Tag Archives: Port of Benicia

Benicia port fire fully extinguished

Benicia port fire fully extinguished, officials say; cause still being determined

ABC7 Bay Area News, By Cornell Barnard, Ryan Curry, April 10, 2022

BENICIA, Calif. (KGO) — A four-alarm fire that burned beneath a commercial pier for nearly 24 hours at Benicia Port has been extinguished, and water clean-up efforts are underway, city officials said in a press release Sunday.

The fire, first reported at 12:20 p.m. Saturday, broke out in the 1000 block of Bayshore Drive, adjacent to the Amports port terminal. It was burning at the base of a petroleum coke silo, with flames traveling up a conveyer belt toward a docked tanker ship.

The video above is from a previous report.

Thick black smoke filled the air Saturday as fire engines and fire boats attacked the inferno from all sides.

Fire crews from across Solano County raced to the scene off Bayshore Road. The fire began just before noon, five hours later it was still burning. ABC7 News cameras captured the moment parts of the dock collapsed into the water.

At a 4:30p.m. press conference, an official said that “no injuries have been reported.”

Ships anchored at the Port were moved away for safety into the Carquinez Straights, including an oil tanker.

“This is crazy, it’s scary because they offload gas and oil here,” said Tony Ciarrochi from Benicia.


Longshoreman working at the port were told to leave.

“I’m feeling panicky because we can’t get down there, some of our coworkers are still in there, it’s a toxic situation right now,” said Longshoreman Gail Day.

No one was hurt in the fire but Benicia fire officials were concerned about hazardous materials on the pier like creosote, which could harm the environment.

Fire officials believe the fire could burn for 24 hours at least. A cause is still under investigation.

The fire was burning adjacent to a historic park where a wedding was scheduled Saturday but the area was ordered evacuated. The wedding party was looking for a backup plan.

“We’re sending all the guests to another location to regroup and see if we can hold the wedding at a park, a house or anywhere we can,” said photographer David Hall.

No shelter-in-place order was issued for nearby residents. But health officials in Contra Costa County advised the public to limit outdoor activities.

The Solano County Fire Investigation Unit is working to determine the cause of the fire.

The city will then work with Valero and Amports on port repairs and reconstruction efforts.

Bay City News contributed to this report.

KQED on Benicia Port fire – Fire Chief reports refinery byproducts are burning, so far residents spared by west winds

Who and what is East of the Benicia Port?  Where is toxic ash falling to ground?

 

4-Alarm Fire at Port of Benicia – video and report

Crews battling large fire at Benicia Port

ABC7 Bay Area News, April 9, 2022

BENICIA, Calif. (KGO) — A blaze at a Benicia port has grown to a four-alarm fire, officials said on Saturday.

The fire started just after noon at a dock along 1200 block of Bayshore Rd.

Most of the longshoremen working at the dock have been evacuated, officials said.

“Fire at Port of Benicia, a dock ramp is fully engulfed,” tweeted Cornell Barnard who is at the scene.

Officials say there is no shelter-in-place order but could change depending on the wind direction, but in a tweet, Benicia fire department says, “wind conditions are favorable…there continues to be no threat to the public.”

Benicia police are asking motorists to avoid the area due to “heavy police and fire presence.”

At a 4:30p.m. press conference, an official said no injuries have been reported.

Valero Hit With Suit Over Bay Area Petroleum Coke Pollution

[BenIndy Editor: Last October, Baykeeper announced a Notice of Intent to sue, offering 60 days for a settlement.  Evidently there was no agreement to settle.  Today’s news below.  See also: earlier reports on the Benicia Independent.]

SF Baykeeper Sues Water-Discharging Businesses

Law Street Media, by Jose Rascon, March 2, 2022
On Thursday, plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper filed suit against Amports, Inc APS West Coast, Benicia Port Terminal Company, and Valero Refining Company in the Northern District of California. San Francisco Baykeeper is claiming that the defendants have unlawfully discharged pollutants into public waters.

The defendants, according to the complaint, are a group of corporations that conduct business in the automotive processing industry, while the plaintiff is a nonprofit organization “whose main focus is to hold polluters and government agencies accountable to create healthier communities and help wildlife thrive”

The complaint states that the defendants have “directly discharge petroleum coke into the Carquinez Strait at the Port of Benicia and that Defendants do so without a valid permit under the Clean Water Act and in violation of California law.”

The plaintiff is claiming that the defendants have gone out and discharged harmful toxins in the Port of Benicia through several means. Some of these means have been through “the washing of petcoke and pollutants off the deck of the ship and other loading-related equipment, directly into the Bay,” as well as the direct “aerial deposition of particulate matter into the water from Amports’ conveyance system and operations.”

According to the plaintiff the substance that the defendants have allegedly been discharging, known as Petroleum coke, or petcoke is a harmful byproduct of petroleum refining. Some of the properties that Petcoke contains are heavy metals such as copper, zinc, nickel arsenic, and mercury. This substance is being claimed to be “a harmful and deleterious to aquatic ecosystems, animal and plant species in and around waters, and poses risks to human health”.

Other allegations that the plaintiff is asserting is that the substance Petcoke makes its way into the public waters of the Carquinez Strait where the defendants do not have the proper authorization to work in.

Ultimately, the defendant is facing 10 counts, including NPDES permit violations, Clean Water Act violations, and violation of unfair competition law.

The Plaintiff is being represented by Schute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP