In southwest Philadelphia, the lingering shadow of a massive industrial accident ignited a complex debate about environmental justice, economic viability, and the very definition of a community’s moral standing. The story of the Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES) refinery, once the largest oil refinery on the Eastern Seaboard, became a crucible for these competing narratives after a catastrophic explosion and fire in June 2019. This event not only halted operations at the 1,300-acre site but also laid bare the deep-seated tensions between long-term residents bearing the brunt of industrial pollution and the workforce dependent on the facility for their livelihoods.
The incident that fractured the status quo occurred in the early hours of June 21, 2019. Three powerful explosions ripped through the PES refinery, followed by a fire that raged for over 24 hours, painting the Philadelphia skyline with an ominous plume of smoke. The immediate aftermath saw the facility cease operations, a decision solidified the following month when the company declared bankruptcy and began seeking a buyer. This closure presented a critical juncture for the surrounding neighborhoods, particularly Gray’s Ferry, which had coexisted with the refinery for over a century. Amidst widespread speculation about the site’s future—whether it would be redeveloped or potentially restarted—Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney established a Refinery Advisory Group. This multidisciplinary body was tasked with gathering diverse perspectives to inform the city’s strategic planning for the expansive industrial footprint.
A Community’s Plea: Voices of Concern
The establishment of the Refinery Advisory Group offered a platform for residents to voice their long-held grievances. At one of its early public meetings, a "Story Station" was set up to capture personal testimonies. Among those who spoke was Ricky, a young Black man from the Gray’s Ferry community. Wearing a bright yellow t-shirt emblazoned with "Philly Thrive," he articulated a profound hope: "I’m hoping and praying the refinery gets shutdown." Ricky’s plea was rooted in years of experiencing what he described as "a hundred years of overwhelming pain and agony for people," citing "sick of the air pollution, the asthma epidemic, just like the health issues, man, is very bad." His words painted a stark picture of a community grappling with chronic health crises, directly linked by residents to the refinery’s pervasive emissions.
Ricky’s testimony was echoed by Carly, a white resident who had lived in Gray’s Ferry for five years. She shared a palpable improvement in her quality of life since the refinery’s closure: "since the refinery has not been in operation, I have actually been able to take deep breaths outside my house comfortably for the first time since I moved there." Carly elaborated on the devastating health toll the refinery had taken on the neighborhood, stating, "We’ve lost hundreds of people to cancer, there are hundreds of people with asthma, and learning disabilities, that are a direct result of the chemicals that have been emitted from this facility. The science is very clear." Her assertion highlighted a growing scientific consensus, often overlooked by industry, linking petrochemical emissions to a range of severe health conditions.
The Counter-Narrative: Jobs and Livelihoods at Stake
However, the narrative of environmental harm and health impacts was met with a forceful counter-argument from those whose livelihoods were directly tied to the refinery. Patrick, a white man with a pronounced South Philly accent and 17 years of experience working at PES, expressed his frustration and disbelief. "All of a sudden, the people who work inside these walls, why don’t we have cancer? Where is the proof?" he challenged, his voice rising with indignation. Patrick accused refinery opponents of seeking financial gain, questioning, "These people come out with accusations, they wanna get paid, they want money, how about the cigarettes you smoke? Is that causing emphysema? I guess it is." His perspective underscored the deep economic anxieties surrounding the refinery’s closure, emphasizing the immediate threat to jobs and the financial stability of hundreds of families.
Jimmy McGee, a white man and the United Steelworkers’ head of safety for the refinery, further articulated this perspective. With over 20 years at PES, he defended the refinery’s safety protocols, stating, "We work in a controlled, safe environment. We can’t just throw material on the ground because it’s convenient for us." McGee expressed concern that residents like Sonya Sanders, who spoke of "living in fear in my house" due to the refinery’s constant emissions and spills, were being unduly frightened. He suggested that fear stemmed from a lack of understanding, asserting, "You can’t live your life being scared and worrying about stuff like that." He highlighted the significant economic repercussions of the closure, detailing how over 800 union workers faced job loss, impacting their ability to pay for mortgages, cars, and education for their children. McGee also voiced his offense at a barbeque held by Philly Thrive to celebrate the refinery’s closure, calling it "a bunch of crap for that to happen. That’s a disgrace."
The Underlying Conflict: Moral Standing and Community Inclusion
The testimonies at the Story Station revealed a fundamental conflict not just over the refinery’s operational status, but over who held moral authority and who was considered part of the community’s moral compass. Sociologist David Naguib Pellow’s framework of "state-sanctioned violence against people of color" offered a lens through which to view the situation, suggesting that the city’s apparent reluctance to adopt an explicitly anti-racist stance created a false equivalency between workers’ job concerns and residents’ fears for their lives.
Conversely, the "just transitions" approach, advocated by scholars like Julian Agyeman and organizations like the Sunrise Movement and the Climate Justice Alliance, proposed phasing out polluting industries to foster economic and racial justice, including the creation of new, sustainable jobs. Mark Clincy of Philly Thrive articulated this vision: "We can get sustainable energy, renewable energy, clean energy that not only provides jobs for our employees, but also make it better for everyone to live."
Scientific Evidence Meets Societal Norms
The debate over the PES refinery site was framed by established moral standards, with both sides attempting to shift perceptions of right and wrong. For environmental justice advocates, the core issue was the inherent wrongness of polluting communities and the need to hold polluters accountable. This involved expanding the definition of the "moral community" to include those disproportionately burdened by industrial hazards.
However, the prevailing moral standards around economic activity often placed industry on a higher footing. The economic well-being of companies and workers was presented as a paramount concern, making it difficult to question the fundamental necessity of such industries. This often left communities like Gray’s Ferry in a defensive posture, forced to justify their health concerns within existing frameworks that prioritized economic benefits.
Scientists played a crucial role in providing factual evidence. Dr. Marilyn Howarth, a physician and researcher from the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Excellence in Environmental Toxicology (CEET), presented testimony to the Refinery Advisory Group highlighting elevated rates of cancer, asthma, and other respiratory illnesses in Philadelphia, correlating them with refinery emissions. She noted that PES had exceeded its pollution permits for three consecutive years and concluded that, under current environmental law standards, permits for such an industry in that location would likely not be granted today.
The Limits of Data in Moral Arguments
Despite the compelling scientific data, its impact on the broader debate was limited. While Dr. Howarth’s testimony provided a factual basis for the community’s concerns, it did not directly rebut the accusations of greed or irresponsibility leveled against residents by refinery workers. The scientists’ evidence, though accurate, struggled to dismantle the deeply entrenched moral arguments that framed the refinery workers’ economic concerns as more legitimate than the residents’ health and safety claims. The report produced by the city’s Refinery Advisory Group, A Close Call and an Uncertain Future, while incorporating scientific data, ultimately framed the issue through a cost-benefit analysis. This approach, by designating economic activity as the primary "benefit" and health impacts as "costs," implicitly reinforced the moral high ground of industry, suggesting that economic gains could be weighed against human suffering.
This framing highlights a critical challenge: scientific evidence, while essential for understanding the physical impacts of pollution, often falls short of addressing the moral dimensions of environmental injustice. The argument is not merely about facts, but about the values and norms that shape how those facts are interpreted and acted upon. When societal standards consistently elevate economic considerations above public health and environmental well-being, even robust scientific data can be absorbed into a framework that perpetuates existing inequalities.
The Engineered Abandonment of Marginalized Communities
The process surrounding the PES refinery’s closure illustrated a pattern of "dysfunctional moral relations" and "widespread abandonment" of communities facing the brunt of industrial pollution. This abandonment is, in part, engineered by the prioritization of certain shared standards—namely, the protection of economic activity and jobs—over others, such as the right to clean air and a healthy environment. The narrative that petrochemical pollution is a mere "price to be paid" rather than an injustice removes the obligation to actively defend those who suffer its consequences.
Furthermore, the accusation that affected communities are "irresponsible and greedy" serves to justify inaction. By framing residents as the architects of their own misfortune or as seeking undue financial gain, the broader public is absolved of any moral obligation to offer solidarity or support. This pattern is not unique to environmental justice issues; it is mirrored in struggles against sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and other forms of oppression, where victims are often denied their standing to seek redress and are left to battle for accountability largely on their own.
Rebuilding Moral Relations Through Inquiry
For researchers committed to justice, simply presenting facts is insufficient. The power of science lies not only in its findings but in the processes of inquiry it employs. To contribute to the repair of moral relations, scientists must actively resist the reinterpretation of their work into justifications for the status quo. This means challenging the moral logic that excuses environmental harm and shoring up the moral authority of community activists who are fighting for improved standards of right and wrong.
The Refinery Advisory Group process, while providing a platform for public participation, ultimately demonstrated that such participation is not a panacea, especially when the underlying norms remain unchallenged. The city’s report, by enlisting scientific testimony within a cost-benefit framework, inadvertently legitimized the idea that certain levels of harm are acceptable trade-offs for economic benefits.
To overcome the widespread abandonment faced by marginalized communities, a deeper engagement is required. This involves not only acknowledging the scientific evidence of harm but also actively questioning and reshaping the moral frameworks that permit such harm to persist. It means recognizing that the fight for environmental justice is, at its core, a fight for inclusion within the moral community—a fight for the recognition that the health and well-being of all, regardless of their proximity to industrial sites, are fundamental rights that demand collective protection. The legacy of the PES refinery serves as a potent reminder that true progress requires more than just scientific understanding; it demands a fundamental re-evaluation of our shared values and a commitment to building a more just and equitable society.
