Category Archives: Valero Benicia Refinery

Courage, Judgment, Steve Young for Mayor and Gilpin-Hayes and Macenski for City Council

Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

By Stephen Golub, first published in the Benicia Herald on October 13, 2024

When we think about courage, the kinds of things that come to mind are police taking on violent criminals or firefighters rushing into burning buildings. We don’t think of city officials poring over spreadsheets and budget documents.

But when it comes to this year’s mayoral and City Council elections, there’s an admirable element of courage at play. This is a central  reason I’m endorsing Mayor Steve Young for reelection, as well as Christina Gilpin-Hayes and (current Council Member) Trevor Macenski for City Council.

They all also merit support for additional reasons that go beyond our budget crisis, including the initiative and energy they’ll bring to these (largely uncompensated) jobs. But with respect to that crisis, they’ve earned respect by biting the bullet and backing the three revenue-enhancing measures on the Benicia ballot, involving a small sales tax increase for road repair and introduction of a modest real estate transfer tax for more general purposes.

Retiring Benicia Council Member Tom Campbell has endorsed Gilpin-Hayes for City Council, along with Mayor Steve Young, Vice Mayor Terry Scott, and Council Member Kari Birdseye. | City of Benicia.

Regrettably, as demonstrated by retiring Council Member Tom Cambell in his October 9 letter to the Herald, the responsibility shown by Young, Gilpin-Hayes and Macenski sharply contrasts with an erroneous budgetary approach taken by a twice-defeated (and once victorious) current Council candidate, Republican Lionel Largaespada. Not one to mince words, Campbell describes Largaespada’s number-juggling in terms of “voodoo math.”

As ably analyzed by Campbell, Largaespada’s misleading approach includes incorrectly claiming that he’s “found” enough existing City money to cover road repair and identifying supposedly excessive spending on outside contracting services – even though such services in fact are essential or even crucial to Benicia (and, I’d add, would most likely be more expensive if carried out by City personnel).

Campbell further explains that “Largaespada never talked to anyone in the [City’s] finance department or the City Manager’s department about his plan.” Finally, demonstrating some fine institutional memory, Campbell points to the video of a specific Council meeting to assert  that in 2019, while on the Council( before being defeated in 2022),  Largaespada backed a higher sales tax than the one candidate Largaespada now opposes. He was apparently for that kind of tax  before he was against it.

All this worries me in three ways.

First, with 44 percent of the City budget going to fire and police protection, there seems no way to adopt Largaespada’s apparent voodoo math without cutting that essential protection. It could  also mean deteriorating roads and other City services, as well as  a failure to repair City buildings and facilities, such as the Police headquarters, the Senior Center, the Swim Center, the library and a host of other structures.

Second, Campbell does not stand alone in his refutation of Largaespada’s math. His critique  is part of a broad consensus of criticism that I’ve heard from responsible Benicians across the political spectrum, ranging from business-centric to progressive circles.

Finally, if Largaespada brings this questionable  approach to the budget, one must wonder about his judgment in handling  other pressing issues Benicia faces – not least safety and health challenges presented by Texas-based Valero, who’s dangerous crude-by-rail “bomb train” plan he backed several years ago and which has massively, indirectly supported him through political action committee spending over the years – often through misleading ads that unfairly attack his opponents.

I don’t like criticizing Largaespada in these pages. He is a good, bright person. But I don’t like the possibility of gutting City services hanging over our heads either, especially when Campbell and many other experts refute his calculations.

Back to courage and judgment: It’s hard to tell people we need additional taxes. It’s harder still to put one’s political career on the line to do so. But Mayor Young has led the way in dedicating much of his campaign to that, in order to right the City’s fiscal ship for now and into the future.

The Benicia Save Our Streets Committee are fighting to pass Measure F to fix out streets.

Thus, he’s backing Ballot Measure F, the product of a citizen initiative that gathered over 2,000 signatures, which will increase the sales tax on non-grocery items by a small amount (to still less than a number of other Bay Area communities) in order to ensure that road repair is fully funded.

He’s similarly backing Measures G and H, which together will allow the City to raise funds to help close our looming budget deficits via a modest transfer tax on real estate sales – with key exceptions such as no tax in the case of inheritance or divorce.

A real value of G and H  is that with state-mandated additions of housing to Benicia, other possible housing developments on the horizon and the possibility of Valero selling its refinery down the line, large chunks of revenue could be generated by the transfer tax without imposing any costs on current Benicia residents.

I won’t delve into the pros and cons of these three measures beyond very briefly addressing certain frequently heard counter-arguments.

For instance, aren’t City employees overpaid or isn’t  the City overstaffed? No. In fact, sometimes Benicia does not even match the going rate for some jobs in other municipalities, which has  meant  losing valuable staff to them and the resulting expense of recruiting and hiring replacements. And Benicia has made staff consolidations to streamline its operations.

Or, why can’t we renegotiate employee pensions? Because we’re bound by law to honor them.

For these reasons and many more, all three measures have the support of Benicia’s public safety unions, the Solano County Association of Realtors, the County’s Democratic Party and many other organizations and individuals across the political spectrum.

The budget crisis isn’t at all the only reason I’m backing Steve Young for Mayor. He displays an even keel in leading the City, as evidenced by the calm stewardship he showed during the pandemic. He offers various sensible plans and projects to enhance our business climate and quality of life. Such initiatives  will yield additional revenues down the line without imposing additional taxes.

I have not addressed Macenski’s candidacy much because, as a popular incumbent, he does not seem to need the same level of discussion as newcomer Gilpin-Hayes, whom I’ve previously, enthusiastically endorsed. Suffice to say that he is a very sharp individual who brings great knowledge to consideration of many city issues.

Smoke from the Valero Benicia refinery during a 2017 incident. | Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

There is, however, one regard in which I wish Gilpin-Hayes, Macenski and especially Young were stronger: the proposed Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) that Vice Mayor Scott, Council Member Birdseye and several other individuals  have labored over for the past year. All three have cautiously endorsed aspects of it in principle, which is understandable. But as  a matter of leadership and legacy, and of safety and health, stronger and clearer support would be welcome in the lead-up to the election – especially  in contrast with the eventual unsupportive stance we might expect from Largaespada in view of his past backing by Texas-based Valero.

I have not addressed the candidacies of Kevin Kirby for Mayor and (former Valero and Exxon Mobil employee) Franz Rosenthal for City Council because, while they both came across as nice folks in a recent forum organized by the Benicia High School debate team, neither have matched the focus or knowledge of Young, Gilpin-Hayes, Macenski or Largaespada– whether at that forum or online – regarding  the crucial issues confronting Benicia. The one exception is former Valero and Exxon Mobil employee Rosenthal’s clear opposition to the ISO.

In addition, given Rosenthal’s apparent extremely late entry into the race, one wonders whether, as the other new face in the Council contest, he’ll counterproductively take votes away from the energetic and well-qualified newcomer Gilpin-Hayes.

To sum up: For their courage, judgement and many more reasons, I hope that Benicians will work for, donate to and above all vote for Young, Gilpin-Hayes and Macenski for Mayor and City Council Members. Benicia needs the sound, responsible, energetic approaches they bring to the table.

[Note: I have donated to the Young and Gilpin-Hayes campaigns.]


The BenIndy has also endorsed Christina Gilpin-Hayes for City Council. Learn more about her campaign by clicking the image below and visiting her website

 

Baykeeper wins $2.38 million pollution settlement against Valero and Amports

[BenIndy: This win shows why Benicia residents are demanding local oversight through the enactment of an Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO). While we’re grateful to Baykeeper for taking a stand for our health and safety, we shouldn’t have to rely on nonprofits for protection. Nor should we accept City leaders’ seeming reluctance to rock the boat in a refinery town by supporting an ISO. The polluted waters this metaphorical boat now floats on demonstrate that inaction and waffling in our leadership is as risky as industrial pollution. It’s time for Benicia’s leaders to pick up their oars and navigate us all to safer, cleaner shores—even if it means making waves.]

Valero and Amports Agree to Clean up Their Acts

Baykeeper drone footage of a petcoke spill at the Port of Benicia. | Baykeeper.

Baykeeper’s 300th Legal Win: Hard Evidence Holds Polluters Accountable

Baykeeper, October 7, 2024

After four years of drone investigations, rigorous evidence collection, and court filings: We won! Valero and Amports—the two companies operating an export terminal at the Port of Benicia—have agreed to stop polluting the Bay and nearby neighborhoods. What’s more, this settlement officially marks Baykeeper’s 300th legal victory over 35 years, and it includes the largest Clean Water Act mitigation payment in our history.

It all started with a report to Baykeeper’s pollution hotline. The tipster let us know that the companies were spilling some dark material into the water while loading cargo ships at the port.

When our field team investigated, we documented long black plumes of petroleum coke drifting out into the Bay. We also recorded clouds of petcoke dust rising off the conveyor belts, fouling the air and threatening people in nearby neighborhoods.

Companies Commit to Cleaner Operations

Valero and Amports have agreed to make significant infrastructure upgrades and operational changes to improve activities at the site. These changes will include thorough cleaning and maintenance, installing state-of-the-art equipment to prevent spills and aerial drift, as well as monitoring and recording all petcoke loading operations. Baykeeper’s experts will be evaluating the companies’ compliance with the agreement over the next three years to ensure they are no longer polluting.

$2.38 Million for Local Nonprofits

The companies have also agreed to pay $2.38 million in environmental mitigation payments to help offset the harm of their past pollution. They will send the payment to our partners at the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment, which will re-grant it to non-profit organizations around the Bay Area to fund projects that benefit the health of the San Francisco Bay-Delta watershed. None of these grants will go to Baykeeper.

With this latest pollution settlement, Baykeeper has directed more than $15 million to the community over our 35-year history. Those funds have supported hundreds of Bay-focused environmental initiatives.

“Baykeeper stood up to these two big companies and made them clean up their acts,” said Baykeeper executive director Sejal Choksi-Chugh. “It’s a big win for the Bay and the people around Benicia. It makes me proud to know that there will be less toxic pollution harming the community, and that lots of local grassroots nonprofits will get a big funding boost to support projects like creek cleanups, wetlands restoration, and environmental education programs because of our win.”

This victory was made possible because of our dedicated supporters. Thank you for enabling us to hold this major fossil fuel polluter accountable, defend local communities, and protect San Francisco Bay.

Make a gift today to keep Baykeeper’s team on the water and in the courtroom.

With your support, we’ll keep taking on the Bay’s biggest polluters – and winning!


Previous reporting by BenIndy:

By Roger Straw, October 6, 2021

[See also: Video and photos at Port of Benicia show fossil fuel polluter in the act; Marilyn Bardet – Petcoke pollution in Benicia, photos going back to 1995; Cracking Down on Refinery Emissions – all about “cat crackers”]

Summary and Details of the Pollution Lawsuit

Click image for full 20-page Notice of Intent

In a previous post, I shared the Baykeeper press release announcing the photo and video evidence of illegal polluting of the Carquinez Strait and San Francisco Bay by Benicia AMPORTS.

Here, I want to highlight the discoveries outlined in the 20-page legal notice issued by Baykeepers.

You may jump to the following sections below:

Summary and notice of 60 days to settle

Re: Notice of Ongoing Violations and Intent to File a “Citizen Suit” Under the Clean Water Act

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) regarding violations of the Clean Water Act1 (“CWA” or “Act”) at the Amports Port of Benicia Terminal, owned and operated by Amports, Inc. (“Amports”) at 1997 Elm Road, Benicia, CA 94510 (“Facility”) and 1007 Bayshore Road, Benicia, CA 94510. The purpose of this letter (“Notice Letter”) is to put Amports on notice that, at the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date the Notice Letter is served, Baykeeper intends to file a “citizen suit” action against Amports in U.S. Federal District Court. The civil action will allege significant, ongoing, and continuous violations of the Act and California’s General Industrial Storm Water Permit2 (“General Permit”) at the Facility, including but not limited to, the direct deposition of petroleum coke (“petcoke”) into the water from the conveyance system, equipment, and ship, aerial deposition of petcoke directly to the water from the deck of the ship, and the uncontrolled discharge of polluted storm water to the Carquinez Strait, a part of the San Francisco Bay.

Detailed list of violations

As described in detail below, Amports is liable for ongoing violations of the Act as a consequence of the Facility’s: (1) direct discharge of petcoke into the Carquinez Strait, both through deck washing and direct aerial deposition; (2) inaccurate use of SIC code designations to avoid coverage for regulated industrial activities under the General Permit; (3) failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the General Permit resulting in unpermitted storm water discharges, including but not limited to the preparation and implementation of a proper Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan related to Amports’ petcoke loading operation, preparation and implementation of a Monitoring Implementation Plan, and compliance with technology-based Effluent Limitations.

60-day notice and offer of settlement

CWA section 505(b) requires that sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of a civil action under CWA section 505(a), a citizen must give notice of their intent to file suit. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b). Notice must be given to the alleged violator, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the State in which the violations occur. As required by section 505(b), this Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit provides notice to Amports of the violations that have occurred and which continue to occur at the Facility. After the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date of this Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit, Baykeeper intends to file suit in federal court against Amports under CWA section 505(a) for the violations described more fully below.

During the 60-day notice period, Baykeeper would like to discuss effective remedies for the violations noticed in this letter. We suggest that you contact us as soon as possible so that these discussions may be completed by the conclusion of the 60-day notice period. Please note that it is our policy to file a complaint in federal court as soon as the notice period ends, even if discussions are in progress.

Background and photos

A. San Francisco Baykeeper

San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) is a non-profit public benefit corporation….

Members of Baykeeper reside in Benicia, California, as well as in many of the surrounding communities. Baykeeper’s members and supporters use and enjoy San Francisco Bay and other waters for various recreational, educational, and spiritual purposes. Baykeeper’s members’ use and enjoyment of these waters are negatively affected by the pollution caused by the Facility’s operations….

B. The Owner and/or Operator of the Facility

Amports, Inc. is a dba of APS West Coast Inc. and is identified as the owner and operator of the Benicia Port Terminal Company. All three entities have the same address, CEO, Secretary, CFO, and Controller.

C. The Facility’s Industrial Activities and Discharges of Petcoke and Other Pollutants

The Facility is a roughly 400-acre site which includes marine cargo loading equipment, the petcoke loading equipment and conveyor system, parking for cars, docking area and equipment for ships, silos to store petcoke, train car petcoke offloading area and equipment, vehicle maintenance, equipment cleaning, ship cleaning, ship maintenance, and other facilities. According to Amports’ 2015 Notice of Intent to comply with the General Permit under the Clean Water Act, at least 8 acres at the Facility consisted of areas that were exposed to storm water.

The Valero Benicia Refinery processes crude oil by separating it into a range of hydrocarbon components or fractions. Petroleum fractions include heavy oils and residual materials used to make asphalt or petcoke, mid-range materials such as diesel (heating oil), jet fuel, and gasoline, and lighter products, such as butane, propane, and fuel gases.

The petcoke is transported via rail to the Facility and is stored there in silos. Amports transfers the petcoke from the silos to a ship’s hold at the Facility’s dock by way of a covered conveyor system. During this process, the petcoke may escape in half a dozen or more ways.

First, petcoke spills off of the conveyor belt system and is deposited onto the wharf and directly into Carquinez Strait. This occurs while the crane boom is in the lowered position, and, as depicted below, continues as the boom is raised while the conveyor continues to operate.

March 2021

Second, petcoke is deposited onto the deck of the ship and into the water, potentially due to overspray from the loading mechanism or other operations, leaving visible plumes of petcoke that can be seen in the water.

February 2021

Third, at the conclusion of the loading, longshoremen hose off the deck of the ship, and the related loading equipment on and around the ship, cleaning the equipment and forcing contaminated runoff directly into the Carquinez Strait, again leaving visible plumes of petcoke that can be seen in the water.

February 2021

Fourth, as the ship is being loaded, large visible clouds of black particulate matter, presumably petcoke dust, drift through the air away from the ship before being directly deposited into the water and/or onto the nearby shoreline.

Additionally, petcoke may escape and be deposited onto the Facility or into the water during: (a) the offload from trains, (b) the movement of petcoke around the Facility, (c) storage at the Facility, (d) from equipment and vehicle cleaning, (e) from equipment and vehicle maintenance or repair, and (f) each time a sufficient rain event occurs due to the Facility’s discharge of pollutants from industrial activity in storm water, through direct discharges of industrial pollutants.

The deposition of petcoke and other pollutants into San Francisco Bay is harmful and deleterious to the Bay’s wildlife and communities. Petcoke is a petroleum byproduct and is known to contain pollutants including heavy metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, arsenic, mercury, and vanadium, all of which are harmful to aquatic life, including fish and birds.

Additionally, people exposed to petcoke pollutants can experience severe health problems like asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease.

Detailed harmful effects of Petcoke

The deposition of petcoke and other pollutants into San Francisco Bay is harmful and deleterious to the Bay’s wildlife and communities. Petcoke is a petroleum byproduct and is known to contain pollutants including heavy metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, arsenic, mercury, and vanadium, all of which are harmful to aquatic life, including fish and birds. Additionally, people exposed to petcoke pollutants can experience severe health problems like asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease.

Amports is permitted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to process and load 2 million tons of petcoke onto export ships over a 12-month period. Amports does not have any permits from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”). Amports is not permitted to discharge petcoke directly into the Carquinez Strait. And Amports is also not permitted to discharge any storm water, directly or indirectly, that is the result of industrial activity, including water that is commingled with industrial discharges.

Baykeeper’s suit will allege that petcoke is deposited on the site with every instance of: petcoke being transported by rail to the site, petcoke offloading from a train at the Facility, and petcoke being handled and transported on the Facility’s premises. Additionally, Baykeeper will allege that petcoke enters the Carquinez Strait with every instance of: petcoke being loaded and/or oversprayed onto a ship docked at the Facility, petcoke-related equipment, including the conveyor systems, cranes, and ships, being maintained and/or cleaned, and each storm event at the Facility in excess of 0.1” of precipitation.

The discharge of pollutants from industrial facilities contributes to the impairment of surface waters and aquatic-dependent wildlife. These contaminated discharges can and must be controlled for ecosystems to regain their health and to protect public health. As part of its investigation of the Facility, Baykeeper observed and documented by video numerous instances of illegal discharges during Amports’ various activities and handling of marine cargo (specifically petcoke) at the Facility between November 2020 and March 2021.

Additionally, with every significant rainfall event, millions of gallons of polluted storm water originating from industrial operations such as the Facility pour into storm drains and local waterways. The consensus among agencies and water quality specialists is that storm water pollution accounts for more than half of the total pollution entering surface waters each year. Such discharges of pollutants from industrial facilities contribute to the impairment of downstream waters and aquatic dependent wildlife. These contaminated discharges can and must be controlled for the ecosystem to regain its health.


Click image for full 20-page notice

THE REMAINDER OF THE DOCUMENT is organized into the following sections, which you can study at length here.

II. THE CLEAN WATER ACT (p. 7)
A. The NPDES Permit Program (p. 7)
B. California’s General Industrial Storm Water Permit (p. 8)
C. The Facility’s Permit Enrollment Status (p. 12)
III. NAME AND ADDRESS OF NOTICING PARTY (p. 13)
IV. COUNSEL (p. 13)
V. VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT AND GENERAL PERMIT (p. 13)
A. Amports’ Direct, Non-Storm Water Discharges Without an
NPDES Permit (p. 14)
B. Amports’ Illegal Indirect Discharges Without An NPDES
Permit (p. 15)
C. Amports’ Illegal Storm Water Discharges (p. 15)
D. Violations of the Act and General Permit Reporting and
Monitoring Rules (p. 16)
E. Violations of the General Permit’s SWPPP Requirements (p.
17)
VI. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER
ACT (p. 17)
VII. CONCLUSION (p. 18)
ATTACHMENT 1: DATES OF ALLEGED EXCEEDANCES BY
AMPORTS FROM OCTOBER 4, 2016 TO OCTOBER 4, 2021
(p. 19)
ATTACHMENT 2: SERVICE LIST (p. 20)

Stephen Golub: For City Council, Back Democrat Gilpin-Hayes Over Republican Largaespada

A Breath of Fresh Air: For City Council, Back Democrat Gilpin-Hayes Over Republican Largaespada

Christina Gilpin-Hayes, Benicia City Council Candidate. | Campaign photo.
Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

By Stephen Golub, originally published in the Benicia Herald on October 7, 2024

Images added by BenIndy.

While four candidates are vying for two Benicia City Council slots this November, the key race (for reasons I’ll explain in a subsequent column) is really between Democrat Christina Gilpin-Hayes and Republican Lionel Largaespada. They’re both good, smart people, with backgrounds in business and public service. They both love Benicia.

But they differ in crucial ways, which is why Gilpin-Hayes is by far the better choice.

Energy and Perspective

Gilpin-Hayes is a breath of fresh air with creative ideas on everything from addressing the budgetary crisis that threatens our city services to better community outreach that will keep us updated about vital government deliberations and decisions.

In contrast, Largaespada is on his fourth run for City Council in eight years. The one time he won, in 2018 (before losing again in 2022), he wore the mantle of supposed fiscal responsibility – yet sat on the Council during a crucial period when our budget crisis intensified and went unaddressed.

Endorsements

Moderate Democrat Gilpin-Hayes has endorsements stretching across much of Benicia’s and Solano County’s political spectrums. They include Mayor Steve Young, Vice Mayor Terry Scott, Council Members Kari Birdseye and Tom Campbell, former Mayors Jerry Hayes and Elizabeth Patterson, Solano County Supervisors Monica Brown and Wanda Williams, Supervisor-elect Cassandra James, State Senate candidate Christopher Cabaldon and, last but not least, the Solano County Democratic Party.

To his credit, conservative Republican Largaespada has secured labor endorsements, including from our police and fire unions – though that does not mean those groups or individual members necessarily oppose Gilpin-Hayes. On the other hand, the largest though indirect backing he’s received over the years has come from Texas-based Valero Energy, through political action committees (PACs) that have spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting him and/or attacking his opponents in misleading and mean ways.

Our Budget Crisis and Credibility

Along with Mayor Young, other Council members and other leading Benicians across the political spectrum who have made courageous decisions to back steps to balance our budget, Gilpin-Hayes supports Ballot Measures F, G and H, which will help repair our decaying roads and more generally shore up the City’s finances.

She also favors revenue-enhancing initiatives that will increase Benicia’s appeal as a place to visit and spend money and to make it easier to do business here, without sacrificing our community’s charming, small-town character.

Former Benicia City Council Member Lionel Largaespada grimaces as he considers his position.
Former Benicia City Council Member Lionel Largaespada, pictured at a 2022 candidate forum in Benicia, CA. | Vallejo Sun / Scott Morris.

Largaespada agrees that Benicia needs to be more business-friendly. But he opposes the three tax-oriented measures without proposing effective alternatives for maintaining our police, fire, parks, public works and other services. Instead, he promises apparently illusory savings: e.g., from the $9 million of spending that the City currently contracts out annually. In doing so, he overlooks the fact that such contracted-out expenditures could be even more burdensome if they instead involved hiring additional City personnel, in view of City employees’ benefits, pensions and other accompanying costs. In this and other instances, he seems to juggle budget categories without providing sound solutions.

What’s more, such services are by and large for crucial public works and public safety needs, ranging from protecting our water supply to employing the license plate readers that have helped keep Benicia safe. We can’t simply cut them.

One has to wonder, again, where was fiscal conservative Largaespada when he served on the Council in 2018-22 as our current fiscal crisis overtook the City, and why his return to the Council would prove more effective this time around.

Public Safety and Health

Gilpin-Hayes takes a responsible position in backing full funding and support for Benicia’s Police and Fire Departments. She favors a strong industrial safety ordinance (ISO), while also taking account of Valero’s financial and other contributions to the community and what she feels are at least a couple of legitimate concerns it raises about a draft ISO prepared by a Council subcommittee.

Valero’s Benicia Refinery during a flaring event. | Pat Toth-Smith.

I do not trust Valero and I feel that Vice Mayor Scott and Council Member Birdseye have done a fine job in spearheading that draft, which among other things could prevent Valero from again pouring tremendous toxic emissions into our air for at least 15 years without informing us – as it finally was forced to do in 2022. But I also respect Gilpin-Hayes’ position in staking out (along with Mayor Young and Council Member Trevor Macenski) a moderate middle ground that hopefully will still yield a strong ordinance.

Contrast this with Valero’s indirect but massive and often misleading campaign backing for Largaespada over the years, and what this might portend for future industrial safety-and-health challenges. Consider too his unfounded suggestion that the proposed ISO would duplicate the work of a rather toothless Solano County agency.

I’m not questioning his integrity at all here; but I am wondering about why the Texas-based oil giant has chosen to make such a political investment in him. Maybe it has something to do with his supporting its extremely dangerous but fortunately unsuccessful crude-by-rail project several years ago or potentially aligning with the corporation on other hazardous initiatives down the line.

I’m also concerned about whether our Police and Fire Departments, which consume a large chunk of Benicia’s budget, could continue to function well despite the inevitable City cutbacks that Largaespada’s opposition to additional revenues entails. I’ll equally admit to uneasiness about his stance opposing a mask mandate back when Covid raged, as well as his apparently solicitous stance toward the Solano County public health director, whose questionable advice at the time starkly contrasted with that of most other public health authorities, including throughout the Bay Area.

Finally, let’s note Gilpin-Hayes’ dedicated, longstanding involvement with rescue services for endangered and abandoned dogs. That won’t necessarily make her a City Council star. But as a fellow dog lover, to me it marks her as someone with a big heart.

Christina Gilpin-Hayes has my vote for Benicia City Council.

[Note: I have donated to the Gilpin-Hayes campaign.]


The BenIndy has also endorsed Christina Gilpin-Hayes for City Council. Learn more about her campaign by clicking the image below and visiting her website.

  

Stephen Golub: A Question of Trust – Safety, Health, Toxins and Explosions

Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

 

By Stephen Golub, originally published in the Benicia Herald on September 29, 2024

Images added by BenIndy.

Benicia has two big votes coming up this fall. The more prominent one is our Nov. 5 general election vote for city officials and on city tax measures. But around that time, the City Council will also vote on an Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) that will enable us, for the first time, to directly address the threats to our safety and health repeatedly posed by the Texas-based Valero Energy Corporation’s Benicia refinery.

Right now, we’re the only Bay Area community that hosts a refinery but does not have an ISO. Adopting one means a role for Benicia in monitoring, investigating and if necessary fining Valero’s inadequately informing us about its accidents, incidents, violations and operations.

What’s more, various regulatory agencies have left us out of the loop when it comes to such matters vital to our own safety and health. An ISO gives us a seat at the table and greater incentives for Valero to keep us informed.

Black clouds from the Valero Benicia Refinery billowed over residential neighborhoods during a 2017 incident. Despite a shaky record of failing to disclose accidental releases and emissions, including the 15 years toxic emissions hundreds of times the legal limits were released into Benicia air, Valero insists oversight measures already in place are sufficient to ensure Benicia residents are kept safe and informed .  | Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Unfortunately, in both public meetings and public comments on a draft ISO prepared by a Council subcommittee, Valero has voiced resistance, hostility and even implicit legal threats toward the kind of ordinance that the other Bay Area refineries survive and thrive with.

The need for an ISO boils down to a question of trust – in Valero itself and in our elected officials. Unfortunately,  one City Council candidate in particular, Republican Lionel Largaespada, triggers doubts about where he stands.

I’ll emphasize that distrusting Valero doesn’t mean doubting the integrity, hard work and dedication of its employees and contractors, many of whom are our wonderful neighbors and friends.

I’ll add that I don’t doubt Mr. Largaespada’s commitment to Benicia. I salute him for his participation in community affairs and the civil manner in which he conducts himself – and kudos to other recent Council candidates and members as well. In these troubled political times, we need all the civility we can get.

But major corporate decisions are made at corporate headquarters – in this case, San Antonio.

And participation and civility don’t necessarily translate into adequate emphasis on public safety and health.

So let’s consider some salient facts.

Lionel Largaespada (center), who supported “Crude By Rail” and opposes Benicia adopting an ISO, is pictured here at a February 13, 2019,  Solano Transportation Authority (STA) Board Meeting. | Solano Transportation Authority.

With Mr. Largaespada’s support, for years Valero tried to bulldoze its dangerous “crude-by-rail” proposal to adoption by the City Council, only to thankfully fail in 2016. Amazingly, this push started at around the same time as the infamous 2013 Lac-Megantic disaster occurred. That tragedy, named for the small Quebec City that it decimated and where it claimed 47 lives, took place when an oil train derailed, caught fire and exploded.

That incident is by no means the only time that potentially deadly derailments and resulting fires and/or massive oil leaks have taken place in North America. By one count, there were 21 such accidents in the subsequent eight years, including two just up the coast in Oregon and Washington.

The Benicia refinery’s own list of violations, accidents and incidents is far too long for me to recount here, as is a similar list of Valero transgressions across the country. So I’ll just remind readers of this 2022 revelation by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District: For well over 15 years Valero released toxic emissions, hundreds of times the legal limits, into our air without informing Benicia.

As summarized in 2022 by a top Air District official, “The Air District is saying that that Valero knew or should have known that these emissions should have been reported and they knew or should have known that these emissions should have been minimized.”

(Note, by the way, that it took nearly three years for the Air District itself to tell the City of these violations even after it became aware of them in 2019 – yet another reason why Benicia needs a seat at the table, to avoid being left in the lurch.)

Benicia resident Kathy Kerridge speaks out at a Benicians for Clean Elections rally in 2022. Benicians for Clean Elections was founded to daylight special-interest overspending by a Valero-funded PAC in Benicia elections. | Constance Beutel.

Then there’s Valero’s spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars on political action committees (PACs) during several recent election cycles to advance its interests, often through misleading ads that boosted Mr. Largaespada as recently as 2022 during his unsuccessful campaign or that trashed other candidates in mean and misleading ways. While he has commendably disassociated himself from such tactics, we should not be blind to the fact that Valero has decided who is most likely to butter its bread.

Against this backdrop, it’s additionally disappointing that the one ISO-related matter Mr. Largaespada chose to highlight in his September 25 letter to the Herald’s Forum page is the comments on the draft ISO by the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). If you haven’t heard of this county agency, which is supposed to help protect us against hazardous materials, there’s a reason: It’s proven rather toothless, at least when it comes to Valero.

Yet rather than seeking to partner with Benicia in advancing public safety and health, CUPA’s comments fret about overlap. That’s unfortunate. Mr. Largaespada’s focus on that rather than Valero’s questionable track record, the benefits of an ISO or the support of the Air District and many other authorities for an ISO is equally regrettable.

So what can concerned Benicians do?

 

Contact the current City Council members to voice support for a strong ISO and for a vote to take place on it before the November 5 election. Though the Council unanimously backed this in principle nearly a year ago, the process has dragged for so long that getting a vote done by that date is now in doubt.

Similarly contact all Council candidates to ask that they all support a strong ISO and its effective implementation, and that they declare that support before the election. They know enough about what the ISO will entail to get them to commit to it. Benicians have a right to know where they stand.

Be on the lookout for yet more massive, misleading PAC spending by Valero, once again designed to pollute our politics, through mailings and other advertisements that mask its support for Mr. Largaespada and other allies or that trash their opponents . Past Valero-funded PACs have used such names as “Progress for Benicia” and “Working Families for a Strong Benicia.” Hopefully, Valero has learned its lesson and will refrain from repeating its misleading efforts. But if not, look for such ads’ small print, which will reveal their funding.

Finally, for more information about the ISO or to support the effort to get it adopted, please go to the private, citizen-organized site for Benicia Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance. You can also go to the City’s useful site, Engage Benicia, though be aware that comments there are now closed. 

For more on Valero’s political track record in Benicia, please go to the Benicians for Clean Elections site.

Once again, I respect Valero’s fine employees and Mr. Largaespada. Hopefully, Valero can adopt a constructive rather than combative attitude toward Benicia’s simply seeking to better protect our safety and health via the ISO, and for the first time in years stay out of our elections. But our recent history with this Texas-based multinational – as well as the experience of other communities across the country with it – teaches us too many lessons about the tiger not changing its stripes.

There’s also broader political dimension here: Why would Texas-based Valero take a hostile stance toward the ISO when the potential next President of the United States weighed in as California Attorney General to help defeat its crude-by-rail plan and when that dispute garnered national attention? Ongoing opposition to better protecting Benicia’s safety and health has the makings of another nationally prominent issue.

But let’s just get back to the local: All that Benicia wants via this ISO is simply a seat at the table and a City Council devoted to making that seat meaningful. Hopefully, this fall’s votes will make those things happen.