Category Archives: Benicia CA

Travis Air Force Base ordered to address dishonorable discharges

[BenIndy Contributor Nathalie Christian – Here’s more on the latest EPA action in Solano County, this time at Travis Air Force Base. Travis AFB’s 6,368-acre site is located in Fairfield, California. Cheeky headlines aside, jet fuel spilling into creeks and contaminating groundwater is no joke. These spills represent a tremendous danger most immediately to Union Creek’s delicate ecosystem and could create public health impacts down the road. – N.C.]

EPA Orders U.S. Air Force to Address Oil Discharge at Travis Air Force Base

May 4, 2023

Contact Information: John Senn (senn.john@epa.gov)

SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today issued an emergency order to the U.S. Air Force to enhance and expedite measures to address an ongoing oil discharge into Union Creek from the Travis Air Force Base (Travis AFB) in Solano County, Calif. EPA has determined that a substantial threat exists to local waterbodies and shorelines because of the ongoing discharge and previous similar incidents on Travis AFB.

“This order is critical for ensuring that the Air Force addresses the oil discharge into Union Creek in a thorough and timely manner, and that no impacts to public health occur,” said EPA Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator Martha Guzman. “EPA is committed to fully utilizing our authorities to make sure that the current oil discharge is stopped and similar incidents are prevented.”

The order, issued under the Clean Water Act, compels the Air Force take a series of steps to mitigate the oil discharge, including:

  • Utilizing oil spill recovery equipment and techniques to limit the spread of oil in Union Creek;
  • Investigating and mitigating the source of the oil;
  • Collecting and analyzing water and sediment samples in Union Creek; and
  • Implementing actions to prevent oil from entering the storm drain and creek.

The order also requires the Air Force to enter into a unified command structure that brings together the oil spill response expertise of federal, state and local governments to address the discharge. Agencies actively engaged in the response include EPA, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response, and Solano County.

Oil discharges to Union Creek from Travis AFB were first identified by the Air Force as early as October 2021, but were not reported to EPA or the National Response Center until February 4, 2022. Since that time, the Air Force has made numerous notifications to the National Response Center regarding an oil sheen on Union Creek, including reporting a spill of jet fuel from a pipeline on the base on August 4, 2022. These spill notifications have continued to occur in 2023. EPA analyses of samples collected from the pipeline spill area and from the sheen on Union Creek indicate the contamination at both areas are likely from a common source. On December 21, 2022, the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Board sent the Air Force a notice of noncompliance for discharges of jet fuel to Union Creek.

The Air Force has yet to take action to identify and address the source of the oil discharge to Union Creek. The initial oil spill response efforts implemented by the Air Force at Travis AFB were limited, and these efforts were only upgraded after input from EPA and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Office of Spill Prevention and Response.

Learn more about EPA’s work at Travis Air Force Base.

Learn more about EPA’s Pacific Southwest Region. Connect with us on Facebook and on Twitter.

BENICIA ALERT 4/20/23 – Seeno / North Area Study Community Open House

City of Benicia Consultants guiding us to accept housing plan in Seeno property

Seeno owned property (Google Earth, 2008) with inset of Benicia’s “North Study Area” (2022) – click to enlarge

By Larnie Fox, April 20, 2020

Good Morning all ~

Bodil and I went to the North Study Area (Seeno) “Community Open House” last night at Northgate Church. There is a Zoom equivalent tonight that you may want to attend:

Online Community Open House
April 20, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
Zoom Link
Passcode: 322062

I have to say it was less of an “open house” and more of a consultant-led workshop ~ the consultant leading us towards agreeing to build housing up there.

The elephant in the room was Seeno’s dismal record of not fulfilling promises and constant litigation. The Benindy has an excellent archive HERE.

To make anything happen there, we will have to amend the General Plan. Personally, I like the plan the way it is: the area is currently zoned for light industrial use with a little bit of commercial use on the Eastern end.

What I don’t want to see up there is more automobile-centric suburban sprawl ~ but it feels like that is where we are headed.

Onward?
=+=
Larnie


CITIZEN BACKGROUND:

CITY OF BENICIA
City of Benicia North Study Area (Seeno property)

For current information from the City of Benicia, check out their North Study Area web page, https://www.ci.benicia.ca.us/northstudyarea:

Benicia’s Budget Crisis

Benicia & Beyond – Our Daunting Deficits

The Benicia Herald (no online presence), by Stephen Golub, April 9, 2023. About Steve Golub, below.

Benicia’s budget is in dire straits. As former City Manager Erik Upson, Interim City Manager Mario Giuliani and others have emphasized, our heads are financially below water. We face mounting deficits, stretching for years.

At the risk of being Davey Downer, here’s some daunting data, courtesy of Assistant City Manager Bret Prebula (though any mistakes in presenting or analyzing the figures are most certainly mine):

For Benicia’s current fiscal year, which ends on June 30, the estimated deficit is $2.2 million. That is, our expected expenditures are $2.2 million more than our revenues.

That figure is elevated somewhat by one-time costs of about $1 million for operating and legal expenses linked to the city-owned marina. But…

The city staff anticipates budget deficits of $3-6 million per year for both the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years.

To put this in context, the anticipated annual city expenditures (excluding water and wastewater, which are budgeted separately) amount to $55-60 million.

Therefore, unless Benicia makes adjustments, we’re looking at an annual deficit of 5 percent to 10 percent of the budget for the next two years and beyond.

Though it’s split into separate categories, the city’s reserve/general fund totals about $22 million. According to my rudimentary math, we could exhaust it in as few as four years unless action is taken.

Finally, unlike the federal government, the city has to balance its budget each year. When I write of expected or anticipated deficits, I’m discussing gaps that must be closed by reduced costs, additional revenue or drawing down the reserve fund.

How Did This Happen?

So how did we sink to this state? Our costs have increased while our revenues have remained relatively flat. More specifically…

The problem partly flows from gradual increases in the costs of city services (whether delivered by employees or contractors), materials Benicia buys and city employee benefits (such as health insurance). In addition…

Revenues are not rising enough to match the increasing costs. Why’s that? First, our population has barely increased since 2000. Also, while our industrial park businesses contribute to Benicia’s economy, they generate less city revenue than a more service/retail-oriented mix of firms would.

What to Do?

Proponents of Measure R, narrowly defeated in November, argue that the ¾ percent sales tax would have gone a fair distance toward addressing our road repair needs.

More broadly, some contend that it’s not just road repair, but also police, fire protection, parks and other city services that will face cuts unless we right the fiscal ship through greater revenues – be they through taxes, fees or other approaches.

Conversely, others maintain that we can in fact make cuts that eliminate or at least decrease the need to rely on new or expanded taxes and fees. In contemplating one kind of cut, though, we might bear in mind former City Manager Upson’s warnings that city employees’ salaries are lower than those in many other Bay Area localities, which can make retaining them difficult.

Another approach prioritizes limiting hikes in taxes and fees mainly to the town’s largest businesses.

Then there’s a perspective that contends that we should rethink whether Benicia should remain a full-service city. That broad blend of services is something most of us like about Benicia. But we could consider whether and to what extent we can afford all this, and what the potential alternatives might be.

My point here is not to provide or promote certain solutions. Far from it. I need to be better educated on these and other options myself.

Instead, I’m just offering a bare-bones account – and it’s admittedly barely even that – of a few potential directions. Benicians who understand municipal finances far better than I do can address this matter far better. Hopefully, though, this column takes a small step toward illuminating the issue.

How to Learn More

So, some food for thought. Here are a couple of ways to start chewing on all this:

On April 11, “Benicia’s Budget Crisis: The Problem and Potential Solutions”, a public forum, will be held in the Benicia Public Library’s Dona Benicia Room. Starting at 7 p.m., and organized by the Progressive Democrats of Benicia, it will feature Mayor Steve Young, Assistant City Manager Bret Prebula and Solano County Supervisor Monica Brown. The presentations will be followed by a Q&A session.

Since some Benicia residents remain especially vulnerable to Covid, masks will be required. Due to the complexity involved, Zoom will not be used for the session.

Again, all are welcome; you don’t have to be a PDB member to attend. You don’t have to be a progressive, a liberal, a moderate, a conservative or whatever. You just have to care about Benicia.

Then, on April 25, the City Council will convene a study session on the issue, starting at 6 p.m., in the Council Chambers. As usual, this Council meeting will be both an in-person and Zoom event.

We Can Get Through This

Crises can bring out the best or worst in folks. They can unite or divide. This one could include tough conversations and decisions in the months and years to come.

I’m optimistic that this challenge will see Benicia responding well. We are a resourceful, resilient community.

I also take heart from the calm, civil Council discussions about the indoor mask mandate back in 2021. (I can’t speak to social media.) Admittedly, the meetings were not warm and fuzzy affairs; they saw sharp disagreements. But, for the most part, they aired diverse perspectives in respectful ways.

Let’s hope the upcoming budget debates take the same path.


Stephen Golub, Benicia – A Promised Land: Politics. Policy. America as a Developing Country.

Benicia resident Stephen Golub

A version of this piece first appeared in the Benicia Herald, as part of my weekly Benicia and Beyond column for the Herald. At my blog, A Promised Land, I also write about national and international affairs, including lessons that America can learn from other countries.

My blog: A Promised Land: America as a Developing Country apromisedland.org.

Valero hit with $1.2 million penalty for toxic flaring in Benicia

[BenIndy Contributor Nathalie Christian – Texas-based Valero raked in about $11.5B of profit in 2022 — and that’s pure profit. While this fine represents progress, it also represents less than 1 hour of Valero’s 2022 profits. That’s right — in 2022, Valero made more than $1M just in profit per hour, 24 hours a day, for 365 days (Valero doesn’t stop profiting just because it’s a holiday or weekend). It’s clear Valero treats fines like these as fees; they represent just another minor cost of doing business in Benicia. Examples of fines from recent years: Valero Benicia Refinery was fined $266,000 in 2018, $122,500 in 2016  and $183,000 in 2014. It is rare for fines like these to actually financially benefit Benicia. The full text of the EPA News Release is available below this article from the Chronicle.– N.C.] 

U.S. EPA hits Valero’s oil refinery in Benicia with $1.2 million penalty for two toxic flaring incidents

San Francisco Chronicle, by Julie Johnson, April 5, 2023

A picture of Valero's Benicia Refinery
Incidents at the Valero refinery in Benicia in 2017 and 2019 forced people to shelter in place because of the risk of exposure to harmful chemicals, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Samantha Laurey/The Chronicle 2022)

Oil refining giant Valero must pay a $1.2 million penalty for major flaring incidents at its Benicia facility that spewed dark plumes of pollutants into neighborhoods, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday.

The “significant chemical incidents” occurred in 2017 and 2019 and forced people, including schoolchildren, to shelter in place because of the risk of exposure to harmful chemicals, according to the agency.

Following a federal investigation, Valero executives agreed to make specific changes to their Benicia operations and pay a penalty totaling $1,224,550 in a settlement reached with the EPA. Martha Guzman, regional administrator for the EPA in California, Nevada and New Mexico, said the changes will help protect Valero workers, Benicia residents and the environment.

The EPA’s announcement is the latest investigation into problems at the Bay Area’s oil refineries. Earlier this year, health officials in Contra Costa County warned people living near the Martinez Refinery run by PBF Energy to avoid eating foods grown in surrounding neighborhoods, four months after the facility sent 20 tons of dust into the community that coated cars, homes and backyards in a mysterious fine white powder.

Last year, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District announced it had found Valero had been releasing unlawful and potentially harmful amounts of hydrocarbons from its hydrogen stacks — undetected — from 2003 to 2019. Valero said it also hadn’t detected the releases and took steps to end them.

On Wednesday, Valero didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment about the federal fines.

Benicia Mayor Steve Young said the city wasn’t notified by the EPA about its investigation or the findings. The city has been pushing for greater transparency from oil refineries and the agencies that oversee them, especially after finding out last year that local air-quality regulators failed to tell the community about harmful releases until three years after the problems were discovered.

“We have concerns that we’re being left in the dark and only find out well after the fact,” Young said.

Oil refineries sometimes burn off flammable gases through tall stacks to keep careful equilibrium within pipes and other equipment and avoid disasters like explosions. But flaring is a highly regulated activity meant to be used sparingly because of the risks those burned gases and other pollutants pose to people nearby.

One major pollutant generated by these flares is sulfur dioxide, which can harm human respiratory tracts, exacerbating problems like asthma, and worsen pollution from particulate matter and acid rain.

On May 5, 2017, Valero stacks began shooting flames and churning out dark plumes of pollutants when the facility unexpectedly lost power. The emissions coated cars in an oily substance and sent employees at a nearby musical instrument factory to the emergency room, according to the EPA. More than 1,000 people were evacuated, including staff and students at both Robert Semple and Matthew Turner elementary schools. Ultimately, more than 10,000 pounds of flammable materials and 74,420 pounds of sulfur dioxide were released from the facility, according to the EPA.

Valero reported the flaring caused more than $10 million in damage to its facility, according to EPA records. The company later sued Pacific Gas and Electric Co. for the outage.

Then on March 11, 2019, another flaring incident led Solano County health officials to warn residents with respiratory issues to stay indoors. Some businesses sheltered in place. An investigation revealed more than 15,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide were released.

The EPA inspected the facility following both incidents and in 2019 found “several” cases where the company was violating the law.

“Valero failed to immediately report releases of hazardous substances, update certain process safety information, adequately analyze certain process hazards, and develop and implement certain written operating procedures,” the EPA said.

The agency found the company had violated the federal Clean Air Act’s regulations for preventing chemical accidents.

Valero is based in San Antonio and operates 15 petroleum facilities in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.

In a press release, Larry Starfield, with the EPA’s enforcement division, said the settlement “sends a clear message that EPA will prosecute companies that fail to expend the resources needed to have a compliant, well-functioning Risk Management Plan to the fullest extent of the law.”

Reach Julie Johnson: julie.johnson@sfchronicle.com; Twitter: @juliejohnson

 

Letterhead image for Environmental Protection Agency Newsroom

EPA Orders Valero Refining to Improve Chemical Safety at Benicia, CA Refinery

Settlement Also Requires Company to Pay $1.2 Million Penalty for Clean Air Act Violations

SAN FRANCISCO (April 5, 2023) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a settlement with Valero Refining-California to resolve violations of the Clean Air Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention regulations at their Benicia Refinery. The company will pay a $1,224,550 penalty and make changes to improve process safety at the refinery.

“This settlement sends a clear message that EPA will prosecute companies that fail to expend the resources needed to have a compliant, well-functioning Risk Management Plan to the fullest extent of the law,” said Acting Assistant Administrator Larry Starfield for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

“Failure to properly manage hazardous materials can pose serious risks to our California communities,” said Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9. “This settlement will help protect Valero workers, the Benicia community, and the environment more broadly.”

After significant 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, update certain process safety information, adequately analyze certain process hazards, and develop and implement certain written operating procedures.

Under the terms of the settlement, Valero has agreed to make significant chemical safety improvements at the Benicia Refinery. The company has already made several of these changes, related to chemical safety, in response to EPA’s inspection. These improvements include updating and modifying process hazard analyses, modifying operating procedures, modifying reporting policies, and improving employee training. The settlement also requires Valero to modify several pressure-relief valves and update process hazard analyses to consider hazards of power loss at the facility. As part of the settlement, Valero will continue to implement safety improvements through June 2025.

The Benicia Refinery is one of thousands of facilities nationwide that make, use, and store extremely hazardous substances. Reducing the risk of accidental releases at industrial and chemical facilities like the Benicia Refinery is one of EPA’s National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives. Catastrophic accidents at these facilities can result in death or serious injuries; impacts to the community, including orders to evacuate or shelter-in-place; and other harm to human health and the environment. The Clean Air Act requires that industrial and chemical facilities that store large amounts of hazardous substances develop and implement a Risk Management Plan to reduce the risk of accidental releases.

For more information on the Clean Air Act’s Risk Management Plan Program, please visit EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP) Rule webpage.

For more information on reporting possible violations of environmental laws and regulations visit EPA’s enforcement reporting website.

SEE ALSO: