New Energy Future Reports
Search
•
RSS Feed
Executive Summary
Environment America is the new home of U.S. PIRG's environmental work. Across the country, petroleum refineries, chemical plants and other
industrial facilities use and store large amounts of hazardous
chemicals that could be released in the event of an accident or
terrorist attack. Such releases could endanger thousands or even
millions of people who live in communities in close proximity to these
facilities. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 106
facilities would each endanger at least one million people in the event
of a worst-case chemical release. Another 3,000 facilities would
endanger at least 10,000 people. Nearly 5,000 facilities store more
than 100,000 pounds of at least one EPA classified “extremely hazardous
substance.”
Many
of these facilities, however, present an unnecessary risk to their
surrounding communities. Industries often have multiple options for
carrying out similar processes, and some of these options are
inherently safer than others. Facilities that use fewer or smaller
quantities of hazardous chemicals, or even make changes to storage
pressure or other processes, can eliminate the possibility of on-site
chemical accidents and make themselves less appealing terrorist
targets.
Petroleum
refineries stand as a stark example of the needless risk posed by such
facilities in the event of an attack or accident as well as the
opportunity to mitigate this risk by using safer alternatives to toxic
chemicals.
Many
petroleum refineries use hydrofluoric acid in their processing, which
poses a great public safety risk both because of its extreme toxicity
to humans as well as its propensity to form a toxic aerosol cloud when
released. A catastrophic event at one of these facilities could cause a
potentially lethal release of hydrofluoric acid, forming a stable
aerosol cloud above the facility and surrounding neighborhoods.
Exposure to hydrofluoric acid results in devastating burns, and pain
associated with the exposure may be delayed for up to 24 hours. If the
burn is not addressed, tissue destruction may continue for days.
Inhalation of fumes can cause symptoms ranging from severe throat
irritation to pulmonary edema.
To
estimate the number of Americans at needless risk of exposure to
hydrofluoric acid in the event of a catastrophic accident or terrorist
attack at a petroleum refinery, we examined the Risk Management Plans
submitted by oil refineries to EPA. These plans estimate how far a
chemical could travel off-site in the event of a release and report the
number of people living within the “vulnerability zone,” the area
potentially affected by the release. Based on this data, we found that
petroleum refineries using hydrofluoric acid endanger millions of
people.
Specifically:
• Of the 148 petroleum refineries in the United States, 50 use
hydrofluoric acid in their processing or store it on-site. The
remainder use safer alternatives, such as sulfuric acid.
• These 50 refineries, using and storing 10.6 million pounds of
hydrofluoric acid, endanger more than 17 million people living in
surrounding communities in 20 different states.
• With 12 refineries using hydrofluoric acid, Texas has more than any
state. Louisiana has five oil refineries that currently use hydrofluoric acid, and Montana has four.
• Refineries using hydrofluoric acid in Pennsylvania endanger more than
4.4 million people residing in their vulnerability zones, according to
conservative estimates. Refineries using hydrofluoric acid in both
Illinois and New Jersey endanger more than 3.1 million people living
within the vulnerability zones.
• Seven petroleum refineries using hydrofluoric acid reported toxic
release “worst-case” scenarios in which more than one million people
could be affected. Furthermore, 15 refineries could place more than
500,000 people in harm’s way, and 28 refineries could endanger more
than 100,000 people in the event of a worst-case hydrofluoric acid
release.
• The companies operating refineries using hydrofluoric acid with the
most people residing in their vulnerability zones include Sunoco,
Valero Energy Corporation, Marathon Ashland Petroleum, ConocoPhillips,
CITGO, and ExxonMobil, each endangering at least two million people in
total.
• Many companies owning refineries using hydrofluoric acid also operate
refineries without that technology. ConocoPhillips,ExxonMobil, Valero
Energy Corporation, and Marathon Ashland, for example, own refineries
using hydrofluoric acid as well
as refineries that use other technologies.
Fortunately,
hydrofluoric acid is not the only material oil refineries can use in
their refining processes. Many other refineries already use sulfuric
acid, a safer alternative, in the alkylation process. This
cost-effective and widely-used alternative diminishes the appeal of
refineries as a terrorist target and mitigates the public health and
safety consequences of an accident. In addition, a new technology,
solid acid catalysts, will soon be available for widespread commercial
use, offering an even safer option than the use of sulfuric acid.
Petroleum
refineries are but one example of the facilities that pose an immediate
risk to public health in the event of a terrorist attack or chemical
accident. Refineries also are not the only example of facilities that
could make cost-effective changes to manufacturing processes to reduce
or eliminate the use of hazardous chemicals.
Unfortunately,
most industrial facilities have not responded to the increased
awareness of terrorism by switching to inherently safer technologies.
Instead, industry organizations such as the American Chemistry Council,
the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Petrochemical and
Refiners Association have emphasized increasing physical security at
facilities. Hiring more guards, building higher fences, and placing
more lights may all be part of a strong security plan, but this does
not actually reduce the threat to the community. Switching chemicals
and processes to something less volatile not only reduces the chemical
hazard to the community, but also reduces the need for costly add-on
security measures and the attractiveness of the facility as a target
for attack.
|
