I DECIDED TO WRITE THIS PIECE before the release of the draft environmental impact report (EIR) on the Valero request to build three railroad track extensions (sidings) on their property. The level of near hysterical hyperbole presented by one small but active group against this effort has caused the city and Valero to again be held hostage by the thinly veiled threat of efforts to delay construction of this project. The project has already been delayed a year or more at an initial cost of $1 million or more, which will be passed to the consumer in the form of higher gas prices. It is my opinion that the city and Valero should have proceeded no differently than how the city processed past requests to build nearly the exact same facilities.
A few years ago, around 2009, Union Pacific constructed four railroad track extensions (sidings), around ½ mile each, on their property on the southwest side of Industrial Way between Channel and Bayshore roads. I estimate the cost to build those tracks was similar to Valero’s cost to build three extensions, so the requirement to apply and receive a use permit should have occurred. Yet my research for articles, protests, Council hand-wringing and city manager pontification, which included reading 2009-14 Planning Commission minutes, came up empty; I could not find anything remotely noteworthy regarding the Union Pacific project.
Recently, in late 2013 and early 2014, Union Pacific significantly upgraded those four track extensions as well as the remaining extensions parallel to Industrial Way. I assume those upgrades significantly increased the load-carrying capacity of each track, since the spacing between railroad ties was cut in half — i.e., moved much closer to each other. This effort probably fell short of the requirement to apply for a use permit but otherwise is no different regarding what could conceivably be parked on those tracks. Again, no effort to protest the construction and no sensationalism or postulation that tankers of sweet/heavy crude could be parked on those newly upgraded tracks.
My understanding of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, and in general the way our country works, is that we are a country of laws. “Equal justice under the law” — these words are engraved above the main entrance to the Supreme Court building. The most recognized legal symbol visible in the architecture of the building is the female figure representing justice. Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is, or should be, meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness. Blind justice and impartiality must prevail in all legal decisions.
I believe the city of Benicia, its staff, Council and Planning Commission have lost sight of the concept of “Equal justice under the law.” I think they need to take a giant step back and reconsider Valero’s request through a very simple lens: What has the city done in the past; what are they legally able to regulate; and what should the city’s overall role be in the Valero rail extension (siding) request?
I believe there are three separate and distinct issues, and distinct regulatory bodies for each issue:
• Request to Build Three Railroad Track Extensions (Sidings) — This is an area of authority for Benicia; Valero should meet all requirements to receive a permit to build their rail extensions. The criteria for approval of the request should be the same as that applied to Union Pacific’s extensions and any other similar projects.
• Environmental implications of what is carried on those tracks, in addition to the standards that must be met in processing any liquids offloaded or loaded to railroad tanker cars. — This is an area where Benicia does not have any authority. I believe the levels of authority are the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the state Environmental Protection Authority and the federal EPA.
• Authorization and standards of what may be transported in tanker cars on railroad tracks and the safety standards therein. — This is an area where Benicia does not have any authority. I believe the levels of authority are the Department of Transportation (DOT), the U. S. Department of Homeland Security and perhaps the EPA.
In essence, the one matter that the city of Benicia has the authority to regulate is Valero’s request to build three railroad track extensions (sidings). I also believe the precedent has been set on the criteria that must be met to build the tracks — that used to regulate the Union Pacific track extensions (sidings). A worst-case scenario for Valero is that they are able to build their track extensions but at the same time decisions are made by DOT to disallow any heavy crude to be transported by rail. Each act and accompanying decision is separate from the other and should be addressed accordingly. Allowing radicals from either side of the argument to influence what is to be addressed is patently wrong and should be rejected out of hand. Those concerned about what is transported on the rails or what the quality of the air will be should be referred to the appropriate state or federal authorities — it should not and cannot be decided or regulated by the city of Benicia.
Dennis Lowry, a retired telecommunications executive, is former chairman of the Benicia Finance, Budget and Audit Committee. He has been a Benicia resident since 1986.
Sharing is caring!
“Corporations were not originally created to maximize profit to stockholders, as most people today believe. They were first created to serve the public interest, the public purpose.”
–Ralph Estes, Tyranny of the Bottom Line, 1996
Beyond business-as-usual—
No mention in the above article about public health and safety.
From the post below more information for Mr . Lowry, our appointed and elected representatives past and present to consider…
‘Oakland Opposes Fossil Fuel Transport By Rail As Sacramento Imposes New Fees To Help Fund Spill Response”
“The City Council of Oakland, California has passed a resolution opposing the transport of coal, oil, petcoke (a byproduct of the oil refining process) and other hazardous materials by railways and waterways within the city.”
Oakland’s resolution is the first of its kind for California, as it goes further than similar resolutions passed by Berkeley and Richmond opposing crude-by-rail.
“Oakland is leading the way for Californians who want to tell Big Coal and Big Oil that we cannot bear the risk they impose upon on our town,” said Lynette Gibson McElhaney, one of three council members who sponsored the resolution.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/22/oakland-city-council-opposes-transport-fossil-fuels-rail
“Sunlight is the best of disinfectants.”
—Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, circa 1915
Beyond business-as-usual—
No mention in the above article about public health and safety.
From the post below more information for Mr . Lowry, our appointed and elected representatives past and present to consider…
“What if it happened here? Nobody wants to have a crude oil train derailment in California, but steps to prevent that are lacking.”
“California has already seen a dramatic increase of crude by rail, from 45,000 barrels in 2009 to six million barrels in 2013 – a 100 fold spike without any real safety measures in place. With all of the accidents we have seen over the past year, these mile-long trains put far too many people and schools at risk. ”
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dbailey/what_if_it_happened_here_nobod.html
Gregory,
You do not have a clue, who is liable for a spill, and they are not taking safety measures. RIGHT.
You need to check and see if you sprinklers are on and help someway besides all the BS.
On June 30, 2014, I attended Valero’s public meeting, held at the Ironworkers’ hall, to learn about Valero’s plan to receive light sweet crude oil (low density, low sulfur crude) from the Bakken formation in North Dakota. The meeting was well attended; Ironworkers Local 378 President, Bobby Lux, set the tone and Valero’s John Hill and Donald Cuffel made very professional and informative presentations.
If one purpose of the meeting was to inspire the public to look at the big picture and reach our own conclusions about the proposal, then it was successful. Like it or not, we all depend on petroleum products and unless we manage those resources more effectively than we have in the past, we’ll damage ourselves and the earth we live on.
Thanks to the City of Benicia we have a draft Environmental Impact Report, the Times-Herald for several articles and the amazing internet for many informative reports. I encourage everyone to have a look and ask themselves is rail delivery of Bakken something we should accept in our backyard?
As a retired federal regulator, University of California Radiation Safety Officer and independent consultant, I can assure you that there is no lack of oversight in the packaging and shipment of hazardous materials. The regulatory framework has been in place for many years and continues to be refined and improved to minimize risk. As a resident of Benicia, lover of the California Delta and Valero stock holder I’m confident the project can proceed with no significant increase in risk if:
1. The shipper of the crude oil (oil company) properly samples, analyses, characterizes, labels, loads, closes and placards each batch of crude placed in a tank car.
2. The carrier (railroad company or Valero) only uses railroad tank cars that have been manufactured, operated and maintained consistent with Department of Transportation (DOT-1232) design criteria.
3. The carrier establishes, implements and maintains compliance with laws, regulations and industry standards governing operation, maintenance and use of the rails, and
4. Valero uses Best Available Control (BAC) technology to minimize fugitive emissions at the proposed rail spur and off-loading rack.
These actions will not eliminate all risk, i.e. terrorism or malfeasance, but the consequences will be less than those associated with shipping, in part because the volume contained in the proposed train is much less than a ship.
Finally, I too would rather the refinery be located in someone else’s backyard. But if we use petroleum products, shouldn’t we be willing to accept some of the risk and inconvenience for the benefit received by all of us?
Excellent comment, one that is appreciated by all reasonable people.
More crude-by-rail news the community can use…
From the above commenter:
” I encourage everyone to have a look and ask themselves is rail delivery of Bakken something we should accept in our backyard”?
From the article below more information (public discussion) for the community and our appointed and elected leaders past and present to seriously consider…
“A Record Year of Oil Train Accidents Leaves Insurers Wary”
‘Last year, trains hauled over 400,000 carloads of crude oil, up from just 9,500 carloads in 2008, according to railroad industry estimates. Each carload represents roughly 30,000 gallons of flammable liquids, and some trains haul over 100 oil cars at a time.”
“But with this fast expansion has come some astounding risks — risks that have insurance companies and underwriters increasingly concerned.”
“All told, railcar accidents spilled more than 1.15 million gallons of crude oil in 2013, federal data shows, compared with an average of just 22,000 gallons a year from 1975 through 2012 — a fifty-fold spike.”
“The large-scale shipments of crude oil by rail simply didn’t exist 10 years ago, and our safety regulations need to catch up with this new reality,” said NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman
“Adequately protecting against oil train explosions would be expensive, raising the costs of delivering oil to consumers. ”
“Shipping by rail already costs between $2 and $22 per barrel more than shipping by pipeline, and upgrading rail cars, training first responders in case of a catastrophe, and rebuilding aging rail lines will all add enormous additional expenses.”
“The question is, are those costs worth paying, especially when renewable energy sources grow more viable every year”?
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/03/17/record-year-oil-train-accidents-leaves-insurers-wary
Will,
The numbers for rail shipments quoted by Desmog Blog (from the globe and mail) are at odds with government numbers.