(July 12, 2019, 12:40 p.m.) -- Taking a low visibility stance on a politically polarizing public health/safety issue, LB Mayor Robert Garcia quietly signed a letter dated June 20, received via pdf by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on June 21, one day before a crucial June 22 SCAQMD Refinery Committee meeting, stating that he supports a phase-out of the use of Modified Hydrofluoric Acid (MHF) in local refineries.

In his letter dated June 20, 2019 to SCAQMD Executive Officer Wayne Nasri, Mayor Garcia wrote:

I join California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health in supporting SCAQMD's efforts to protect the health and safety of residents by implementing a phase-out of Modified Hydrogen Fluoride (MHF) in local refineries.

SCAQMD has taken steps to assess the health risks and other concerns regarding the use of MHF, it is critical that this phase out happens immediately. All but two refineries in California have found economically viable and safer alternatives to use in their production methods. The only refineries that continue to use MHF are located here in Los Angeles County and are in close proximity to residents of Long Beach, Los Angeles and many South Bay cities. The safety and welfare of our residents is of utmost importance and should be a prime consideration.

Other refineries show that it is technologically and economically feasible to use safer alternatives, therefore the continued transportation, storage and use of MHF cannot be justified given the significant safety risks posed to the surrounding communities.

I urge SCAQMD to take steps that ensures that proposed Rule 1410 addresses our concerns and begins the phase-out process of MHF immediately.

Sincerely,

Mayor Robert Garcia
City of Long Beach
cc: [SCAQMD] Refinery Committee

On June 22, SCAQMD's Refinery Committee narrowly declined to support a phase out/ban on MHF, voting 3-2 (with L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn and Rolling Hills Estates Mayor Judy Mitchell dissenting) to direct AQMD staff to continue to negotiate and develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Long Beach-adjacent Valero Wilmington refinery and the Torrance (ToRc) refinery that would allow their continued use of Modified Hydrofluoric Acid (MHF) (LBREPORT.com in depth coverage here.).

The two facilities are the only two refineries in CA that use MHF, a highly corrosive chemical that can burn and damage exposed surfaces and is also absorbed through the skin and can damage bones and internal organs. If accidentally released in what SCAQMD has called a low probability but high risk event (explosion, major earthquake or other scenario), it could result in mass casualties with deaths and irreversible health damages for thousands of people within several miles depending on various factors (amount released, distance, prevailing winds, weather conditions.) MHF is trucked into the two refineries via tanker trucks traveling along various area freeways adjoining or in relatively close proximity to multiple neighborhoods.

Ultimately, AQMD's full governing board will decide whether to pursue a negotiated MOU letting the refineries continue using MHF or adopt Rule 1410 written in a way to require the two refineries to phase out MHF and, if they seek to continue to operate, spend sums necessary to convert their facilities to use sulfuric acid instead of MHF.

[Scroll down for further.]

The issue is politically polarizing, pitting residents (thus far mainly in the southbay) and regional elected officials who urge a phase out/ban versus the two refineries and politically active unions representing the refineries' workers, plus business advocacy groups who favor. an MOU allowing the refineries to continue using MHF with additional measures to prevent or "mitigate" the effects in an accidental release. An AQMD spokesperson Olga Espina confirmed to LBREPORT.com that the agency received Mayor Garcia's letter via pdf on June 21.

No representative of the Mayor's office spoke at the June 22 SCAQMD Refinery Committee meeting to communicate Mayor Garcia's position. To our knowledge, Garcia didn't mention it via his social network channels. No person(s) supporting a phase-out seemed aware or cited Mayor Garcia's letter, including L.A. County Supervisor Hahn who supports a phase out/ban. LBREPORT.com only learned Mayor Garcia's letter dated June 20 through a July 12 release from the Torrance Refinery Action Alliance (TRAA), a well organized grassroots group urging a phase out/ban on MHF locally.

LB's Mayor has no vote and doesn't set City of LB policy; the LB City Council sets city policy in L.A. County's second largest city by a publicly recorded majority vote. To date, neither Mayor Garcia nor any Councilmember(s) have agendized the MHF issue or the upcoming AQMD rule for public discussion and a recorded vote.

Sponsor

Sponsor

On December 13, 2018, Mayor Garcia quietly declined to sign a letter (similar to letters signed by multiple area officials) urging AQMD to phase out/ban the continued use of MHF. TRAA representatives met with a Mayor-office staffer to ask that Garcia sign a letter similar to letters signed by multiple other area officials urging a phase-out/ban the use of MHF locally. On January 18, 2019, the staffer told TRAA that "at this time the Mayor won't be submitting a letter" but asked to know "when action is coming up at the AQMD Board and we can reexamine."

LBREPORT.com reported on the Mayor's December 2018 meeting and January 2019 response when [by happenstance] we learned about it on June 21. Prior to publishing our story, LBREPORT.com emailed Mayor Garcia's office (chief of staff, plus staffer Ramirez and city management's government affairs rep) and asked why Mayor Garcia declined to sign such a requested letter, had declined for several years to agendize the issue for Council public discussion and policy action, and asked if the Mayor acknowledges the issue is a health and safety matter potentially affecting WLB, downtown LB, Wrigley, additional areas downwind (and possibly along some LB-area freeways). We received no response or other indications that the Mayor had sent his June 20 letter.

At a Feb. 1, 2019 meeting of the full AQMD governing board (including in detailed LBREPORT.com report here), L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn (whose Supervisorial district includes Long Beach and the southbay) opposed a motion by AQMD Boardmember (now Refinery Committee chair) Larry McCallon (Councilman/Mayor, City of Highland) that would have directed staff to pursue an MOU (continuing to allow MHF.) Supervisor Hahn, participating in her first full AQMD board meeting, said she considers the risk simply too great and declined to support the MOU motion. She said that although she traditionally sides with organized labor, she didn't consider credible what she described as unspoken/implied threats by the refineries to close their facilities and eliminate jobs if MHF were phased out.

Supervisor Hahn joined an AQMD board majority in supporting a substitute motion by board chair Dr. William Burke, which carried 9-4, directing AQMD staff to engage in further discussions with both the refineries and with community groups over the next 90 days on both a potential Rule and a potential MOU and then present the results and its recommendations to AQMD's Refinery Committee, five of AQMD's 13 board members, whose members in previous meetings have been split on how best to proceed. One of the Refinery/AQMD Board members recently resigned and was replaced on the Committee by OC Supervisor Leslie.

Governor Newsom will now choose a replacement for the resigned AQMD Boardmember. TRAA has publicly urged Governor Newsom to appoint an AQMD Boardmember who will oppose the continued use of MHF.

AQMD staff has previously indicated it's possible to convert the two refineries to use a less dangerous chemical, sulfuric acid, although its use would entail more truck trips. In 2017, a firm hired by the ToRC refinery estimated conversion would cost $600 million plus $300 million for post-processing equipment. AQMD staff considers those figures high and contends (with caveats on the need to study the feasibility of reusing some current equipment) that the cost would be roughly $300 million for a converted alkylation facility, not $600 million. AQMD staff indicated the Valero Wilmington refinery didn't offer a conversion cost estimate but has indicated it would face space constraints.

Ultimately, AQMD's full governing board will decide whether to pursue a negotiated MOU letting the refineries continue using MHF (which could continue to be supplied by trucks traveling along area freeways) or adopt Rule 1410 requiring the two refineries to phase out their continued use of MHF and, if they seek to continue to operate, spend the sums necessary to convert their facilities using sulfuric acid instead of MHF.

MFH consists of roughly 93-94% Hydrofluoric acid (HF). Scientists and AQMD staff have indicated in AQMD proceedings that on release, HF has been shown in a scientific study to form an expanding ground-hugging cloud. It doesn't dissipate upward; instead it travels over distances in whichever direction the prevailing wind might send it and dissipating gradually over distance. The Power Point slides below are from AQMD staff:

AQMD staff PPT, agenda item 25, Feb. 1, 2019

AQMD staff PPT, agenda item 25, Feb. 1, 2019

During a Feb. 1, 2019 AQMD Board meeting, AQMD staff included a video clip (below) from 1986 tests conducted by scientists to document and measure an HF release (before MHF was invented.) The tests showed that a golf-ball size hole (1.65") released 1,000 gallons of HF within 2 minutes. Once released and produced an HF ground hugging cloud that didn't disperse upward but rapidly expanded at breathing height (below 8 feet.) It traveled at the recorded wind speed of 18 feet per second, and under those conditions, in less than 10 minutes the corrosive toxic cloud traveled up to two miles. Within that distance, scientists measured HF at roughly double lethal (likely to cause death) levels.

AQMD acknowledged that this was an "unmitigated" release and the two refineries have certain "mitigation measures" on site, but noted that those systems, like others, can fail (as a different system did that caused the 2015 Torrance explosion and "near miss") and such failures can cascade in natural disasters (earthquakes) or with deliberate acts.

The video clip from the 1986 test shows the released HF forming the rapidly spreading, ground hugging traveling cloud. The video clip is included in on-demand VIDEO of AQMD staff's full Feb. 1 presentation, followed by public testimony, AQMD board discussion and voted action) which can be viewed here (Video of the 1986 HF test starts at 1:43:40.)

At the Feb. 1, 2019 AQMD governing board meeting, AQMD staff delivered a PPT presentation that provided an overview of the issues. Some of its salient slides are below.

AQMD staff PPT, agenda item 25, Feb. 1, 2019

AQMD staff PPT, agenda item 25, Feb. 1, 2019

AQMD staff also indicated that an MHF release would strain the ability of nearby hospitals and medical personnel to handle large numbers of patients who would require specialized treatment for MHF injuries.

To view AQMD's accompanying Feb. 1 PPT presentation in full, click here.

Sponsor

Sponsor

A few months earlier at a Sept. 22, 2018 AQMD board meeting in Wilmington (attended by over 800 people with no visible presence or participation of LB Councilmembers or city staff), Dr. Ronald Koopman, PhD/PE (retired Manager/Sr. Scientist Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 36 years) testified that in the 1986 HF test, the ground hugging HF cloud's concentrations would mean likely deaths within 2.9 miles and serious health effects within 4.4 miles from the release site.

Dr. Koopman acknowledged that he's unaware of tests with data on releases of MHF (HF plus a modifier added to dilute it) and said he is unclear how much modification of HF's behavior the addition of the MFH modifier produces but said with a 6% concentration of modifier (such as that used at the Wilmington and Torrance refineries) he "would guess that would be a very small effect."

In contrast, the Torrance refinery contends 50% of MHF will "rainout" (fall to the ground.)

AQMD staff's position has been that MHF provides some but uncertain benefits over pure HF, at most a 35% benefit but likely less, and thus using MHF instead of HF doesn't provide adequate safety for workers and community. [Source: AQMD Feb. 1, 2019 board meeting, staff PPT slide 19] AQMD staff says HF and MHF both create similar concerns, calling the ability of MHF to prevent formation of a vapor/aerosol cloud "highly uncertain"; noting the release of MHF will result in exposure to HF with same health effects; any "rainout" from MHF will be HF in liquid droplets; an HF vapor cloud will still form; and HF and MHF have the same hazards and medical treatment. [Source: AQMD Feb. 1, 2019 board meeting, staff PPT slide 22]

At the Feb. 1, 2019 AQMD board meeting, AQMD staff stated that based on its review of technical documents and discussions with the Torrance Refinery, it believes MHF provides some but uncertain benefits, at most a 35% benefit but likely less. Staff acknowledged that no testing has been conducted at current operating conditions (additive, concentration, pressure, and temperature) and most of the data about MHF isn't publicly available [see below chronology re technology developer]. AQMD staff indicated it's been stymied in obtaining information regarding MHF's performance as a mitigation measures.

AQMD staff stated that in its view, using MHF instead of HF doesn't provide adequate safety for workers and community. [Source: AQMD Feb. 1, 2019 board meeting, staff PPT slide 19] It indicated that it believes that HF and MHF both create similar concerns, calling the "ability of MHF to prevent formation of a vapor/aerosol cloud "highly uncertain"; noting the release of MHF will result in exposure to HF with same health effects; any "rainout" from MHF will be HF in liquid droplets; an HF vapor cloud will still form; and HF and MHF have the same hazards and medical treatment. [Source: AQMD Feb. 1, 2019 board meeting, staff PPT slide 22]

At a Sept. 22, 2018 meeting of the Refinery Committee hearing held in Wilmington (reported by LBREPORT.com here), a Valero representative cited multiple mitigation measures currently in place (including "water curtains," battery backups, and other containment and mitigation measures) and said the company is willing to undertake further mitigation measures under an MOU.

The grassroots TRAA argues that mass casualty industrial accidents (Bhopal pesticide plant) occurred despite company-touted safety measures and some scenarios (tsunami damaging Fukushima nuclear power plant) simply weren't anticipated by planners.

Opposing a phase-out/ban and supporting the companies' position favoring an MOU are their unionized workers plus various supportive and politically active regional unions, as well as some local business groups and non-profits (the latter acknowledging financial support from the refineries for their non-profit activities.)

On April 20, 2018, the politically powerful Los Angeles County Federation of Labor -- whose PAC endorsement is eagerly sought by candidates seeking re-election or higher offices (most recently now-state Senator Lena Gonzalez) -- submitted written comments opposing a ban on MHF. "There has been no finding that MHF presents a risk to communities surrounding the refineries," wrote the group's then-president, now-newly elected Chair of the CA Democratic Party, Rusty Hicks. (His 2018 letter on behalf of the LB Labor Federation can be viewed in full here.

A list of the multiple parties submitting comment letters on Rule 1410 can be viewed here.

On August 18, 2017, Valero Wilmington (part of Ultramar) submitted a sternly worded letter to AQMD questioning the need for any AQMD action, stating in 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, any 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.

Neither refinery has publicly stated that it would shut down if AQMD adopts a rule phasing out MHF, but their workers' unions have invited that inference by voicing concern for their jobs. If AQMD were to adopt a rule phasing out use of MHF, the refineries might pursue a court challenge to challenge and try to block the rule

Developing.

Sponsor

Sponsor

If LBREPORT.com didn't tell you, who would? Help keep our independent news with stories like this one alive and growing. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests or other special interests seeking or receiving benefits of City Council development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. No one in our ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.