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.
By Stephen Golub, Benicia, Nov 11, 2025 [First published in the Benicia Herald on 11/09/25.]
An upcoming November 12 Bay Area Air District meeting is vitally important for Benicia … and the City has made participation easy.
At 1 pm that day, the Bay Area Air District Community Equity, Health, and Justice Committee will meet to consider and recommend whether the Air District should adopt guidelines and a call for projects that, if not revised from their current draft forms, could severely hamper or even block the city’s access to up to $60 million in funds that could alleviate our imminent, post-Valero budget crunch. (As you may recall, that sum is part of the $82 million fine/settlement that Valero paid the Air District a year ago in the wake of its Benicia refinery’s over 15 years of undisclosed toxic emissions hundreds of times the legal limits.)
As I understand it, on November 12 the Committee will consider (among other items on its agenda that day) draft guidelines for the use of these funds and a proposal to adopt a flexible approach that could permit Benicia access to a good chunk of that $60 million, to support our cash-strapped city budget for several years. The Committee’s important, influential recommendations will be considered for approval by the full Air District Board at a January meeting.
Benicians have several ways to back a flexible approach in general and any Benicia-specific proposal in particular:
Though the Committee meeting is in San Francisco, you can go to the Benicia City Hall Commission Room (not the Council Chambers) on Nov. 12 to observe and (if you wish) offer comments by Zoom. The City Hall address is 250 East L Street. As noted, the meeting starts at 1 pm. We will each have up to two minutes to comment.
The camera in the Commission Room will be set up in a wide-angle such that it should show the Committee how many people are in attendance. So, even if you don’t plan to comment, it would be a great show of support.
You can Zoom in from your home or office to observe the meeting and offer comments, at bayareametro.zoom.us/j/81106820134
You can also access the Zoom by: a) first going to baaqmd.gov/bodagendas; b) scrolling down to the 11/12/2025 Community Equity Health and Justice Committee slot; c) clicking on the Agenda; and d) clicking on the Zoom link (same as the lengthy, multi-number one I just provided) on the first page of the agenda.
In addition to Zooming (but please, if possible, not instead of it), you can email comments to the Air District Community Investments Office (CIO), which will administer these funds, at communityinvestments@baaqmd.gov. The deadline for submission is November 25.
In addition to the CIO, you can also try emailing or ccing the Air District Board members (including those belonging to the Community Equity, Health, and Justice Committee) via two Air District staff officials (Marcy Hiratzka and Vanessa Johnson) at mhiratzka@baaqmd.gov and vjohnson@baaqmd.gov, requesting that the comments be shared with the Board (though hopefully and presumably the CIO is doing so).
For those interested in attending in person, the meeting will take place at the Air District Headquarters, 375 Beale Street in San Francisco.
I’d suggest bearing in mind the following if commenting by email or Zoom:
Above all, please be respectful and diplomatic for any number of reasons. First and foremost, the Air District Board and staff, including the CIO, are dedicated public servants working hard for cleaner air and public health in the Bay Area. In addition, Benicia needs the Air District’s help and cooperation not just in making grants from the $60 million but in years to come, as the extensive clean-up of the Valero property takes place and regarding other issues that could well crop up.
In writing to the CIO and the Board, please reference the Draft Guidelines for the Local Community Benefits Fund (LCBF), as these guidelines will govern the use of the $60 million Valero fine money for which a flexible, budget-supporting approach is sought.
For further information, including the draft guidelines, you can go to the CIO’s site, baaqmd.gov/en/community-health/community-investments-office. Once there, scroll down to the Meetings and Events section to access the Draft LCBF Guidelines (though the term used in the link is Investment rather than Benefits), a “Draft Call for Projects: Benicia and Surrounding Communities” and other information – including a “Watch Archives” link to the October 29 CIO webinar at which Mayor Steve Young and Council Member Terry Scott articulated strong arguments for a flexible approach. (Yours Truly offered my two cents’ worth as well.)
FYI, Benicia is by no means guaranteed the $60 million. As a matter of procedure, the money is not simply handed over to us; like other potential recipients of the LCBF and other Air District grants, we must apply for it. Also, quite understandably, the Guidelines provide that surrounding communities arguably affected by Valero’s transgressions can also apply for LCBF funds. Nor is anyone contending that the entire $60 million simply go for Benicia budget support. Some can, should and will be set aside for specific projects in Benicia and in those surrounding communities, above and beyond budget support.
At the same time, Benicia has been the main community bearing the brunt of these particular Valero-generated problems, while lacking the resources of larger communities to address such issues. With the subtraction of roughly $10 million in annual revenue previously provided by Valero, we’re the only Air District city facing such a crushing loss of economic resilience, which is bad in and of itself but also has potentially dire implications for air quality, public health and a proper transition to a post-Valero economy. Perhaps at least partly due to Valero’s violations, our cancer rates are well above state and Solano County levels; they’re nearly twice as high as California for breast cancer.
I plan to argue for $45-50 million over five years for Benicia budget support, so $9-10 million per year to help out our annual $60 million in general budgetary expenditures. But clearly opinions can vary on whether this is an appropriate sum and how much it should be (as well as on everything else!).
In the end, then: Please show up if you can at City Hall or via your own Zoom link on November 12 at 1 pm. I know it’s a bad time for many, but those of us who can attend can help make a big difference, including simply by showing support even if you don’t want to comment.
Regardless, sending comments to the Air District email addresses I’ve provided can also prove useful.
Let’s do what we can to help secure Beautiful Benicia’s financial future.
EDITOR – IMPORTANT: Below is a very helpful post previously published by Steve Golub…
Arguments for a flexible approach:
To Help Prevent a Benicia Budgetary Crisis, Please Circle Nov. 12 on Your Calendar
Benicia’s financial future could well be determined over the course of the next month. On November 12, the Bay Area Air District Community Equity Health and Justice Committee will meet to consider and recommend whether the Air District should adopt guidelines and a call for projects that, if not revised from their current draft forms, could severely hamper or even block the city’s access to up to $60 million in funds that could alleviate our imminent, post-Valero budget crunch. The Air District Board of Directors could act on that recommendation as soon as its December 3 meeting.
As you may know, Benicia faces a loss of roughly $10 million in Valero-related annual revenue starting next year. At the same time, the Air District’s $82 million fine/settlement with Valero for its over 15 years of undisclosed toxic emissions (hundreds of times the legal limits) – from which $60 million is available to Benicia and surrounding communities – represents a chance to address our budget crunch. It would seem that the fine for the Valero-sparked environmental and public health harms could help cover the hit that Benicia’s budget is taking due to Valero’s departure.
Ah, if only it if were so simple. At an October 29 webinar convened by the Air District’s Community Investments Office (LCBF), the CIO’s friendly, newly hired representative welcomed questions about the mechanism for awarding grants under the new Local Community Benefits Fund (LCBF). But her well-intentioned answers reflected a possible reluctance to provide budget support for our transition to a post-Valero economy. I hope I prove incorrect in that assessment.
The irony here is that, despite her apparent perspective, many Benicia budget categories and expenditures should seem to qualify under the four LCBF priorities provided at the CIO website: “Funding will support community-driven solutions that reduce or mitigate air pollution, improve public health, and build economic resilience for a just transition.”
If the CIO were open to it, such budget support could accordingly cover a variety of current expenditures as well as several new ones under the rubric of one or more of those four priorities.
For instance, many Fire Department services, under public health; air monitoring, under air pollution control and public health; economic development, tourism promotion, permitting, attracting green business to the industrial park and other business-oriented services, under economic resilience and just transition; electric vehicles for police and other services, under public health and just transition; solar power for street lighting and other services, under public health and just transition; water treatment improvements, under public health and just transition; port enhancements, under all four priorities; relief for Benicia residents who are Valero employees, under just transition and economic resilience; aid for our most vulnerable populations as federal cutbacks threaten their well-being, under public health, economic resilience and just transition; and support for our many wonderful community groups cut off from Valero grants, under those same three categories.
I’m sure many readers could name and categorize many other appropriate services and expenditures as meeting the CIO’s basic criteria. I hope and expect that Benicia city staff are doing the same, in preparation for efforts to persuade the Air District to take a flexible approach to LCBF grant-making.
In contrast, at least at the moment it seems that the CIO may take a very restrictive approach that anticipates arrays of relatively small projects rather than the considerable budget support that Benicia needs.
Now, please don’t get me wrong here: The CIO and Air District as a whole are staffed by many dedicated, competent, well-intentioned individuals. In recent years, the Air District has brought on vigorous, well-qualified leadership. We’re dealing with different visions, rather than any ill intent.
Be that as it may, the flexible approach is necessary for Benicia and for many other Bay Area communities that stand to benefit from the LCBF. As Mayor Steve Young, Council Member Terry Scott and others (including me) pointed out in their comments during the October 27 webinar:
Mayor Young in particular emphasized that the highly restrictive approach anticipated by the LCBF draft guidelines and call for projects does not work for Benicia (and I’d argue, for most or all Bay Area cities and nonprofits) in view of our budgetary needs and staffing realities.
Those CIO documents impose very burdensome requirements involving application preparation, grant administration, results measurement and other matters – possibly the most burdensome I’ve seen in my many years of working with grant-making organizations. These might be manageable for large cities like San Francisco (though I’d even doubt that) but would swamp Benicia at the very point where the lack of more general budget support would force staff cutbacks.
As Council Member Scott pointed out, the restrictive LCBF documents ignore the key regards in which Benicia has been disproportionately affected by the history of air pollution violations, threatening incidents and potentially catastrophic consequences associated with the Valero refinery. (Though, as always, I’d emphasize that the responsibility rests with the corporation’s San Antonio headquarters rather than with our good neighbors and other workers at the facility.)
More specifically, we’ve been the main community bearing the brunt of these particular Valero-generated problems, while lacking the resources of larger communities to address them. With the subtraction of $10 million in annual revenue, we’re the only Air District city facing such a crushing loss of economic resilience. Though not at all the fault of the Air District’s current, vigorous leadership and personnel, we experienced over 15 years of egregious, undisclosed Valero violations that the District did not detect, plus remained in the dark for over another three years after the District learned of them. Our cancer rates are well above state and Solano County levels; they’re nearly twice as high as California for breast cancer.
So, what can we do?
Personally, here and in other forums, I aim to push for $50 million in LCBF budget support, spread over seven transitional years, to help Benicia weather its financial storm.
Please circle November 12 to weigh in at that crucial Air District Community Equity Health and Justice Committee. It’s planned 1-5 pm schedule isn’t ideal for many of us. But as information becomes available on Zoom links and whether there are particular times best to participate, the city should be posting them. I will try as well.
For those interested in attending in person, the event takes place at the Air District Headquarters, 375 Beale Street in San Francisco. Again, I don’t yet have information on whether and how participation in person will be possible, but will try to share that down the line.
You can email comments, concerns and questions about the LCBF draft guidelines to the Community Investments Office at communityinvestments@baaqmd.gov. If you do email the CIO, I’d strongly suggest that you retain the note, as you may want to draw on it in contacting other Air District officials in coming weeks. I’ll try to provide relevant email addresses should that prove advisable.
You can also consult the CIO’s site, at baaqmd.gov/en/community-health/community-investments-office, for further information. Among other things, in view of a few recent glitches this would be the best place for any updated contact information should that email address change. And if you scroll down the site, you’ll find a link to subscribe for CIO updates.
Hope to see or hear you, whether in person or online, on November 12!
You must be logged in to post a comment.