A fire erupted on June 4 at Shell PLC's ethylene cracker plant in Potter Township, Pennsylvania, leading to the temporary shutdown of a furnace unit. While Shell reported the fire was quickly extinguished, the incident has reignited public debate over the plant's environmental impact and its history of violations.

The blaze, which occurred at furnace unit number five within the Shell Pennsylvania Petrochemicals Complex at approximately 2:20 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, June 4, was brought under control by on-site personnel. Shell confirmed that the affected furnace remains offline pending a full investigation. Other furnaces at the facility are reportedly operational.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was notified of the incident by Shell, who reported evacuating 15 employees and one minor heat-related injury. However, the DEP’s subsequent statements shed light on more serious potential consequences. A spokesperson for the DEP confirmed that the fire may have resulted in the "possible release of an unknown amount of 1,3-butadiene and benzene" into the air. Both 1,3-butadiene and benzene are recognized as hazardous air pollutants and known carcinogens.

Despite these concerns, the DEP spokesperson stated that an initial assessment by an emergency response team member at the plant did not observe any visible emissions or unintended releases due to a malfunction, nor were there any unpleasant smells. Furthermore, their "air monitor did not register any emissions above zero, which means there weren't any air pollutants that lingered related to the fire."

This incident is not an isolated event for the Shell cracker plant, which only began operations in late 2022. Since its inception, the facility has been plagued by several malfunctions and has accumulated millions of dollars in fines for environmental violations. Last year, Shell agreed to pay nearly $10 million in penalties for exceeding air pollution limits, with a portion of the funds allocated to community environmental projects. Critics argue that such fines often act as a "pay-to-pollute" mechanism, doing little to deter ongoing violations.