On Saturday April 28, the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Refinery Committee will hold a public hearing on this issue at Torrance City Hall, 3000 Torrance Blvd. from 9 a.m. to noon. At issue is AQMD Proposed Rule 1410 that would phase out (within five or eight years in options now considered) and ultimately ban the use of modified hydrofluoric acid and hydrofluoric acid (a chemical so corrosive that it's also used to etch glass.)

All other CA refineries use systems operating on sulfuric acid, but the Valero Wilmington and Torrance (TORC) refineries continue to use modified hydrofluoric acid.

[Scroll down for further.]

On Feb. 18, 2015, an explosion at the then-Exxon-Mobil/now-TORC Torrance refinery caused a "near miss" when a 40 ton item landed within five feet of the MHF acid settler. (Source: U.S. Chemical Safety Hazard Investigation Board's investigation visible here..

That event led to calls from residents and some local governments to phase out MHF at the two refineries; AQMD began a "rulemaking" proceeding to do so; and Saturday's public hearing is part of that process. (The issue will ultimately be decided at a future meeting of the AQMD's full governing board.)

If the AQMD were to phase out MHF, the Valero Wilmington and TORC Torrance refineries could presumably switch to using sulfuric acid, although the change would involve additional costs and a shutdown(s) for some periods. For details on the AQMD process and documents, click here.

Sponsor

Sponsor

An independent grassroots group, the Torrance Refinery Action Alliance, favors an immediate ban, but supports AQMD's proposed rule 1410's phase-out. The grassroots group has independently produced what it calls "injury and death maps" noting that it believes the EPA's "Worst Case Scenario" maps "understate dangers of modified hydrofluoric acid (MHF.) The grassroots group's maps speak for themselves and in some scenarios include parts of Long Beach. To view these grassroots prepared materials, click here..

Among local governments supporting an AQMD rule phasing out/banning MHF are the L.A. County Board of Supervisors (unanimous position), the cities of Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach. On a split vote, a majority of the Torrance City Council (home to the TORC refinery) stopped short of advocating a rule phase-out, instead supporting continued research for alternative solutions such as solid acid and liquid iontic catalyst processes. (Two Torrance Councilmembers strongly dissented, supporting a phase-out.)

Thus far, the City of Long Beach (via city staff or LB's policy setting City Council) has taken no position publicly...with the Wilmington Valero refinery on the LB border. To date, no incumbent Long Beach Councilmember (three now re-elected, two facing runoffs) or Mayor Robert Garcia (re-elected April 10) have agendized the issue for public discussion and Council action. [Earlier today (April 27), LBREPORT.com inquired if city staff has submitted materials pro or con at this point in the rulemaking process.]

Sponsor

Among area electeds on record supporting an AQMD-rule phasing out MHF are state Senator [and US Senate candidate] Kevin DeLeon (D, L.A.). Assemblyman David Hadley (R, southbay) and Congressmembers Ted Lieu (D, south bay/WLB) and Nanette Barragan (D, south bay/Carson.)

For its part, the TORC Torrance refinery submitted an April 18, 2018 letter stating in pertinent part: "Our industry tacks Process Safety Events, even very minor ones, and we have now operated for more than nine months without any such events...In spite of a small band of activists' misinformation campaign that mischaracterizes or Alkylation unit, our workforce remains committed to safely and reliably producing the clean transportation fuels that Southern California citizens demand for day-to-day mobility."

Sponsor

Sponsor

Valero Wilmington (part of Ultramar, a Valero company) submitted an August 18, 2017 letter stating in pertinent part:

...Valero reiterates that the District has yet to establish a need for any action at all, much use a complete ban on the use of the very technology that the District aggressively sought to implement fewer than fifteen years ago.

The staff presentation suggests their rationale for pursuing a ban is based on worst-case scenario offsite consequence modeling,,,,This is an insufficient basis for several reasons. First, there is nothing new about the Wilmington Refinery's offsite consequence modeling; we suspect the same is true for the Torrance refinery. It is completely arbitrary for the District to conclude in 2004 that the Alky REVAP project to be installed in the Wilmington refinery met the District's objectives for protection of human health and safety, only to reach a different conclusion in 2017 on the basis of the same information...

Moreover, ay determination to ban the use of a chemical on the basis that WCS [worst case scenario] modeling reflects a hypothetical potential to result in offsite consequences is plainly arbitrary.

We again urge the District to consider all relevant information and not rush headlong into an action that is unnecessary and may have significant adverse consequences.

Sponsor

The LB Area Chamber of Commerce (where Valero is a member of the "Chairman's Circle" and also has a seat on the Chamber's governing board) submitted an August 22, 2017 letter signed by Chamber President/CEO Randy Gordon stating in pertinent part:

After viewing the July 6th California Energy Commission presentation made by Gordon Schremp, Senior Fuel Analyst for the California Energy Commission, I have concerns about the impacts of this proposed ban for California's consumers, our regional economy, and to global air emissions.

According to Schremp, a ban could decrease Southern California's local supply of gasoline for a period of at least two years. These incremental impacts to gasoline costs for consumers and businesses could mean billions of dollars in additional, higher costs. California's working families and local businesses cannot afford these dramatically higher costs, especially on top of price increases resulting from existing and pending mandates, taxes, and fees.

I am also concerned that potentially reducing refinery output will force us to import our fuels from outside the state -- which dramatically increases global air emissions. An analysis by Stillwater and Associates from the July 6th California Energy Commission Meeting found that, because of California's geographic and infrastructural isolation, a ban would necessitate offshore refiners to "produce the products and ship them half way around the world to the California market. As a result, average spot prices could rise 25 cpg [cents per gallon] more, and ultimately the California consumer would pay the price."

While we are all concerned about safety, we should acknowledge the lead the Governor has taken with these issues which have already resulted in increased safety regulations for all refineries that are the strongest in the nation.

I strongly encourage Board Members and staff to analyze what these impacts mean for our economy.

To view comment letters submitted, pro and con, from multiple groups, click here.

Developing.