Despite being an otherwise healthy city, our rates of many cancers are much higher than Solano County and the rest of the state.
Benicia’s rate of lung cancer is between 14.5%-21.8% higher than the county’s and about 44% higher than the California rate. Our prostate cancer rates are 32.8% higher than the county’s and 70% higher than the state’s. For breast cancer, we have a 36% higher rate than our county and a 94% higher rate than our state. This data comes from Solano County and state public health sources.
While it cannot be definitively concluded that these higher cancer rates are due to refinery emissions, they are similar to the higher rates near refineries elsewhere that are well-documented in medical studies.
Yes, it will be economically challenging to weather Valero’s exit. But there is little doubt that when this happens, our community’s risk of cancer will drop. Many Benicia residents are looking forward to being able to breathe healthier air and are willing to work with our city government to move into a post-refinery future.
By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author. May 29, 2025 [An earlier version of this appeared in his “Benicia and Beyond” column in the Benicia Herald on 5/25/25.]
Executive Summary
As Benicia, the Valero Energy Corporation and California officials consider the future of the Texas-based firm’s Benicia refinery, this paper examines Valero’s and the petrochemical industry’s problematic histories of hazardous violations, accidents and incidents, most notably their possible contributions to cancer and other negative health impacts. It aims to inform Benicia’s and California’s planning and policies, regardless of whether Valero closes the facility next year (its stated intention) or seeks to retain it indefinitely.
The data documenting such hazards includes:
Research from across the country and world indicates elevated disease rates in refinery communities. For instance, a wide-ranging study published in 2020, covering numerous Texas refineries, determined that “proximity to an oil refinery was associated with a significantly increased risk of cancer diagnosis across all cancer types examined [bladder, breast, colon, lung, lymphoma, and prostate]. People living within 10 miles of an active refinery were more likely to have advanced disease or metastatic disease.”
Benicia’s cancer rates are much higher than those of the state and county, and include a breast cancer rate nearly double that of California.More specifically, the city’s breast cancer rate is 93.7 percent higher than California’s and 35.9 percent higher than Solano County’s. For prostate cancer, Benicia’s incidence is respectively 70.3 percent and 32.8 percent higher than those of the state and county. For lung cancer, it is 43.3 percent higher than California and 19.4 percent higher than Solano.
The Benicia refinery’s specific violations that spanned at least 16 years, spurring an $82 million Bay Area Air District fine, reflect a broader pattern of emissions violations, accidents and incidents in recent years. Regarding those specific violations: According to the Air District, from at least 2003 to 2019 the Benicia refinery committed “egregious emissions violations,” pouring into the city’s air “harmful organic compounds” containing “benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene…which cause cancer, reproductive harm and other toxic health effects.” What’s more, “refinery management had known since at least 2003 that emissions from the hydrogen system contained these harmful and toxic air contaminants but did not report them or take any steps to prevent them.”
Valero’s environmental violations and health-and-safety dangers are by no means confined to Benicia. They include numerous incidents, accidents and reports of excessive emissions elsewhere in recent years. They merit attention because they may indicate that such problems are endemic to the firm’s or industry’s operations, or flow from inadequate prioritization of safety/health/environmental hazards, or both. Even the arguably oil industry-friendly Texas Attorney General sued Valero in 2019 for refinery violations there, in effect citing it as an egregious repeat offender.
In reviewing the information shared here, it is important to emphasize that the Benicia refinery’s fine employees are not responsible for the corporation’s track record.
Particularly in view of public health considerations, the city and state should:
seek the facility’s closure within at most one-to-three years, rather than at some indefinite date;
especially given the maintenance and financial challenges for a refinery in its final years, ensure that the refinery adheres to enhanced health-and-safety standards for however long it remains open (including if another petrochemical firm purchases it) and that Valero and any successor owner guarantee a complete and rigorous remediation of the property; and
encourage the Air District to allow Benicia to use funds from the Valero fine to ease the city’s transition away from the refinery and toward cleaner air and a healthier Benicia and Bay Area.
I. Introduction
As Benicia, the Valero Energy Corporation and California consider the future of the Texas-based company’s Benicia refinery, this paper seeks to illuminate two topics that have received inadequate attention in discussion of the facility’s fate: the apparently severe hazards it imposes on the city’s health and safety and the brighter post-Valero future its planned closure could bring. It aims to spark greater scrutiny of these crucial matters.
The paper similarly aims to inform Benicians’ deliberations, the work of the four recently launched Benicia City Council task forces charting a course for life after Valero, and the actions of other officials in their current or future discussions with the corporation.
Relying mainly on online resources, in many regards this document only scratches the surface of Valero’s and the petrochemical industry’s problematic histories of hazardous violations, accidents and incidents, as well as their possible contributions to cancer and other negative health impacts.
The backdrop here is Valero’s April announcement of its plans to cease operations at its Benicia refinery within a year. This has sparked considerable and understandable concern about ramifications for the state and the impact on Benicia’s budget, businesses and jobs. As the corporation negotiates its potential future with California government officials, and notwithstanding its announcement about exploring redevelopment opportunities for the property, whether it will actually close the facility so soon remains in doubt. But Valero is leaving Benicia, sooner or later.
It is accordingly important to consider the inadequately discussed public health dimension and the departure’s potential benefits, which were largely lost in the storm of initial dismay over the departure. Those benefits include enhanced health and safety, the subject of this paper. But they could also feature residential, commercial and industrial development; resulting tax revenues, construction jobs, other employment and a more diversified local economy; blossoming tourism; and rising real estate values no longer burdened by some potential residents’ concerns about moving to a supposed “refinery town”.
The bottom line is that while Valero has its own decisions to make, so does Benicia. For the sake of the health and safety of the community’s children, seniors and everyone in-between, the city and state should seek the facility’s closure within at most one-to-three years rather than further down the line.
In reviewing the information shared here, it is important to emphasize respect for the Benicians and other fine people employed by the refinery, recognize that they are not responsible for the corporation’s track record, and fervently hope that they land on their professional and financial feet whenever the facility shuts down.
II. Refinery Communities’ Elevated Cancer and Illness Rates
A plethora of studies from across the country and world indicate elevated disease rates in refinery communities. While this essay summarizes several, bear in mind that certain of the studies cited here themselves draw on numerous papers, many of them peer reviewed. Thus, this section reflects the findings of dozens of papers concerning many refineries.
For instance, a wide-ranging study published in 2020 and covering numerous Texas refineries determined that “proximity to an oil refinery was associated with a significantly increased risk of cancer diagnosis across all cancer types examined [bladder, breast, colon, lung, lymphoma, and prostate]. People living within 10 miles of an active refinery were more likely to have advanced disease or metastatic disease.”
A 2020 review of 16 studies concerning various locations found, “Residents from fenceline communities, less than 5 km [about three miles] from a petrochemical facility (refinery or manufacturer of commercial chemicals), had a 30% higher risk of developing Leukaemia than residents from communities with no petrochemical activity.”
The results of a 2009 South Africa study of a community located near a refinery “support the hypothesis of an increased prevalence of asthma symptoms among children in the area as a result of refinery emissions…”
In a related vein, a 1997-2003 study of persons 29 or younger in Taiwan found that “residential petrochemical exposure [based on distance from petrochemical plants, duration of stay near them and other variables] was a significant risk factor for leukemia” for those 20-29 (though not for younger persons).
Nor is the damage confined to long-term exposure. In Texas, findings from research published in 2016 on the “health effects of benzene exposure among children from a flaring incident at the British Petroleum (BP) refinery in Texas City, Texas…suggest that children exposed to benzene are at a higher risk of developing both hepatic [liver-related] and bone marrow-related disorders.”
Closer to home, a review of emergency room visits in the wake of the 2012 Richmond Chevron fire found that they skyrocketed to roughly ten times their normal levels. “It took 4 weeks for censuses to return to normal. The most common diagnosis groups that spiked were nervous/sensory, respiratory, circulatory, and injury.”
III. Elevated Cancer Rates for Benicia
While Benicia has not been the focus of the kind the rigorous research conducted elsewhere – and while recent medical statistics for the city appear hard to come by – the city’s cancer rates are worrisome.
Drawing on 2010-12 California Cancer Registry data, a 2018 Solano County report highlighting “Health Outcomes Data for Benicia” indicates a Benicia breast cancer rate nearly double that of California. The Benicia rates are substantially higher than Solano Country and California regarding lung and prostate cancer as well. (The data is broken down by zip code, with 94510 essentially constituting Benicia.)
More specifically, the city’s breast cancer rate is 93.7 percent higher than California’s and 35.9 percent higher than Solano County’s. For prostate cancer, Benicia’s incidence is respectively 70.3 percent and 32.8 percent higher than those of the state and county. For lung cancer, it is 43.3 percent higher than California and 19.4 percent higher than Solano.
“Solano County Lung Cancer Rate by Zip Code,” a 2012 chart prepared by the Solano County Public Health Epidemiology Unit, reports similar comparative data. It significantly also indicates that Benicia’s “emergency department discharge rate for lung cancer” ranks among the highest in the county, which in turn is 2.5 times that of California, and that its cancer hospitalization rate is higher than the county’s and the state’s as well.
The higher cancer rates especially stand out because the Health Outcomes report also indicates that in many regards Benicia is healthier than other parts of the county. Considered in combination with the city’s relative affluence, one might accordingly expect lower Benicia cancer rates compared to the county – thus raising the refinery as a possible reason for the higher rates.
None of the above proves that Benicia’s higher cancer levels are due to the Valero refinery’s emissions; correlation of course does not equal causation. But the elevated incidence of cancer in Benicia compared to the rest of Solano County and to California seems unlikely to be a random development. Coupled with two phenomena discussed elsewhere in this paper – that the Benicia refinery’s environmental violations feature spewing high levels of carcinogens into the air and that proximity to refineries in general is linked to higher cancer rates – the Benicia-specific data provides cause for considerable concern.
IV. The Benicia Refinery’s Numerous Violations, Accidents and Incidents
According to the Bay Area Air District, from at least 2003 to 2019 the Benicia refinery committed “egregious emissions violations,” pouring into the city’s air “harmful organic compounds” containing “benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene…which cause cancer, reproductive harm and other toxic health effects.” More specifically, “refinery management had known since at least 2003 that emissions from the hydrogen system contained these harmful and toxic air contaminants but did not report them or take any steps to prevent them.” The emissions averaged “more than 2.7 tons for each day on which a violation occurred, over 360 times the legal limit.”
Yet, as significant as that finding and the Air District’s resulting $82 million fine seem, they represent just some of the Benicia refinery’s numerous hazardous violations, accidents and incidents in recent years. Earlier this month, for instance, many Benicians witnessed the clouds of smoke spewing from a refinery furnace fire, for which the facility has already been issued Air District notices of violation.
In August 2023, the Air District “said that Valero had failed to install required pollution control equipment on eight pressure relief devices, safety devices that prevent extreme over pressurization that could cause a catastrophic equipment failure. The violations led to 165 tons of illegal emissions…”
In February 2023, Valero agreed to pay a $1.2 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “…fine over violations of chemical safety regulations…After chemical incidents at the Benicia Refinery in 2017 and 2019, a 2019 EPA inspection at the facility identified several areas of noncompliance, including that Valero failed to immediately report releases of hazardous substances and update certain process safety information.”
The violations, accidents and incidents summarized here cover just some of what has occurred over the past several years. A full list of other hazardous Benicia refinery problems would include many more violations.
This brief discussion would not be complete without mention of Valero’s unsuccessful 2012-16 fight to bring “crude by rail” to Benicia. More specifically, the plan involved the transport to Benicia, on two 50-car trains, up to 70,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Canada and North Dakota. The potentially deadly danger of this approach was demonstrated by the 2013 Lac-Mégantic disaster, named for the Quebec town where an oil train’s derailment, fire and explosion took 47 lives and decimated the downtown area. From 2013 to 2020, there were at least 21 such derailments in North America, many resulting in massive spills and fires lasting for hours or even days.
V. Valero Refineries’ Violations and Dangers Beyond Benicia
Valero’s environmental violations and health-and-safety dangers are by no means confined to Benicia. They include numerous incidents, accidents and reports of excessive emissions in recent years. They merit attention because they may indicate that such problems are endemic to the firm’s or industry’s operations, or flow from inadequate prioritization of safety/health/environmental hazards, or both.
Valero’s Texas track record leads the way in demonstrating such problems and hazards. Even the staunchly conservative and arguably oil industry-friendly Texas Attorney General sued the Texas-based corporation in 2019, in effect citing it as an egregious repeat offender that released nearly a million pounds of pollutants into the air during a 2017 fire and committed at least 38 unauthorized, permit-exceeding toxic emissions since 2014. His suit further asserted that, despite earlier federal EPA and state enforcement actions, “defendants’ poor operational, maintenance, and design practices continue to cause emissions events and unauthorized emissions of air contaminants from the Refinery into the environment.”
The AG’s office and state regulators also sought more than $1 million in damages for a 2016 “backflow incident at the Valero Corpus Christi Asphalt Plant” that resulted in “residents endur[ing] three days without tap water, forcing many to rely on bottled water for drinking, showering and cooking.”
What’s more, a leading Texas environmentalist has contrasted one of Valero’s facilities there unfavorably with other refineries in the state, asserting that “Valero’s Port Arthur Refinery has a poor compliance record even when compared to other Texas oil refineries, spewing out millions of pounds of dangerous pollution into surrounding neighborhoods…”
Five workers recently sued the company for injuries suffered, including third-degree burns involving extended hospitalization, at its Three Rivers, Texas, refinery due to a January 2025 fire and explosion. Over the years, several others have died in explosions and accidents at its Texas facilities.
Valero’s hazards and damage are not confined to Texas (or Benica). Due to an emergency valve malfunction, a 2020 explosion and fire at the company’s Meraux, Louisiana, refinery seriously injured one worker and caused over $5 million in damage. Tennessee regulators found sixteen “serious, alleged” violations linked to a Memphis refinery’s 2012 explosion that killed one worker and injured two others.
During a February 2025 storm, that same facility experienced massive flames due to flaring as, according to one news report, “ Fire and oil spewed from the stacks requiring environmental clean up on the ground and in the creek nearby.” In addition, “thousands of pounds of a toxic gas were released in the incident,” including “very toxic” sulfur dioxide at levels “twice the amount that triggers mandatory reporting to government regulators.”
More broadly, an EPA review of a dozen Valero facilities across the country found toxic emissions violations and related actions stretching from at least 2012 to 2018. The investigation resulted in a 2020 settlement involving millions of dollars of fines and mitigation measures.
A compilation of air pollution monitoring data drawn from U.S. refineries’ fence lines – aptly summarized by its title, “Nearly Half of U.S. Refineries Releasing Benzene at Levels That Could Pose a Long-Term Health Threat” – included numerous Valero facilities on the list. An associated chart ranked two Valero refineries fifth and sixth nationally in terms of the percentage by which they each exceed the relevant “threat level.”
It should be noted that neither the EPA review nor the air monitoring data compilation identified Valero’s Benicia refinery as problematic. However, it is unclear whether the Benicia facility was even included in the review. Furthermore, the facility’s approach to air monitoring has been the subject of considerable contention.
VI. Potentially Deadly Accidents
The risk of life-threatening accidents merits a bit more mention, since Benicia is by no means immune to such phenomena. This paper has already cited several instances of deadly and injurious refinery accidents, as well as the massive (non-fatal) 2012 Chevron Richmond fire and the 2013 Lac-Mégantic disaster, where a train bearing cargo akin to that of Valero’s failed crude-by-rail plan exploded and took 47 lives.
Instances of catastrophic (fortunately non-fatal) refinery events also include the three-day, February 2025 Martinez Refinery Company fire, which spewed into the air carcinogenic chemicals that can also cause heart and lung disease. Another notorious accident was a huge 2019 Philadelphia refinery fire, sparked by the failure of a pipe’s simple elbow joint. Its multiple explosions hurled several multi-ton pieces of equipment thousands of feet away.
VII. Moving Forward
As Benicia takes its first steps to plan for life after Valero, the City Council, state officials and Benicians should heed the potential public health benefits of the corporation’s departure and the price the city pays in the meantime. More specifically, city, state and other officials should pursue the following paths:
They should recognize that public health considerations weigh heavily against any indefinite extension of the Benicia facility’s operation. The city and state should accordingly seek the facility’s closure within at most one-to-three years, rather than at some indefinite date.
Especially (but not only) if an expedited closure does not take place, the city, state, Air District and other governmental entities should inform Valero and any potential petrochemical buyer/operator of the refinery that they will be subject to enhanced scrutiny and accountability that ensure adherence to strictest health-and-safety standards. This priority becomes all the more pressing as financial pressures could conceivably weigh against maximum maintenance in a facility slated to eventually cease operations. The city and state should also press Valero and any successor owner to guarantee a complete and rigorous remediation of the property
The Bay Area Air District policy for the use of its $82 million Valero fine (and for other air pollution penalties) is to employ such funds to “to improve community health and air quality.” It should accordingly permit Benicia to use funds from the fine to ease the city’s transition away from the refinery and toward cleaner air and a healthier Benicia and Bay Area. City and state officials should play a part in advancing this flexible approach, which should also apply to other refinery-hosting Bay Area communities in transition.
[Notes: 1. This paper benefits from valuable advice from and research by Richard Fleming, M.D., a Benicia resident, and from the much-appreciated assistance of Benicia Independent Editor Roger Straw. However, any possible inadvertent inaccuracies are the sole responsibility of the author. 2. Stephen Golub is a Benicia resident and Harvard Law School graduate who formerly was a management analyst for the New York City Council President and, for the bulk of his career, served as a policy analyst, consultant and researcher for funding agencies, policy institutes and nonprofits engaged with international development – particularly regarding the rule of law, democracy, anti-corruption efforts and policy analysis, including their overlap with public health and environmental concerns. He taught law-and-development and related courses at Berkeley Law and the Central European University Public Policy School for a number of years. The institutions with which he has worked include the U.S., U.K. and Danish development agencies; the Asian Development and World Banks; several UN programs and offices, including that of the Secretary-General; the Asia, Ford and Open Society Foundations; and, currently, the Indian broadcasters WION and CNN-India.]
OPINION | Jessie Mehrhoff, November 12, 2015 11:21 a.m. EST
(Photo: Getty Images/iStockphoto)
It’s the fundamental connection between environmental degradation and human health that has me concerned about the prospect of Congress lifting the U.S. oil export ban, which will worsen climate change and threaten our communities with toxic spills.
The list of risks climate change poses to human health is long. Increased temperatures will spread tropical diseases to new latitudes. Heat waves will cause more deaths across the world. Warmer temperatures will lead to more health-threatening smog and decrease crop yields. Detailing these impacts and more in 2009, “The Lancet,” one of the world’s most respected medical journals, labeled climate change ‘the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.”
These aren’t just future consequences, to be experienced on the other side of the globe. In New Jersey, we still face the impacts of superstorm Sandy three years later. Climate scientists at Rutgers University predict even more extreme weather if climate change goes unchecked.
In addition to these consequences, the American Lung Association’s 2015 State of the Air report card has given Monmouth County an “F” for the number of high-ozone level days, and finds more than 56,000 people in the county suffer from asthma. Climate change is only going to make numbers such as this climb as our air quality worsens.
To avoid global warming’s most devastating health impacts, we must end our dependence on fossil fuels and transition to pollution-free, renewable energy. Lifting our decades-old ban on the export of U.S.-produced oil represents the opposite course.
If the oil companies have a larger distribution market for oil produced in the U.S., they will drill more — upward of another 3.3 million barrels per day for the next 20 years, by some General Accounting Office estimates. Even if only a fraction of all this extra oil is burned, global warming pollution could still increase 22 million metric tons per year — the equivalent of five average-sized coal power plants.
In addition to worsening climate change, there’s the public health threat of transporting additional oil across the country. While most crude oil is shipped around the U.S. by pipeline, shipments by rail have been increasing. To keep up with increased demand, oil trains have grown larger and tow more tanker cars than ever before.
Currently, trains carrying highly flammable crude oil travel through 11 of the 21 counties in New Jersey —Mercer, Middlesex, Gloucester, Somerset, Hunterdon, Bergen, Camden, Essex, Hudson, Union and Warren — en route to refineries. These oil trains are an accident waiting to happen, and have spurred trainings across the state where firefighters, police and other emergency responders have prepared courses of action in an oil derailment emergency.
The fear of oil train accidents — where toxic crude oil is spilled into our communities — is not hyperbole. Accidents have been on the rise, with more oil accidentally dumped into our environment in 2013 alone than during the previous three decades combined.
In 2015, we’ve already seen three major oil train accidents. In Mount Carbon, West Virginia, a rail oil spill led to evacuations and a governor-declared state of emergency. In Galena, Illinois, a spill threatened to pollute the Mississippi River. A spill in Heimdal, North Dakota, forced the evacuation of a town.
If we are to prevent these accidents from taking place in the 11 New Jersey counties through which these trains travel, we must work to reduce the amount of oil these trains carry. Transporting the increased oil we would produce domestically if the oil export ban were lifted could require enough trains to span the country from Los Angeles to Boston seven times over.
Increasing our nation’s crude oil drilling and transportation by lifting our decades’ old ban on exports leads to more risk, not less. And the inconvenient truth of lifting the oil export ban means more drilling, more global warming pollution, and more threats to public health.
There is a way around lifting the oil export ban in the first place. President Obama is against lifting the ban, and the measure only narrowly cleared a Senate committee earlier in the month. That’s why we need Sen. Cory Booker to join Sen. Bob Menendez in standing strong against the oil industry and to vote to keep the ban in place — for the sake of the environment and public health.
Jessie Mehrhoff is lead organizer with Environment New Jersey, a citizen-based environmental advocacy organization.
Repost from Center For Biological Diversity [Editor: read the Center’s letter for some excellent points on Valero’s revised draft environmental impact report (RDEIR). Your comments on the RDEIR are due in Benicia city offices by 5pm Pacific time, October 30, 2015. – RS]
Stop Bomb Trains in California
Right now is a critical moment to stop oil trains in California. Oil giant Valero wants to build a massive terminal for oil trains at its Benicia refinery.
If Valero gets its way, mile-long oil trains carrying explosive and toxic crude will travel daily throughout California. The project’s environmental review admits that impacts from hazardous materials will be “significant and unavoidable.” The risks to health and safety are unacceptable.
We also know that this project is a disaster for the climate. Building a new oil train terminal would lock us into decades of using some of the most carbon-intensive oil on the planet: Canadian tar sands and fracked North Dakota Bakken crude. At a time of extreme drought and intense heat waves, we need to invest in safe and clean energy projects.
Text of the Center’s letter (go here and edit as you like):
I am writing with serious concern about Valero’s proposed oil train offloading facility in Benicia. According to the environmental impact report (EIR), this project would create several “significant and unavoidable impacts” that could harm my community.
For one, bringing oil trains into Benicia is expected to create unacceptable increases in toxic air pollution to towns along the rail route and near the refinery. Specifically the EIR identifies increases in nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, benzene and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). Oil trains of this size typically have three diesel engines emitting the equivalent pollution of 1,500 cars each, or 4,500 per train.
According to the EIR, the cumulative risk of spills, explosions and fires along the Union Pacific mainline “would be significant for all of the tank car designs.” This includes the not-yet-built DOT-117 cars, which require a puncture resistance of only 18 mph even while current speed limits are set to 50 mph in most areas. Just one accident could result in significant loss of life, long-term economic damage and contamination of our precious wetlands and waterways.
The EIR also wrongly assumes the “worst case” scenario is a spill of just eight tanker cars, or about 240,000 gallons. The train that incinerated Lac-Mégantic, Quebec in July 2013 spilled more than 1.6 million gallons of crude (about 60 tanker cars), and accidents in West Virginia, Alabama and North Dakota have also resulted in 20 or more tanker cars catching fire. Without an accurate worst-case-scenario analysis that reflects existing data on recent spills, this project cannot be approved.
The revised EIR also identifies “significant and unavoidable” climate impacts that conflict with California’s existing law to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 80 percent below 1990 levels and move to an 80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. At a time of extreme drought and intense heat waves, we must invest in safe, clean energy rather than dangerous oil infrastructure.
And finally, an analysis of census data has shown that a vast majority of people who will be harmed by this project live in EPA-designated environmental-justice communities — primarily low-income and of color. Approving this project will only add to a legacy of environmental injustice.
For all these reasons, I urge you, the planning commission and city council to deny certification for this EIR and reject Valero’s proposed oil train terminal in Benicia.
Sincerely,
Again, to send this letter to Benicia city planners, click here.
Right now is a critical moment to stop oil trains in California. Oil giant Valero wants to build a massive terminal for oil trains at its Benicia refinery.
You must be logged in to post a comment.