At Tuesday’s meeting, the Benicia City Council did not approve Mayor Elizabeth Patterson’s request to adopt an Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO), at least not yet. Instead, the council voted 3-2 to direct staff to monitor Solano County’s implementation of Program 4 for the county’s Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and meet with the Valero Benicia Refinery and regulatory agencies to discuss gaps between Program 4 and Contra Costa County’s ISO. Additionally, staff would have to report back to the council at its first meeting in November to discuss what changes are being made, particularly with the implementation of community air monitors.

Nearly three weeks after the flaring incident at Valero on May 5, 2017, Patterson brought a two-step process to discuss consideration of an ISO at the May 23 council meeting. The proposed ISO would be in line with Contra Costa’s ISO, which was adopted in 1998 and went into effect in 1999. Contra Costa’s ISO requires refineries to submit safety plans, undergo safety audits and develop risk management plans while incorporating community input.

The council voted 4-1 to approve the first step of the process at the May 23 meeting. Since that vote, the state updated its regulations while taking influence from Contra Costa’s ISO. A task force, including members of the Solano County Department of Resource Management, was formed to upgrade regulations at Valero and bring it to Program 4, which would review risk management and safety plans, audit subject facilities at least once every three years and document the results, review major chemical accidents or releases root cause analyses and incident investigation reports that are submitted.

The council was given two options: direct staff to draft an ISO for future consideration or direct staff to monitor the county’s implementation of Program 4, which would allow an ISO’s activities to be carried out by Solano’s CUPA.

Patterson said she believed the city needed an ISO “for trust, safety and transparency.”

“We need a seat at the table,” she said. “I believe the public has a right to know what is going on, what to do in an emergency and what is in the air.”

Members of the Benicia ISO Working Group, an ad hoc collective of residents who have been advocating for an ISO in Benicia, shared a video featuring news clips of the May 5 flaring as well as a panel held at the library in November. Individual members also delivered statements.

“In May of 2017, we realized we did not know what was in our air,” Kathy Kerridge said. “Our notification system did not work. No one knew what to do, and no one knew who was in charge. We did not and still do not know what could prevent another disaster. We were not in the loop.”

Kerridge also said Contra Costa’s refineries were considered safer because of an ISO.

Benicia attorney Terry Mollica provided an overview of what an ISO would look like in Benicia. The four main objectives were to make the industry and community safer by requiring industrial safety analyses, requiring a network of community-based air quality monitors— which the community has tried to establish on multiple occasions since 2000, provide the city with “a seat at the table”— e.g., have access to process safety management reports and data, and have the Fire Department develop a fee schedule so as to not impose significant compliance costs upon the refinery.

Marilyn Bardet, co-founder of the Good Neighbor Steering Committee, said the group had been calling for a community air monitor network in town since Valero acquired the Exxon Refinery in 2000.

“The Good Neighbor Steering Committee has worked very hard through the settlement agreement to get air monitoring equipment,” she said. “I have seen no evidence of Valero’s cooperation with regard (to) the air monitoring promise the settlement agreement put forward.”

Bardet said she was still waiting for the city to talk about the importance of air quality monitoring.

“I support this ISO with all my being,” she said.

Andres Soto of the ISO Working Group encouraged staff to move forward with an ISO.

“It took the state 19 years to come around and catch up with where Contra Costa County was,” he said. “Contra Costa has not rescinded their ordinance  because they’re still getting value out of it.”

Soto told the councilmembers to think about their constituents’ safety when voting.

“If you do the wrong thing, we’re gonna remember,” he said. “If you do the right thing, we’re gonna remember.”

Others, like resident Bob Livesay, recommended the council consider the second option.

“City staff could then go out and figure out a way to improve the communication, whether it’s through Valero or however you wish to have this communication done,” he said.

Chris Robinson, Valero’s process safety manager, also encouraged the council to go with the second option, opining that an ISO would be “redundant” and “a strain on limited city resources.”

“We believe California’s recently adopted best-in-the-nation refinery safety regulations and Air District’s air monitoring programs should be carefully reviewed, analyzed an discussed by staff before a decision is made on a widely duplicative Industrial Safety Ordinance,” he said.

Leslie Sullivan, Valero’s operations director, said the refinery maintains close communications with Benicia’s dispatch center, Fire Department and city staff. However, she said that due to ongoing litigation with Pacific Gas & Electric— the company that was working on power lines that triggered the shutdown that led to the flaring incident— the refinery was restricted in what could be communicated.

Sullivan also said there was a June 8 letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) approving the air monitoring plan.

“I would encourage the council to meet with Valero on the fenceline monitoring,” she said. “Don’t take my word for it. I’d also suggest you meet with the Air District to get the technical details and supporting documentation that went into that plan.”

Councilmember Alan Schwartzman asked Sullivan what sorts of corrective actions Valero would take to prevent a similar incident from happening. She reiterated that she could not answer because of litigation but would be open to a meeting to talk about what plans they have in place.

Patterson and Vice Mayor Steve Young reaffirmed their support of an ISO, although Young suggested that staff review the working draft that was prepared rather than starting from scratch.

Councilmember Mark Hughes acknowledged that there were gaps between Program 4 and Contra Costa’s ISO, namely the need for an evacuation plan, more robust community air monitoring and more effective communication from Valero. However, he did not feel an ISO was the solution.

“I think an ISO doesn’t lend itself to a strong partnership,” he said. “I think it lends itself to an us versus them type of relationship.”

Schwartzman said he was not ready to support an ISO at that moment because he felt program 4 met or exceeded both the Contra Costa ISO and proposed Benicia ISO. However, he agreed with Hughes that some things needed to be fixed, namely communication and monitoring, and thus would change his vote if those areas were not fixed by November.

“If we can not come back by the first meeting in November with an agreed solution to these issues, then I’m all in on an ISO,” he said.

Councilmember Tom Campbell echoed Hughes’ sentiments, stating that he would not support an ISO just yet but would support it if new air monitors were not in place by November. Patterson felt it would not be right to wait for November due to 2018 being an election year, but Campbell said regardless of the outcome most of the council would be the same.

“You’ll be here after the election, I’ll be here after the election and the vice mayor will be here after the election,” he said. “I’ve never backed off on anything I’ve promised to do.”

The council voted 3-2 to approve the second option with the recommendation for staff to meet with Valero to address gaps and try to get new air monitoring in place within six months. Patterson and Young were the dissenting votes.

In other business, the council unanimously voted to place a measure establishing a tax on cannabis-related activities on the ballot for the November election. The council voted to approve changes to the noise ordinance amendments presented by staff at the previous council meeting, except for changing the end time for amplified music from 10 to 9:30 p.m. and including Sundays in the prohibition of operating heavy equipment in residential districts or those within the Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan.

The council is next slated to meet Tuesday, June 26.