Benicia City Council, Cal/OSHA, City of Benicia, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero's Community Advisory Panel (CAP)

Valero Benicia Refinery delayed reporting the March flare tower incident that caused shelter-in-place

March 26 refinery “material release” remains under investigation…

A black plume erupted from a flare tower at the Valero Benicia Refinery March 26, prompting a voluntary shelter-in-place order from the city. Photo taken in the Hillcrest neighborhood by Benicia resident and small business owner, Jamie Jang.

The Benicia Bridge, By Laura López González & Monica Vaughan, April  18, 2026

Valero delayed reporting the March 26 flare-tower “material release,” which remains under investigation by several agencies. The plant may not have reported the flaring to state authorities at all, had it not been for Solano County officials’ urging.

A distinctive black plume from one of Valero’s three flare stacks made local headlines in March. Unsure of what was being spilled into the air, Benicia Fire Chief Josh Chadwick issued a voluntary shelter-in-place warning for the city, as previously reported by The Benicia Bridge. NBC News reported that about two dozen Valero workers were sent to the hospital with chemical burns caused by cleaning chemicals involved in the incident. Company officials denied that happened.

Earlier this week, General Manager Lauren Bird said the black plume was a composition of steam and rust. Bird was speaking April 14 at the final meeting of the refinery’s community advisory panel.

And although Bird said that about a dozen contractors were given first aid onsite, he says no one was taken to hospitals. He and other Valero officials faced tough questions from the refinery’s community advisory panel about why the company waited a day to report the incident to state monitors. Valero reported the flare to the California Office of Emergency Services, but only after calls from Solano County environmental health officers.

 Are you a Valero worker who saw what happened? The Benicia Bridge wants to hear from you. Reach out to us by text, call or use Signal at 530-755-7163.  
Valero said emission was non-toxic

March’s incident, Bird said, occurred after crews, using a mixture of steam and industrial cleaner to clear pipes, released too much steam into the system, blowing a seal and sending water and rust into the air via the plume.

“There were some odors associated with it, likely from the corrosion products that are being cleaned out of the system,” said Bird, who added the release went on for about six minutes before it was brought under control. “We pulled a sample of the material. The actual constituent analysis indicates the material was non-hazardous, it was not an irritant, it was non-toxic… it was not a carcinogenic.”

Valero sampled 14 sites in Benicia for possible contamination.

Bird said that workers nearby who were sprayed with the mixture accessed emergency safety showers before accessing first aid.

Solano County officials urged Valero to report the incident

California regulations require companies to immediately report any significant release or threatened release of a hazardous material to the California Office of Emergency Services.

State public records show Valero had an open hazardous materials spill report February and March related to ongoing flaring and sulfur dioxide releases. On March 26, Valero informed state officials of “no additional release.” A March 27 note says, “For yesterdays update report …the correct update is that there was a release of water with residual cleaning material and residual iron sulfide, at an unknown quantity.”

Refinery community advisory panel member Cara Bateman is an environmental manager. During the meeting Tuesday, she questioned why Valero did not report the event to the state that day.

Bird responded that the plant chose not to report initially because they knew the substance was non-toxic.

“Initially, even as of that evening, it hadn’t been reported to the state,” Bateman said. “You go through the [Office of Emergency Services’] database, and there are scores of reports every year from us because it caused some sort of public nuisance.”

She continued: “You had kids who got picked up from school to go home and people with crap on their cars.”

Solano County Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist Chris Ambrose interrupted discussions to say that his team called Valero to urge the plant to report the emissions.

“Given that there were odors and potential off-site consequences, the next day, we got on the phone with [Valero] and asked, ‘Why wasn’t this reported?’ Ambrose told Tuesday’s community advisory meeting. “I’m not sure what discussions took place off the phone… [but Valero] called into the state.”

Although Bird apologized for the emission, he reiterated that the plant had conducted sampling and downwind monitoring, which showed the release was non-toxic.

Valero, others under investigation

Several agencies are investigating the incident for potential illegal actions.

Cal/OSHA received complaints from workers about the incident and launched an investigation into potential worker safety violations. Valero and contracting companies are named in the investigation, including Refined Technologies, USA Debusk, T.R.S.C., and Specialty Welding and Turnarounds. The investigation is ongoing.

In addition, the Bay Area Air District is investigating and has already issued a notice of violation that states the March 26 incident was a “public nuisance caused by emissions.”

The March incident marked the eighth public notification issued by the City of Benicia regarding public impacts from refinery shutdown operations.

The plant has officially stopped refining, meaning that flaring is over, Bird said. Valero plans to continue importing, storing, and distributing gas and diesel at the location before likely exiting within the next two years.

Do you appreciate The Benicia Bridge so far? Please consider forwarding this story to your friends, neighbors and community groups to help grow our readership.

Questions? Feedback? Reach out to news@thebeniciabridge.com.

Reposted with permision, The Benicia Bridge
Excellent reporting from Benicia’s newest award-winning journalism duo, Monica Vaughan and Laura López González. – Roger Straw
Learn more and subscribe to the newsletter here.

Back to top.

Benicia Fire Department, City of Benicia, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero's Community Advisory Panel (CAP)

Valero laid off its Benicia firefighter crew, hopes for outside aid in case of tank fire

Final Community Advisory Panel meeting: Who will respond if there is trouble?

The stacks at Benicia’s Valero refinery have gone cold but layoffs during company’s transition away from refining have also cost the plant its dedicated fire brigade.

The Benicia Bridge, by Laura López González, April  17, 2026

Valero laid off its refinery firefighters in Benicia. Now, company executives have said they hope to rely on the Benicia Fire Department, contractors, and neighboring refineries to provide the manpower needed to tackle a future fire.

Valero completed its latest round of layoffs this week, leaving about 70 employees, General Manager Lauren Bird said Tuesday at the refinery’s final community advisory panel meeting. About 20 employees will be left alongside contractors as the plant continues to import, store and distribute gas and diesel in the near future. The company will no longer import jet fuel through Benicia, citing easier routes to support airports, Valero Section Business Law Chief David Giles said at the meeting. Valero will use a fraction of its tanks for storage.

Among the layoffs were Valero’s own firefighters, leaving serious questions about who would respond to potential fires at the facility. Valero officials admitted that, although rare, possible tank fires are their biggest concern. These fires, which occur inside petroleum storage tanks, require specialized training and equipment that can take hours to set up.

“We’re going to train our employees to work the fire suppression systems. We’re going to conduct annual drills with the Benicia Fire Department here on site, and then we’re going to lead that initial response,” said Tommy Stone, Valero senior health, safety, and emergency response manager. “From there, we’re going to rely on our industrial partners.”

Subscribe to The Benicia Bridge for fresh local reporting
>>>

Valero and other local refineries are part of a mutual aid group, Stone explains. It’s why better-resourced refinery fire brigades from Valero and Chevron’s Richmond refineries responded to the 2019 fire at Crockett’s NuStar tank farm. Investigators determined that fire was caused by an explosion due to static electricity build-up or a spark in one tank that spread to another tank when its roof blew off, according to a KTVU report. It resulted in a 15-acre fire.

Valero had its own fire at the Benicia Refinery last May, which was reportedly sparked by a broken furnace, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Although Valero would maintain what it says are sufficient stocks of specialized firefighting foam at its Benicia plant, it would outsource actual firefighting to the Benicia Fire Department, neighboring refineries, and paid off-site industrial firefighting firms, US Fire Pump and Williams Fire & Hazard Control.

Benicia Council Member Terry Scott expressed reservations regarding Valero’s reliance on aid from other nearby refineries. He expressed particular concern for neighborhoods like Hillcrest in Benicia that are in close proximity to the plant.

“The City of Benicia has potentially 10 firefighters [on duty at a time] that we could bring to a potential fire,” he said. “I mean this with no disrespect, please, but it concerns me that we’re talking about a ‘hopeful’ strategy.”

Benicia Fire Chief Josh Chadwick said the plan is far from a done deal. Still, he added that it was a marked improvement from the company’s initial proposal, which he characterized as completely unworkable and “woefully inadequate.”

“What’s being presented today is 1000 times better than it was before,” Chadwick said, “but there’s a few things that need to be worked out.”

Community advisory panel member Cara Bateman is an environmental manager. She raised concerns about the state of existing fire water lines to the refinery. Giles assured the advisory group that Valero runs lines weekly to ensure adequate water pressure. And while there are leaks, he said pipes are working and will be maintained through the company’s tenure, which is unlikely to extend beyond two years.

Tuesday marked the community advisory panel’s final meeting, however, members hope to continue the dialogue with Valero representatives — perhaps as part of the city’s Industrial Safety Citizen Oversight Commission.

Giles suggested that Valero might be open to the idea.

“At least the way I view it is, if we’re going to have operations here for fuel imports, then we need to have a dialog so there’s information.”

This story was reported by Laura López González. Reach out at laura@thebeniciabridge.com.

Reposted with permision, The Benicia Bridge
Excellent reporting from Benicia’s newest award-winning journalism duo, Monica Vaughan and Laura López González. – Roger Straw
Learn more and subscribe to the newsletter here.

Back to top.

Benicia City Council, City of Benicia, Valero Benicia Refinery

End of Era: Valero has closed Benicia refinery, plans total exit

Company representative says Valero has no plans for a “tank farm” and will likely leave in the next two years

Valero Benicia Refinery is now closed. Picture by Tye Moody taken Feb. 4, 2026.

The Benicia Bridge, by Laura López González, April  16, 2026

For the first time in nearly 60 years, Benicia’s refinery stacks have gone quiet as Valero has officially stopped refining at the plant, general manager and vice president, Lauren Bird, confirmed Tuesday.

About 60 employees are expected to remain at the Benicia refinery following another round of layoffs Wednesday — a fraction of the roughly 400 employees once employed at the refinery.

Bird said about 20 employees will ultimately be left at the facility after the layoffs conclude. These workers — alongside contractors — will help Valero continue importing, storing, and distributing gasoline and diesel fuel, Bird said.

Valero will no longer supply jet fuel through Benicia, said the company’s section business law chief, David Giles. The amount of petroleum products distributed will be roughly a third of the more than 100,000 barrels that were previously refined daily at the plant.

Bird is retiring at the end of the month. Valero has been tight lipped about their future plans. Bird and executives from San Antonio spoke at the final meeting of the Valero Community Advisory Panel on Tuesday. Although the community advisory panel will cease to exist, the city and Valero may continue discussions through other existing committees, such as the city’s Industrial Safety Citizen Oversight Commission.

The Benicia refinery was originally built in 1968 by Humble Oil Company, which was acquired by Exxon Mobil in 1973. Valero purchased the refinery from Exxon Mobil in 2000 for $895 million.

Valero aims to leave entirely in two years

Valero executives dashed any hopes that the company might pursue a “tank farm,” or longer-term storage at the facility. Instead, Valero is likely to vacate the site in the next two years, according to Giles.

“We use that word, ‘idle,’ because the State of California has asked to idle the refinery in a state where it could theoretically be restarted,” Giles said. “Valero doesn’t have an intention to do that … but we’re keeping that [infrastructure] in place at their request. We’re not going to do that forever…It could be more than a year, but we don’t see going more than a couple of years, and probably less.”

Benicia faces tough budget cuts

Drone image of Valero Benicia Refinery taken by Tye Moody, Feb. 4, 2026.

The closure of Valero could result in up to nearly $11 million in annual revenue loss, largely in lost tax and water utility payments, according to the city’s worst-case projections. But the city cannot yet forecast when and how its tax base will be hit by Valero’s decision to idle its refinery, said City Manager Mario Giuliani, speaking at the recent State of the City address.

Giuliani said the city only expects to get clarity on the true cost of Valero’s exit in early 2027. Meanwhile, he said the city will use about $3.5 million of reserves in the next year to cover anticipated shortfalls from lost revenue. The city manager warned that Benicians can expect to make tough cuts in services in the town’s next 2027-2029 budget cycle.

The city continues to eye ways to bridge the financial gap, including applying to access at least $25 million in earmarked funding stemming from Valero’s payment to the Bay Area Air District of its 2024 record-setting pollution fine.

Story by Laura López González of The Benicia Bridge.
This excellent reporting comes from Benicia’s newest award-winning journalism duo, Monica Vaughan and Laura López González. Their online publication is The Benicia Bridge. – Roger Straw
Learn more and subscribe to the newsletter here.
Reach out to the Benicia Bridge via their About page.

Back to top.

Benicia CA, Health and safety impacts, Just transition, Tank farms, Valero Benicia Refinery

Dr. Richard Fleming: Public Health Risks of Tank Farms

The health problems caused by refineries are well-established. What about tank farms?

Valero Benicia 2023-09-21 M_do_Nascimento KQED
Richard Fleming, M.D., Benicia, CA

For the Benicia Independent, by Richard Fleming, M.D., Benicia resident and author, April 7, 2026

With the Valero refinery shutting down, a number of options are being considered for what to do with the property. One possibility is turning the location into a “tank farm,” a place which stores petroleum products in massive tanks. The health problems caused by refineries are well-established. But what are the health risks of tank farms? Are there reasons we should be worried about a tank farm being set up in our city? And should our city government be concerned about the possible public health impact of a tank farm replacing the refinery?

Good studies have been done looking at the potential health risks of tank farms. While they tend to be a bit less harmful to surrounding communities than refineries, they do present potential health problems we should all be aware of.

The two major areas of concern with tank farms are the risks they can send toxic chemicals into the air and the potential they can leak toxic materials into the land they sit on and into nearby groundwater systems. Let’s look briefly at each problem.

Emissions. Oil storage tanks produce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and others. Many of these chemicals are carcinogenic. As is true of refineries, when these emissions enter the air, they have an adverse impact on surrounding communities.

How do dangerous emissions happen at tank farms, given that they are just large tanks storing petroleum products? One of the main ways happens when additional oil or gasoline is being pumped into a partially filled storage tank. This inevitably leads to the densely-concentrated vapors inside the tank being pushed out into the air. These emissions are full of toxic VOCs. VOCs can also be emitted during pumping itself, as well as through leaking seals, vents, and fittings in the tanks themselves. It is impossible to guarantee that tanks will never have any possible breaches leading to toxic emissions.

Chemical leakage. Various factors can lead to the petroleum-based liquids stored in tanks leaking into surrounding soil and water. Corrosion of tank walls can create leaks, and these can be hard to detect until significant outflow has already occurred. Operational errors during filling or draining procedures can lead to leaks. Defective welds can leak.

Natural disasters like flooding and earthquakes can lead to massive leaks. The Valero property is at significant risk of flooding during massive storms, and these seem to be happening more frequently every decade. Sea level rise itself also puts the Valero property at risk of flooding, especially since some of the land is at or  below sea level. And we all know that our state is at risk for major earthquakes.

The risk from leakage into groundwater is especially concerning because, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, one gallon of gasoline can contaminate one million gallons of water.

*    *    *

So what is the take-home message? Establishing a tank farm on the Valero property would likely be somewhat less risky for public health than an operating refinery, but tank farms still pose major potential problems for Benicians and nearby communities. Since there are many other uses which could be developed on the Valero property after it is cleaned up, why not move towards safer development?

More…

Article from the Journal on Environmental Health Science & Engineering on emissions from tank farms:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6985329/#:~:text=Introduction,and%20emptying%20from%20the%20tank.

Article from Inside Climate News on health risks from living near tank farms:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18042021/toxic-neighbords-tank-fumes-epa-harmful-chemicals/

EPA on water contamination from gasoline:
https://archive.epa.gov/region02/capp/web/pdf/fs_swpp_ast.pdf

Dr. Richard Fleming, Benicia