When the Plume Becomes a Fire: Refinery Emissions, Community Health Burden, and Property Value in Richmond, California
By Paul E. Rosenfeld, M.S., Ph.D., Principal Environmental Chemist, RoseyFields LLC, Santa Monica, California
Three separate scientific questions in every refinery-community case
Refinery litigation involving a nearby community typically raises three distinct scientific questions: what was released, who was harmed medically, and what happened to property values. Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, M.S., Ph.D. of RoseyFields LLC has peer-reviewed publications addressing each of the latter two questions directly, in addition to his litigation experience in refinery-emissions matters (Simons, 2017).
The Richmond refinery fires as a documented public-health event
Chevron’s Richmond, California refinery experienced major fires in both 2007 and 2012, the 2012 event sending a large plume over the city and prompting roughly 15,000 residents to seek medical treatment for respiratory and related symptoms. Dr. Rosenfeld and coauthors published a peer-reviewed analysis of the hospital, health, and community burden following both fires (Remy et al., 2019).
What the health-burden data showed
That analysis quantified hospital and emergency-department utilization associated with both fire events, providing an empirical, population-level measure of community health impact rather than relying solely on individual plaintiff symptom reports. Publishing this analysis in a peer-reviewed public-health journal subjects the underlying data and methodology to scientific scrutiny independent of any single litigation matter (Remy et al., 2019).
Refinery emissions and residential property value
Separately, Dr. Rosenfeld coauthored a peer-reviewed study modeling the effect of refinery emissions on residential property value, applying hedonic property-value modeling to quantify the relationship between proximity to refinery emissions sources and measurable declines in nearby home values (Simons et al., 2015).
Why property-value damages require their own methodology
Property-value diminution claims in environmental litigation cannot simply assume that any nearby industrial facility depresses value; the analysis has to isolate the emissions-specific effect from other neighborhood variables. The peer-reviewed hedonic modeling approach in Simons et al. (2015) provides a transparent, published methodology for that isolation, applicable both to the Richmond-area litigation context and to other refinery-adjacent communities.
The regulatory backdrop: fenceline monitoring for benzene
Partly in response to the pattern of community exposure incidents at refineries nationally, EPA’s 2015 Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule requires fenceline benzene monitoring with a 9 microgram-per-cubic-meter annual-average action level, giving refinery-adjacent communities an ongoing, publicly available data stream that did not exist at the time of the 2007 and 2012 Richmond fires (US EPA, 2015).
Particulate matter and the acute health effects of a refinery fire
Refinery fires generate substantial particulate matter and combustion byproducts in addition to any chemical-specific emissions. EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standard for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) provides the regulatory benchmark against which acute fire-related particulate spikes, of the kind associated with the respiratory complaints documented in Remy et al. (2019), are typically evaluated (US EPA, 2024).
AERMOD’s role in reconstructing the specific fire-day plume
As in other refinery matters, dispersion modeling using historical meteorological data for the specific fire dates allows reconstruction of which parts of the community were within the plume’s path at a given hour, refining the health-burden and property-value analyses beyond a simple citywide average (US EPA, 2017).
Combining public-health and real-estate economics in one litigation team
Because Dr. Rosenfeld’s own publication record spans both the epidemiological health-burden side (Remy et al., 2019) and the property-value economics side (Simons et al., 2015) of refinery-community litigation, his exposure-reconstruction reports can be integrated with both a treating-physician causation opinion and a real-estate damages opinion within a single, internally consistent factual record.
Why this dual publication record is unusual in the field
Most environmental exposure experts focus exclusively on either the health or the economic consequences of an emissions event. Dr. Rosenfeld’s peer-reviewed contributions to both literatures, on the same general subject of refinery emissions and community impact, are a distinguishing feature of his practice in refinery-adjacent litigation.
The continuing relevance of the Richmond record
As refineries continue to operate near residential communities nationwide, and as EPA’s fenceline monitoring program generates an increasing public data record, the analytical framework developed around the Richmond fires, health-burden quantification paired with hedonic property-value modeling, remains directly applicable to future refinery-emissions litigation. RoseyFields.com walks through Dr. Rosenfeld’s refinery-emissions work in more detail.
References
1. Simons RA, et al. v Chevron Corporation, et al. Cause No. C12-01481, Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa.
2. Remy LL, Clay T, Byers V, Rosenfeld PE. Hospital, health, and community burden after oil refinery fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environ Health. 2019;18:48.
3. Simons RA, Seo Y, Rosenfeld P. Modeling the effect of refinery emission on residential property value. J Real Estate Res. 2015;27(3):321-342.
4. US Environmental Protection Agency. Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards. 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63. Fed Regist. 2015;80(205):75178-75297.
5. US Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. 40 CFR Part 50.
6. US Environmental Protection Agency. Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models. 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W. Fed Regist. 2017;82(10):5182-5235.
7. US Chemical Safety Board. Chevron Richmond Refinery Pipe Rupture and Fire. Investigation Report No. 2012-03-I-CA. Washington, DC: CSB; 2015.
8. Rosenfeld PE. RoseyFields LLC: Refinery Emissions and Community Impact Assessment. Santa Monica, CA: RoseyFields LLC; 2026.
9. US Environmental Protection Agency. Toxicological Review of Benzene (Noncancer Effects). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Washington, DC: US EPA; 2003.
10. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Benzene. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol 120. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2018.
11. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Benzene. 29 CFR § 1910.1028. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor.
12. US Environmental Protection Agency. Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide. 40 CFR Part 50. Fed Regist. 2010;75(119):35520-35603.
13. Brantley TL, et al. v International Paper Company. Civil Action No. 2:09-230-DCR-TFM, Memorandum Opinion and Order (MD Ala May 24, 2017).
14. Austin v Monsanto. Case No. 2:23-cv-272 (D Vt).