Category Archives: Benicia CA

Benicia officials embrace refinery regulations despite possible Valero lawsuit

The council supported passing an industrial safety ordinance, despite concerns about legal challenges from Valero.

The Valero Benicia refinery. Photo by Scott Morris.

By Natalie Hanson, The Vallejo Sun, Feb 06, 2025

BENICIA – Benicia officials expressed support for an ordinance that would regulate businesses like the Valero Refinery at a meeting Tuesday, despite concerns about possible legal challenges from Valero.

The latest draft of a proposed Industrial Health and Safety Ordinance that would monitor and audit “high hazard facilities” like the refinery was presented to Benicia City Council on Tuesday night.

Numerous public commenters expressed strong support for the ordinance, which the council expects to take up for a vote in a few weeks. The council made a few last tweaks to the ordinance that has been developed over more than a year.

Councilmember Kari Birdseye suggested that city staff make two revisions: to mention all agencies by name that the ordinance might affect, and add language requiring transparency of how much the city has paid using collected fines from all relevant businesses. Staff will bring the ordinance back at a future meeting.

While Valero was the major concern, the ordinance would apply to at least 12 facilities in the city, such as Interstate Batteries at 535 Getty Court and the Benicia Water Treatment Plant at 100 Water Way.

Public interest in better regulating Valero was particularly pronounced on the heels of an incident Saturday at the Martinez refinery in Contra Costa County, which is about 7 miles from Benicia. A hydrocarbon material leak at the Martinez Refining Company caused a fire that injured six people and triggered a health advisory.

Valero has had its own recent controversies as well. The company didn’t meet Bay Area Air Quality Management District requirements to monitor and report fugitive gasses from their operating equipment. Its refinery has been the site of several air pollution incidents, such as a 15-year leak of 2.7 tons of airborne toxins, for which the refinery paid a record $82 million to the air district last year.

However, Mayor Steve Young said he doesn’t consider Valero worse than other large oil refineries in the Bay Area.

“There are worse operators than Valero, as we just saw across the river,” Young said, referring to the Martinez Refining Company. “They are not the enemy, and they are not bad operators, but they obviously have some safety issues that we are trying to address.”

Benicia fire Chief Josh Chadwick said in a report to the council Tuesday that Benicia, as the only Bay Area city without an industrial safety ordinance, needs a program to better audit businesses producing potential health risks to nearby communities.

Chadwick said that recent incidents at “high-hazard facilities” showed the need for additional oversight. “Especially given what happened over the last weekend, it’s really essential for the public to understand that no regulation is going to completely eliminate the risk of industrial incidents,” Chadwick said.

The ordinance’s third draft specifically requires that, following an incident at one of these facilities, the city may audit and inspect the site, and the company must issue an Incident Notification Report within 72 hours. The city would then be able to publish the final investigation report on its website, with the ability to issue consequences such as fines or other penalties if a business refuses to comply.

But enacting the ordinance may jeopardize a revenue source for the cash-strapped city. Under a voluntary cooperation agreement, Valero currently pays $331,320 annually to the city. Under the new ordinance, that agreement would be moot, requiring an independent consultant to help the city create a new fee schedule. And Valero will likely sue over the ordinance if passed, Young said, which is why he’s concerned about passing it without an agreement in hand.

Councilmember Lionel Largaespada said he believes the city is entitled to strong regulations over industries working within its limits, but he advocated for tightening its language to be very specific about businesses and fees collected from them.

“Wherever we can be crystal clear about something, I think it only makes this ordinance better,” he said.

Councilmember Terry Scott disagreed, saying the city has spent more than a year on the ordinance draft and Valero has already responded to it in “a fairly threatening manner.”

“Local control matters. Many times we’ve asked them, ‘Come to the table,’” Scott said. “I think we can give them the opportunity in the next several weeks to send us another letter. Why do we have to go to them and establish another session to review the document with them?”

Birdseye also disagreed over whether to allow Valero to sit in on the independent auditing authority as a business owner given the potential conflict of interest. She opposed allowing Valero to have any influence, saying, “It is the fox in the henhouse.”

Benicia officials have already heard lots of feedback from the public about the matter, including from 178 people who responded to surveys between March 25 and May 19. Many people turned out Tuesday night, speaking for more than an hour, with most pleading with the city to pass the new version of the ordinance.

Some mentioned the potential for cancer and other health impacts which could result from toxic gas releases, while others pointed out how much stronger a safety ordinance can make local authorities seeking to protect and notify people as quickly as possible.

“This has been an issue that’s so important to Benicia,” resident Kathy Bennett said.

She added that the Martinez incident Saturday reflected the importance of having a safety ordinance in place.

“Because of there being an ISO in place in Contra Costa County, it did improve prevention and protection and responses, notifications and advisories to the community,” Bennett said. “And as we’ve also seen in the recent Los Angeles fires, an entire community can be destroyed in a single horrific event.”

“The big elephant in the room is Valero,” resident Diana Smith said. “But it’s been brought up that you have at least 12 facilities here that need that oversight. And Valero likes to come along and threaten us. How many millions of dollars would it take … to clean up that refinery?”

It is not yet clear when staff will bring the revised ordinance back to the council for a vote.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify that no vote was scheduled for Tuesday’s meeting, which was for informational purposes and to correct Diana Smith’s name. ​​

Proud to Be a Benician: Our Community Comes Together, Birdseye Hits a Bullseye, and Great Scott!

By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author, “Benicia and Beyond” column in the Benicia Herald, Feb 9, 2025

 Stephen Golub, A Promised Land – America as a Developing Country

This past Tuesday’s City Council meeting considered for the first time a nearly final draft of an industrial safety ordinance (ISO) that will help protect our city against toxic emissions, fires and explosions from hazardous facilities here, particularly but not only the Valero refinery.

I’ve never been so proud to be a Benician. I’d guess 80-90 people packed the Council Chambers at City Hall, with about 29 others Zooming in. The large majority comprised folks whom I’d never seen or heard speak up on this issue. The entire crowd seemed to support the unanimous pro-ISO consensus among the 30-plus speakers who ranged from expert engineers to laypersons with kids to protect.

One such engineer, a Valero retiree, didn’t doubt refinery employees’ personal commitments to safety, but pointed out that refinery management is under extraordinary pressure to reduce costs. He emphasized that the ISO could actually help the current refinery engineers maintain safety. (I’ll again state my respect and affection for our Valero-employed friends and neighbors in Benicia, and distinguish them from the huge Texas-based corporation that owns the refinery and calls the shots.)

A parent who attended the meeting with his (I assume) wife and toddler, chimed in to favor the ordinance. Several persons prefaced their remarks by saying “I didn’t intend to speak,” then went on to describe their concerns and support. At least  one speaker pointed out that if Valero had an accident like last weekend’s huge Martinez fire and if the wind were blowing the wrong way, our entire town could have been endangered.

All in all, our community came together in numbers and passion spread across a spectrum of perspectives, but united in an unprecedented way in support for the ISO.

Valero representatives did not attend the meeting.

The big news emerging from the meeting is that Mayor Steve Young declared his backing for the ISO for the first time. Vice Mayor Trevor Macenski and Council Member Lionel Largaespada hinted at similar support; Largaespada, whose election campaigns Valero had indirectly backed through political action committees in the past, voiced a belief in strong industrial regulation and oversight.

Kudos to Young for his endorsement of the measure; this would seem to  ensure a Council majority for passage, though not counting our chickens before they hatch comes to mind. Let’s hope Macenski and Largaespada join him.

Speaking of kudos: pro-ISO Council Members Kari Birdseye and Terry Scott, who along with Fire Chief Josh Chadwick and other City staff had worked tirelessly to on the ISO for over a year, played particularly powerful roles in the Council meeting’s deliberations.

Birdseye hit the bullseye in a number of illuminating exchanges with fellow Council members. For instance, when Largaespada suggested instructing City staff to review certain administrative and other details (which could in effect delay a final vote on the ISO indefinitely), she pointed out that tremendous work had already gone into thrashing out details in the document and that it was time to move ahead. (As a former New York City government management analyst and international development policy analyst, I couldn’t agree more; you can work forever on tweaking a document and never reach closure.)

Birdseye similarly pushed back successfully and forcefully when it was suggested that the Council approve formal ex officio (non-voting) membership on the ISO’s citizen Oversight Commission for Valero or other regulated businesses. As she asserted, we don’t want “the fox in the henhouse.”

Scott had his own “Great Scott!” moments. Young suggested that Valero be consulted yet again to ascertain whether the ISO could be altered to address its concerns. In response, Scott pointed out the many, many times that the City had sought constructive Valero input over the course of over a year of ISO preparation, only to be met repeatedly by dozens of pages of legalistic criticism and unhelpful feedback. He also noted that Valero had not even attended Tuesday’s Council meeting.

There are miles to ago and at least two additional Council meetings to hold before it  finally votes on the ISO – which, it should be noted, is the kind of ordinance every other Bay Area refinery community has. Lots could go wrong, but so much could go right. I’ll save that for another day.

For today, I’ll just say that if Texas-based Valero seeks to block the ISO, it will be taking on not just a city but a very motivated community. Last Tuesday’s Council meeting proved that.


Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

 

 

Benicia’s Industrial Safety Ordinance: Multiple protections are necessary, not duplicative

A four-alarm fire broke out at the Port of Benicia Saturday, April 9, 2022. San Francisco Baykeeper, an organization that took legal action against the port and the Valero refinery over Clean Water Act violations and won, was on site, documenting the incident with video captured by drone. | SF Baykeeper.

By Betty Lucas, February 3, 2025

When it’s cold and raining outside, we keep warm and dry in a variety of ways: umbrellas, jackets, mitts and muffs. Multiple layers are not duplicative; they are often necessary. We protect ourselves, our homes and cars through insurance that covers theft, fire, landslides and floods. The same thing goes for protections against things we might not be able to see or feel, like pollution in our air and environment – as well as all too visible threats like potential fires and explosions.

These types of city protections may be codified into something called called an industrial safety ordinances (ISO). Such ordinances protect residents against industries that pollute, such as refineries, cement factories, etc.

No one ever regrets having strong insurance protection when they need it. Ask anyone in LA or Santa Rosa who lost their homes to fires.

All California cities with refineries have protection through ISOs, except Benicia,

On the Tuesday, February 4 City Council meeting, starting at 6 pm, Benicians have a chance to encourage every City Council member to unanimously pass a strong ISO.

LEARN MORE: Benicia looking to adopt Industrial Safety Ordinance

Why would any Council member vote against keeping us safe? Adopting an ISO with a strong oversight commission to monitor the law’s implementation is similar to each of us having strong insurance protections for when we need it.

Valero has opposed such a protective ISO because it knows it could be fined for various ISO violations. It claims that we don’t need an ISO with oversight because it’s duplicating services that already exist. This is not true. There are other agencies concerned with such matters, yet Valero’s history shows that there were not enough current protections in place to keep us safe from its polluting our air and not reporting this for many, many years. An ISO with a seat at the table will keep us informed of risks, hazards, accidents and violations, to provide the protection we need moving forward.

The City’s current Memorandum of Understanding with Valero has proven totally inadequate for protecting us. Having multiple checks and balances are necessary, not duplicative.

Your comments are encouraged. On February 4, please attend the Benicia City Council meeting in person, via Zoom, or email your thoughts to Mayor Steve Young: SYoung@ci.benicia.ca.us. The meeting is at Benicia City Hall, 250 East L Street.

Betty Lucas

Benicia looking to adopt Industrial Safety Ordinance

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

City has dealt with numerous venues, including Valero Refinery, which has been the site of numerous air pollution incidents

Vallejo-Times Herald, by Thomas Gase, February 1, 2025

Benicia citizens are ready to clear the air regarding an Industrial Safety Ordinance.

Tuesday’s Benicia City Council meeting is set to include a segment on the possible adoption of the ordinance. The Benicia Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance — a citizens group formed in 2023 with 250 supporters — is looking for a stronger ordinance to deal with venues like Valero Refinery, the site of numerous air pollution incidents.

“This is a critical meeting that will affect the future of our air quality for years to come,” said Terry Mollica, a member of the group Benicia Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance. “We need everyone in Benicia who cares about the air we breathe to show up at the city council to show support for stronger protections.”

Benicia is the only Bay Area refinery town to not yet have an Industrial Safety Ordinance. Community activists — including health and environmental advocates — have spent years calling for tighter regulations to protect citizens from dangerous industrial emissions impacting air quality and the health of residents.

The Valero Refinery has been the site of a series of air pollution incidents, including the recent revelation that a hydrogen vent at the refinery had been leaking 2.7 tons of toxics into the air for 15 years. That discovery resulted in an historic $84 million fine imposed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in 2024.

Inspectors reported that Valero management had known about the leaks for years, but failed to report them or take steps to mitigate the leak. The fine reportedly was the largest penalty ever assessed by the district.

“[The Benicia Industrial Health and Safety Ordinance group] was formed by a group of concerned citizens to promote the adoption of an ISO to help the city regulate such emissions and reduce the risk of incidents,” Mollica said. “This most recent discovery and the secrecy surrounding the years-long leaks point out how important it is for Benicia to have a strong Industrial Safety Ordinance.”

Valero was one of four other refineries that in 2023 didn’t meet requirements as defined by BAAQMD and Rule 12-15.

Rule 12-15 — passed in 2016 — requires refineries to monitor and report fugitive gasses from their operating equipment, such as valves, compressors, and storage tanks. These emissions impact the health of the surrounding communities — the toxic gases released include noxious chemicals like the cancer-causing benzene.

After a trip to the refinery in 2023, Benicia Community Air Monitoring Program Board Member Kathy Kerridge said she was not surprised at the result. After all, it wasn’t the first time it had to pay up for emitting smoke or chemicals into the air. In April 2017, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District fined Valero $340,000 for 28 violations committed in 2014. A month later, they were hit with four additional violations — one for causing a public nuisance and three for releasing excessive smoke.

“Fines are trivial to them,” Kerridge said. “It’s like they are having a direct slap to the face with the community. The main problem is that the air monitoring gives us the sense of false security.”

Newly-elected council members Terry Scott and Kari Birdseye sponsored the adoption of an ordinance late in 2023. The council then voted unanimously to have staff study the issue and make a recommendation. Mayor Steve Young appointed Scott, Birdseye, Fire Chief Josh Chadwick and city staff to a subcommittee to draft an ordinance and to bring it before the city council.

Benicians took to the streets near City Park on Wednesday to protest the influence of the Valero Oil Refinery in the 2022 local election. (Chris Riley/Times-Herald)
Benicians took to the streets near City Park on Wednesday to protest the influence of the Valero Oil Refinery in the 2022 local election. (Chris Riley/Times-Herald)

Since then, the subcommittee held public meetings to gain feedback from citizens and industrial groups including Valero, analyzed the data and drafted an ordinance.

Mollica also said that during those months, there have been ongoing negotiations between the city and Valero with the refinery displaying strong resistance.

In June 2019,  execution of the Benicia–Valero Cooperation Agreement addressed concerns raised by the council and the community regarding industrial safety with the Valero facility. While an agreement with the parties largely achieved its intended goals, several areas for improvement have been identified over the past five years with three significant concerns. Those concerns are:

  • Term: The agreement includes an expiration date, requiring the City to renegotiate an extension or a new agreement each time it expires.
  • Termination: The agreement contains a termination clause, allowing a party to potentially terminate the agreement at any time.
  • Enforcement: The agreement lacks clear enforcement provisions and does not specify consequences for non-compliance.

Since then more outreach was requested, including engaging with key stakeholders and subject matter experts. To achieve this, a subcommittee implemented a comprehensive public engagement strategy and created the website www.EngageBenicia.com for the public to share their thoughts, questions, and feedback. The site went live in March.

That same month, a public feedback survey was introduced on the website to gather quantitative data on public opinion regarding industrial safety in Benicia. Between March 25 and May 19, feedback was collected from 178 participants, according to a Benicia City Staff report.

The ordinance is now on its third draft, which was constructed last month. This newest draft incorporated significant revisions from the prior versions, with the most notable being a detailed legal analysis determining that various aspects of the previous versions included requirements that state law makes the responsibility of the the Solano County Certified Unified Program Agency.

The Valero Refinery in Benicia was one of four refineries in the SF Bay Area that did not meet air quality requirements for compliance with the Bay Area Quality Management District in 2023. (Chris Riley/Times-Herald file)
The Valero Refinery in Benicia was one of four refineries in the SF Bay Area that did not meet air quality requirements for compliance with the Bay Area Quality Management District in 2023. (Chris Riley/Times-Herald file)

The staff report also outlines industrial facilities subject to regulation under the ordinance. It specifies that the ordinance applies to any High Hazard Facility operating within the City of Benicia, as defined in Section 8.55.070. A “High-Hazard Facility” is classified as a “Group H” occupancy under the California Fire Code and encompasses buildings, structures, or portions thereof used for manufacturing, processing, generating, or storing materials that pose physical or health hazards in quantities exceeding the limits permitted in the California Fire Code.

While the current agreement is only between Benicia and Valero, the draft ordinance will regulate numerous other industrial facilities. Although the list of Group H high-hazard facilities in Benicia is not static, in 2023 it did list 13 businesses that were defined as Group H occupancies. Those are:

  • Valero Refinery (3400 E 2nd St)
  • Kaneka (6162 Egret Ct)
  • Ralph Pugh (3931 Oregon St)
  • Interstate Batteries (535 Getty Ct)
  • Amports (2050 Park Rd)
  • Cork Supply (531 Stone Rd)
  • Red Line Synthetic Oil (6100 Egret Ct)
  • Auto Chlor (515 Stone Rd)
  • Benicia Water Treatment Plant (100 Water Way)
  • Kwik Bond Polymers (923 Teal Dr)
  • Flavor Insights (4795 E Industrial Way)
  • Delta Tech Services (397 W Channel Rd)
  • Linde Inc (331 E Channel Rd)

The 2023 report also listed two other sites that are no longer operating in the city — Red Line Synthetic Oil and Auto Chlor.

The Tuesday meeting will begin at 6 p.m. at 250 East L Street in Benicia. It can be viewed via Zoom at us02web.zoom.us/j/88508047557?pwd=cHRsZlBrYlphU3pkODcycytmcFR2UT09. The phone number is 1 (669) 900-9128, while the Meeting ID is 885 0804 7557 and the password is 449303.