OPPONENTS of Valero’s Crude-by-Rail Project rallied in front of City Hall on Thursday, holding sunflowers to honor the residents of Lac-Megantic, Quebec, Canada, who died in a fiery train accident in 2013.
Donna Beth Weilenman/Staff
And rather than keep Thursday’s meeting going until those who filled City Hall had a chance to speak, the panel also extended its public hearing on the report to its next regular meeting, Aug. 14.
About 300 attended the meeting, filling the City Council Chamber, the commission room, a conference room and the City Hall courtyard. Some attended a rally in front of City Hall beforehand, many hoisting placards that called for an end to crude oil deliveries by rail.
Of these, 74 carried and waved sunflowers in memory of those who were killed one year ago in the fiery derailment of a runaway train that was carrying crude oil in Lac Megantic, Quebec, Canada.
A smaller number of Valero supporters handed out brochures explaining the project.
Valero Benicia Refinery applied early last year for a use permit that would allow the company to build three sections of track so Union Pacific Railroad could deliver crude on its trains that travel through Roseville to Benicia.
After an initial study, the city chose to have the Environmental Impact Report composed to meet California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements in determining how the project would affect multiple facets of the environment.
The initial draft of the EIR has been circulating since June 17, and the public comment period originally was to last 45 days. But by a 4-2 vote, with Chairperson Donald Dean and Commissioner Belinda Smith opposing, the commission agreed with the majority of 31 speakers who asked for more time to study the thick report.
During Thursday’s four-and-a-half-hour meeting, many of the speakers advocated for or against the project. The commission’s primary duty was to listen. Its only decisions Thursday were about how long to give the public to comment on the DEIR, and whether to continue the meeting when it became clear that not all in attendance would have time to speak.
The commission won’t decide whether to certify the environmental report or issue a use permit for the project until public comments and questions are addressed in the document’s final version, which is being prepared by San Francisco-based consultant ESA.
Artist Jack Ruszel, who said his woodworking company at 2980 Bayshore Road employees 25 who work near the proposed project site, called the draft environmental report “distorted,” and a “travesty and an insult.”
“They want you to be their stooges,” he told commissioners during his passionate speech. “They want you to rubber stamp it. You are in their way.”
Though Dean tried to limit Ruszel to the five minutes other public speakers had been given, the artist pressed his case. “It’s our duty to be stewards,” he said. “I implore you to examine this morally and see this as a global issue.”
Admitting he had become emotional about the project, he said, “Don’t damn us with this for years to come.”
In contrast, Pierre Bidou, Benicia’s former police chief, a City Council member and member of the Benicia Unified School District Board of Trustees, spoke quietly to the commission before handing over 100 signatures of those favoring the project.
“Valero is a true friend of this community,” Bidou said, cautioning against taking action that could be detrimental to the refinery, which provide 25 percent of Benicia’s General Fund revenues through taxes.
Bidou, who said he has lived in Benicia for 52 years, described Benicia’s condition when the refinery was built by the Humble Oil company a few years after the U.S. Army closed the Benicia Arsenal, a major employer.
“When Humble came here, this city was starving,” he said. “You really need to think deep and hard about this.”
He wasn’t the only Valero supporter. Rich McChesney described how his employer, Performance Mechanical Inc., was involved in the refinery’s massive maintenance turnaround and its fluescrubber project, which McChesney managed.
He praised Valero for its “culture of safety, quality and integrity,” and said, “We like it when we go there.”
McChesney said the refinery’s highest concern was safety for employees, contractors and community, and that its quality “is second to none.” He urged the commission “to move this thing along.”
Maria Teresa Matthews also called Valero a responsible company that had provided Benicia the information it requested in formulating the DEIR, and urged the panel to consider only facts of the report when deciding whether to issue a use permit.
VALERO CRUDE-BY-RAIL PROJECT OPPONENTS Kathy Kerridge, standing, and Marilyn Bardet.
Donna Beth Weilenman/Staff
Many of the 13 who spoke about the DEIR before the meeting closed at 11:30 p.m. came from Davis and Roseville, communities through which crude-carrying trains would to travel on their way to Benicia, should the project be approved.
At an audience member’s suggestion, the commission gave those who had traveled from outside Benicia the first opportunity at the microphone during the limited meeting time.
Most of the visitors joined Ruszel in opposing the project and criticizing the DEIR.
Barbara Burr, of Davis, disagreed with the document’s contention that trains could not be regulated by state or local agencies. “The California Public Utilities Commission has the authority to control the speed of trains,” she said.
Burr criticized the report for failing to address cumulative effects of the project and others, and she called for a moratorium on crude-by-rail terminals.
Elizabeth Lasensky disagreed with the report’s expectation of few to no derailments. She cited a 2003 incident in Davis in which a speeding train collided with another, resulting in a cleanup that disrupted Amtrak’s passenger trains.
Another incident in 2009 involved the turnover of two cars that spilled tons of wine into a residential area, Lasensky said.
Reminding the commission that Davis and other uprail communities would receive no benefit but could experience some hazards from the Valero project, she said, “We like Davis, and we would like it to stay the way it is.”
Others asked whether Valero would have enough liability coverage to address the impacts of spills or crashes, and expressed frustration that CEQA allowed the refinery to submit trade secrets to the city for use in developing the environmental report, even though that information was then withheld from the public.
During the first half of the meeting, speakers were asked to express whether the report’s public comment period should remain at 45 days or be expanded.
Many asked for more time, reminding the panel that the draft’s release coincided with family vacation time. In fact, Commissioner Belinda Smith said she would be on vacation a few hours after the meeting closed.
Jon Van Landschoot, a member of the Historic Preservation Review Commission who spoke as a resident Thursday night, said the report had been expected by mid-2013, and only was finished and made public last month.
To read its 1,450 pages in 45 days, the original public comment period, would require digesting 32 pages a day, he said. Expanding the comment period to a total of 90 days would reduce that to 16 pages a day.
“You need as much time to review this as they had to make it,” he said.
Though most commissioners agreed, Dean and Smith opposed, suggesting that the project had been subject to several public meetings and extending the comment period might generate more quantity, but perhaps no greater quality of comments.
The public also heard from Benicia staff and consultants, including those representing ESA.
Valero’s fire chief, Joe Bateman, and Benicia Fire Department Chief Jim Lydon described how their two departments have trained to handle fires, spills and hazardous materials, addressing some of the public fears that Benicia could experience a Lac-Megantic-type incident.
“We are prepared today to respond to any emergency,” Bateman said, explaining that his employees already have helped Benicia fight fires and have assisted in neighboring refineries’ emergencies.
Kat Wellman, who had presented a longer explanation at a Planning Commission workshop on the CEQA and environmental reports, gave an abbreviated version Thursday.
Bradley Hogin, special CEQA counsel, confirmed that under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, the federal government, not regional or city agencies, regulates railroads, and explained how the applicant’s trade secrets can’t be made public in the DEIR, even when they are used as part of the environmental study that has led to the document.
Leaking that information would benefit Valero’s competitors, he said, and could lead to unintentional violations of antitrust laws.
Don Cuffel, Valero Benicia Refinery manager of the Environmental Engineer Group, addressed another public concern, that the project would increase emissions in the Bay Area.
Delivering crude by rail instead of by ship would reduce emissions by 225,000 tons every year, or 10 percent of the current emissions, the DEIR noted.
It also said reducing oil shipments by tanker ship more than compensates for locomotive emissions, but uprail communities would experience locomotive pollution and risks without any benefit.
Cuffel said that increase was the equivalent of 10 round trips by diesel recreational vehicle from Benicia to Tahoe.
He added that the refinery has 700 cards from those who like the project, and said the DEIR was “a tremendous amount of work for a valuable project.”
Because of the commission vote, the public has until Sept. 15 to submit questions and observations to Principal Planner Amy Million in the Community Development Department of Benicia City Hall, 250 East L St.; fax them to her at 707-747-1637; or email her at amillion@ci.benicia.ca.us.
Sharing is caring!
Why would this group want to stop the Crude by Rail project? Simple they are very anti fossil fuel. Have they any idea what the results would be if they are successful? Do they even care? It now appears that their ,over bearing crowds of individuals is being out done by a much larger and quiter group with just as much say or more than this agenda driven group. . It now appears that this grpoup is now simply a vocal small group. Can they be effective? For a short time. Then their repeated story has no bearing on the issue at hand. just more of the same. It is about Benicia and not Davis and other near by cities. What is next attack Martinez and their two refineries.. This group is agenda driven with very little sense of responsibility to the local residents. They do not care about Benicia and the residernts. They want it their way or no way. The state and federal government has a lot to say about rail safety, rail car safety, health standards and any other issue that could be of comcern to all residents. Benicia is not the keeper of the rest of the state. or nation. I hear nothing about Oregon, Washington and Bakersfield crude by rail terminals. I guess this group at present is only concerned about upsetting the life style of the folks in Benicia. I do not know what the outcome will be. But you can bank on this group going political. Watch who the put up for the council election. They will go after one member for sure and possibly both. A very revange seeking group..
Please no comments on the typos. I know they are there. You get the message.
A passionate public vs. business as usual—
From the above article:
Artist Jack Ruszel, who said his woodworking company at 2980 Bayshore Road employees 25 who work near the proposed project site, called the draft environmental report “distorted,” and a “travesty and an insult.”
“They want you to be their stooges,” he told commissioners during his passionate speech. “They want you to rubber stamp it. You are in their way.”
Though Dean tried to limit Ruszel to the five minutes other public speakers had been given, the artist pressed his case. “It’s our duty to be stewards,” he said. “I implore you to examine this morally and see this as a global issue.”
Stooges vs. stewards:
Who amongst our Planning Commission and City Council–will be –environmental;public health and safety- stewards for the community?
From the post below: more relevant information for the community and our appointed and elected representatives to seriously contemplate…
“Why Nothing Will Happen On Oil by Rail Safety”
“In the past month, there have been numerous public relations efforts suggesting that much is being done to improve oil by rail safety. Unfortunately, it seems these efforts will not involve much more than press releases and hollow promises, as regulators have made no meaningful changes to a broken and ineffective regulatory system. ”
“That approach, combined with the realities of the rail tank car industry, basically ensure that oil will be transported in the unsafe DOT-111 tank cars for many years to come, despite testimony at a recent congressional hearing from Robert Sumwalt of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).”
Sumwalt testified that, “multiple recent serious and fatal accidents reflect substantial shortcomings in tank car design that create an unacceptable public risk.”
“Unacceptable to the public, but apparently perfectly acceptable to the industry.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/03/14/why-nothing-will-happen-oil-rail-safety
Will you are the stooge. Valero will not use Dot 111 tank cars. There is as we write rules and regs going to be put in place. Just because you and your group of stooges want to stop Crude
by Rail does not mean it cannot be made safe. It can and will be made safe. The one thing that cannot be stopped is personal negl;igence. Those folks that are responsible for negligence will personally face a very strong out come. The problem with your group of stooges, {I use that word because you seem to understand that word, I do not mean it toward this group} is they are unwilling to work together to solve the problem. but to create problems. Get rid of fossil fuel is this group of stooges only answer. It appears Will you move right to the top as the “Head Stooge “Local Citizen Research Reporter”.” .Keep it up Will you are doing your group a great deal of harm.. Will do you think if all issues are solved with the DEIR this group wil;l accept those mitigated solutions? Will they will not. It is their way or no way. Just anti fossil fuel and for sure to stop crude by rail. Will you are the stooge and you make your group look like stooges. If I was them I would get shed of you at once. You are of no help.
As an east coaster who still maintains an interest in Benicia, I appreciate this article which I found to be informative and seemingly pretty well balanced. While his reported comments are useful and accurate as far as I know , I believe it would have been helpful (from a reporting standpoint) to point out that Mr Bidou’ – in addition to his other hats – was also at one time, at least, an employee of Valero (the security manager as I recall).
Very interesting comment. I assume then both sides need to have all persons investigated as to prior employment, political leanings, friends and relatives that have or now work for Valero. If what you are saying is the case I assume you would want all membersa of the CSC, Mayor, former local Reverend and anyone that could have a preconceived ideals. Well guess what now we have no one left to be pro or con. The mst one sided statement I have every seen. Mr. Craft have you looked at all the folks on both sides and pre-determined their ability to be un-biased in this Crude By Rail project. Have you done back ground checks on all the Planning Commission members and also the Council members. Maybe even the group that put the DEIR together. Take a good look at the folks that made anti Valero statrements and tell us all about them also. I will be looking forward to your in depth statement. Get with the program. This project should be determined as it is. A Three Rail Project on Valero’s property not on someones past employment. Just who would you have suggested as a security officer the local mailman? By the way you say as you recall. Now test your ability to give us the facts not as you recall. I have no idea what your motive is.
It appears that this project is in its’ final death throws. Welcome they are.
At this point, I say let Valero spend their money on the project. As it stands there is a bigger picture issue at stake. Crude by rail is now a national debate. Thus, even if Valero builds the rail extension, it is highly likely that they won’t be able to use it for its’ intended purpose.
There are crude by rail terminals being proposed in Oregon, Washington and Bakersfield. The Keystone project will be built for the purpose of gulf refineries and export. We will have to start exporting product. Now that there are major set back for coal natural gas becomes very inportant for certain parts of the country. So I see the Valero project as an alternative to be competitive with the competion. All safety issues regarding rail and tank cars will be handled in most cases by the government with states doing add ons. Valero will do a good job.
Beyond business as usual, those trade secrets and being competitive—
A deeper more profound analysis (the bigger planetary picture) for our appointed and elected representatives to seriously contemplate
A few excerpts from the article below:
”8 Charts That Show How Climate Change is Making the World More Dangerous”
“Forget the future. The world already is nearly five times as dangerous and disaster prone as it was in the 1970s, because of the increasing risks brought by climate change, according to a new report from the World Meteorological Organization.”
1) We’re going to need a bigger boat – or flood defenses
2) Heat waves are the new killer
3) Floods are getting more costly
4) Nearly all of the 8,835 disasters – about 89% – were due to flooding and storms
5) But storms were by far the bigger threat to life accounting for about 1.45m of the 1.94m global disaster deaths. Drought was the next big killer, mainly because of the horrific toll during the 1980s famine in Africa
6) About half of the $2390.7bn cost of disasters over the last 40 years was due to storms with hurricane Katrina and super storm Sandy, both in the US, accounting for $196.9bn of those damages
7) Droughts in East Africa in the 1970s and 1980s were the deadliest disasters of modern times, killing 600,000 in Ethiopia, Mozambique Somalia, and Sudan. But storms were also a big killer for Bangladesh
8) Hurricanes and other severe storms are taking an increasing toll on the US economy. Five of the costliest global disasters were in the US. All five were caused by storms, caused a total of $294bn in damage.”
http://www.alternet.org/environment/8-charts-show-how-climate-change-making-world-more-dangerous
I wonder, if given the choice between A, B , C or D what those opposed to this project would choose.
A – Bring in North American crudes by rail
B – Bring in Alaskan oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by ship
C – Ramp up production off shore in Southern California
D – Let Valero shut down the refinery or sell it
Now before everyone jumps to option D, beyond the impact that would have on the city and county as far as tax revenues and unemployment – do you think the other area refineries have the capacity to make up the difference not only in gasoline supply, but military and civilian jet fuel and low sulfur diesel? Do you really want Tesoro, Shell and Chevron running as hard as they can to keep up with demand? Not only will gas prices increase due to loss of supply, but so will food prices as it costs more to get goods to market. Remember the fuel surcharges that were charged by major airlines?
Who would buy the refinery? Exxon? Maybe. . I don’t recall Exxon being the corporate citizen that Valero has been.
PBF?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-30/pbf-eyes-california-refineries-as-valero-calls-them-weakest-.html
Who?
The folks who run PBF used to run the Tosco refinery in Martinez. When PBF ran Tosco, it was, and may still be the most unsafe refinery in the region. I don’t think we want them in here either.
As the refinery manager said at one of the public meetings on the project, “If you’re going to have a refinery as your neighbor, you want Valero to run it”
The oil is flowing into California – it’s a product of living in a oil based economy. If you can afford a plug in hybrid vehicle and solar panels on your roof to charge it, that’s great, I’m looking long and hard at that option myself, but the fact is, the clothes on your back, the plastics in your hybrid and the food on your table would not be there without oil refineries taking the raw material, crude oil and refining it into useable products and precursors to a vast majority of goods we use everyday.
Stopping the Valero project will not stop the flow of oil into California.