Meeting on Soil Report Examining MRC Spent Catalyst Accident Elicits Concerns, Criticisms From Public

Also, Annual Run for Education raises over $100k; school board approves anti-racism program; one-year noise limit exemption granted to restaurants and bars; settlement reached in housing lawsuit

The following article by freelance writer Tom Lochner is made possible through the financial support of paid subscribers and other donors to the newsletter. Please consider upgrading your subscription to paid if you haven’t already to continue funding local journalism in Martinez.

By Tom Lochner

The Contra Costa Health Department held a meeting last Monday on a toxicology report that examines how a hazardous materials release at the Martinez Refining Company in late November affected the soil in surrounding communities.

The short answer: apparently not much. Some members of the public who spoke at the meeting in person or via Zoom seemed unconvinced, however.

The report by consultant TRC, officially dubbed the draft Screening Level Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, comes at a time when public concern, as expressed at some recent meetings, appears to be centered less on soil contamination than on other health risks. Those include long- and short-term air pollution – not just during and in the aftermath of toxic releases, but also everyday exposure, during normal functioning of the refinery, to chemicals and solid particles, particularly those measuring 2.5 microns or less that lodge deep in the lungs and can get absorbed into the bloodstream.

Another prime concern among some residents is the lack of public notification of the incident, in particular the refinery's failure to activate the Contra Costa County Community Warning System. Yet another is the refinery's assertion that it was not even aware an incident had occurred until the second day; that's when it said it learned about the incident from community members who reported dust in their neighborhoods; CCH Hazmat learned of the release on Nov. 26.

The incident, technically known as a spent catalyst release, began on Thanksgiving night, Nov. 24, and continued into Nov. 25. It spewed some 20 to 24 tons of dust laden with toxic metals into surrounding communities, leaving metallic dust on cars, trash cans and homes.

It wasn't until March that the County issued an official health advisory not to eat produce grown in area gardens pending the results of soil testing; it lifted the advisory on June 8 after those results indicated no long-term health threats from the impacted soil.

In early May, TRC took samples at 14 locations, several of them in and around Martinez proper and others as far as Benicia, El Sobrante and Hercules, chosen on the basis of a plume map produced by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District as well as public input.

Thirteen metals (or 14, if you count hexavalent chromium separately from total chromium) were sampled; the ones that appeared in the greatest quantities were aluminum, vanadium, nickel and barium, according to TRC's Jenny Phillips. 

None of the metals sampled exceeded the regional background range, Phillips said, and only two, arsenic and lead, exceeded screening levels protective of human health — lead, at a single sampling location, MRC-1, located in Martinez; arsenic, at all 14 sampling locations. However, Phillips said, "for arsenic, if the concentrations are within the range of background, then there is not concern that the arsenic is a health hazard." 

Moreover, the exceedances are not likely to be associated with spent catalyst, and furthermore, the proportions of the metals found in the soil samples did not match their composition in spent catalyst, Phillips said.

"Based on the findings … TRC is not recommending additional sampling or evaluation at this time," Phillips said, concluding her presentation..        

The toxicology / risk assessment study is available at https://cchealth.org/hazmat/mrc/pdf/2023-SLHHERA-Draft.pdf. A public comment period closes on Oct. 12; comments can be emailed to: Hazmat.Arpteam@cchealth.org or mailed to Contra Costa Health Hazardous Materials Programs, Attn. Michael Dossey, 4585 Pacheco Boulevard, Suite 100, Martinez CA 94553. The video of the 9/25 hazmat meeting is below.

After Phillips concluded her presentation, several members of the public weighed in, some in attendance, others via Zoom.

Quanah Parker Brightman, executive director of United Native Americans, based in Richmond, blasted MRC and called on the FBI, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice to shut down chronic violators of the Clean Air Act.

One commenter, reflecting several others, expressed concern that neither residents nor CCH were informed of the incident when it occurred, so that they could have brought their families and animals inside. She also asked who will pay for all the consultant work and other expenses necessitated by the incident. (CCH Deputy Director Matt Kaufmann responded later in the meeting that the county's Industrial Safety Ordinance provides that MRC pay all the costs associated with the investigation of the incident.)

Maureen Brennan, a biochemist who lives in Rodeo, said she is concerned the report minimizes the effects of heavy metals, which she described as "the most potent toxins of any, up there with nuclear contamination."

"The damage won't be seen tomorrow or next month; it might be one to three years before the damage becomes clear," Brennan said. "These heavy metals are particularly insidious."  

She said she hopes that MRC shows some contrition and drops its lawsuit, an apparent reference to one filed by MRC against the Bay Area Air Quality Management District over the latter's rule, adopted in 2021, requiring installation of certain equipment to reduce particle emissions into the air. She also said she wants "a financial package for the community that has been traumatized." 

Several commenters expressed concern that the months of heavy winter rains preceding the samplings could have washed away some of the metals, casting doubt on the validity of the results.

"If this testing had been done right away, would we have gotten different results?" one asked.

Phillips later said the metals do not leach from the soil down into water, and that "they do kind of stay there, in the soil." 

In response to a suggestion from another commenter that samplings should have been taken deeper in the ground than the top 6 inches in which TRC took them, Phillips cited guidance from the state Department of Toxic Substances Control that recommends taking the samples 0 to 6 inches below ground surface because of the metals' "limited vertical mobility in the soil column."

A Benicia resident said she would like to know how metal background levels in refinery communities compare with those in communities not close to refineries or freeways; Benicia is home to a Valero refinery.

Mayor Brianne Zorn, via Zoom, also expressed concern over the time lapse between the Thanksgiving incident and the sampling operation. She said she would have appreciated some risk assessment of the substances that, although within background ranges, exceeded health thresholds (those are arsenic and lead). She also asked why the risk assessment did not include some additional analysis of the air emissions associated with the incident.

A resident from the group Healthy Martinez noted that some people came directly in contact with the toxic dust without knowing. "Those of us who were exposed need to know what the risk is, long-term and short," she said. She asked if anyone is checking whether some of the dust is still in the environment, such as on surfaces not touched by rain.

Another member of Healthy Martinez advocated studying the incident's effects on stormwater.

The Sept. 25 meeting came on the heels of a Sept. 21 meeting of the MRC Oversight Committee that included a presentation by consultant Scott Berger & Associates.

Berger said that he signed a contract with the county in May, but that due to a delay over confidentiality concerns on the part of MRC, he didn't receive documents from the refinery until Aug. 11.

The consultant firm conducted an on-site visit at MRC from Sept. 6 to Sept. 8 to interview personnel, he said.

In answer to a question from committee member Tom Lang, Berger said the employees interviewed were forthcoming in general. He said MRC provided attorneys for the employees interviewed but that the attorneys generally found no reason to intervene, and that the conversations were frank.

As of the Sept. 21 meeting, Berger & Associates was still waiting on a few documents, and also had another interview scheduled for early the following week.

Meanwhile, the firm had started to work on a "causal tree" — a search for the "root causes" of the incident — and had begun putting together its report; that's "moving along pretty well," Berger said. Still to be done as of the Sept. 21 meeting: gathering the rest of the outstanding information; and follow-up discussions with MRC.

Berger said he hoped his firm will deliver its report to the oversight committee before its next meeting, presumptively slated for October.

One thing Berger & Associates is not investigating is the refinery's failure to notify Contra Costa Health authorities and activate the Community Warning System. That is being looked into by the Contra Costa District Attorney's Office, which launched its probe in January.

CC Health said in July that the D.A.'s office would provide an update on the status of its investigation at the Aug. 10 MRC Oversight Committee meeting, but that didn't happen. A spokesman for the D.A.’s Office said it changed its mind after reviewing State Bar guidelines about commenting on ongoing investigations.

"The State Bar of California prohibits a member of the Bar who is participating in an investigation or litigation from making any pre-filing statements that have a likelihood of materially prejudicing a case," the office said in a statement.

The two violations under review are:

• California Health and Safety Code, Section 25510(a) – “Failure to report a release or threatened release of a hazardous material to the unified program agency and Cal OES (Office of Emergency Services).”

• Contra Costa County Ordinance Title 10 Section 1014-4.006(a) – Prohibited Discharge – “Release of illicit discharges to the county stormwater system.”

The DA’s statement further said that it is awaiting an investigative report regarding the incident from BAAQMD that it also plans to review for a charging decision. A BAAQMD spokesperson, in response to an inquiry from Martinez News and Views about the anticipated completion of the report, said in August that “our investigation is still ongoing” and there “is no time limit in which the Air District is required to complete an investigation.”

One person at Monday’s meeting questioned why the enforcement process relating to the alleged violations by MRC is taking so long and whether it might go on for “another two or three years even.”

“I can’t speculate on timing,” Kaufmann responded. “Those are better questions for the district attorney.”

Note from Craig: I wrote a lengthy commentary in this August post explaining why I think Contra Costa County officials were wrong in excluding MRC’s failure to activate the Community Warning System from Berger & Associates’ root cause investigation, and why I don’t believe the DA’s investigation in any way precludes the county from conducting its own independent investigation into this issue.

The following items were written by Craig Lazzeretti

MEF-MRC Run for Education Raises over $100k

Saturday’s 21st annual Martinez Education Foundation (MEF)-Martinez Refining Co. (MRC) Run for Education raised $101,000 for Martinez Unified School District schools, according to MRC.

The annual run through downtown Martinez included more than 540 participants and 42 sponsors. The funds raised go toward teacher grants administered through the MEC.

“To see the downtown come alive with participants of all ages in support of the students and teachers across the Martinez Unified School District is great,” MEF President Rochelle Badgley said in an MRC Facebook post about the event. “The funds we raise through this event and distribute through our annual grant process helps us continue our mission to provide needed resources that promote academic growth.”

The fundraiser, which started in 2003 under former refinery owner Shell, has generated $1.4 million since its inception for K-12 supplies and educational experiences in MUSD. MRC underwrites the cost of the event and matches the first $20,000 in sponsorships pledged by other businesses.

Ethan Hussey and Renae Searls won the men’s and women's 5K races, respectively.

The starting line at Saturday’s MRC-MEF Run for Education. Photo courtesy of Martinez Refining Co.

MUSD Approves Anti-Racism Program

The Martinez Unified School District Board of Trustees on Monday unanimously approved moving forward with the student-led Anti-Racism Movement (SLAM!) program that I wrote about in this post, but not before revising it to a one-year contract with program facilitator Lori Watson instead of the initially proposed three-year commitment. The idea is to gauge the results from the first year of the program before committing to continue it in years two and three.

The program, which is being funded with a $200,000 anti-bias grant received from the state Department of Education, will take place at Martinez Junior High School and Alhambra High School.

In an update to the board, Yadira Zapata, the district’s coordinator of educational services, said that about 60 students at the junior high and 100 students at the high school had filled out interest forms to take part in the program. The program will include 60 students each at the junior and high schools, with interested students submitting applications. The criteria for choosing the students who will participate, in addition to completing the application, will be a commitment to completing three training sessions, and reflecting the student makeup of each school.

Noise limit waiver granted to bars, restaurants

The Planning Commission voted unanimously Tuesday to permit a one-year exemption to bars and restaurants from certain noise level limits in the Martinez Municipal Code. The resolution allows bars and restaurants to go above the current decibel limits for indoor and outdoor noise, including live, amplified music, at certain hours on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays only.

The city plans to collect data during this one-year trial period and potentially make recommendations for changes to the municipal code’s noise standards. In addition to promoting economic development, the move is designed to remove barriers for businesses having to apply for permit exemptions on a case-by-case basis.

“Our (decibel) standards are quite low, and many of our standards are below the normal talking conversation, which is problematic,” Planning Manager Michael Cass told the commission in explaining the rationale for the proposal.

Cass also noted that it would be incumbent upon the affected businesses to self-police their noise levels and not abuse the waiver. The city’s noise control officer will have the power to address individual complaints and concerns as they arise.

“The intent of this permit is not that the city will be out there on a regular basis with a noise meter,” Cass said. “The intent is for businesses to be good neighbors and good stewards and not to create a situation that the city regrets being flexible and favorable.”

The exemption takes effect Oct. 1 and lasts for one year, with the planning manager given the authority to grant up to a six-month extension.

Cass and commissioners acknowledged that some members of the public had expressed concerns about the impact the exemption might have on nearby residents, but there were no public comments made at Tuesday’s meeting against the proposal. The only public comment came from a downtown business owner in favor of it.

City to pay $8,600 to settle lawsuit by housing nonprofit

Wednesday’s City Council meeting agenda includes a settlement to a lawsuit filed against the city by the California Housing Defense Fund (CHDF) over its failure to meet the state’s Jan. 31 deadline for adopting an updated Housing Element to its General Plan. Martinez was among a number of Bay Area cities sued by a coalition of pro-housing nonprofits in February; the coalition said at the time it was targeting cities that had a “long history of exclusionary housing practices, cities that adopted housing elements unlawfully, and localities that have made little progress in developing their draft housing elements.”

A county civil grand jury report on the local housing crisis produced data showing that Martinez was the only city in the county from 2015 to 2020 that met zero percent of Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets in the very low-, low- and moderate-income categories. All 88 housing permits issued in Martinez during this period were for “above moderate income” homes.

According to a city staff report, Martinez agrees in the lawsuit settlement to adopt a compliant Housing Element within 180 days of a Sept. 6 comment letter that it received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development on its draft plan, and to reimburse CHDF $8,600 in legal costs stemming from the suit. The city also contends that “notwithstanding a delay, it is, and has been taking all reasonable steps to adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element…”

The city has also agreed to include the following in its updated Housing Element as part of the settlement:

• A reduction in parking requirements for multi-family housing to be implemented by Jan. 1, 2026. Parking requirements shall be one space per unit for the first bedroom and one-half space for each additional bedroom. Guest parking requirements shall be eliminated for housing development projects that set aside at least 15 percent of their units as housing for extremely low-, very low-, low- or moderate-income households. Allow either covered or uncovered spaces to fulfill the parking requirement for any multi-family housing development project.

• Waive city impact fees for units that are deed-restricted as housing for extremely low-, very low-, low- or moderate-income households for a minimum of 55 years. In addition, the city agrees to implement a fee deferral program until final inspection (and/or issuance of certificate of occupancy) for projects that meet affordability requirements.

• Waive all impact fees for accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”), and to establish a fee-waiver program for administrative fees for ADUs.

• Establish a technical assistance program for construction of ADUs, to be implemented by Jan. 1, 2026. It also agrees to establish outreach efforts to city homeowners to raise awareness of the program.

Clarification on CWS alerts reported last week

In last Sunday’s post, I included an item on a few Level 1 alerts through the Contra Costa Community Warning System that had been reported by the Martinez Refining Company over that weekend. I received the following email clarification from refinery spokesman Brandon Matson last week, and am sharing it here (it was also appended to last week’s post):

• The CWS Alert at 10:22 a.m. on Saturday, September 23, was in fact the continuance of a CWS Alert we’ve been renewing daily with the county for the past several weeks related to a unit start-up. Importantly, the associated flaring is primarily the clean combustion of treated process gas that is included in our permit, and is quite different than other flaring that can be noisy or more visible.

• The CWS Alert at 12:57 a.m. on Sunday, September 24, was unintentional and immediately corrected with the county — there was no fire at the refinery. We were attempting to renew the CWS Alert mentioned above and were trying out the CWS mobile application in case we want to start utilizing it more to improve our CWS notification timeliness, but we mistakenly checked the “fire” option instead of “flare.”  

• The flaring that occurred at MRC on Friday night, September 22, was much different than the flaring mentioned above and was due to an equipment issue. We issued a different CWS Alert to the county for that one because the flaring could be heard offsite and was visible to the community — mainly to the 680 freeway and Marina Vista Avenue. The flaring ended later that night.

Note from Craig: The alerts I referenced in last Sunday’s post were all found on the Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials page at https://cchealth.org/hazmat/ The alerts were bannered across the top of the page with boilerplate language that made no distinction between ongoing flaring for unit start-ups or other regular refinery operations, and those that result from an equipment failure. The inadvertent fire incident alert that was posted at 12:57 a.m. Sept. 24 was still bannered across the webpage as of 8 a.m. that morning.

Follow Martinez News and Reviews on Facebook and Instagram