than two and a half years processing Valero’s proposal and responding to the objections of concerned residents, experts and nearby officials.
Valero’s application for a use permit came to city staff in December 2012. In May 2013, Benicia’s Community Development director issued a Notice of Intent and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, concluding that the proposal with mitigations was so benign as to not even need environmental review.
Following an outcry and organized opposition, the city commenced a full environmental review in August 2013. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released, after several delays, in June 2014. That review received an avalanche of criticism, including expert local analysis, professional review and letters from residents and area governing bodies, as well as a highly critical letter from California Attorney General Kamala Harris.
After yet another lengthy delay, the city announced in February 2015 that, in response to the magnitude of public criticism, project consultants would revise the DEIR and release it by June 30 for recirculation and another 45-day public comment period. Now, according to the city of Benicia’s announcement last Thursday, the new two-month delay (until Aug. 31) will give consultants “time to include additional analysis of the new regulations announced on May 1, 2015 by the Department of Transportation to strengthen safe transportation of flammable liquids by rail.”
The city consultant’s analysis, seemingly favoring Valero’s proposal from the outset, will likely make the case that new federal safety standards strengthen environmental protections for this project and improve Valero’s chances for landing a use permit. This analysis, of course, will come under heavy fire because of the inadequacy of the new federal rules, and likely will not withstand the scrutiny of Benicia citizens, officials and regional authorities and stakeholders.
All along, leaders of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community (BSHC) have stressed that Valero’s proposal is fatally flawed as shown in a list of significant DEIR failures, including the longstanding lack of adequate federal safety regulations governing rail transport of high-hazard flammable liquids (see http://beniciaindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/BSHC_Comments_on_DEIR.pdf — especially Section 2, #3, pp. 13-15).
More recently, BSHC has joined a chorus of national and international environmentalists and elected officials who are dismissive of the new rules issued by the Department of Transportation, which fail to adequately govern oil train routing, speed, braking systems and public notification, and leave entirely too many years for retirement and retrofitting of unsafe tank cars and the design and manufacture of tank cars to newer, safer standards.
BSHC and others have called for an immediate moratorium on all shipment of crude oil by rail, and a speedy transition to clean and renewable energy sources that will “leave the oil in the soil.”
Roger Straw is a Benicia resident and member of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community.
Sharing is caring!
“Leave the oil in the soil, is the best part. I agree. Stop this archaic and filthy fuel supply.
Peter Bray
That stronger railroad tanker cars will not solve the rail safety problem is obvious: only an improved rail and rail safety program will do that just as it was done in the airline business.
But the unanswered question remains. Which is worse in terms of risk: crude by rail or crude by rail to a west coast port, transfer to ships, transport along our coast and into the Bay, offloading to smaller vessels in the Bay that transport it to Valero. A rational decision needs to consider the consequences of both yes and no to crude by rail. Unfortunately if crude by rail is denied no EIR or city approvals are required for the latter method. So far, that alternative has been ignored and the question remains unanswered: which is worse? I don’t know but would like to see it analyzed.
Leaving oil in the soil has a nice ring but it is a long way off when one looks up in the sky and sees so many aircraft, or when one considers how many planes are taking off and landing at airports all over the world every minute, or when one considers the number of automobiles just in California. In the meantime crude will be transported and it is incumbent to reduce the risks associated with accidents.
The more you transfer the more the spill risk. I used to work the Mormon Island dock transferring oil products from/to ships. While we were prepared for spills with containment areas, boomed ship, Coast Guard inspection etc. the risk is still there. with flanged piping for hook up to ships, area below pipes was a containment area. We had no spill’s. The oil industry is not run by idiots.
With rail there is less transferring. Keep rail lines up to date and drive slow through cities. Having two in the engine cab is essential. (my dad was a railroad man and stressed the need for two in the cab)
RJK writes, “With rail there is less transferring.” This is hardly the case when comparing oil trains to marine transport. A single ship docs and is offloaded over the course of days with a single connect/disconnect transfer operation. 100 rail tank cars every day would require 100 connect operations and 100 disconnect operations daily, vastly increasing the inevitable fugitive emissions and the chances for minor and major spills into the containment areas. Note as well that in Valero’s plan, the proposed rail offloading docks are dangerously close to the refinery’s massive oil storage tanks, unlike the distant offloading facility for ships. Dirty oil by rail is far dirtier – and deadlier – than dirty oil by ship.
We’ve already had two ships hit bridges with terrible spills in the bay in recent years. There is a lot more crude to spill in a ship than a tanker car. These are all reasons a detailed analysis is needed. I don’t understand the basis of the claim that the risk of crude by rail is dirtier and deadlier than by ship. In terms of volume alone it seems unlikely. Again an analysis is needed.
Rail trains will be unloaded in a refinery in what should be a contained area so any spills will not be a problem no matter how many connects and disconnects you have. A leak over a marine (water) environment is a much bigger problem if not properly contained, the wildlife, shoreline, fishing industry etc.. . Fugitive emissions can be contained with vapor recovery systems. Also ships have more than one hookup and they can have multiple stops along the coast.
I worked in this industry for over 30 years and did not get my facts out of a ” I hate fossil fuel’s” new’s article
Many years ago I was working where the Kern ridge rail train was entering the refinery. There were many rail cars but the cars were connected to one another so as to minimize connect /disconnect ., this was mainly done to save money, man hours.
More crude -by-rail news the community can use…
The above commenter stated: “only an improved rail and rail safety program will do that just as it was done in the airline business. ”
Good luck with that mindset.
From the post below more detailed” analysis” on how the railroad and oil company’s feel about safety issues for our appointed and elected leaders to seriously consider…
“As reported on DeSmog, BNSF and the rail and oil industries have lobbied extensively against requirements that the industry upgrade the oil trains to use a modern electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) braking system.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/05/27/bnsf-president-greeted-bomb-train-protestors-chicago
I did not say or imply they would do that, I said that making tankers stronger does not solve the problem and they need to focus on accident prevention to make railroads safe. It took the airline industry decades to arrive at the safety levels they have today. I think it will take the same kind of concerted effort for the railroad industry to improve their miserable record.
But the question remains: where is the greater risk? That remains unanswered and unanalyzed, and that gap must be filled to make a reasoned decision. Skirting the question or changing the subject does not answer this fundamental question: where is the greater risk?
Greg are you talking about Union Pacfic {they have a very good record} and other local lines or nationally. The strength of the cars has been penetrated by rail tracks, ithe car equipment and so on. I do believe it is a two fold effort that is being addressed.The west has not seen the accidents as the east has. So there could be other issues as well . Like weather etc. I do believe Valero will do its part. It is now up to the railroads and the tank car manufacturers. I do believe they will all do their part and it will be safe. Leaving it in the ground is not the answer. We even have MCE is now buying natural gas for their mix. Is that not news.. You know ,the great clean air guru of the local area..
Crude by rail will come to Benicia in one form or another. Balkin is now named the crude by rail hub. That crude will go to Bakersfield and be sent north by existing pipelines to the refineries in the bay area. As Greg said it will get to Benicia some how. , The one alternative that no one seems to talk about is what happens to Valero in Benicia if this crude by rail issue is shot down. Reverend Straw has no immediate answer except to leave it in the ground. Not a very good solution. The safety issues will be mitigated and well as car content. Yes it could come by tanker from Canad, Washington, or Oregon. Does anyone think that a rail or pipeline to those areas could not be an alternative. It is already being discussxed. So the anti crude by rail folks may have just shot themselves in the foot. Now they will have to be anti pipeline, ships and we already know their whole agenda is ANTI fossil fuel. In the short and long term crude by rail will happen. The Revwerend and his group will be history.
You’re right Bob, they are simply anti-fossil fuel and will grab at any straw they can.