Tag Archives: Davis CA

COVID-19 Solano County UPDATE – Five new cases on April 22, still not enough testing!


Wednesday, April 22: five new cases, no new deaths, total now 186 cases, 3 deaths:

Solano County Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Updates and Resources.  Check out basic information in this screenshot.  IMPORTANT: The County’s interactive page has more.  On the County website, you can click on “Number of cases” and then hover over the charts for detailed information.

Yesterday’s report, Tuesday, April 21:

Summary

Solano County reported 5 NEW POSITIVE CASES today – total is now 186 No new deaths, total remains at 3.  As of today:

BY AGE GROUP:

    • No additional positive cases of young persons under 19 years of age, total of 3 cases, less than 2% of total confirmed cases.
    • All 5 new cases were persons 19-64 years of age, total of 154 cases, 83%, of the total 186 confirmed cases. No new deaths, total of 1.
    • No new cases of persons 65 or older, total of 29 cases, 16% of the 186 total.  No new deaths, total of 2.

HOSPITALIZATIONS: 48 of Solano’s 186 cases resulted in hospitalizations (6 more than yesterday).

ACTIVE CASES:  Only 21 of the 186 are active cases. This is 9 less than yesterday.  Good news!

The County’s “Hospital Impact” graph (below) shows that only 10 of the 48 hospitalized cases are currently hospitalized, 1 more than yesterday.  Note also that only 10 of the 21 active cases are currently hospitalized.  The County’s count of ICU beds and ventilators available continues at 31-100%, or GOOD.  (No information is given on our supply of test kits, PPE and staff.)

CITY DATA

  • Vallejo added all 5 of today’s new cases, total of 76.
  • Fairfield remains at 47 cases.
  • Vacaville remains at 26 cases.
  • Suisun City remains at 11 cases.
  • Benicia remains at 12 cases.
  • Dixon, Rio Vista and “Unincorporated” are still not assigned numerical data: today all remain at <10 (less than 10).  Residents and city officials have been pressuring County officials for city case counts for many weeks.  Today’s data is welcome, but still incomplete.

TESTING

The County reports that 2,555 residents have been tested as of today.  This is an increase of only 49 tested since yesterday’s total of 2,506 .  This is not enough testing!  Why so few?  Last week, around 150 new tests were reported daily, but the numbers dropped over the weekend and since.  (I have no information as to the reason for the slow pace of testing in Solano County – inadequate supply of kits, perhaps?)  Under 6 tenths of 1% of Solano County’s 447,643 residents (2019) have been tested.

The blue bars in the chart, “Daily number of cases on the date that specimens were collected” shows why the County is interpreting a flattening of the curve.  Note that the daily date in that chart refers to the date a sample was drawn and so reflects the lag time in testing.

Solano’s upward curve in cumulative cases – as of April 22

The chart above shows the infection’s trajectory in Solano County.  It’s too soon to tell, but we may be seeing a flattening of the curve!  Still – incredibly important…

…everyone stay home and be safe!

Vallejo Times-Herald: Why the rush on crude?

Repost from The Vallejo Times-Herald, Letters

Why the rush on crude?

By Kathy Kerridge, Vallejo Times-Herald, 07/08/2014

The Benicia Planning commission will take public comments tonight at City Hall on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Valero’s Crude by Rail project. Written comments are due by Aug. 1. This project would bring 100 rail cars a day over the Donner Pass or through the Feather River Canyon, over rivers, through Truckee, Roseville, Sacramento, Davis, Dixon, Fairfield, the Suisun Marsh and into Benicia.

These trains could be carrying the same Bakken Crude that exploded in Canada, killing 47 people and Canadian Tar Sands, which have proved impossible to clean up when it has spilled in waterways. Some have claimed this is safe. Everyone should be aware that the National Transportation Safety Board in January said that trains carrying crude oil should “where technically feasible require rerouting to avoid transportation of such hazardous materials through populated and other sensitive areas.” At this point in time it is feasible to keep these dangerous materials from going through populated areas by not approving the project. Otherwise it will not be feasible.

The new railcars that Valero says it will use are the same ones that ruptured and spilled April 30, 2014 in Lynchburg, Virginia, threatening Richmond’s water supply. The Department of Transportation is in the process of crafting new rules for rail cars carrying crude, but there is no time line for when they will be issued and it will be some time before any new cars are available. There have been two train derailments in Benicia’s Industrial Park in recent months.

Why the rush? Is Valero running out of crude oil? No. The reason Valero wants to bring in this dangerous crude, in rail cars that split and rupture in a derailment, is that this crude oil is on sale right now. The oil isn’t going anywhere. It isn’t safe to transport through populated areas and all of the communities that this crude goes through will be at risk.

Vallejo Times-Herald: Joint Legislative Oversight Hearing on Transport of California Crude Oil by Rail

Repost from The Vallejo Times-Herald
[Editor: Note near the end of this story, “Patterson, who joined Henke on a four-person panel addressing on-the-ground risks, did not address the merits of Valero’s proposed crude-by-rail project in Benicia.”  Patterson read a prepared statement by her personal attorney affirming her right to offer testimony, and was commended later in the hearing by Senator Wolk.  Mayor Patterson’s testimony can be viewed here – scroll ahead to minute 1:22:20 and 1:43:45.  – RS]

Benicia Mayor Patterson testifies at hearing about oil-by-rail risks

Lawmakers looking to address safety concern
By Tony Burchyns, 06/19/2014

As state lawmakers look to address the risks from a surge in oil train traffic, Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson joined others Thursday in testifying at a legislative oversight hearing in Sacramento about the need for more actions to prevent and respond to accidents that could threaten public safety.

In her remarks, Patterson asked whether state and local agencies are prepared to deal with deadly tanker rail accidents like last year’s explosive derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, which killed 47 people.

“If you are in an industrial area or a cultural center or a school the actual first-responders are those people who are affected,” Patterson said. “And that’s (the) ultimate primary concern that I have that we don’t put people at risk and that we don’t have the children or the people going to a concert or workers or residents exposed to that kind of threat.”

Driven by increased North American oil production, California and the nation are experiencing a surge in oil-by-rail traffic.

In California, imports grew from only 70 tanker carloads in 2009 to nearly 9,5000 carloads last year, and could increase up to 230,000 carloads – a quarter of all the crude oil refined in the state – in 2016, according to the California Energy Commission.

About 3.8 million Californians who live along train routes face increased safety risks posed by new unloading facilities planned or under construction, according to a study by the Natural Resource Defense Council.

Thursday’s hearing provided an opportunity for regulators, community members and first-responders to look at what the risks and needs are in terms of safety and response.

Issues raised included uncertainty over the timing and comprehensiveness of new federal rail tank car standards and operational rules, a need to more fully assess the risks from increased oil train traffic in California and a lack of timely and complete information about hazardous cargo before it passes through local communities.

The need for more training and resources for first-responders was also identified.

“Your immediate concern is the incident that takes place today, tomorrow and next week,” said Kurt Henke, chief of the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District.

Patterson, who joined Henke on a four-person panel addressing on-the-ground risks, did not address the merits of Valero’s proposed crude-by-rail project in Benicia. If approved, the project would allow Valero to bring in up to 100 tanker carloads of crude per day to its Benicia refinery.

The project’s draft environmental impact report was released Tuesday.

The proposed rail route would pass through rural and urban areas, including parts of Sacramento and Davis.

CBS TV Sacramento: uprail communities concerned as crude by rail spikes

Repost from CBS13 Sacramento
[Editor: Rather a poor report, with a few errors (for instance, six explosions, not three) and a pessimistic ending.  But good tv exposure on the issue.  See the excellent quote by Davis Mayor Joe Krovoza, and note how the Valero Benicia spokesperson evades the reporter’s question on “Who will pay for safety?” in the interview near the end.  – RS]

Crude Oil Shipment Spike Has California Residents Along Railways Concerned

May 13, 2014


DAVIS (CBS13) — It’s been a deadly year for the oil and railroad industries as crude oil tankers on North American railways explode in three separate incidents, calling into question what dangers are we willing to accept in our insatiable quest for fuel.

Welcome to North Dakota, where the earth is gushing oil. But the black gold blessing is quickly becoming a shipping curse.

The number of trains carrying crude oils is rapidly expanding, putting residents like Errin Enos of Davis at risk.

“Of course I’m scared, they go right past my house,” he said.

About 1 million barrels of oil a day is being extracted from the Bakken Oil Field in North Dakota. Getting it from there to refineries in California has created a controversial and dangerous dilemma.

“Frankly, it’s just the odds,” said California state Sen. Beth Jackson. “If we’re transporting more things by rail, it’s just going to happen at some point no matter how we try to be careful.”

Oil industry insiders know about the controversy involving the third-largest refining state.

For the most part, crude oil is transported around the world on ships, through pipelines and by trains. Each of those has risks.

Three accidents involving oil trains have occurred in the last year alone:

July 2013: A train carrying crude oil derailed and exploded in Quebec, Canada, leveling portions of the town of Lac Megantic and killing 47 people.

December 2013: An oil train collided with a derailed train near Casselton, North Dakota.

April 30: A train loaded with crude oil derailed in Lynchburg, Virginia. Some cars burst into flames, others plunged into the James River.

But even shipping has its dangers.

November 2007: A Cosco Busan oil tanker rammed the Bay Bridge, spilling 53,000 gallons of bunker fuel into the San Francisco Bay—or less than two rail cars full of oil.

March 1989: The Exxon Valdez struck a reef in Prince William Sound Alaska. Up to 750,000 barrels of crude oil spilled, making it one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters.

On land, millions of barrels of crude oil are moved through pipelines and trains. So which is safer?

Juan Acosta represents Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad and recently testified at a hearing at the state Capitol.

Even though pipelines are safer, he says, environmental groups strongly oppose building new pipelines, meaning America’s overflowing oil reserves are now hitting the rails.

Crude Spike Means Busy Railways

Railroads have several lines to bring crude oil into California. Many of them converge at refineries in our part of the state in cities like Richmond and Benicia. In the coming years, officials estimate that 25 percent of crude coming into California will arrive on trains.

Cities and towns that line these train tracks are fighting the trend, because there’s a plan to send even more crude oil through Northern California.

That has Davis Mayor Joe Krovoza concerned.

“If those same tracks are going to be be carrying hundreds of thousands of cars of crude oil through Davis every day, that’s absolutely a situation we can’t have in this community,” he said.

The plan would send 82,000 barrels of North Dakota Bakken crude oil on California tracks through Roseville, West Sacramento and Davis on their way to the Valero refinery in Benicia.

Chris Howe is the director of health, safety and environment at the refinery where they convert crude oil into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. They hope to build a special station where they can offload North Dakota’s oil from train cars.

“Today about 80 percent of the crude oil that we process at the refinery comes in by marine tanker,” he said.

Currently, a little more than five percent of oil comes into the state by rail, but that’s almost certain to increase dramatically.

With a record amount of crude oil being extracted from North Dakota and a lack of pipelines to ship it, and with the world’s appetite for oil products increasing in places such as China and India, the oil industry says it’s a basic business principle of supply and demand.

And it’s not just in Benicia. Oil is alreayd being offloaded from rail cars and onto tanker trucks at McClellan Park near Sacramento.

Who Will Pay For Safety?

At a recent hearing at the state Capitol, Lisa Stark testified for Union Pacific, saying safety is a top priority.

“I know we’re very aggressive on safety, so it may not make a huge difference here in California because we already have a very aggressive program here,” she said.

But at that same hearing, emergency responders from a host of state agencies were concerned about their ability to respond to a catastrophe.

“What we did learn is that there really is no preparedness,” said State Sen. Jerry Hill.

He says not only are local emergency crews not prepared, but he says only the railroads are willing to pay to train local firefighters, not oil companies.

“They’re fine with most of what’s being proposed,” he said. “It’s the oil companies who are opposed to any additional fees that would be imposed on crude oil that comes.”

Something Howe doesn’t confirm, but doesn’t deny either.

REPORTER: So you think Union Pacific would be willing to go into some of these smaller communities and offer training?

HOWE: I’ve read their commitment to do that and it’s my understanding …

REPORTER: But it’s not something Valero would be willing to do?

HOWE: I would surely encourage the railroad to help do that.

Living along the tracks, Enos believes more trains filled with explosive crude oil will be rolling by his home in the near future.

“They’re gonna get their way,” he said. “I mean I could talk, talk, talk and it’s not gonna make any difference, I don’t believe.”