Refinery Fire: Mayor, Residents Expected to Speak at Board of Supervisors Meeting This Morning
Also, some questions that need to be answered as soon as possible
Resending to fix some typos and include link to Board of Supervisors meeting this morning:
Martinez Mayor Brianne Zorn, along with residents and community activists, are expected to address the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors this morning about Saturday’s massive fire at PBF Energy’s refinery that took many hours to bring under control and resulted in a shelter-in-place order for nearby neighborhoods.
Contra Costa County and the Board of Supervisors — not the city of Martinez — have ultimate regulatory authority over the refinery and its operations. Meeting details, including the Zoom link, can be found here: https://contra-costa.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1237170&GUID=30906F48-8CF4-416D-B3B0-C21E29BB39B7&Options=info|&Search=
Residents also plan to call on the federal Chemical Safety Board to launch an investigation into the fire. The CSB played a key role in investigating a major fire in 2012 at Chevron’s Richmond refinery, and also has been investigating a fire that severely injured a worker in 2023 at the nearby Marathon refinery.
Also, the county’s health advisory for Martinez and parts of Pacheco and Clyde remains in effect as of Tuesday morning, as the fire still has not been completely extinguished. The advisory cautions that those with respiratory sensitivity may want to remain indoors because of air quality concerns.
In an update posted on its website Monday evening, the refinery said it “continues to have the small residual fire under control. You may see minimal smoke until further notice.” It also says that flaring continues at the Pacheco Boulevard facility “with the potential for intermittent flaring throughout the week.” The full update can be viewed at the following link: https://myemail.constantcontact.com/An-Update-from-Martinez-Refining-Company-.html?soid=1140175999161&aid=yxwNfscB_g0
As more information becomes available in coming days, here are some of the questions I am hoping to get answers to:
What process units exactly were connected to the fire and was it related to the refinery’s major “turnaround” project that got underway last month?
What role, if any, did the refinery’s plans to upgrade its fluid catalytic cracker (the unit involved in the November 2022 “spent catalyst” toxic dust release) to meet new emissions standards by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) play in the fire? As part of a lawsuit settlement with BAAQMD last year, the refinery announced that it had developed new technology to meet the required reductions in particulate matter without having to install a costly wet gas scrubber, which was thought to be the only way for it to adhere to the air district’s new rule.
Did BAAQMD and county hazardous materials authorities properly vet the refinery’s construction plans related to the turnaround and new FCC technology to make sure that the necessary work could be completed safely?
How involved was the county’s hazmat program in scrutinizing the refinery’s plans for the major turnaround? Following a series of refinery mishaps in 2022 and 2023, Contra Costa Health launched an unannounced inspection of the refinery in late 2023, issuing multiple demands and requirements as PBF officials prepared for an upcoming turnaround project. The refinery ultimately postponed its 2024 turnaround in response to the county’s demands and ongoing community concerns. Did such scrutiny and monitoring by the county continue in the leadup to the current turnaround?
Did oversight of the refinery return to the levels that were typical prior to the 2022 and 2023 incidents after the refinery managed to operate without any major mishaps in 2024? If so, should it have considering the level of worry and concern that arose in the year prior?
What ever became of the “civil enforcement action” launched by the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office and BAAQMD, among other agencies, in 2023 related to the refinery’s continued violations and incidents? Did the D.A. every turn up evidence of illegal conduct by the refinery stemming from the 2022 spent catalyst incident? Why was there never any public follow-up on the status of this “enforcement action”?
Why has BAAQMD been so slow to follow up on its “notices of violation” against the refinery with investigation findings and fines? Does it have the ability to impose steeper fines than the ones that PBF routinely brushes aside in its corporate shareholder filings as having “no material effect” on the company’s bottom line?
Why does the refinery continue to show a lack of transparency in the immediate aftermath of these incidents? On Saturday, the refinery failed to answer such basic questions as where on refinery property the fire started and what units were involved (information it clearly must have known).
Has the refinery implemented the recommendations for improvement that were issued in the independent Safety Culture Assessment of the refinery that was completed last year? How did those recommendations inform the preparations for the turnaround?
Does the county and other authorities have the power to immediately suspend all operations at the refinery until the answers to how and why Saturday’s fire occurred are made clear to the public?
Will this be the end of the line for refinery management that has been in charge since the 2022 spent catalyst release and all the troubles that have plagued the refinery since? Will local, state and federal officials call for their removal?
Will the CSB step in to take control of the investigation?
Note to readers: Because of work commitments, I will be limited in my ability to follow and update your on developments from today’s Board of Supervisors meeting, as well as other news related to the fire’s aftermath in the coming days. I recommend you look to Bay Area media channels as well as check back regularly to the websites and social media platforms of the city of Martinez, Contra Costa Health, BAAQMD and the Martinez Refining Co.