Category Archives: Solano County CA

Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Solano County CA, Uprail communities, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Candidates for Solano County supervisor weigh in on Valero crude-by-rail

Repost from the Fairfield Daily Republic
[Editor: Cheers to Supervisor candidates Mike Ioakimedes, Monica Brown and Denis Honeychurch for openly and directly stating opposition to crude by rail. The news article below fails to make clear that Mike Ioakimedes opposes Valero’s proposal and others like it.  Mike is the only Benicia voice in the race and points out the crucial importance of local control over health and safety issues. (See Mike’s Facebook page for more on his CBR position.)  The Benicia Independent ENDORSES Mike Ioakimedes for Solano County Supervisor.  – RS]

Candidates for county supervisor add voices to crude-by-rail plan

By Todd R. Hansen, May 15, 2016

FAIRFIELD — Candidates for the 2nd District Board of Supervisors office are split on the Valero proposal to ship crude-by-rail to its Benicia refinery, while the two 5th District candidates line up with at least conditional support.

The candidates were responding to a question sent by the Daily Republic: “What is your position on the Valero crude-by-rail proposal at its Benicia facility, and why? Also, what role do you believe the Solano County Board of Supervisors should be taking on this matter?”

Incumbent 5th District Skip Thomson said he would back transporting crude oil by rail if all possible safety measures, including the use of retrofitted train cars, are put in place. He said the economic necessity is clear.

He also said the county supervisors must take an active role of lobbying federal officials to make sure the precautions are implemented.

“Again, as a Board of Supervisors member, I must continue to engage our federal representatives to impress upon the U.S. Department of Transportation the importance of the new technology and the need to protect our citizens,” Thomson said.

Michael Reagan, a former 5th District supervisor, said many of the necessary safety measures are in place, that Valero has made promises to adhere to more-stringent safety standards than currently required and that there are economic and environmental benefits to transporting by train rather than ship.

“There is no realistic scenario that eliminates the rail movement of hazardous materials through our communities, which developed around the rail lines. The Valero-Benicia Refinery has long received and shipped petroleum products via this existing rail spur. These include shipments of highly volatile propane and butane produced at the refinery. Other refineries in the Bay Area do so as well,” Reagan said.

“Moving these products, and many other hazardous materials, by rail is efficient, safe and regulated, exclusively, by the federal government, for good public policy reasons.”

Michael Coan, a candidate for the 2nd District seat, also supports the proposal, while Monica Brown and Denis Honeychurch are adamantly opposed. Tamer Totah said his concerns over community safety are stronger than his support of Valero’s business needs.

Mike Ioakimedes, a former Benicia councilman, said the real issue for him is local control over the decision, and said it is a critical question that extends to issues other than Valero alone.

“My position on this question is that we must retain local control in fulfilling our primary responsibility of protecting the health and safety of our citizens and residents,” Ioakimedes said.

“Finally, local control over dangerous cargo transported through our county is not only a critical county issue, it is something that also needs to be addressed at the state level. The Board of Supervisors should have a very active role in protecting local authority over local issues,” he said.

Honeychurch touched on that issue as well.

“I oppose crude-by-rail unless and until public safety issues are completely solved. This matter is in the jurisdiction of the city of Benicia, which has, on a split vote chosen to delay a decision until another agency weighs in on the issue,” he said.

“The role of the Board of Supervisors is advisory only at this point. . . . Most importantly, the county must be prepared for a disaster should one or more of the tanker rail cars explode,” Honeychurch said.

Brown leaves little doubt about her opposition. She said the proposal is just far too dangerous.

“The benefits of this crude-by-rail do not outweigh the numerous significant and unavoidable impacts on up-rail communities’ air quality and hazards. These cities include Roseville, Sacramento, West Sacramento, Davis, Dixon, Vacaville, Fairfield and Suisun City,” Brown said.

“Oil train derailment and explosion have increased dramatically in recent years – including the July 2013 oil train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Canada, that killed 47 people,” Brown said. “The role of any government is to serve and protect its citizens. I see my job on the board as opposing this project because its impact has the potential to hurt many citizens and harm the environment in Solano County.”

Totah likewise expressed concerns about safety.

“I know Benicia has an active (Community Emergency Response Team). I would love to see what their protocol on an oil or chemical spill would be,” said Totah, adding the CERT he is part of specifically avoids such disasters as oil spills. “I am a strong supporter of oil by waterways. I want to be cautious that our cities, neighborhood and environment are safe and enjoyable to all, including businesses.”

Coan backs the plan and cites economic reasons for his decision.

“I support crude-by-rail,” Coan said. “It will help Valero maintain and create the kind of good-paying, local jobs with good benefits that we desperately need in Benicia and here in the county of Solano. Valero’s continued success and vitality affects this county as a whole.”

“In addition to being a major income source of the Benicia’s general fund, Valero employs the majority of its workers from all of Solano County. Most of its workers live in the city of Vacaville. Valero is a source of employment that goes beyond Valero employees in that they hire outside contractors to perform work at the plant all the time,” Coan said.

He added that federal and other safety requirements are in place.

“Crude-by-rail has become a necessity for Valero to be competitive in the California marketplace given all the restrictions that have been put in place,” he said.

The 2nd District includes Benicia, approximately half of Vallejo in the southern section, and the Cordelia, Cordelia Villages and Green Valley areas in and near Fairfield. The 5th District includes a portion of the eastern section of Suisun City, the northern section of Fairfield, a portion of the eastern part of Vacaville, the Elmira area and Rio Vista.

Benicia Industrial Park, Solano County CA

Benicia, county to study industrial park’s economic future

Repost from the Fairfield Daily Reporter

Benicia, county to study industrial park’s economic future

By Todd R. Hansen, March 09, 2016
The Valero refinery in operation in Benicia’s Industrial Park. (Daily Republic file)

FAIRFIELD — Smoke stacks and refinery buildings rise up from what was once a military arsenal site, and five decades later, the evolution of what is now the Benicia Industrial Park continues.

“Our industrial park is quite old,” said Jasmin Powell, president of the Benicia Industrial Park Association and head of operations at Dunlop Manufacturing, which has been at the park since 1972.

“So some of the issues that we have been bringing up (as an association) is higher-speed Internet access, which has gotten better over the last couple of years,” Powell said in a phone interview Tuesday. “And our roads are in need of repair.”

The Solano County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a letter of intent for a Collaborative Economic Development Initiative with Benicia, which could eventually create a redevelopment-style district to finance infrastructure improvements at the industrial park.

The city approved the initiative Feb. 23 and has earmarked $25,000 for a feasibility study that will likely come back to the City Council in June or July, Mario Giuliani, the Benicia Economic Development manager, said in a phone interview Monday.

The central focus of the study is the potential value of establishing an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District to use property tax increments toward improving and building infrastructure at the industrial park.

“Essentially it is another tool . . . for the city to utilize to try to get financing into the industrial park,” Giuliani said. “It is probably the one (option) we are focusing on the most, but that’s not to say that when we do our feasibility study there won’t be other (financing) options.”

In essence, the city would be taking its share of increased property tax in the district area and investing it toward infrastructure. Unlike the defunct redevelopment system, that property does not have to be considered blighted.

Benicia receives 24 cents on each dollar of property tax, money that is typically spread across all general fund uses that include police, fire and city administration, as well as parks and recreation.

Giuliani said one of the things the feasibility study will address is the impact – if any – the loss of tax increments would have on other city services. However, the ultimate goal is that the improvements made would generate even greater tax revenue for all of those services.

“That is a policy decision the City Council will have to make,” Giuliani said.

Also to be determined is whether the county would appropriate its share of the property tax from within the district toward the infrastructure improvements.

Supervisor Linda Seifert, who represents the area, said she will wait and see what the feasibility study shows before deciding what role she would lobby the county to take – including funding options.

“I do have an interest in the county doing what it can to improve (the industrial park),” Seifert said Monday.

Powell said the association has not been part of the city-county discussions, but she was aware such talks were taking place.

On the same night the Benicia council approved the development initiative with the county, it conducted a workshop on a proposed 547-acre mixed-use development within the industrial park.

The Northern Gateway Project, proposed by the Shorts Development Group, targets the same area of the failed Seeno project several years ago. The Shorts Group has a purchasing option on the property. Like the Seeno project, the new proposal does include a residential element.

Seifert said she would not base her decision about county financial support on a specific project, decisions about which she said should be left up to the city and its residents.

The port-oriented industrial park is comprised of 3,000 acres and 7 million square feet of developed space near the junction of Interstates 680 and 780, according to the city’s Office of Economic Development. The park has 450 businesses that employ 6,500 people.

Powell said the park has lost companies because of infrastructure problems, noting specifically Internet access. The city provided about $750,000 for broadband installation in its 2012 budget, and approved $625,000 in a grant/loan program to help park businesses upgrade equipment and buildings.

The law establishing the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in September 2014 and went into effect Jan. 1, 2015. It does not include school district shares of property tax.

Reach Todd R. Hansen at 427-6936 or thansen@dailyrepublic.net.

This version updates the original to reflect action taken Tuesday by the Board of Supervisors.

Click the image for more Industrial Park photos …
CPC-1232, Crude By Rail, Derailment, donner, Emergency Readiness & Response, High threat urban areas, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), Solano County CA, Tank car design, Train speed, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

“Uprail” government agencies critical of Valero Benicia environmental report

Repost from the Fairfield Daily Republic

Safety still a primary concern with Valero rail transport plan

By Kevin W. Green, November 07, 2015
The Valero oil refinery operates, Friday, Sept. 25, 2015, in Benicia. (Steve Reczkowski/Daily Republic file)
The Valero oil refinery operates, Friday, Sept. 25, 2015, in Benicia. (Steve Reczkowski/Daily Republic file)

FAIRFIELD — Most of those who provided formal comments on the revised draft environmental impact report for the Valero crude-by-rail project in Benicia focused on a need for increased safety and possible mitigation measures.

The city of Benicia Planning Department received plenty of input leading up to last week’s deadline for submitting written comments on the revised report.

The proposed project would allow Valero to transport crude oil to its Benicia refinery on two 50-car freight trains daily on Union Pacific tracks that come right through downtown Davis on their way to Benicia. The trains also pass through Dixon, Fairfield and Suisun City.

The rail shipments would replace up to 70,000 barrels per day of crude oil currently transported to the refinery by ship, according to city documents. The Valero refinery would continue to receive crude by pipeline, the city said.

Among the written comments submitted on the revised impact report was an eight-page response from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. The agency responded on behalf of the 22 cities and six counties in its jurisdiction, including the city of Davis and Yolo County.

“Our earlier letter expressed grave concern that the DEIR concluded that crude oil shipments by rail pose no ‘significant hazard’ to our communities, and we urged the city of Benicia to revise the DEIR to fully inform decision-makers and the public of the potential risks of the project,” SACOG said in its remarks.

The agency’s response included a list of eight measures its board of directors indicated that, at a minimum, should be followed.

Those directives include advance notification to county and city emergency operations offices of all crude oil shipments; limits on storage of crude oil tank cars in urbanized areas of any size; and appropriate security for all shipments.

Other directives outlined need for support, including full-cost funding for training and outfitting emergency response crews; and use of freight cars with electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, rollover protection and other features that mitigate what the agency believes are the risks associated with crude oil shipments.

Finally, the agency calls for the implementation of Positive Train Control to prioritize areas with crude oil shipments.

Solano County Resource Management Director Bill Emlen, a former Davis city manager, noted in his response that he had no specific comment on the revised report, but that the county stands behind its initial remarks about the original draft report.

In those remarks, dated Sept. 8, 2014, Emlen said the county wanted more done to address potential derailments.

The original draft EIR admitted the project “could pose significant hazard to the public or the environment,” but minimized the chances of that happening.

“Although the consequences of such a release are potentially severe, the likelihood of such a release is very low,” the report said.

Emlen disagreed that the accident risks associated with the crude-by-rail proposal are “less than significant” without mitigation.

Valero plans to use a type of tank car designated as CPC-1232 to transport oil between Roseville and Benicia and there will be a 40 mph speed limit through federally designated “high-threat urban areas,” including cities along the route, according to the draft report.

Emlen said it appears Valero’s use of the CPC-1232 tank cars is voluntary, rather than mandatory. He also pointed out that the federal designation for high-threat urban areas extends only 10 miles east of Vallejo and 10 miles west of Sacramento, which leaves out most of Solano County.

Emlen cited a derailment and spill that took place in Virginia with a train using CPC-1232 tank cars and traveling 23 mph.

“Therefore, the use of CPC-1232 tank cars at low speeds does not alone mitigate the potential impact from a train derailment,” he said.

Other cities that submitted a written response on the revised draft included Davis, Albany, Gridley and Briggs. Other counties that responded included Yolo, Placer and Nevada counties.

An original draft EIR was issued for the project in June 2014. Benicia said it issued the revised draft EIR in response to requests made in that original report. The city released the revised document Aug. 31 for a 45-day review period. It later extended the deadline for submitting written comments from Oct. 16 to Oct. 30.

The Benicia Planning Commission also gathered public input on the revised document at a Sept. 29 meeting.

The Valero project involves the installation of a new railcar unloading rack, rail track spurs, pumps, pipeline and associated infrastructure at the refinery, according to a city report. The crude would originate at sites in North America.

Union Pacific Railroad would transport it using existing rail lines to Roseville, and from there to the refinery, the city said.

California Regulation, Crude By Rail, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Solano County CA

Solano County lobbyists to advocate for crude-by-rail health and safety

By Roger Straw, February 12, 2015

Solano County seal (400x400)A little known but influential Council here in Solano County is the Solano County City County Coordinating Council (CCCC, or 4C’s).

Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson’s recent E-Alert gives a rare look at the proceedings of a recent CCCC meeting, including adoption of a legislative platform for Solano County that calls for our State and Federal lobbyists to support efforts to improve safety of hazardous materials transported by rail.

Mayor Patterson offered the following insider perspective on the adoption of the 2016 legislative platform at the CCCC’s February 12, 2015 meeting:

Highlights of the discussion was the transportation safety issue that Benicia added: “Support efforts to improve safety of hazardous materials transported by rail, including crude by rail and enhance capacity of local emergency responders to appropriately respond to potential emergency events resulting from derailment or releases.”

…there was spirited discussion and accusations of “agenda driven” thinking and the language not necessary and other detracting remarks.  Because the 4Cs was established with a consensus protocol, a simple majority of the quorum was not enough to carry this suggestion forward.  After more discussion and the lead objector, Supervisor Spering, saw that that half the Mayors and three Supervisors did want the above language, he offered language that seemed to capture the essence of the suggestion.  In the end we gave direction to staff to finalize the language to be reviewed by Supervisor Spering and the City of Benicia.

Kudos to Mayor Patterson and Benicia city staff, and many thanks to the other County Supervisors and Mayors who backed this legislative priority.  Let’s hope that the compromise language still has some teeth!

It will be wonderful to be know that our County’s tax-supported State and Federal lobbyists are representing us to improve health and safety legislative measures with regard to crude by rail.