Health Advisory Lifted Following Soil Results from Refinery Accident, but Many Questions Remain, Some of Which May Never be Answered
In other news, MUSD gets positive results on parcel tax survey as budget situation deteriorates; City Council adopts Housing Element for state review; and my takes on all of it
The following report by freelance writer Tom Lochner is made possible by the financial support of paid subscribers and other donors to Martinez News and Views. Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you haven’t already to fund more content such as this.
By Tom Lochner
A “spent catalyst” release at a Martinez refinery on Thanksgiving night that spewed at least 20 tons of toxic metal dust on surrounding communities "did not increase risk of exposure to hazardous metals in local soils," the Contra Costa Health Services department announced on Thursday, based on a risk assessment by its toxicology consultant, TRC. Accordingly, Contra Costa Health Services has lifted its health advisory, issued in March, that had warned people not to eat produce grown in potentially contaminated soil.
But the finding, announced at a meeting of the county-led Martinez Refining Co. Oversight Committee on Thursday and in a news release, left residents' questions about possible impacts on their health during and immediately after the Nov. 24-25 release largely unanswered.
Those questions may never be fully answered, because no data on airborne toxic dust fallout was gathered during the release and its immediate aftermath, which left some cars covered with what has been variously described as a white powder, or, by one commenter, as a gooey, sticky substance – likely the result of moisture mixing with the powder. One reported sighting of a car covered in dust occurred immediately outside Martinez Junior High School — something school district officials only learned about more than four months later.
Some residents also reported breathing problems and other health-related issues that started during and shortly after the release from the Pacheco Boulevard refinery, which CC Health only learned about on Nov. 26, through social media posts describing dust deposits in the area. MRC has said it was unaware of the spread of toxic dust until it was alerted on Nov. 25 by residents who found the dust on their properties.
On Nov. 26, the refinery put out a Facebook post declaring, "There are no health risks associated with this material." That assessment was promptly contradicted by CC Health after it conducted its own testing and concluded that the “most significant health risks were short-term respiratory impacts from breathing in the metals in the hours after the release.” Moreover, CC Health said, "Exposure to high concentrations of these metals over a long period of time could cause more serious health problems."
And in a Dec. 14 news release, CC Health said: "Had MRC followed the notification policy, the Community Warning System would have been activated to notify the community about the hazard."
"What we are still concerned about is the initial release," Dr. Ori Tzvieli, the county's Health Officer and Public Health Director, said during a question-and-answer session following Thursday's oversight committee meeting. "And we don't know the risk that happened to people who breathed this stuff in at the initial release.
"It is a toxic substance," Tzvieli continued. "And we probably never will know, because the MRC facility ... did not inform us at the health department, as they are legally obligated to do. And because of that, we were not able to warn the community as we normally would."
That failure, and the root cause of the accident itself, will now become of the focus of the oversight committee’s work as it moves on to the second phase of its investigation.
The Contra Costa District Attorney's office is also investigating the refinery's failure to promptly notify authorities of the release. The FBI, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) are investigating the incident as well.
MRC's parent company, PBF Energy Inc, based in Parsippany, N.J., owns another California refinery, in Torrance.
At Thursday's meeting, TRC, the consultant, delivered a risk assessment report via PowerPoint, based on samplings of an array of metals at 14 locations, both within Martinez and beyond, as far away as Benicia, El Sobrante, Crockett and Hercules. The sampling locations were selected with the help of a computer-generated plume map produced by BAAQMD; two locations near the refinery were added to 12 initial ones partly in response to community appeals. The metals sampled were aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, vanadium and zinc.
The samplings were evaluated according to two criteria: the expected range of regional background soil levels; and protective health standards for residential soil.
None of the metals analyzed exceeded regional background levels, according to TRC, which has an office in Concord. And only two – arsenic and lead – exceeded California health standards, which are more stringent than those of the federal Environmental Protection Agency, according to Tzvieli.
Jenny Phillips of TRC said a single lead sample exceeded the state's human health-protective background level of 80 parts per million, coming in at 82 ppm. For arsenic, there is no absolute safe level of human ingestion according to CC Health, although the federal EPA sets it at 10 micrograms per liter for drinking water. "But while most edible plants absorb some small amounts of arsenic, they usually do not contain enough to be a health concern," CC Health said in its news release.
"Based on findings, TRC is not recommending additional sampling or evaluation," the consultant concluded.
The risk assessment presentation and executive summary are available via CC Health's MRC Oversight Committee web page at https://cchealth.org/hazmat/mrc/committee.php .
Publication of a report, likely 20-plus pages long, with details of TRC's work will follow "in a few weeks," county Director of Hazardous Materials Programs Nicole Heath said after the presentation. A 45-day public comment period will ensue, followed by a public meeting at which all comments will be addressed in preparation for a final report. The oversight committee will then discuss the report with various city councils and boards, Heath said.
The oversight committee has also hired consultant Scott Berger and Associates to prepare an independent root cause analysis, Heath said. The work has not begun, but the oversight committee has put the consultant in contact with MRC, Heath said, adding that there will be an update on the status of the matter in the coming weeks.
During Thursday's question-and-answer session, Tzvieli said: "The main message that we wanted to convey today is that the toxicologist hired by Contra Costa Health has determined that a release of spent catalyst in November of 2022 does not present a greater risk to public health from hazardous metals in the soil." He added that "the primary risk from the spent catalyst release likely occurred in the initial hours and days after the refinery release."
A spokesman for the refinery, Brandon Matson, in a statement reported by KQED, said: "The results (of the TRC risk assessment study) are in line with our initial statements about the material." But the refinery's statement, “There are no health risks associated with this material," posted on Facebook two days after the release, had been promptly contradicted by CC Health.
Matson also pointed to a statement in the executive summary: “The findings of the investigation found no increased risk to public health resulting from the November 2022 catalyst dust release in Martinez.”
But TRC studied dust in the soil, not in the air. And it did that about six months after the release, not in its immediate aftermath. Matson, contacted on Friday, said he could not comment further because the incident is under investigation.
Heidi Taylor of the citizens group Healthy Martinez, which has been pushing for accountability of MRC over the accident and the impact of its ongoing operations on the community, pushed back on Matson's statement.
"Sounds like gaslighting to me," Taylor said in a statement to Martinez News and Views. "It’s also incredibly callous and arrogant given what we as a community have suffered. We all breathed that toxic soup. It’s in our lungs and our bodies.
“To imply dumping 20 to 24 tons of heavy metals on our community is not a health risk is absurd," Taylor continued. "My family breathed that toxic dust and continues to be worried about the long-term health risks.“
The following views and items are written by Craig Lazzeretti
CRAIG’S TAKE: While understandable that the concern around soil and gardens became the focus of attention in the months that followed the spent catalyst release, it also had the unfortunate result of diverting attention from what I always believed to be the major issues and questions surrounding the accident: the failure of the refinery to activate the Community Warning System and immediately notify the public and health authorities, along with its statement that the toxic dust posed no health concerns, when the very safety data sheet that it said it based that statement upon says “Do not breathe dust. IF INHALED: Call a POISON CENTER/doctor if you feel unwell.” Now the refinery is using the results of the soil analysis, conducted six months after the release and following a winter of torrential rain that undoubtedly affected what became of the dust that landed in soil, to double down on its initial statement, which continues to fly in the face of what county health experts have said all along about the heavy metals in the dust — which in no way was contradicted by the soil results, as the county health officer made clear in Tom Lochner’s report. The refinery spokesman’s comment referenced in Lochner’s story about the soil results being “in line with our initial statements about the material” strikes me as analogous to basing the health risks of COVID-19 solely on whether it’s spread through surface contact while ignoring the airborne risks from inhaling the virus.
It also didn’t help matters that this major chemical accident was largely ignored by the local and regional news media for months after it occurred, and they only jumped on it when county health authorities put out their health advisory in the spring “out of an abundance of caution” against eating produce from gardens affected by the release until soil testing was conducted (something they had been communicating for months at public meetings and on social media but which hadn’t gotten out to the broader community). The flurry of media coverage that followed created a narrative that the soil and potential effects on gardens were the most important element of this story, when in fact that was never the focus of attention by regulators and health officials in the immediate aftermath of the release (which anyone who attended the public meetings in December and January could readily see). The primary focus was the fact that Martinez residents were walking amid this dust and breathing it in the day after Thanksgiving without any clue what had happened, and that county hazardous materials officials were prevented from responding immediately to try to determine the extent of the health risks because they too were in the dark until they saw accounts of what had happened on social media. Not to mention the far-fetched explanation the refinery (considered one of the most technologically advanced in the nation) gave for not notifying the public: that it had no idea that it had spewed 20 or more tons of hazardous material into the air until residents contacted MRC to report finding the dust on their property.
Now that the soil risk assessment is complete, and the results largely confirm what most experts had likely suspected all along (i.e. the “abundance of caution” caveat to the health advisory), the focus can finally shift back to where it started and really should have remained: why did this happen, why did the refinery fail to notify the public, why did it say that it lacked the capacity to realize the impact of a major chemical accident on the community, and why did it lead the community to believe that there were no health concerns from breathing in the dust when there clearly were, as evidenced by the science concerning the composition of the dust and the many residents who spoke to suffering respiratory effects from their exposure to it at public meetings in December (before the news media started paying attention). In a sense, MRC was given a gift by the narrative (aided unwittingly by the news media and county health officials through the belated health advisory and the even more belated coverage that ensued) that this was always all about the soil; those of us who were paying attention in the days and weeks following the accident know that is the furthest thing from the truth.
MUSD parcel tax looks headed to 2024 ballot as budget situation grows worrisome
Results of a public opinion survey that will be discussed at Monday’s Martinez Unified School District Board of Trustees meeting show strong community support for renewing the district’s $75-a-year parcel tax for eight years, which would raise an estimated $850,000 annually for district schools. That piece of good news for the district will be largely offset at Monday’s meeting by a troubling budget picture for 2023-24 marked by a steep drop in anticipated district revenues and the need for MUSD to draw down its reserves to pay its bills and maintain core educational services.
The nuances and caveats of the parcel tax survey will be discussed in detail Monday, but the main takeaways from the PowerPoint presentation on the school board meeting agenda is that all versions of the ballot test arguments for a tax extension showed support well above the two-thirds required for approval, even after opposition arguments were provided.
That means it’s all but certain that voters living within MUSD boundaries (including unincorporated areas outside city limits) will be asked to approve an extension of the parcel tax next year.
The survey results undoubtedly come as good news to the district after last year’s failure of Measure K, a bond measure that fell about 2.5 percentage points short of the 55% support required for approval, despite campaign contributions of more than $52,000 to try to sway voters to vote yes. Unlike parcel taxes that fund core educational programs and the hiring of teachers, bond measures are restricted to construction and other physical infrastructure projects. The flat $75 rate for the parcel tax is also much less for the typical property owner than the tax rate of $39 per $100,000 in assessed valuation that would have resulted from Measure K’s passage (roughly $200 annually for a home assessed at $500,000).
Another noteworthy takeaway from the public opinion poll is that the voters surveyed ranked improving the quality of education in local schools as their top community concern, ahead of such issues as improving streets and roads; improving public safety; and protecting the environment.
But in a sign that voters may not completely grasp the extent of the national youth mental health crisis that has become a growing source of concern for doctors, health officials and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in recent months, the level of support for using parcel tax revenues to “continue funding for school counseling programs and mental health support” fell well below use of the funds for core academic programs such as science, math, music and arts.
CRAIG’S TAKE: If the parcel tax is renewed (and I plan at this point to support it), I personally hope the funds will go toward a wide array of initiatives and programs that will enhance both the emotional well-being and academic achievement of our students. I’ve also expressed my strong opinion to the school board during public comment at meetings that for most students, academic success is simply not realistic unless they are in a stable, healthy place emotionally, and that the troubling decline we’ve seen in testing results and broader academic performance in recent years is tied directly to this emotional health crisis that was growing even before the pandemic and greatly exacerbated by it. Clearly, schools can’t be expected to solve all the emotional and psychological challenges facing youths right now, but to the degree that they (and other governmental agencies) can play a positive role in these areas, I believe they will also see a corresponding improvement in test scores and academic achievement. In the same vein, a student who is struggling with persistent sadness, depression or other psychological ailments, which studies have conclusively shown are affecting youths right now at alarming rates, is unlikely to benefit significantly from whatever enhanced academic initiatives and programs result from increased funding.
The school district will also hold a public hearing on the 2023-24 budget Monday. As with the parcel tax, the discussion will cover various nuances and caveats, but at quick glance, the budget shows that the school district, like the city, is facing challenging financial conditions in the years ahead. MUSD’s enrollment is projected to continue falling over the next few years, in line with the general population decreases seen in the city and county, which will affect its state funding. To make matters worse, federal revenues will decrease by $2.5 million as a consequence of expiring one-time funds from the CARES Act.
Total revenues for the next budget year are anticipated to drop by $6.5 million from estimated final totals for the 2022-23 school year. Meanwhile, expenditures in 2023-24 are expected to be only $566,000 less than the final 2022-23 figures, resulting in a structural deficit of roughly $2.2 million and the need to draw down the district’s reserves to balance the budget.
According to the staff budget report, the district should be able to navigate these choppy financial waters in the short term thanks to its healthy reserves, but unless the economic tides turn, it will need “to reduce expenditures significantly to continue to meet the (3%) reserve requirement for the 2026-2027 year and beyond.” As things stand now, it is anticipating having to draw down its reserves by $7.35 million over the next three fiscal years. The staff report concludes: “…with the end of onetime funding and attendance relief measures by the state, the district will need to reduce expenditures in the near term to maintain fiscal health.”
Monday’s school board meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. The agenda can be viewed here.
Housing Element adopted, sent to state for review
As expected, the City Council officially adopted the 2023-31 Housing Element at Wednesday’s meeting and sent it along to the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and potential certification (it is likely that HCD will ultimately require some revisions, though how significant won’t be known for at least a couple of months). The state in recent years has passed a slew of legislation meant to add teeth to local Housing Elements and increase the chances that they will result in badly needed housing development, particularly low-income housing, to address the state’s growing housing and homelessness crises.
With the exception of the rezoning of a handful of properties to bring them into compliance with the city’s new General Plan, there were no major revisions to the Element from the version approved by the Planning Commission a few weeks earlier.
Before the approval, Councilman Satinder Malhi put the issue of housing in human terms and emphasized the need for the city to make real progress on addressing this crisis.
“We are in the midst of one of the most significant, if not the most significant, crises of our times when it comes to housing,” he said.
Malhi, who grew up in Martinez, expressed concern about whether future generations of Martinezians will have the same opportunity he did to live in the city as adults, referencing the recent graduation ceremony that he and fellow Councilman and Martinez native Jay Howard had attended at Alhambra High School.
“I had the good fortune of staying in Martinez, as many of us did, but the question is what about the next generation?” he said. “We saw all these students walking off the field, just as we did at one point in time. I’ve got to say I’m concerned. Are these students going to be able to stay here in Martinez is the question.”
CRAIG’S TAKE: I’ve been as outspoken at public meetings on the housing crisis as I have been on the youth mental health crisis. Solving these two crises, which directly impact the future prospects of our children, will go a long way toward determining whether we maintain the principle that has long been at the heart of the American experience, regardless of our shortcomings and failures: That every generation provides its children with more opportunities for happiness and success, and a greater standard of living, than was enjoyed by it. By all accounts, we are in grave danger of reneging on that promise (the existential crises of climate change and gun violence, now the No. 1 cause of childhood deaths in America, are also putting that principle in jeopardy). The next decade will largely determine whether we can turn the tide and finally do right by our children when it comes to public policy and the decisions necessary to help them achieve their potential and dreams, and ensure that our community, society and country continue to progress toward becoming, as Abraham Lincoln once said, “a more perfect union.”
Have a different take from me? Feel free to leave a comment below or email me your thoughts at craig.lazzeretti@gmail.com I will also consider thoughtful, fact-based opinions for publication in future posts of the newsletter.
Just an excellent recap on everything. Us Healthy Martinez folks are not going to let MRC and PBF Energy slip and slide away. We have our ears and eyes on them as does the County DA’s office. Their arrogance is a slap in the face to every resident in the cities they spewed the toxins to. One of the most important issues we have wanted and will get is the air monitoring system. I hope we get that real soon.
In addressing mental health for our students, it is absolutely essential our kids are taken care of. They have been faced (are facing) bullying and threats. Not that I want this, but perhaps each child’s backpack and clothing must be subjected to a wand before entering school grounds. Teachers also. No one wants to be uneasy at school. It should be a safe place to gather with friends and not be confronted by foes. I don’t know if that has been discussed at all, since my kids are in their 30’s now. Is it too far-fetched of an idea?