Category Archives: Benicia City Council

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.

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.

NBC: Two Dozen Valero Benicia refinery workers went to the emergency room with burns

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.

March 26 refinery injuries being investigated…

By Monica Vaughan, Excerpt from the Benicia Bridge Newsletter, April  10, 2026

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.
  • Fixing the city’s broken solar panels is pricey. Losing the power costs more. Read here.

Upcoming dates to know about: 

April 14, 4:30 p.m.: Valero Community Advisory Panel (CAP) Meeting, 610 Industrial Way

April 15, 4 p.m.: Industrial Safety Citizen Oversight Commission. City Hall. Agenda here.

April 20: Registration for Benicia’s Summer recreation programs begins at 8 a.m. for residents. I hear there may be a rush on swim classes.

This newsletter was written by Monica Vaughan and edited by Laura López González. Feedback? Story idea? News tip? Reach us at news@thebeniciabridge.com.

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


Story by Monica Vaughan of The Benicia Bridge.
Subscribe to the Bridge newsletter here.
Reach out to the Benicia Bridge via their About page.

Back to top.

Benicia has a rare deep water port. Here’s what it would take to fix it

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. Note that the story below is a highly important delvelopment for Benicia – first hand reporting on current City Council business, missing since the departure of the Benicia Herald’s Donna Beth Weilenman in 2015! – Roger Straw
Port of Benicia (Adobe Stock image)

City Council receives 43-page report, ‘Port of Benicia – Facilities and Infrastructure Modernization Plan’

By Monica Vaughan, The Benicia Bridge, April  10, 2026

Benicia City Council learned about improvements needed to maintain the Port of Benicia, as well as potential work that could attract more seafaring customers – to the cost of $700 million.

Background: The City of Benicia received a $750,000 grant to develop a Port of Benicia Facilities and Infrastructure Modernization Plan. The consultant doing the work, GHD, presented parts of the plan to councilmembers at a city council meeting Tuesday. The grant came from regional government agencies, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments.

The main takeaways: The port and surrounding area need work to maintain operations into the near future, like structural improvements to the pier, stormwater infrastructure, and nearby roads and intersections used by truck traffic related to port activities.

Long-term work is needed to build up the seawall to protect against sea-level rise. And, there are opportunities to expand the pier to allow for additional moorings.

The total cost of all projects reviewed is around $700 million. The council may consider going after grants to help tackle some or all or none of the projects suggested.

Council members seemed dubious about investments, given that the port is privately owned and operated by AMPORTS. As Councilmember Trevor Macenski put it, “Would you spend $700 million on capital projects supporting an industry that doesn’t significantly benefit the city?”

Councilmember Kari Birdseye noted that AMPORTS is a big company in our community, but urged that work moving forward, especially grant opportunities, “has to benefit the larger community and not just one company in our city.”

The consultant suggested the city consider the benefits of a public/private partnership, and noted that other cities work hard to attract a company like AMPORTS to invest in infrastructure that could bring additional industry and revenue to the area.

“At least you have a partner with a revenue stream,” Vanderbeek said.

The reports provided, however, do not include market research or outreach to other potential customers who could bring business to the port.

Want to read more about it?

Vallejo Sun wrote a story: Benicia mulls $700M project to address sea level rise, expand and modernize port


Story by Monica Vaughan of The Benicia Bridge.
Subscribe to the Bridge newsletter here.
Reach out to the Benicia Bridge via their About page.

Back to top.