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.
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.
The health problems caused by refineries are well-established. What about tank farms?
Valero Benicia 2023-09-21 M_do_Nascimento KQEDRichard 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?
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: THE BENICIA BRIDGE The following excellent reporting comes from Benicia’s newest award-winning journalism duo, Monica Vaughan and Laura López González. Their online publication is The Benicia Bridge. Learn more and subscribe to the newsletter here. – Roger Straw
A plume of smoke and soot was released from a flare stack at the Valero Benicia Refinery on March 26, as seen here in a photo taken in the Hillcrest neighborhood by Benicia resident and small business owner, Jamie Jang.
NBC reported that two dozen workers went to the emergency room with burns when black liquid rained down on them for about five minutes from the flare stack incident on March 26. Cal-OSHA is investigating. A quick review of OSHA records show this is the second investigation into worker safety opened at the facility this year. Last year, Valero racked up at least 11 violations amounting to $80,000 in penalties for worker safety violations at the Benicia refinery. Valero is contesting the findings.
Read more about the April 7 City Council meeting, here:
Should Benicia invest to modernize the privately-owned port? Read here.
November 25 is the deadline to submit to the Bay Area Air District comments on its Draft Guidelines that will govern use of $60 million in Valero fines for the benefit of Benicia and surrounding communities. (Valero was penalized because of its refinery’s over 15 years of undisclosed, massive toxic emissions.)
More specifically, now’s the time to back Mayor Steve Young’s proposal to the Air District: $25 million over five years from that $60 million should go for budget support to help Benicia through the imminent loss of Valero revenues (at about $10 million per year, so totaling $50 million over five years), now that it’s closing the refinery.
Or, if you prefer, you may simply argue for a flexible approach, suggest that more than $25 million is necessary or of course otherwise comment in any way you wish on the Draft Guidelines by the November 25 deadline.
You may submit comments to the Air District by emailing the following: communityinvestments@baaqmd.gov, mhiratzka@baaqmd.gov and vjohnson@baaqmd.gov. Please request that the comments be forwarded to the Air District Board of Directors (and retain your emails because they could come in handy down the line).
If unclear on what you’d put in the subject line, you could write something like:
Comments on the Draft Guidelines for the Local Community Benefits Fund: in favor of a flexible approach.
For additional background and information, including the link to the Draft Guidelines themselves, you may go to the Benicia Independent, at https://beniciaindependent.com/, and scroll down at left to Steve Golub’s detailed November 11 post. Particularly in a subheading titled “Arguments for a flexible approach,” he makes a case for flexibility in this Air District grantmaking.
You must be logged in to post a comment.