Fire at Martinez Refinery Sends Six Workers to Hospital — Investigation Reveals Contractor Oversight Failures

What Happened at the Martinez Refinery on February 1, 2025

On the afternoon of Saturday, February 1, 2025, a fire broke out at the Martinez Refining Company — a large petroleum refinery in Martinez, California, operated by PBF Energy. The fire started at approximately 1:30 p.m. during a planned maintenance procedure known as a “turnaround,” when equipment is taken offline for cleaning, inspection, and repair.

According to reports and the subsequent independent investigation, two contract workers were tasked with opening equipment as part of the turnaround process. The workers mistakenly loosened the bolts on the wrong flange — one that sat on the wrong side of an isolation valve. The flange contained catalytic cracker intermediate reflux fluid at approximately 600 degrees. The hot hydrocarbon material began leaking immediately, pooled on the ground, and ignited within minutes.

Six workers were injured in the fire. Four of the six required hospitalization on the day of the incident. Three of the four hospitalized workers were released by the following day, Sunday, February 2. Two other workers were treated at the scene. The specific nature and severity of the burn and inhalation injuries sustained by the workers were not fully detailed in public reports.

The fire burned for approximately three days before being brought fully under control. By Monday evening, February 3, officials described the blaze as a “small residual fire under control,” though intermittent flaring continued into the following week for safety purposes. Refinery fire crews called for mutual aid from other area refineries and the Contra Costa Fire Protection District to help manage the blaze.

Hydrocarbon Release and Community Health Advisory

According to the 30-day incident report filed by the refinery, approximately 7,140 gallons of hydrocarbon materials were released during the fire. The report stated that most of the released material was consumed by the flames. However, wastewater overflow containing hydrocarbons escaped one containment pond, though it remained on refinery property.

The fire produced thick smoke visible from Interstate 680 and surrounding communities. Contra Costa County initially issued a shelter-in-place alert at 4:49 p.m. on February 1, which peaked at Level 3 before being reduced to Level 2. The shelter-in-place was lifted around 9:00 p.m. that same evening, but a broader public health advisory remained in place for residents of Martinez, parts of Pacheco, and Clyde.

The Contra Costa Health department warned that “smoke from the fire contains fine particulate matter and other harmful pollutants” and that “exposure to smoke is unhealthy, even for short periods of time.” Residents with respiratory sensitivity were advised to remain indoors with doors and windows closed. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District deployed inspectors on-site to monitor air quality impacts. Road closures were imposed on Marina Vista Avenue between Interstate 680 and Court Street, and on Shell Avenue between Marina Vista and Pacheco Boulevard.

Community members expressed frustration over what they described as a delayed alert — approximately one hour passed between the start of the fire and the issuance of the shelter-in-place notice. Residents also noted that this was the third major incident at the refinery since Shell sold the facility to PBF Energy in 2020, raising ongoing concerns about the safety of operations under the new ownership.

Investigation Findings: Root Cause and Contributing Factors

An independent investigation was conducted by JEM Advisors, commissioned by Contra Costa County health officials, to determine the root cause of the fire. The investigation report identified inadequate oversight of contractor operations as the primary root cause of the incident.

The report found that the two contract workers who opened the wrong flange lacked sufficient training and experience for the critical task they were performing. The investigation identified four key contributing causes:

Inadequate Contractor Oversight and Monitoring. The refinery did not have sufficient company personnel present to supervise the contract workers during the critical maintenance operation. The investigation found that the level of direct oversight was not commensurate with the risk involved in opening equipment containing hot hydrocarbons.

Regulatory Restrictions on Contractor Hiring (SB 54). The report cited SB 54, a 2013 California law that requires refineries to hire many of their contractors from local union halls and ensure they are enrolled in or graduates of approved apprenticeship programs. The investigation found that this requirement often prevented the Martinez refinery from rehiring the most experienced workers or accessing “professional shutdown execution” personnel from other locations.

Co-Employment Rules Limiting Training (AB 5). California’s co-employment regulations prevented PBF Energy from directly approving contractor safety plans or providing critical safety training to the contract workers. Because the workers were employed by TIMEC, a Texas-based contractor company, safety instruction had to go through the contractor company’s leadership “with the expectation that contractor employees are fully trained in these prior to working.” The investigation found this arrangement created gaps in safety preparation.

Faulty Work Procedures and Documentation. The investigation identified problems with work procedures, including small font on work permits and inadequate procedures for clearly marking the specific work locations on equipment. These documentation deficiencies contributed to the workers opening the wrong flange.

The report concluded that “as a result of these two regulations, there is now a higher likelihood for human errors entering into maintenance work performed by contractor resources.” The investigation recommended increased operations oversight, mandatory review and endorsement of safety permits, and the establishment of performance consequences and incentives for contractor safety compliance.

Cal/OSHA Investigation and Regulatory Response

Cal/OSHA — the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health — confirmed that it opened an investigation into the incident, as a contract worker was injured. Shortly after the fire, the Martinez Refining Company reported that Cal/OSHA had “restricted the scene of the extinguished fire to incident investigators under a preservation order,” preventing any disturbance of the fire scene until the investigation was completed.

Contra Costa County health inspectors also conducted their own on-site investigation. In the aftermath of the fire, county officials announced that a full-facility audit of the Martinez refinery would be conducted, moving the scheduled audit forward from its regular five-year cycle. The audit was scheduled for September 2025. Government representatives maintained 24/7 access to the facility during the post-fire period.

The Martinez refinery is one of the largest petroleum processing facilities in California, producing over 156,000 barrels of fuel per day and representing nearly 10 percent of the state’s refining capacity. The two-month shutdown required after the fire contributed to statewide gasoline price increases, underscoring the economic significance of the facility and the far-reaching consequences of workplace safety failures at major industrial sites.

A Second Fire in April 2025

On the night of April 2-3, 2025 — just two months after the February fire and the night before scheduled unit restarts — a second fire occurred at the Martinez refinery. A generator caught fire while being refueled by a contract worker, who was transported off-site for medical evaluation and treatment. Despite this second incident, the company proceeded with restarting operations the following day, April 4, 2025.

The second fire intensified community concerns and calls for improved safety measures, transparency, and accountability. One community member was quoted saying the refinery needed to “slow down, address the things that need to be addressed” before resuming operations. Cal/OSHA confirmed it was also investigating the second incident.

Legal Options for Injured Refinery Workers

California Workplace Safety Law and Refinery Regulations

California has some of the most rigorous workplace safety regulations in the nation, particularly for high-hazard industries like petroleum refining. Understanding the regulatory framework is important for injured workers evaluating their legal options.

Cal/OSHA Oversight. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) enforces workplace safety standards that go beyond federal OSHA requirements. Cal/OSHA has specific regulations for refineries and chemical facilities, including the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard, which requires employers to identify and control hazards associated with processes involving highly hazardous chemicals. Violations of Cal/OSHA standards can result in significant citations and penalties and can serve as evidence of negligence in personal injury claims.

Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance. Contra Costa County, where the Martinez refinery is located, has its own Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) that imposes additional safety requirements on refineries and chemical plants beyond state and federal regulations. The ISO requires facilities to conduct root cause investigations of major incidents, implement safety management programs, and submit to regular audits by county inspectors. The independent investigation into the Martinez refinery fire was conducted under the authority of this ordinance.

Workers’ Compensation vs. Third-Party Claims. In California, the workers’ compensation system is the “exclusive remedy” against a worker’s direct employer for workplace injuries — meaning an injured worker generally cannot sue their own employer for negligence. However, this exclusivity does not extend to third parties. When another company, property owner, equipment manufacturer, or contractor contributes to a workplace injury, the injured worker retains the full right to pursue a civil lawsuit against those parties for complete damages including pain and suffering.

The Peculiar Risk Doctrine. California law also recognizes that companies hiring contractors to perform inherently dangerous work — such as maintenance on refinery equipment containing hot hydrocarbons — may bear nondelegable duties to ensure the work is performed safely. Under the “peculiar risk” doctrine, the hiring party can be held vicariously liable for injuries caused by the contractor’s negligence when the work involves risks that are particular to the type of work being performed.

Refinery Workplace Injuries: The Broader Picture

Why Injured Refinery Workers Should Act Quickly

Workplace injuries at industrial facilities like refineries involve layers of complexity that make early legal action critical. Multiple parties may share liability — the refinery owner, the contractor employer, equipment manufacturers, and other companies on-site. Evidence can be altered or destroyed as facilities resume operations. Regulatory investigations by Cal/OSHA and county inspectors proceed on their own timelines and serve their own purposes, which may not align with the interests of injured workers.

In the Martinez refinery fire, Cal/OSHA imposed a preservation order on the fire scene, but that order was temporary. Once operations resume, physical evidence at the scene changes or disappears. Witness memories fade. Company records can become harder to obtain. Insurance carriers for the refinery and the contractor begin building their defense positions from day one.

Un industrial accident attorney can help injured workers navigate the intersection of workers’ compensation and third-party claims, identify all potentially liable parties, preserve critical evidence, and ensure that the full scope of injuries — including long-term burn care, rehabilitation, lost earning capacity, and pain and suffering — is properly documented and valued before any settlement is considered.

California’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims is generally two years from the date of injury. Workers’ compensation claims must typically be filed within one year. While these deadlines may seem distant, the most important steps in building a strong case happen in the weeks and months immediately following the injury.