So if corporations want to use HF because it's more efficient and therefore raises their profits, then let's require that senior management work and live, along with their families, within a half mile of the refinery. Oh and also have a company school and daycare where their children go that's on site.
Obviously, if the risk is negligent, they would be fine with doing that right?
135
I am more than willing to have higher gas prices if we could eliminate HF from the alkylation processes in use throughout the country.
Even though I have a 5 in 6 chance of survival playing Russian roulette with a six shot revolver, I do not play that game either.
I am far from a technological Luddite but I am unwilling to make unnecessary sacrifices in the name of cost savings for a petroleum industry which needs to follow buggy whip manufacturers into history.
87
This reminds me of Bhopal, India where methylisocyanate killed +/- 3000 people in the middle of the night. In case no one remembers, an explosion occurred at a Carbide Sevin (weed killer) manufacturing plant released a toxic cloud of cyanide into the shanty town that had grown up beside the rail line into the plant. Thousands were killed and autopsies revealed that their organs had petrified instantaneously. I remember it because I lived down riverfrom its sister plant near Charleston, WV. The public service announcements instructed residents to locate every exit road from the valley. It was stressed that we act immediately if the horns blew that indicated a disaster was afoot and to check the direction of the winds so that one wouldn't drive toward the danger. Hence the need to find different egresses from town. My husband, daughter and I lived across the river from the plant and couldn't hear the test alarms during evacuation drills. We left WV shortly thereafter. That is a huge cautionary tale that ought to be taught in our schools. I have no faith that the chemical industry has good will when it comes to making wise and safe choices. I have even less that those who support it or are supported by it give a moment's thought about the population that can be devastated by manmade disasters emanating from such companies. It shouldn't take the loss of life and habitat for these companies to act in good faith and decommission these plants before a disaster happens.
186
@Blueinred
Your concern for caution and even better regulation of industry is well taken. The Bhopal disaster would seem to have resulted from severe incompetence or worse, sabotage.
2
This Chemical Kills. Why Aren’t Regulators Banning It?
Good question, easy answer. The cheapest solution for solving expensive corporate problems is to buy Congress with money from tax payer funded subsidies or tax breaks.
This is not a red or blue problem, it is a political problem.
Over time the people in charge of the three branches of government have created a system of legalized bribery that has helped the US achieve a #1 ranking in several categories. For example, the US has the most people in prison per capita in the world at the highest cost per prisoner. The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. The US, hands down, is #1 in the world in defense spending. The biggest beneficiaries of these rankings are corporations.
Its clear, when it comes to buying politicians to protect profits the US may be #1. Legalize bribery is not hard or complicated and its is highly effective for solving expensive corporate problems cheaply.
That said, until voters put people in the White House and Congress that actually represent the people's interest our system of legalize bribery will grow and our democracy will become the #1 kleptocracy in the world.
I love my country, but the corruption in DC, and most State Houses, has got to be dealt with at the ballot box. Hopefully, corporations have not rigged our voting equipment or the census software and 2020 will mark a turning point in how our government works.
129
@old soldier
Vote ALL of congress out.
Then go after the lobbyists.
All must go because they are all too dependent on corporate financing.
Socialism for polluters, capitalism for labor.
8
The problem, as always, is that money talks.
Um, I mean “money is speech”.
3
Another reason to overturn Citizens United. Corporate greed that puts the entire environment at risk of a horrific disaster, corporate refusal to accept further regulation to mitigate the risk while forcing the taxpayers to foot the bill for whatever damages occur in such a disaster is an astonishing abrogation of the concept of democracy: government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE for the PEOPLE.
7
As a chemist, I wonder why HF is used in any industry. It is a weak acid (does not give up a proton), so it is useless as a reactant in acid/base chemistry. And the author points out clearly at the end of the third paragraph that it has toxic properties. So it is used as a cheap reagent to get a fuel product with a high efficiency rating at the gas pump. Chemists are clever people who can find better reactants than HF. The problem is that the public is not willing to pay for development and use of those reactants by paying higher prices for fuel.
2
"... it is used as a cheap reagent ..."
HF is used as a catalyst, according to the Wikipedia article, "Alkylation unit", and the OpEd.
"... find better reactants than HF."
According to the OpEd, other processes already exist:
"Refineries in Utah and Louisiana are quietly installing alkylation units that use safer catalysts like advanced sulfuric acid and ionic liquids that will never vaporize in an accident to threaten workers and the public."
1
Donald Trump has made "big noise" about reducing regulations on industries, enabling coal, oil, mining and chemical companies to increase profits. He has gutted the EPA and has put industry lobbyists in position of management/authority.
I imagine, looking at who donates to the campaigns of senators and congressional representatives that BIG BUCKS are being poured into those coffers and if you look closely enough, you'll see $$$ going into Trump's pockets as well.
Of course, men/women who claim that the safety of Americans is their prime objective LIE to us behind closed doors and smoky backrooms. I wasn't always this cynical but I've made calls, sent emails and have written letter after letter to Donald Trump and his cabinet members asking for qualified people to be placed instead of his buddies from industries. Dozens of letters/emails have been sent to my senators [Burr and Tillis] but they do not care.
4
I, too, live within miles of the Torrance refinery mentioned in this piece. Chilling to read about the toxic and lethal effects of HF poisoning, and to hear about the casual disregard for the risks to human life from corporate oil and the EPA. I have heard of local efforts to "ban toxic MHF" and will do what I can to support their efforts.
5
Why is the times saying, "Of the nation’s approximately 135 oil refineries, only about 48 use hydrogen fluoride." Only? Not that this is important, and Trump isn't trying to play to the monied interests, but that is spin.
1
did anyone mention that Torrence, CA just had 2 earthquakes? They made the list..
5
To what level the ban? Only specific industries / risk assessments? That's valid, but be sure to be explicit, as HF is used to etch Si wafers and, hence, for the very technology by which we are all typing on to read the article and respond to it.
1
Hydrogen fluoride is used to etch glass. It is even more corrosive than hydrochloric acid. I am sure it is useful if tightly controlled and if workers and people in the surrounding area ir properly protected. It seems they are not. Banning it sounds inappropriate, since it is a simple compound consisting of hydrogen and the most active of the halogens, not a complex chemical structure used on crops or in households, for example. But its use and storage must be tightly regulated.
2
Q: "Why Aren’t Regulators Banning It?"
A: Roberts' Court's sanctioned "political free $peech."
5
It is interesting to me that the NY/NJ metro. area is "full" of refineries in the "bay" area near/around Elizabeth/Linden/Rahway NJ/Staten Island NY, yet according to the article and graph, the "bay area" six miles from my house shows no HF. So, either, HF is not required for all refining, or the NJ/NY area refineries don't do that kind of refining, or NJ/NY already banned this. Anybody know?
2
"Anybody know?"
Yes. The bar chart labeled "Toxic Tonnage" lists the Paulsboro Refinery in Paulsboro, N.J.
According to the chart description, the Paulsboro Refinery is bundled on the map as one of "Three Philadelphia-area refineries, listed in boldface, ..."
@WGR That's South Jersey; quite far away from Manhattan, and suburban North Jersey. I saw that. Bayway's pretty big ; we can smell it 6+ miles away up here when the winds are blowing the "right" direction. What I'm wondering is whether the NY/NJ authorities banned HF at Bayway or just that the companies don't need it for what they do up here...
2
Kevin: "That's South Jersey; ..."
OK, but people LIVE there.
If you look in the Google maps satellite view, you will see a residential area adjacent to a chemical plant labeled as the "PBF Energy Paulsboro Refinery".
Note, in particular, the Paulsboro High School and the Billingsport Elementary School.
Here is a link:
https://goo.gl/maps/53Ynk9ycMdu7rDpM6
Looks like the majority of hydrogen fluoride using oil refineries are in Red States. Darwinian karma at work again....
1
I live close to the Torrance refinery mentioned in this column. It's worth mentioning that when the explosion happened, Exxon Mobil managers and the local fire department made a conscious decision not to sound the alarms to alert the public, even before government crews had arrived to survey the damage (they did not actually arrive until over three hours later). Schools downwind of the refinery were told to shelter in place, but no such instructions were issued to the broader community. Exxon Mobil showed a total lack of regard for the safety of the community and continues to do so. It is infuriating.
11
Those of us in Los Angeles, California have been fighting to get HF out of our community for decades. Thank you @NYTimes for publishing this piece, but there is so much more.
The Oil industry gutted the AQMD refinery committee because they were leaning towards phasing out HF earlier this year after doing 3+ years of research. AQMD refinery committee members McCallon, Benoit and Bartlett went against their own staff's recommendations to phase-out HF if a performance standard could not be met. Those three members represent districts 40-80 miles from the HF Refineries in Los Angeles. They went against the request of the LA County Supervisors, LA County Health Department, Countless city councils and members of congress.
During the AQMD Staff research they also found that the modifier which Exxon-Mobile told the community would keep them safe, was a fabrication and does next to nothing to keep the community safe. The City of Torrance sued the refinery in the late 80's with the intent to force them to remove HF, but the whole community was hoodwinked. The 2015 'near-miss' was a wake up call.
In 2013 even the worker's union (USW) warned that HF was a risk too great in the refining industry. http://assets.usw.org/resources/hse/pdf/A-Risk-Too-Great.pdf
Thanks to Dr. Horowitz for shining a light on this blatant disregard for Public Health.
https://youtu.be/P7Zmf7-1ew4
11
Will Amuricans switch to electric cars soon?
EPA stuff has now been going o since the 1970s-'80s? so much as everyone loves to blame Trump obviously, this one precedes his regime!
Public transportation and electric cars -- uber everywhere...
Everyone in Philly buys locally- made goods and food delivered fresh daily by Amish farmers driving a horse buggy from Lancaster. We don't get it shipped from Mexico, Chile, California. We don't mind not having avocado toast and Starbucks, and strawberries in February. We heat our apartments with cheese steaks.
Our container ships have sails, made from hemp, which is a waste material from our pharmaceutical industry, which can't source the petroleum derivatives needed to synthesize "real" drugs but that's ok because all we make is placebo -- .
In Philly everyone has a string bag (hemp- you can grow hemp anywhere).
In Philly we grow our clothing (hemp again) in vacant lots, using good intention to fertilize.
Our newspaper, the Inky, is down to 3 pages (printed on hemp paper). It turns out that the fewer reporters you have the less news there is. By firing all the reporters we are saving the planet, and we worry less about Mitch McConnell.
I"m looking to move back to center city, but who will buy my McMansion ? = all the boomers are selling now. Will we be able to sell our tract houses to the Central Americans who mow our lawns?
none of our kids want this Amerikan Dream.
The Amish have known this for a long long time.
What were we thinking ?
3
Why do these polluters always yap about the jobs that their workers have....when it is these workers who stand to be poisoned by the polluters' bad practices? Furthermore, these industrialists have no qualms about moving jobs overseas without any consideration for American livelhoods.
And we do not believe stopping pollution should scare everyone about paying a reasonable price for products. Gasoline companies are notorious for raising prices when people want to drive for their summer vacations. Their pricing rationale is simply to take in as much money as possible.
And we wonder how Dumpf got elected. It was with the aid of these polluters.
4
Hard to take seriously an article whose title is basically a non sequitur.
Compound X can be deadly; ergo, X should be banned. Really?
Almost every chemical product, from household cleaners and anti-freeze to chlorine and jet fuel, can be deadly. Should they therefore be banned? What's wrong with simply striving for safe and effective oversight and regulation instead of an outright ban?
3
@DLS There are variations and differences between chemicals and compounds. Some are worse than others. To simply bundle everything into one box lacks careful thought and understanding of...well anything. Some compounds simply need protective opening systems, other require large yellow signs and special containers. In the end, a discerning mind would look to see if a product is worth using to achieve a goal. This is how we move forward.
2
Thank you, Professor Horowitz, for informing the public of this pernicious toxin used to extend hydrocarbon chains. How many other similarly dangerous compounds do we have stockpiled close enough to devastate major populations centers, while TSA Agents security worry about what might be in our shoes?
BTW, the best explanation of risk analysis I've ever seen was Richard Feynman's non-concurring opinion to the Roger's Commission report on the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster. When you have time, please have a peak, sir.
https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt
4
The companies should carry enough insurance to pay the full cost of any accident; paying for this insurance would give them a financial incentive to rework their operations. They and their insurance companies probably are counting on governments or the sufferers of the loss to bear much of the cost.
If the companies are inadequately insured, the cost of the accident should be borne by their shareholders, even to the point where the shares become worthless. The shareholders, of course, have no workable way to rearrange their portfolios to avoid such risk, and, knowing this, they should accept this risk, not invest in stocks, or develop a way for them or their brokers (or a government agency) to scrutinize companies. But in actuality they have taken a fourth course, relying on government to socialize their risk while pretending that something else is going on.
Everybody involved in this charade pretends to believe in free enterprise, and many actually do. But at the same time they rely on their power to force government (the problem) to rescue them from the results of the system they believe in. So government rescues free enterprise from itself and is condemned for big spending and the waste of the rescue's cost.
Nice!
2
HF is so volatile simply because it has a very high electronegativity, or attraction for electrons. With seven electrons in its outer shell, it needs to attract one additional electron to complete its octet, per the octet rule. With an electronegativity of 3.98, flourine is the most electronegative element.
In contrast: lithium is another element frequently making the news via its combustibility and ubiquity arising from its use in making batteries. Since lithium has only one electron in its outer shell, it often loses this electron in many chemical reactions with volatile results. The electronegativity of lithium is less than 1.0.
A Lewis acid is defined as an electron accepting element or compound; such as flourine. Whereas a Lewis base (or alkali) is defined as an electron donating element or compound, like lithium.
Also, benzene, a very toxic organic compound is a frequent unusable byproduct of refineries. It is a six carbon cyclic compound with alternating double bonds that make it a very stable compound. It is so stable that the human liver often accumulates deposits of benzene because it is difficult for the body to metabolize.
[07/08/2019 M 4:44p Greenville NC]
2
"HF is so volatile simply because it has a very high electronegativity, or attraction for electrons."
I commend you for reciting your knowledge of chemistry, but electronegativity is a property of *elements*, not compounds.
"With an electronegativity of 3.98, flourine is the most electronegative element."
Right. Further, HF is ionically bonded, so HF is water soluble. That's why water can be used to control an HF spill, although the solution is still highly acidic, if it is not sufficiently dilute.
2
@John Joseph Laffiteau MS in Econ Benzene is in *no way* the same league as HF: I can pour a cup of benzene onto my palm and suffer no ill effects ; if I do that every day for a couple of years, I'll probably up my chances of liver cancer a few percent. (I've used xylene, a close, toxic relative of benzene, to clean car parts.) On the other hand (no pun intended), if I try that with liquid HF, I'd likely damage my hand beyond surgical repair in a few minutes. But, I'd probably be dead or blind from the fumes anyway.
2
Remember that explosion at the solar power plant? Oh yeah, that didn't happen. Ever.
5
@Michael F have you looked up solar panel waste? Solar panels contain heavy metals which are toxic. There are no perfect solutions only trade offs, it gets silly when tools are treated as perfect or evil.
1
Almost any chemical, under the wrong circumstances, can kill, including the gasoline in your car. But conversely, with the proper precautions the vast majority of industrial chemicals can be used safely. In the case of hydrogen fluoride, this generally means modern and reliable handling equipment and mitigation procedures for any significant release, i.e. water spray which rapidly entrains HF gas. I have treated patients for HF exposure. It's highly corrosive and can cause painful burns, but conversely it rapidly degrades in the environment and unlike many hydrocarbons it is not a persistent pollutant or carcinogen.
2
Where lies Trump truth, toxic waste doesn't matter.
Sadly, we don't care about poisoning the future as long as the minority can stay in power and distribute wealth to their donors.
4
That is the curious thing about the Republicans. They never find the chemical weapons in the countries where they are looking for them. (But they spent $3 trillion last time trying).
6
I'm all for progress and new technologies, but why hasn't anyone in the refining industry thought about the most obvious (and cheapest) one? Simply place the hydrogen fluoride tanks underground, in a place where they will be protected from any explosion at the plant. Also fit them with a system of valves and safety expansion tanks where the gas could be released and contained in case of an accident.
Keeping such dangerous chemical compounds in storage tanks above ground, completely exposed to accidents, explosions, earthquakes, fires or terrorist attacks, seems to be incredibly stupid (and should be illegal). Where are the common sense solutions?
3
"Simply place the hydrogen fluoride tanks underground ..."
Underground tanks are notorious for leaking, and such leaks are difficult to detect.
The Hanford Nuclear Reservation provides a prime example of why underground storage is a bad idea:
Underground Nuclear Tanks Leaking in Washington State
by Kirk Johnson
Feb. 22, 2013
New York Times
3
Has everyone forgotten. Trump is ecstatic with his rolling back of all environmental regulations. He could not be prouder. Those regulations are what gave us a lead in environmental protection, but Trump and his minions don't care. So if you are looking for new protection regulations don't waste your time. Put all your effort into 2020 elections. Then maybe we will get our regulations back.
2
So many businesses would not be profitable if they had to be responsible for the damage that they do.
Greed is at the root and our government is complicit.
5
There are any number of equally dangerous chemicals in use throughout the world. Many industrial processes depend upon them. Are you proposing we ban them all? Good luck with that.
1
@Thomas Smith
Massive amounts of extremely dangerous chemicals in urban areas are a bad idea. Refineries also have large amounts of flammable and explosive petroleum compounds. Combine them with a toxic volatile chemical like this, and you have much more of a chance of a catastrophe. The 2015 explosion at the Torrance refinery was equivalent to a 3.1 earthquake.
5
If I remember correctly, a former colleague who'd previously worked servicing chip-making equipment once told me that it was used in some of the machines that he serviced and that it would condense on the inner surfaces of the enclosures.
When the 2015 explosion at the Torrance refinery hurled a 40-ton piece of debris to within 5 feet of a tank containing tons of HF, there was no time for any control measures at the refinery to take effect to stop large amounts of HF from escaping. A deadly plume ground-hugging would have drifted with the wind through nearby communities. Nearby homes and schools would have had very few minutes warning, if a warning went out instantly. “Shelter in place?” It would take many minutes to close all windows and turn off ventilation systems for schools, homes, stores, and hospitals. In a densely-populated area like Los Angeles, there is no way that people could evacuate. The prevailing wind blows toward a number of lower-income communities that are already impacted by numerous industrial facilities, a classical example of environmental (in)justice.
When refineries use HF in a densely populated urban area, they are risking the lives of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people. The only way for the community to be safe from HF is to have no HF.
The AQMD has been investigating this for about 3 years, with numerous hearings. For much more information, see http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/rules/scaqmd-rule-book/proposed-rules/proposed-rule-1410 . The AQMD staff presentation is a good summary: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2019/2019-feb1-025.pdf?sfvrsn=6
7
When one of these refineries almost inevitably causes such a disaster and thousands are killed, how quickly will they declare bankruptcy?
Where is hydrogen flouride manufactured?
How is it transported?
What happens to stocks of the chemical when a refinery or other plant stops using it?
4
Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" was published in 1962, and included numerous examples of how dangerous chemicals were polluting the earth, how companies lied to the public about how safe those chemicals were, and how they were always improving conditions of their use. She was roundly accused of being unscientific, biased, and, as a woman, out of her depth.
Here we are today -- with bigger accidents, bigger lies, bigger profits, and bigger risks to people and the environment. The silent spring is likely to become one really long, dark, silent summer.
5
'Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" was published in 1962, and included numerous examples of how dangerous chemicals were polluting the earth ...'
Not exactly. Carson was criticizing the widespread use of pesticides.
That is a bad analogy with the use of hydrogen fluoride (HF) in industrial processes. Under normal circumstances, HF is not a pollutant, because it is not released into the environment.
2
@WGR
Pesticides are chemicals and Carson bravely stood up to the chemical companies and lobbyists who tried to minimize her potent call to action. She is an American hero and many of the chemical companies, then and now, and the greedy fools like trump, are downright evil.
3
Micvh McConnell will never let anything like this ban get close to a vote, assuming that the petroleum industry's lobbyists don't succeed in buying a majority against it. The GOP will protect us from higher gasoline prices.
The USA has the best government industry can buy. So Congress will wait until there is a Bhopal in a major city. When that happens, I wouldn't give a plug nickel for the lives of the local congressmen or corporate executives involved, especially if it's in Texas or Utah.
Not doing the right thing ultimately results in violence. Given the number of guns on the loose in the USA, and the number of people whose loved ones will die horribly in a completely preventable disaster, Congress and petroleum industry corporate boards should be very afraid.
2
The insatiable greed of the American petrochemical industry carrys on apace and, as usual, wins the day with recipients of its fetid largesse.
1
"The insatiable greed of the American petrochemical industry ..."
1. You benefit from the "petrochemical industry" every time you use your computer, because computers, peripherals, and networking hardware contain plastics.
2. Although you wouldn't know it from this biased OpEd, but the "petrochemical industry" sponsored tests of safety systems for use in case of a hydrogen fluoride spill. See:
Safeguards for Hydrofluoric Acid Tested
by GEORGE STEIN
Sept. 22, 1988
Los Angeles Times
1
@WGR
The HF refineries in California developed a “new and improved” form of hydrogen fluoride, with an additive, called “Modified Hydrogen fluoride” MHF. However, it turned out that the concentration of the modifier that made HF safer made the refinery process run badly. The refineries, without notice to the public, decreased the concentration of the modifier to the point that it did not significantly improve safety, but allowed the refining process to work. Decades later, the public became aware of this oil company deception.
4
Why is there any doubt about closing all of the other plants using hydrogen flouride until a new structure and process is devised?
Why? Because, again, and again, and again, our people and our planet are only incidentals to what is most important:
profit, the growth of corporations, and the perpetuation of a culture that worships the automobile as a minor deity, maintaining a protective shield against the potential connection with other people (mass transit--and safer and more humane transit systems are critical to our future).
Oh, what a brave new world: with a car, a cellphone, and a neighborhood of robots we won't need anyone else (oh...where do we fit in with those robots...?)
We need front page discussions about whether or not we are willing to value humans and our planet above all.
If people don't agree, then we need to know who they are and make sure they are not hired to represent us or teach our children.
3
"... until a new structure and process is devised?"
Those already exist, according to the author:
"Refineries in Utah and Louisiana are quietly installing alkylation units that use safer catalysts like advanced sulfuric acid and ionic liquids that will never vaporize in an accident to threaten workers and the public."
The problem is that the author doesn't acknowledge that there are other hazards than "vaporization". For example, if the sulfuric acid process is less efficient, more of it may be required. Nor does he explain where the sulfuric acid would be manufactured and stored.
1
@WGR
Thanks for that clarification.
Let me edit and expand on my intentions:
Any "new structures and processes" must be designed with robust and redundant safety systems to assure that our people, our communities, and our earth are not endangered.
@WGR @Barry: Acidic fluorides such as HF and its product upon contacting water, hydrofluoric acid, just creep me out. They're nasty: per Wikipedia et. al., cause nerve damage and apparently delayed healing. HF boils at 67F, so on a cold day, it'll sit in a puddle, but on a warm day, it'll fume into a toxic, corrosive cloud. Sulfuric acid, on the other hand, boils/fumes above 500F, so it won't immediately go anywhere in a spill. And sulfuric acid is physically as corrosive (or moreso) than HF, but not really "toxic" like HF. In high-school chemistry class, a fellow student spilled 6 molar (moderately weak) sulfuric acid on my jeans; I dried my pants with a paper towel best I could (they were still a bit damp) and more or less forgot about it. 4 hours later, the fabric that was formerly wet suddenly shredded (as cotton does when exposed to a strong acid). If that was hydrofluoric acid at 6M, I'd probably have need skin grafts.
2
I noted that Paulsboro NJ refinery has 125 tons of this deadly chemical.
Pauslboro is ground zero for chemical accidents and the refinery there has a long record of accidental "burps" and upsets that release bursts of hazardous air pollutants.
Paulsboro is in the district of Senate President Sweeney - who is in the pocket of the oil, gas and chemical industries and unions. That explains the state NJ DEP hand off approach there.
1
Why aren't regulators doing a lot of things? Could it be because we are witnessing a thoroughly bought and paid for republican administration?
1
I'd like an investigation on how many accidents there have been under Trump and if they correspond with all the regulations he's been tearing up.
Can we do that before the idiot decides to start a nuclear war?
I get that McConnell is going to sabotage every effort we make to at least remain a democracy, but I honestly see no reason to delay impeachment proceedings at this point, especially since he can be called in for questioning under oath if impeachment proceedings begin.
I get it - he doesn't even have respect for Supreme Court decisions, he's made his contempt for the Rule of Law THAT obvious.
But that is a contempt of us and of this country, and if McConnell wants to express the same contempt, let's have at it and expose them both.
IMPEACH.
NOW.
2
@ando arike
***for corporate America, profit always takes precedence over our health and environment***
For corporate America (and corporate world) profit always takes precedence over life itself. No amount of life taken from "disposable" people and "disposable" species is to be considered a call to arms for life affirming and just decision-making. Profit is king. There is no second value.
2
The use of HF is profitable: banning it is un-American.
1
The body of America is blistered with poisons.
Rachel Carson said chemicals will kill and maim nature. She said the springs will become silent as the die-offs progressed.
America is dotted with millions of “silent springs.”
Honey bees no longer hum over a flower’s blossoms. The neonicotinoid pesticides used to raise cows and pigs have killed them off.
The lake’s water is not safe to swim in. Nitrogen and phosphates from farms and animal feedlots pollute it. The lake turns green with oozy scum in the summer’s heat.
The city’s air, the color of white chalk dust, chokes us.
We claim to care for the earth, to love it, but we do not care for the earth as lovers care for each other. We are greedy. We want what makes us happy.
Meat production is the main causes for a spring to become silent. (2006 UN report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow.” http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e.pdf)
We will not stop eating animal flesh. A silent spring is a small price to pay for a T-bone steak.
I despair. Is there a cure for our gluttony?
We are animals. We eat meat. We hide our instinctual savagery behind facades of goodness. We're civilized. We claim to care for the earth; we want the birds at the springs to sing.
In “Democracy in America,” Tocqueville said our unquenchable need for happiness could be satisfied by resisting “a thousand petty selfish passions of the hour.”
Will our “petty selfish passions” devour the earth? The earth doesn’t speak. She, for the moment, is silent.
3
Let those that support the bill to maintain these plants be FORCED to move next door with their entire extended families.
Stupid (X) stupid = stupid to the 10th power
2
Be sure of this: The EPA of the current regime will enable the use of HF and other similarly dangerous chemicals to empower gasoline process production. It's all about profit. N.B.: The communities where many of these refineries operate host PoC, and are the least likely to have the material resources to fight back against the petroleum industry or the EPA.
All of this in less than 4 years...
1
Same old, same old. Show me the $$$! The art of corruption! So much for draining the swamp.
1
Why don't regulators banish poisons? there is only one reason that can be expressed by a simple symbol: $$$$$$$$$$ !!!!
1
The NYT should publish the rest of the list.
2
Oh, just one more reason to phase out the outdated combustion engine and all the nasty chemicals and fossil fuels needed to make them work.
An added element to this situation is that this facility is located in a predominantly non-White and poor neighborhood where residents have been suffering from the impacts of pollution for generations. Philly Thrive, a local citizens group, was already working on shutting down this facility when this explosion occurred, because they knew how dangerous it was not just if a catastrophe happened, but on an everyday basis. While the facility closing will be a win for them, the City Council has already approved putting another dangerous liquid natural gas facility in the same area of the city, so the environmental injustice continues to be heaped on this neighborhood.
201
@Lindsey
You don't actually expect companies to build grotesque and dangerous chemical plants in expensive, tony neighborhoods, do you? It just wouldn't be fitting to put a refinery in Bel Air, CA or Georgetown, MD, now would it?
4
@Lindsey
Every one of those residents, just like everyone else in America, is clearly at much greater personal risk from the use of the product of the process, to travel in a personal automobile on America’s roads, than from from living near the refinery. This is absurd.
4
Banning the chemical is a bit extreme but tighter regulation for it's proper use is a must. As a chemist, HF is dangerous in the wrong hands but very useful when used properly. Even though it dissolves glass over a period of time, it does a good job removing residue metals from glass with used right. The most reactive chemicals tend to me the most useful. The activiation barrier to get less reactive compound to produce new compounds would results an increase in costs for many products. Plus banning this chemical would have impact on other industries such chip manufactures, where they use this acid in combination with others for etching the silicon waffers.
34
@Jarred: Remember The ammonium nitrate explosion in Texas, where a warehouse storing large quantities of this compound was located near s school? People wondered why large quantities of hazardous materials were stored in a residential area.
Just as storing oxidizing agents next to reducing agents is an avoidable safety risk, perhaps we should not have large numbers of people near refineries or chemical processing plants. Otherwise, we risk another disaster like the deaths from that isocyanate spill in Bhopal, India.
50
Reading this article I immediately thought of the chemical disaster that was Bhopal. This seems to be where we are headed. Instead of continuing to lead the so-called Free World in technology and environmental advancements we are currently racing to emulate chaotic and caste-driven third world countries such as India and the miserable fiefdoms of warlord Africa. And for the same reason.
28
@John M
Ammonium nitrate is both an oxidizing and a reducing agent in the same chemical compound.
Storing it has a built-in an unavoidable safety risk.
14
What strikes me as significant ,as reported, is that congress restricted availability of this threatening information to the public. A clear indication that the government cares very little about informing the nation about real threats to the populace and permitting vital information on health and safety to be influential in making decisions.
336
@Jan Sand
Those reports to the EPA are potentially financially damaging disclosures. Their purpose is to allow accurate disaster planning and emergency response. They need to be accurate.
If they could be made public, there would be intense pressure inside the company to disclose as little as possible, or even to doctor results. Those reports were made confidential in the interest of accurate reporting enabling good policy.
12
@Jan Sand I'd assumed this was purely the result of industry obstinance and greed, but it turns out to have a slightly more complicated history. The mandate was first established in 1990 through amendments to the Clean Air Act. During the 1990s, there was already concern about international terrorists' use of this information if it were made available across the public Internet, where it could be searched anonymously. The EPA under Clinton commissioned a fairly detailed research project that attempted to quantify that risk, and found that while it was still low, it did exist. They set up the Reading Room concept, but Bush rescinded that plan; then after 9/11 the chemical industry convinced Bush to tighten access to this information further. https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=467057
Unsurprisingly, Trump is rescinding additional Obama-era rules related to information availability, safer technology and alternatives analyses, third-party audits, incident investigations, etc. https://www.epa.gov/rmp/proposed-risk-management-program-rmp-reconsideration-rule
20
@Zachariah
However, the desired outcome of "...accurate reporting enabling good policy." has not occured.
9
So are you advocating the ban only be placed on petroleum refineries because many industrial processes use hydrogen fluoride/hydrofluoric acid?
The author should have made the distinction on the state of the compound. Hydrogen fluoride is a gas and very dangerous, hydrofluoric acid is a liquid and less dangerous. I have worked with both in lab and industrial settings. I was also a HAZMAT 1st responder for 25 years and a chemist.
The better solution is to have more frequent OSHA/EPA inspections that are unannounced conducted by highly trained HAZMAT specialists. Settings where deadly materials such as HF and cyanide gas are used need to carry severe penalties for violations that include significant prison time for facility management and owners.
238
@skramsv The difference between the two states is heat. Heat which is available in the case of an explosion. If there’s an explosion in the process unit, which compromises the HF in the unit, that could all evaporate eliminating the difference you’re trying to suggest. Though if it’s stored in a tank away from operating units, that can help to mitigate the risk substantially.
36
@skramsv
I agree with your solutions. However, I question your description of relative safety between the liquid and gaseous phases, i.e. hydrogen flouride vs. hydroflouric acid. The liquid may be less dangerous, but exposure to the liquid can still result in catastrophe. Some years ago, at the university I attended as an undergrad, two chemistry grad students died and several others suffered crippling injuries from an accident while working with hydroflouric acid. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my admittedly limited knowledge, the liquid volatilizes to gas very quickly. My recollection from the contemporary description was that the deaths and injuries were due to severe lung damage from inhalation of the gas. In line with your recommended solutions, I should note that investigation of the accident revealed multiple gross violations of common-sense safety precautions.
22
@treefrog
And there were several exposures of NYC sanitation workers to HFl liquid, resulting in a death.
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/17/nyregion/a-death-reminds-sanitation-force-of-its-unseen-hazards.html
12
Money over lives. Same story over and over again. We read this and foolishly still vote for the polluter in chief. And Gov. Inslee, you should be ashamed that one of these facilities is in your state. I know you are serious about pollution and climate change. Please show your grit by shutting down this facility and protect the lives of those that live nearby.
1
Yay! Nasty and dirty pollution. Let's open more coal mines and keep pushing for burning fossils like your Dear Leader and every Republican wants. EVERY nasty factory needs to scrutinized...in a fair world. But ain't gonna happen because - JOBS!
I lived across the street from the chevron refinery in richmond california for 30 years. when i first got there the refinery had a series of explosion and fires every 18 months. a large incident involving the catalytic cracker dumped forty tons of zeolitic aluminosilicate catayst on our town and myself personally.
cracking splits long chain tars into gasoline. these split chains require added hydrogen to close the revealed carbon chain ends. this is done with sulfuric acid. the sulfuric acid plant separate from chevron ,but nearby ,also exploded one year sending thousands to emergency rooms.
apart from these large events there is the daily production of 600 tons of hydrogen by steam methane reforming producing 6000 tons of co2 perday. at the least we should require solar electrolysis to make refinery hydrogen.
aspirationally we should use solar hydrogen (bound in ammonia or diesel or h2) as our liquid fuel.
apart from the local risk of refining avoided there are the trillions of dollars that could be saved not waging the perpetual oil security/oil grab wars in the mideast.
5
How come the Democratic mayor of Philadelphia and the Democratic Party in Philadelphia aren’t protecting it citizens? Are they being paid off as well? All for 1,000 jobs with significant health risks.
1
Great wake-up article for the legislators! JK- I’m sure they’ll ignore it. When I was an undergraduate chemistry student I was amazed at how destructive HF was—it dissolves glass and is actually used to etch it. And let’s remember the the death of Michael Hanly, the sanitation worker in NY who was killed in 1996 by its toxic fumes
(https://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/17/nyregion/a-death-reminds-sanitation-force-of-its-unseen-hazards.html).
No finger pointing needed because that never works; we need term limits for politicians at all levels of government to get the right things done.
1
"... the sanitation worker in NY who was killed in 1996 by [hydrofluoric acid] fumes ..."
According to the linked Times article:
"[The] acid [was] from a discarded container that burst under the compacting blades of his sanitation truck."
"... we need term limits for politicians ..."
How will that stop people from throwing hazardous waste into the trash?
In fact, doing that is a crime, as the article suggests:
"In Brooklyn, detectives were still trying to determine who discarded the acid ..."
1
We spend hundreds of millions on military operations in Syria ostensibly because Assad gasses his own people. When we gas and poison our people it because of our devotion to profit.
2
We seem to have dozens of potential Bhopals in America now.
But just TRY to get treated for pain here!
Oil companies are passing along large accident-related costs to consumers while pleading poverty when asked to replace hydrogen fluoride with processes that use safer chemicals.
********
Mr. Horowitz left out the $8 billion a year in subsidies that are aiding the profits of the oil companies. Those who are making the profits aren't endangered by any of it. Unless decreased profits are considered harmful. Profits over safety.
It's time to stop subsidizing fossil fuel production.
Since this is a severe danger to public health, I'm sure the Trump administration is busy taking care of this. They probably started soliciting bribes to reduce safety standards years ago.
2
Remarkably unsophisticated article by someone experienced enough to understand why hydrogen fluoride (hydrofluoric acid; HF) is sometimes used in preference to sulfuric acid (H2SO4) in refinery applications, depending on many issues, but primarily the composition of the input feedstock crude oil, the fact that HF produces a higher octane product, and yes, cost.
Horowitz did not explain that HF alkylation units consume little net acid; little of that fluoride ends up in the refined product.
By contrast, H2SO4 alkylation units consume much more net acid. That consumed acid goes into the refined product. The incorporated sulfur must be removed (by hydrodesulfurization), because sulfur in gasoline poisons the (very expensive) catalytic converters present in every automobile.
Moreover, Horowitz missed an opportunity to discuss the very real safety issues around rail transportation of both HF and H2SO4. H2SO4 transportation accidents occur frequently (see: http://www.sulphuric-acid.com/techmanual/Plant_Safety/safety_accidents.htm), in part simply because it is produced and used worldwide at volumes that dwarf (>100x) those of HF.
2
As long as the millionaire/billionaire owners of the plant live way out of harm's way, the free market is working as intended. Right? Isn't that the American way? Sure, the invisible hand of the free market will be scarred by the next toxic airborne event and crush those living near it, but they're probably the poors anyway. The air is still good in the Hamptons or Aspen or wherever.
Oh the compromises we must endure because of our insistence and dependence on having personal transportation and the means of achieving it: internal combustion engine. No doubt electric vehicles will be worse. At least we've been spared having to figure out what to do with all that manure had we decided to retain for personal transportation those beasts what are as Ian Flemming quipped "dangerous at both ends and uncomfortable in the middle".
The beat goes on. How long before the public decides that these people (hydrocarbonists) deserve jail time for their continued use of dangerous chemicals.
@Bronx Lou
How long? How do I type the symbol for infinity?
If one wants to see the CSB's analysis of BP's incompetence and disregard of the public, go to the csb.gov site and look at the video titled "Anatomy of a Disaster". It is a long video but it cuts to the source of the problems is $$$. It was a horrible accident that cost 14 lives.
It's about time gas prices went up--we, Americans, have been spoiled by the expectation of cheap gasoline. Risking public health and safety to keep gas prices low is beyond irresponsible. This is a limited resource; we can't expect things to continue unchanged forever!
4
I smell Bhopal. Anybody remember that? If you want to use incredibly toxic chemicals fine - move to Nevada - to the remotest site possible.
1
Many years ago, I worked as a critical care RN in a hospital in Louisiana that is located relatively close to one of the petrochemical plants. A plant worker was admitted with an extensive hydrogen fluoride burn on a Sunday afternoon after a delay in getting him to the hospital. Upon admission to the hospital, he began receiving calcium gluconate injections (the fluoride binds calcium, an essential cation for cellular activity) and intensive respiratory and cardiovascular support. Despite our efforts, he died within 1 hour of admission. That has stuck with me for a long time.
7
During the 90's, Amoco Oil performed large-scale experiments in Oklahoma with a chemical that simulated HF insofar as its molecular weight and other fluid properties. These were probably a followup to the Nevada work mentioned in the article. The purpose was to generate artificial releases to study the formation of aerosols and their atmospheric trajectory.
Their Texas City refinery, currently owned and operated by Marathon (as listed in the article) and the sister Texas City plant have the combined HF capacity to be at Number 3 on the list. These facilities are very close to large residential populations - where many of the plant workers live. They were built before demonstrated alternatives to HF technology were available. At that time, the population of Galveston County was much lower than it is now. The fact that these plants are still using HF means to me that the original process is grandfathered at older plants such as the Philadelphia refinery. Over the years, such plants add more and more capacity - becoming a large player in the gasoline market such that they are "too big to shut down". So, there has been a regulatory precedent set that needs to be revisited by both the Texas Department of Environmental Quality, the Galveston County Commissioners, the refinery operators, the workers, and their families. I don't expect Congress or anyone at the Federal Level to champion this issue given the voting record of my Representative and two Senators.
4
HF is used in propane alkylation not butane alkylation. Butane alkylation uses much safer 99% sulfuric acid (H2SO4). As I understand it, as someone who did process engineering at several refineries, new catalysts are in use to replace HF and substitute safer H2SO4. HF was preferred for many years because butane is more valuable than propane. In refining, methane (C1) is largely consumed in furnaces, and converted to hydrogen, which eliminates H2O (oxygen), NH3 (Nitrogen), and H2S (sulfur). About 82+% of crude oil is converted to gasoline by distillation, cracking (breaking carbon chains), and sewing them together by alkylation.
It is a dangerous, meticulous process. Under scrutiny, most of the chemical processes that produce the materials modern society depends on would be deemed too safe to operate. That is why there are chemist and engineers: to keep the pot on the kettle.
Society can help by imposing practical safety limits but also by understanding that money runs the business and margins are always tight.
@Rocketscientist
The pot and the kettle. What a quaint analogy. Here's another: Bhopal.
@Three Bars,
The difference between Bhopal and here, in the US, and especially between Bhopal and Europe is who got the money from the accident. The poor people who were forced to live (low cost) within the hazardous zone around the plant never got a dime for their suffering. It went to the upper castes in the Indian society. The same would be true for most of the third world, and other places --- China comes to mind.
The Indian government refused Union Carbide's safety recommendations for cost. Then, they stuck UC with the blame for the accident. Then, they sued and pocketed the money --- they and the rich in the country.
Hopefully, America doesn't become like India. If it did, there will be two forms of law: those for the rich and those for the poor (by tribal elder). The later is not a bad system because failure to meet it's generally fast decisions is a death sentence for the offender --- a lawyer won't delay the decision indefinitely.
1
"HF is used in propane alkylation not butane alkylation."
You must be referring to the sentence that says, in part: "... hydrogen fluoride is used to convert butane and other chemicals into heavier hydrocarbons ..."
The problem is the author's loose chemical terminology. "Butane" should be "isobutane". The two are isomers.
See the Wikipedia article, "Isobutane":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isobutane
Many chemicals, even the basic ones like hydrogen fluoride or cyanide, can be deadly. And it is sometimes difficult to find economical alternatives for these products.
But even when it is not possible to avoid these dangerous chemicals, there are other measures available to either reduce the likeliness of an accident, or to reduce the consequences of a mishap.
The most important for this to work, is to have regulatory independence, not revolving doors, lobbying and inadequate funding of the regulatory body.
5
I'm an engineer in a related industry. Enough to know the dirty laundry, not close enough to do anything about it.
Another dirty secret of this industry is that freeways are not included in their calculations for safety. Not code required, so even if that 8 lanes of freeway is backed up every day during commute hours, none of those potential victims are included in the impact calculations like they would if they were homes or a shopping center.
Every time I drive past those Bay Area refineries, stuck in traffic, with the tanks of LNG and other high explosive, toxic materials, I think of my vulnerability and that I can't do a thing about it.
10
When 45 said he would get rid of unnecessary Regs. I assumed regs would be looked at one by one and assessed by need and safety but no. 45 just signs a paper and they are gone. Not a good way to run an industry/country.
@DC Everybody hates regulations "in general" and "in principle," but the devil's in the details. I wonder how many Americans really wanted Trump to:
* Roll back consumer protections against abusive payday loans?
* Allow coal plants to pollute more, and pour more mercury and arsenic into the air, even if this killed 1,400 people a year by the Trump EPA's own estimates?
* Repeal rules that would have required retirement financial advisors associated with investment firms to act in their clients' best interests?
* Recalculate pollution-related deaths so some of them don't count even if they clearly exist?
* Reverse the ban on the brain-damaging pesticide chlorpyrifos?
* Repeal healthcare non-discrimination rules related to pregnancy and gender identity?
* Weaken light bulb and automobile energy efficiency standards?
* Allow oil and gas companies to get away with larger methane emissions that worsen climate change?
* Allow farmers to sell poultry as organic even if raised in factory farms with no concern for animal welfare?
But he's done, or tried to do, all of that.
1
Our government’s first priority is to protect those who line the pockets of politicians. (Citizen’s United makes it worse.) If you think otherwise, you haven’t been paying attention. Milton Friedman’s rule prevails - if it makes money, and protecting life or health threatens to hamper that, figure out the cost difference between paying off the injured and the estates of dead people versus making changes to protect life and health - the answer is whichever makes more money for the business posing the question. It goes back decades. The Ford Pinto was a good case study in how our system works.
2
Amazing and terrifying. Following exposure to even small amounts of hydrogen fluoride, fluoride ions from this acid will bind calcium and magnesium to shut down basic cellular processes. Please start saying "Protections" rather than "Regulations"- legislators might then see the problem differently.
9
We did not learn form Chernobyl, Fukushima, Bohopal, or Sandy Hook Elementary.
Killing Houston’s population with hydrogen fluoride won’t likely stop the elite class from killing the entire planet for more money.
American voters are laser focused on what really matters - at least now no one has to bake wedding cakes for gay couples if the don’t want to. Well worth climate change and hydrogen fluoride.
14
"Why Aren’t Regulators Banning It?"
The corporations have paid off the politicians, thats why. They will continue to do it until someone tries to stop them.
NYT-Keep these articles coming so everyone can see the filth.
No surprise Texas has the most of these factories by far.
12
of course! just remember the 'Love Canal'; Dow is one of his beloved contributors. If one would do the research, it is the tip of the iceberg...Parish, Louisiana, the Dakota Access Pipeline......
3
The author must have missed the memo. Regulators no longer care about the environment or the people living in it. It's all about raping the land and gaining as much short-term profit as possible.
7
Hope this article will cause conversion away from the fluoride
1
Save a few tanks to be released into the Republican National Convention. You will get the epicenter of national greed.
5
This Chemical Kills. Why Aren’t Regulators Banning It?
Good question, easy answer. The cheapest solution for solving expensive corporate problems is to buy Congress with money from tax payer funded subsidies or tax breaks.
This is not a red or blue problem, it is a problem with our political system.
Over time the people in charge of the three branches of government have created a system of legalized bribery that has helped the US achieve a #1 ranking in several categories. For example, the US has the most people in prison per capita in the world at the highest cost per prisoner. The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. The US, hands down, is #1 in the world in defense spending. The biggest beneficiaries of these rankings are corporations.
Its clear, when it comes to buying politicians to protect profits the US may be #1. Legalize bribery is not hard or complicated and its is highly effective for solving expensive corporate problems cheaply.
That said, until voters put people in the White House and Congress that actually represent the people's interest our system of legalize bribery will grow and our democracy will become the #1 kleptocracy in the world.
I love my country, but the corruption in DC, and most State Houses, has got to be dealt with at the ballot box. Hopefully, corporations have not rigged our voting equipment or the census software and 2020 will mark a turning point in how our government works.
8
I live less than 3 miles away from the refinery and am concerned that mass evacuation would leave me behind as my building still drafting plans on how to evacuate persons with disability during a fire.
We have no plans for chemical disasters; nuclear or other horrific events. I was the only resident not evacuated during 2 small fires here.
5
@Maureen
There is irony in your dismal revelations. Remember how Trump would dismiss various countries as being 's___holes' due to their underdevelopment or political chaos. I acknowledge that France also has many shortcomings, but America's myopic vision towards the probability of major industrial cataclysms is reminiscent of the Soviet negligence which had led to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
I've spent most of my career working inside facilities similar to the PES Refinery. Unfortunately, most Americans have no idea how relatively mundane commodities are produced, and how dangerous these plants and many others can be for their employees and the surrounding areas. Often despite the best efforts of plant staff, the demands for higher profitability and cost-cutting conflict with proper training, maintenance, and timely equipment replacement. It just confirms the need for stricter regulation and third-party accountability. It has been difficult enough under previous administrations, but this is never going to happen under the Trump administration. Even if the PES explosion resulted in a major release of hydrogen fluoride and killed hundreds, I'd bet the response from the Trump EPA and other federal regulators would have been to protect the owners. Loss of wealth and profit are considered more tragic than loss of life and environmental quality with this crew. We are moving in the direction of Soviet-style transparency when it comes to these things - and we all know what happened at Chernobyl.
9
@RN
Yes -- I fully share your parallelism between the US and the USSR. Two examples of self-deluding former superpowers who allowed domestic rot to set in whilst trying to project an image of devil-may-care omnipotence for the rest of the world to fear and admire.
1
Under Section 112R of the Clean Air Act, hydrofluoric acid is both a hazardous air pollutant and a regulated toxic, explosive, or flammable substance. Each of the refineries identified in the article, storing or using greater than 10,000 lbs of hydrofluoric acid is required to prepare a Risk Management Plan. Be interesting to see how many of those plans have been prepared and regularly updated.
3
Thus, we will have to wait for something like a devastating hurricane (Houston, New Orleans) or earthquake (Los Angeles) that finally causes an HF tank to be compromised, and kills thousands of people, before HD is banned.
LA metro is the second largest in the country; Houston is forth. Given the right conditions (winds from south east), an HF plume would head into most of Harris County (Houston). Most of that population lives inside Beltway 8 and the most dense population lives inside I610 Loop. The refineries are just across a small stretch of open water between them and Houston. Add humid Houston air, to the mix, this will slowly spread over a vast area and stay low to the ground.
With an industry insider heading the EPA, the chemical and oil industry will get their wish. And, the ticking time bombs of Texas City and Deer Park can go off at any time.
For a reminder of the chemical and oil industries worse disaster, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster
In 1947, was the worse explosion in Texas City; it was cause by ammonium nitrate. Imagine that, mixing with HF, and having a similar explosion, or worse.
It is still considered the worse industrial accident in US history. The, 551 people died. In that ear Houston area population of about 800,000. Now, nearly 5,000,000 people live in the area.
So, indeed HF should be banned, but it won;t until thee worse happens.
3
Surely, a basic responsibility of governance is to protect us from lethal toxins. Yet another example wherein the public good is ignored by government. The only explanation is corruption.
There is a structural flaw in our government that allows continual abuse of public trust. It should be the central issue for the country. Trump is poster child for it.
3
It won't change the life of the owners a bit. That is important. Ask Trump about it.
4
As long as venal politicians get away with protecting the deception that bribes are legitimate contributions, profits will trump safety. Especially since corrupt corporations are rewarded for malfeasance when their disasters, that could have been avoided, essentially fatten bottom lines. (E.g., "The refinery shutdown that followed the Torrance explosion raised gasoline prices, costing California motorists an estimated $2.4 billion at the pump.")
3
The article’s heading, “…Why Aren’t Regulators Banning It?” brief and engaging, is misleading.Consider: “Who and What Would Enable Effective Control?” We would need to both learn-know, and understand,the range of human and nonhuman barriers to making needed, sustainable, targeted changes for equitable wellbeing. As well as their human and nonhuman enablers. People. With names, powers, roles. Phone #? E-mails?Accountable as well as not. For what they do as well as do not do. Should, as well as should NOT DO! Systems, with the same noted dimensions. Actual as well as potential ones. As for COSTS, of whatever effectiveness-short word-they are associated with huge, knowns. Unknowns, currently, because of gaps in needed, relevant, information and technologies. And unknowables. Measurable and immeasurable realities. Framed by interacting uncertainties, randomness, unpredictabilities, lack of TOTAL controls. Whatever one does; timely or not.With ranges of shorter and longer-term permanence. Impermanence. All of this exists in a WE-THEY daily reality. Enabled by ALL of US. Its violating, lethal and damaging toxicity- temporary as well as more permanent- is more than only chemical. “Regulators” don’t ban because many of a diverse US enable them to do so. Our complacency. Our complicity. A diverse US. In a divided USA. Allowing, enabling and even fostering elected and selected policymakers, at all levels, everywhere, to harm.By voiced and written words. Done-deeds. With impunity.
1
We will either be lucky or unlucky.
If lucky then there will be no accidental releases while the HF process is slowly phased out, most likely due to insurance costs.
If unlucky then there will be an accidental release and hundreds (thousands) of deaths and injuries will occur. HF processes will be shut down or curtailed, gasoline prices will spike, and lawsuits will fly. Perhaps even a recession.
Of course we, as intelligent humans, would not rely on luck in such a dangerous situation. In a pig’s ear!
1
Money, unfortunately, is speech.
4
Money money money. The answer to just about everything is money.
2
Just another day in the life of the Trump administration and the Republicans in the Congress. No matter how much scientific proof is shown, it is ignored and will continue to be unless people start showing up and voting the rascals out.
However that will not be enough as Lobbyists have a way of telling a story to even the most well-intentioned member of Congress and end up winning the fight. Because the Lobbyists fall back position is always "job Loss" and higher prices. It is a winning argument every time.
3
When I was studying to be a chemical engineer, I was shocked at how toothless the federal government is in responding to chemical process hazards. The Chemical Safety Board, the federal agency responsible for investigating industrial chemical accidents has absolutely no authority outside of their investigations. They make "recommendations" to the industry at large, which are of course widely ignored. The EPA has slightly more power, as this article mentions, but under the current administration has refused to use it.
One of the most basic tenets of process safety is avoiding the use hazardous chemicals like HF where possible, and when impossible, keeping minimal amounts on site at any given time. Chemical companies have clearly failed to make such basic safety considerations when they threaten corporate profits. Unfortunately, it usually takes a mass-casualty event to spur real discussions about making our industry safer. (See Bhopal, India. 4,000-16,000 dead after a storage tank ruptured.) We need regulators with teeth before more people die.
8
Sounds like the same trajectory as auto companies fighting the change to unleaded gas, higher mileage, better safety...
Additionally horrifying, though no additional horror is needed, is the repeated citation of explosions at oil refineries.
Communities resist placement of oil refineries in their area, with apparently very, very good reason.
In addition to the attention to this chemical, shouldn't action be taken to ensure measures reducing the incidence of repeated explosions at oil refineries?
It's easy to say "it can't be done." The right reaction however is to "require" a better way. Oil companies are sure to find it, once forced to do so. Companies always do (see unleaded gas, higher mileage, better safety and endless other examples).
3
Although no HF refinery incident has impacted the community in the US in the 60 years of operation we must have zero risk.
As I write this there are airplanes flying overhead, in the last year how many have gone down? The potential for a loaded airplane to go down in a populated area is not just a possibility but a given. Given the risk tolerance of the readers all air flights must stop immediately
1
@TC While I'm guessing you work for the oil-gas industry there in LA, if you were one of the hundreds of Philadelphia residents that were awoken by explosions, or by the city robo-calling to warn residents to shelter in place, you might feel differently. Especially since most of those residents were not aware of the prevalence of HF at this refinery, nor of the potentially devastating consequences of a leak. I was one of those people, and I can tell you, in the wake of this incident, I am much more concerned about having these chemicals in such close proximity to our homes and schools. The simple fact is there are safer alternatives, but for the greed of the oil and gas companies. And now the refinery is closing, putting all those workers out of jobs, where if they had chosen to change to one of the alternate methods, they might not have been in this position.
4
Thank you Dr. Horowitz for this educational and alarming article and NYT for publishing.
It is time for change.
2
The Petrochemical industry will always put public, and worker, safety at a far lower priority than it does for maximizing profits. I have seen nothing to indicate that the Nuclear industry is any different, which is is why I am against nuclear power.
A feeble and continuously sabotaged regulatory system can never adequately protect the peoples health from rapacious greed.
5
Trump Administration is on a deregulation frenzy. Money and profit is always number one on Republicans playbook. People are disposable to them. Power and money.
3
@Ray Sipe
Except fetuses, of course
The US chemical Industry is a $800 billion a year industry. It is fighting against all safety regulations even after multiple fires and explosions within or near cities. Terrorists know this vulnerability and these targets will someday be attacked.
Safer and less toxic is always better than cheaper and more dangerous.
7
"...Congress has restricted this information...." When writing a statement such as this, it would be helpful to the reader if the press would clarify by reporting the voting breakdown, by party, of the legislation to which the statement referred and the party of the President who signed the bill. Particularly when the article ends with "...Congress must intervene."
16
The EPA is clearly negligent in its duties to protect the health and safety of Americans in this case. But we know the current EPA director is not interested in that but rather is willing to do the oil industry’s and Trump’s bidding. This is criminal when so much is know about this toxic substance. What do we do? Write our congressional representatives, wait until we can elect a government that is more humane, protest? There aren’t a lot of options.
12
Those red dots on the map showing locations of gasoline plants that use hydrogen fluoride, is the same map China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea use for planning in their war games. Industrial accidents are not the only risk.
17
as the oil/chemical industry fights regulation and the anti-regulation advocates all claim job losses. it is well understood that the regulations brought about by the clean air/water acts made the process of chemical production MORE efficient and profitable. for these groups to claim 'anti regulation' for various reason is dishonest.
10
It’s not just about money, it’s about power. They know these chemicals are dangerous, they know accidents are inevitable, they know people will die, they know there are long-term environmental impacts, and that’s exactly the way they want it. They love the fact that the Times is printing articles like this, because we powerless intellectuals will read it and get outraged and they will demonstrate that their money and and influence are more powerful than our facts and our compassion. Their failure to regulate dangerous chemicals is a deliberate and fully conscious act of murder that they are getting away with because our society has bought into the idea that their power is to be revered and that there’s something heroic about sacrificing human lives in the name of Progress and Civilization.
It’s like those tech bros who brag about moving fast and breaking things and now matter how many of their driverless cars kill people and how much of our data they will expose they will still rake in their millions and be seen as role models.
I am fully aware that there were casualties involved in every phase of creating our industrialized society. But those deaths weren’t the inevitable cost of progress - they were the callous cost of greed. You actually can build things without breaking things - but for some perverse reason we reward those who break even more than we reward those who build, those who abuse more than those who cherish.
Please: let’s stop rewarding them with our lives.
17
Thanks for this note. In an era when corporate lobbying shields the public from even the most basic knowledge about things that should be regulated, we come to depend on experts like
Dr. Horowitz to raise the alarm. Over the past many years the US has become safer thanks to the normal function of EPA, but now we are back to the usual style in authoritarian regimes when we wait for the next Bhopal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_industrial_disasters
16
Using a ventilated hood I worked with test tube amounts of HF dissolved in water. HF is capable of clouding your corneas and causing blindness.
HF is a scary chemical. Those plants have tons--tons--of HF. Not test tube amounts.
All should be closed today. Today.
24
Why aren't they regulated? Good question, because unless there's something deeper, it's only because republicans won't regulate the chemical companies. In fact, the EPA has been very busy lately, re-labeling nuclear waste as low danger level, and publishing chemical companies' papers on how lead and mercury occur in nature, so these poisons are God's way of saying short term profits by poisoning people is actually virtuous. I'm not joking.
trump followers, are you going to dutifully hate on Mr. Horowitz now, because he's a scientist? Tell us that this ISN'T going to get worse? Despise your OWN grandkids just to stick it to the Democrats and their silly environment whining?
10
@deb
Our gov is OWNED by the oil giants, that mush is clear, even to the wars they choose to fight
1
I'm wondering about the chemistry of HFl. Is it similar to the effects of chlorine gas? N.Y.T. did some excellent reporting on a chlorine gas attack in Syria. My understanding is that chlorine gas converts to HCl in the presence of water, which the human body has a lot of. HCl is a strong acid. If HFl does something similar, then yeah, it does need to be regulated.
2
@Mary M
HF is a weak acid - it's not the acid strength that makes it so horrifyingly dangerous. While HCl and sulfuric acid will cause horrible burns to your skin and other tissues they contact HF is a much more insidious, and harmful, chemical. It can penetrate tissues (go through skin) without causing immediate burns. Once it's inside the body it starts binding any calcium it comes into contact with in the body - such as that in your bones or in the blood. This is mentioned in the article, but this is the danger of HF. It can do much greater internal damage than other acids.
7
Wu Tang said it best: cash rules everything around me.
7
Do you hear yourselves? Congress will intervene? Business will do the right thing? You are living in an alternate universe, and as long as you persist in not recognizing how grave the situation is, it will only get worse. Much worse.
9
@Terence
This is proof in the pudding that the political system is broken beyond repair in the United States. And instead of lambasting the free press as the 'enemy' of the people, trying replacing 'free press' with LOBBIES, the parasites who corrupt and denature democracy in America !
1
I read the online front page of the NYT every single day, multiple times. Why was I not made aware of a refinery explosion in Philly until my wife directed my attention to this opinion piece?
15
Somehow, I trust Dr. Horowitz a bit more than I trust Trump and his Environmental Pollution Agency.
9
And when the disaster occurs they will wail, “Who knew!! A complete surprise!”
Just like carbon-fueled climate change.
5
The Philadelphia refinery is very close to an international airport...jus sayin'....
8
The Republicans have been taking the scientists out of the EPA for years, replacing them with ex-big oil execs...what did you think was going to happen? VOTE!
12
I’m inclined to believe the op-Ed writer, but readers deserve more, specifically a counterpoint from an industry representative and some objective reporting from the Times.
Absent that, we’re left only with the convictions of tribalism, of which we have far too much these days.
3
@Charlie B The writer provided the industry's viewpoint on this issue -- "we're careful and converting to a safer chemical will cost jobs and raise gas prices." How would an op-ed essay by the oil industry shed more light on this? The writer is a scientist not a tribal leader.
4
@Charlie B please note, this is an OPINION piece, as such, it presents the personal opinion of the writer; not necessarily the opinion of the NYT. As an opinion piece no counterpoint is required. In this particular case, that opinion is backed up by real world work experience and years of study, which is a far cry from tribalism in any case, and perhaps you could put aside your personal opinions long enough to read the piece without castigation - then again, maybe not. Either way, your comment is without merit.
1
@alan: I don’t believe an opinion writer’s summary of his opponent’s viewpoint is an adequate substitute for either that opponent’s own characterization of his views, or for objective reporting on the issue.
@patricia: Who’s castigating? As I said, I think it’s more likely than not that the writer is correct. But I’ve also learned that listening to one side of an argument is a poor substitute for listening to both.
While I have my own views on many issues, I know nothing at all about this particular obscure chemical except what I’m told, and I suspect you don’t either. I think we both would benefit from learning more from additional sources.
Finally, I am not without merit. As a Boy Scout I earned many merit badges, so I have proof.
1
Used to live in Philly a couple of miles from this refinery. Never had a clue as to this lethal stuff being stored on-site waiting to blow, a testament to that city's corrupt and hands-off regulatory and oversight structure. Makes you feel so helpless.
9
How many Americans will have to die before Americans demand the government put people over profits. Do people forget Bophal India.
4
Let’s make burning Fossil Fuel safe again ;)
1
This is just a small glimpse into republican-world, where there are no laws to restrain anything done by any business and the only goal is naked profit. Want a return to killer smog? Vote republican. Want your kids ingesting and breathing carcinogens? Vote republican. Want unrestrained amounts of agricultural chemicals in your drinking water? Vote republican. Want lead in your paint? Vote republican. Want asbestos in elementary schools? Vote republican (and yes, Trump has said he wants to bring back asbestos). Want to try living in a dead, poisoned world? Vote republican. Or, in the alternative, vote republicans out of office and return to sane governance.
6
Why the concern? Didn’t the country elect a President who promised to dismantle all those environmental regulations that get in the way of the free market? This is what the people wanted surely? Can we just make sure the plants in the red states remain?
3
Fine piece. And once again it shows that reasonable, appropriate regulation is not the enemy of capitalism, it is its salvation.
5
This stuff is pretty dangerous: the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) warns on its website that reaction to any kind of exposure shouold be swift and that any affected clothing must be removed and disposed of immediately.
Naturally enough, the companies using the stuff claim that they have everything under control, and get all the support they need from their friends in government (no prizes for guessing which party said friends are in),
Judging by past disasters, for example Three Mile Island or Tchernobyl, and their consequences, the lobbyists will continue to claim that there is no danger until or unless it affects them personally. Now that Trump has effectively fixed the Supreme Court, legal action is unlikely, and any attempt by the House (we can forget the Senate at this time) to act will probably be crushed by those same reactionary judges.
It's really very much like the former USSR, except that any protestors will only be blacklisted rather than disappearing into some remote prison cell.
All a reminder that the American Dream is still a "work in progress" ...
5
Of course, it will take a disaster of harrowing proportions to get producers and regulators and politicians to move on this. Priorities!
6
Each new day brings yet another example of the headlong pursuit of profit regardless of the spillover costs. It seems that the lust for money has no fetters.
Humanity is doomed.
6
This current administration is set to roll back environmental protections to pre-EPA days in which our rivers caught on fire, and smog was thick enough to cut with a knife. Why? Because we have industry hacks running the EPA these days, with people who believe that humans have "evolved" to safely be exposed to ever lethal amounts of chemicals in our environment. This is one of the reasons for the EPA's recent rollback of chemical exposure levels considered toxic. The motivation for these people is pure unadulterated greed. They should be hounded out of office so that agency can continue to do it's due diligence in protecting the American people. The enemy is within.
8
There is a real cri du coeur behind the carefully measured scientific article.
And a lamentable theme in some of the comments: that politicians are crooks. Therefore, a pox on both your houses.
But, as the article points out, the Obama administration tried, however, haltingly, to bend the curve towards greater environmental justice and stewardship. Trump has made good on his promise to allow industry to run amok.
Elections matter. Vote in 2020
11
It's simple, and right wing: the owners and profiteers of this existential threat don't live anywhere near it. Those who do, have lives that are of little value. They are disposable. So, long as the wealthy continue to make lots of money, it makes no difference who suffers or dies. This was regulation that put too great a "burden" on corporations and the filthy rich. This illegitimate "administration" apparently feels that serving less than 10% of our population is perfectly fine, so long as the rest of us pay for it.
6
@ChesBay
Perhaps the beleaguered owners of the PES plant should propose rebuilding their chemical warfare site somewhere near The Hamptons. Imagine the pearl-clutchers' faces !
1
@AE--I'm for that. Hear! Hear!
1
What kinds of moral midgets restrict key documents pertaining to hydrogen fluoride to EPA reading rooms. This information should and must be online. And what kinds of moral midgets defeat a process that would lead to converting plants in populated areas away from the use of hydrogen fluoride? This is disturbing. Thank you for this investigation and article.
8
I thank the NY Times (and of course Daniel Horowitz) for giving this issue the visibility it deserves. Readers should write their Senators and Congressmen, especially those who live around the refinery sites outlined in the article that have the highest toxic tonnage.
6
The Obama administration did mandate that this process be eliminated.
The order was just one of those ‘needless government regulations’ that trumpie eliminated when he took office office.
Remember that when the inevitable happens.
9
"Millions of Americans will be safer if the E.P.A. takes positive action. If the it fails to do so, Congress must intervene."
Congress intervene? Fat chance! Mitch McConnell doesn't do governing.
2
Why?
Please list the contributions [with names] by and to lobbyists, "Think tanks", corporate research, non-profits, religious groups, public relations, journalist and politicians from the local to the national level for the last 20 years.
2
"... oil companies lobbied to oppose further restrictions..."
And that's all it takes. We thump ourselves on the chest and claim America is the world's greatest democracy, but this country runs on corruption by money, not on the will of the people.
10
The avaricious oligarchy rules, without pity, sense or responsibility. And the current administrations is doing everything it can to restrict regulations and policies that protect people. It is a bought and paid for travesty.
3
The "only about 48" number is still 35% of the "approximately 135" refineries. Use of sloppy pseudo-statistics to minimize the extent of HF use makes the rest of the argument somewhat suspect. The EPA states that there are definitely 48 later in the article.
The link from "too costly" contains the statement that sulfuric acid is the alternative process is not only cost-prohibitive but also not safer and also increases emissions. If the author wants to impose this process he should address the issues in the document other than just stating that it's safer.
Now had the author referenced the failed attempt to dissolve a corpse in a bathtub with HF by the protagonists in 'Breaking Bad', he might have made a cogent point. And the fact that they subsequently safely dissolved further bodies using using plastic barrels showed an increased attention to safety practices.
1
Terrifying. And obviously we must await a new Administration, or a catastrophe, to do what obviously has to be done.
5
@Richard Williams MD
The United States will truly never be a safe and clean place to live without serious foreign intervention. So things will have to sink to the level of anarchic violence before such a necessary event ever happens. Probably part and parcel of an evangelical prophecy….
It’s probably inevitable that, once again, the question will come to mind- how can these lobbyists, these industrialists, argue to continue such hazardous practices. How can they go home, look at their own children and not feel guilty.
This article creates a mental picture of nearby neighborhoods- filled with dead bodies of children...clutching their family pet- grandparents, hugging a toddler in the last moments of life. Pregnant women, teenage boys playing a last game of neighborhood basketball.
And first responders scarred forever, as they collect the dead.
As with pregnant women forced to get counseling, see pictures of fetuses, all these lobbyists, corporate leaders, should be forced to view the bodies from previous disasters, talk with their first responders - so they knowingly argue for the dangers.
Cheap gas. Jobs. No. One more reason to switch to renewables- in every area.
1
And now there's worry about how they'll clean up this mess.
It's our own Chernobyl.
3
It is long past time that we have a government "for the people."
5
Great informative article from a well qualified expert in chemical industry. The people who love & voted in a business man expert in bankrupting business and pocketing wealth hardly will read this article or neglect the content if ever reads. They only listen MAGA chantings with total negligence about polluted air,water resources and their livelihood within carcinogenic environmental dome. GBA(god bless America).
The Trump administration is wholly bought off by the poison chemical industries.
That's why Trump has removed regulations limiting the use of poisons and other chemicals that harm humans, bees, other animals, and the entire biosphere.
It's all about the money. There's no science or ethical public policy that justifies the use of these poisons.
Our biosphere is being turned into a toxic waste dump.
There's no longer any place on earth where the air and water are totally free of dangerous manmade chemicals!
8
Profit trumps safety. Pun intended.
American citizens are the serfs of the Corporate Age.
The planet will be our Chernobyl.
3
Really you cannot answer this question yourself? The regulators were paid off, or members of congress were paid off. Money talks and kills. Pshaw, you think the lives of ordinary citizens are worth anything to corporations? Why do you think the Sackler family kept hawking opioids when they knew they were killers? Of course they tried to save their souls by donating big time to museums and the like. So people had to die for art. That is how much life of the non elite means to some of the ultra wealthy and corporations. Ever read Twain's The Mysterious Stranger? As the Stranger squashed and killed some tiny humans, he said," plenty more where they came from."
2
@cheerful dramatist Lobbyists contribute campaign money to these pols, so it is fair to say that they are bought off. But in a country in which the GOP, Trump and Fox News will scream "huge increase in gas prices" if pols vote for safer gasoline production many will vote NO. They aren't necessarily corrupt; they just have no backbone, are opportunits or are too afraid of losing their seats.
2
@Alan Mass Well what you say makes sense. Watching The Young Turks on youtube, and I am also a member of TYT network, I found out that all of the Republicans in congress and most in office in the USA are bought, and 80 percent of Democrats in congress are bought. I do not know the percentage of Democrats in office in the USA are bought, I know our governor is bought. I know that there are those Democrats throughout the nation who do vote for Republican laws and bills, probably for a cut. But for what ever reason, no spine, fear of losing something or paid handsomely, it means we the people are still not represented or protected from harm.
1
“A shocking disregard for public safety.” Welcome to Trump country and the Republican Party. A world where corporate profits are worth more than human life. Dangerous, irresponsible deregulation from those who falsely claim they are “pro-life.” Wake up America, responsible regulations are not “job killers,” they are people killers.
I'm assuming the headline asks a rhetorical question. We all know the answer, especially under the current administration...profit over people, the environment, etc.
1
The bottom line is that state and federal agencies are as contaminated with corrupt and compromised employees as the state houses and congress. Americans can blame themselves for sleeping while letting our government, its agencies, and our representatives to be overtaken by corporate interests that have no interests except self interest.
Its OK ..Trump's EPA is in charge. So if the industry want to pollute, pillage, plunder and destroy our environment - now is the time to go for it.
1
Small government and deregulation. GOP loves it’s oil and gas money!
Vote for change
2
"Each company files a worst-case accident scenario with E.P.A., including the population at risk, but Congress has restricted this information to a handful of E.P.A. reading rooms."
The Times should provide a link to more information about those "E.P.A. reading rooms". In fact, they are called "Federal Reading Rooms":
'Federal Reading Rooms provide members of the public with "read-only" access to paper copies of Risk Management Plans (RMPs), including Off-Site Consequences Analysis (OCA) information submitted by chemical facilities, pursuant to the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (Pub. L. No. 106-40).' (justice.gov web site)
For a list, see:
"Federal Reading Rooms for Risk Management Plans (RMP)" (epa.gov web site)
2
But the money...we need more money...
1
The saddest part of this article is knowing how many Americans live near these potential death traps enjoying their lives until that day when the earth will stand still due to the carnage and loss of life. Those lives will be the catalyst for change, but why???
1
An eye-opening editorial filled with information that i was totally, inexplicably, unaware of. But then, who knows how the gasoline which we pump into our cars was made? Thankfully, Dr. Horowitz does and he wrote an excellent editorial advising us of its present dangers and seeming inevitable tragedy.
1
That's an easy question: "Why aren't Regulators Banning it". Government in America has an incestuous relationship with corporate deep pockets. Government in America is a revolving door of lobbyists who bring their corporate masters bidding with them when they enter government and allege to regulate industry. The FAA & Boeing is another excellent example of the fox guarding the hen house and the worst perpetrator of this crime is Trump. His duty to country and the American people simply does not exist but as long as he feeds the trough the corporate pigs slop from, as long as there remains fools in America who believe the Grifter, this situation will never change. Citizen's United facilitates this larceny.
Unfortunately for America, China's system of promoting people to positions of authority is based on merit. In China, Xi had to prove he could and would work to the benefit of the people in the provinces he served. Only then was he promoted to President.
Trump had no public service experience, legislative experience nor was he willing to divest himself of his business ties.
It will come as no surprise when the US is displaced as a Global Power.
It's called industrial sized bribery, that's why our companies and our police get away with murder.
I Got Them Hydrofluoric Acid Blues (senryu/haiku quartet) "hydrogen fluoride - three explosions in five years - who wants to be next?"; "Philly just dodged a - bullet, forty-seven sites - still remain at risk"; "Trump's EPA - pushes us closer to the - brink of extinction"; "Republeakans always - put short-term profits ahead - of public safety"
1
In one sentence we learn that oil companies pass on increased costs to consumers. A few sentences further, we are informed that the oil companies are pleading poverty to avoid making critical safety improvements.
Evidently the only people stupid enough to believe the industry gibberish are in Washington. Why am I not surprised?
1
For Republicans it is always Profits before People.
3
I always hear George Carlin, in the character of his bit, when something like this happens.
“I’ll take a little radiation if it means more jobs!”
There inevitably will be an industrial or ecological accident directly traceable to MAGA deregulation and dismantlement of safety and environmental standards. Trump already will have been advised of this, and no doubt he said something to the effect “If there’s an accident and people e die, it will be because someone wasn’t doing their job. That person will be fired. Believe me. I’ll make sure they never work again. Never get another paycheck. That’s how you handle these things”
41
@Mark The product has been used for many decades but it's Trump's fault. Typical leftist argument.
3
The Philadelphia refinery explosion was actually a blessing in disguise. Dr Horowitz's exposé of the unreal dangers hydrogen fluoride poses to hapless neighbours of chemical plants emphasizes the need for ordinary citizens to stand up to the nefarious chemical lobbies who put profits and material gains before health and human welfare. How is it possible that a city the size of Philadelphia could tolerate the dangerous presence of such a monstrosity within striking distance of millions of innocent lives ? A pity for the laid-off workers : unfortunately, it took a dramatic and unplanned event to finally eliminate a chronic health hazard since the powers that be are oblivious to replicating a Bhopal incident in the American homeland….
64
The companies that insure these plants have a vested interest in the safety-of-process issues. I was personally involved in insurance discussions concerning the production of a novel elastomer. The insurance company was highly troubled by the presence of a particular peroxide as an intermediate and pulled the plug on the effort. No work around was ever developed so the wonderfully performing elastomer was shelved to the distress of its laboratory parents.
@NYTimes: Could you please follow up on this and look into the liability insurance that such refineries have to carry to operate, and if and how their liability might be capped by Federal laws. If the operators of such hydrogen fluoride-using refineries would have to carry insurance covering a minimum liability of five or ten billion dollars (realistic for plants located in, for example, Philadelphia or Los Angeles), the premiums alone might make it worth for them to switch to safer processes in a hurry!
5
Thank you Mr. Horowitz. An important piece.
Who knows, maybe something good, some regulations, can even come of it.
2
Interesting, Corpus Christi's got 520 metric tons between three refineries (all located real close together)... Houston area , 886 metric tons between five refineries.
Houston's definitely got Corpus beat population-wise - half a million vs. almost seven million... (and that's just Houston proper!).
Imagine the scope and size of a explosion in one of Corpus Christi's refineries that resulted in a release... as close together as these refineries are, it would be hard to believe at least one other, if not all of them, would not suffer part in this disaster. Because of the wind coming off the ocean, the air would be toxic for miles spreading the poison.
Houston has two refineries very close together with a third not far. The rest are not real close but even if just one blew, the population affected would be terrible...
With all the subsidies oil companies receive, one would think there would be some strings attached as to ensuring public safety in the event of such a disaster.
But in the end, no. I'm afraid that all the subsidies are is welfare for the true "welfare queens", oil company execs who really do drive Cadillacs!
5
HF is used to make unleaded gas higher in octane. So in essence this chemical is the trade off against the use of toxic lead, which used to be spread all over the environment.
I had no idea HF was used in some oil refineries. This is an incredibly dangerous chemical. There are processes for which it is needed. Making gasoline is not one of them. This constitutes yet ANOTHER reason to wean our society from the use of oil and gasoline, to the greatest extent possible. Now, not some time in the future.
4
@CitizenJ
At minimum facilities handling HF should be shifted to more appropriate locations. Mar-a-Lago Fla comes to mind...
1
In ancient times when I was in high school, hydroflouric acid was stored in thick wax containers - the plastics of the early '50s weren't up to the task. Our chemistry teacher (named Walter White - I swear) put the fear of lung corrosion in us: "If you can smell it, you're in trouble." The other acids were puppies; hydroflouric was the big bad dog. TONS of it? Terrifying. Not as scary as the chemical and oil lobbyists, I guess.
8
@will duff - One of those wax containers rupturing truly would be a... bad break...
1
Your chemistry teacher was named Walter White and you live in New Mexico?
1
If we compare the number of people killed by hydrogen fluoride to the number of people killed in exploding flour mills, it's pretty clear that polymerized glucose has taken vastly more lives than HF.
With all industrial chemicals, there are risks and benefits, and these after neither easily understood by by the layman nor adequately addressed in one-sided opinion pieces immunized from peer review by publication in a family newspaper. If the editors have any sense, they will solicit a full op-ed (not just a letter to the editor) from the American Chemical Society to give readers a balanced perspective on the issue.
1
The reason why HF injuries/death are relatively uncommon is because they are phased out of most industry and research labs. Other acids can accomplish similar results with similar efficiencies and are considerably safer to handle and clean in case of release. HF is so bad that there is a major initiative to remove it from research use, these days only a handful of labs use HF in the country. The fact that the HF containers were safe this time should be cause of celebration and concern. A rapid response should be taken tomphase out HF use, regardless of political leanings- after all, chemical burns believe in equal opportunity to hurt everyone. There is absolutely no reason no continue it’s use other than to not invest in safer chemicals so that profits stay high.
1
@Troglotia DuBoeuf
So let’s see, we don’t understand and the always greedy always wrong American Chemical Society, who pay millions to lessen regulations, whose whole dogma is greed, should explain it to us? We are in this mess because of them and their evil ilk and laymen can actually understand that we need to regulate toxic chemicals the way Europe does, with wisdom and safety first, not greed. Maybe Monsanto should explain things to us laymen as well, clearly they too are always looking out for the common good.
Good grief.
1
Dr. Horowitz is absolutely correct! Hydrogen fluoride (HF) is a particularly nasty chemical to deal with in smaller quantities, but becomes a huge safety hazard when hundreds of tons might be released accidentally. As an aside, even small, non-fatal chemical burns with HF are especially painful, often requiring powerful opioid painkillers to make the pain bearable. The continued large-scale use of HF by some refineries is all the more infuriating as other, safer ways to convert oil into high-grade gasoline exist and are already in wide use. In addition to tightening Federal regulations, which. takes time, I hope many readers in affected states will impress on the governors and representatives from their State that the refineries that still use this chemical be inspected for safety both thoroughly and frequently!
6
Answering the question posed by the title without reading the article, its unregulated because corporate America wants it that way. No matter what gains were made in the 70s, 80s and 90s to protect the planet and its inhabitants corporate America took the lead to burn down all regulation.
7
Hey! What's more important: fossil fuel related corporate profits or the lives and health of mere human beings who can't afford to move to a safer neighborhood?
The answer is fossil fuel related corporate profits.
Those of us who applaud deregulation reflexively have learned that all regulations are bad except those that impede abortion. The media and, alas, most news organizations have little patience with writing stories about deregulation that make readers' eyes glaze over. So virtually no one challenges deregulation or the need for many of the rules opposed by this administration. It is time that we focused in on the most egregious deregulatory crimes and at least tried to alert citizens about what is happening to their lives and health as a result of administrative actions.
7
HF has wide use despite the known hazards (and it is quite hazardous) because there are few substitutes if any. Dangerous chemicals are used in industry everyday and the problems isn’t there use but there unsafe use. A ban is unreasonable but proper precautions can and should be implemented.
1
@NKM, guess you don't live next to one of these plants. If alternative chemicals exist that are significantly less dangerous then we should be putting up the money necessary to switch now, not waiting for a horrific and predictable accident to occur.
1
@NKM. Yes, HF has its uses, and nobody, including Dr. Horowitz, wants to ban it outright. However, hanging on to an outdated process that requires use and storage of many tons of any dangerous chemical when safer, equally effective processes exist is just plain dumb. The operators of these refineries don't want to change because it saves them money, at least right now. I hope we won't find out just how many lives might be lost because some people were too cheap to upgrade their facilities!
1
If you read the article he mentions safer substitutes.
first, thanks for your service at CSB. far too few people know of the absolutely necessary role you play in investigating many industrial accidents. and the videos CSB produces are some of the finest I've seen at explaining highly technical scenarios in an understandable way to regular folks.
that said, I'm bit perplexed at your insistence that really basic things like process safety management (PSM) would no longer play the large critical role it does now in required OSHA 5yr reviews and that you say no "3rd party" reviews now occur. unless, I missed something, OSHA rules (which sure could be toughened admittedly) and annual in-depth surveys by their insurance companies who surely have an insurable interest in not paying $400M losses like at the Superior refinery (which I had been in 20 years ago and yes it was kind of a mess). plus as I'm sure you're familiar with blast forensics and vapor cloud explosions (VCEs) that you know in accident scenarios, debris is never thrown in any predictable manner and that the only solution would be to separate vessels even further from each other and thats just not possible. HF is used because its efficient; not b/c its safe and not b/c its easily handled. sulfuric works but is less efficient and while I'm the last guy to defend stupid practices, using HF is as good as it gets unless you relocate the facility. and thats not happening. so exposure to VCEs like in Bhopal will remain an exposure that will have to be managed.
Conversion is too costly?? For whom? It should be an operating requirement, and if you can't finance it, then it should be forcibly closed. What really is the problem? These 47 refineries should be declared "stranded assets" and dismantled and the inputs buried very very deep.
At the same time, while demand for gasoline should drop over time, might it not be a good idea to make it easier to finance environmentally more benign methods of oil refining? Connect the dots please.
11
This industry has consistently failed to ensure their plants, refineries, pipelines, etc. are inspected and upgraded despite receiving billions of dollars by consumers and taxpayer's via subsidies. They make billions in profits, and then they close up these sites which then become toxic superfund sites. Superfund sites in which we, the taxpayers will have to pay to clean up. And that doesn't even take in to account the many people who will get serious illnesses from these sites as well....
22
There will always be accidents no matter how safety conscious you are. Many times the problem is simply that the city has grown to engulf the plant and the plant cannot be easily moved.
Cities should do more to properly zone around chemical plants and refineries. Why city would put three schools near the refinery in Torrance, CA is beyond me.
6
@James
In Providence RI, the gas company plant was situated a reasonably safe distance from commercial and residential areas FOR ITS TIME. The city grew up around it, and it is surrounded, now, by both slums and quite well maintained neighborhoods.
What is foreseeable, James, is that leaving those carbon assets stranded, and letting the corps eat 'em is the 2nd best idea. The first is switching to renewables. Or do you think being dead is better? It's cheaper.
L&B&L
3
@Ida Guny Millman
So you agree that plants are now surrounded by cities, thanks.
Bush used the precept of terrorism to hide what was publicly available and very important information about these hazardous processes at chemical plants. Our Clean Air Act is being dismantled with such actions, little bit by little bit! There is nothing like public outrage about these dangerous processes, where risk is shifted to those living nearby by industry, to make environmentally beneficial change happen. That is why the Clean Air Act empowered everybody living within range of danger from failure and releases of these processes to be informed of the risk. Take these disclosures back out of the EPA Reading Rooms and send them out to the public.
This article is why I read the NYT - this is crackerjack writing by a subject expert with a social conscience.
27
Yet another reason to convert to an all electric vehicle if you haven't already. If we don't buy their gasoline, they won't have a reason to make it.
13
@JBP, MD. Good idea, but, natural gas, coal, and oil comprise over 2/3 of the power produced in Pa.. Burning coal and oil to charge your car does what? Do people who drive electric cars know where their energy comes from? If you care about the environment, i suggest a bike.
2
@Jay
Actually, even with less "clean" power sources, EVs emit over 40% less CO2 than comparable ICE vehicles. Petroleum is only a minor source of electricity in the US these days, and coal is on the decline (obviously, not fast enough, but it is). As renewable energy increases, the power that EVs use will have even less of an impact on greenhouse gases. We have solar panels on our house which we use to power our EV. Not everybody can do that, I know, but more people could. Bikes are great, but EVs don't deserve to be dissed.
6
@Jay Hard to tell what this comment is intended to do. Claiming that those concerned about pollution should shut up until they stop using airlines is a pretty common way of dismissing reasonable views.
1
Regrettably it is not just conservatives who are retrograde on the environment and public health- although it is good to bash them for their terrible record and more progressive legislators and public boards may be more likely to vote in favor of the environment and public health. However, as a society and polity we need a complete make over where the current corporate and industrial bias takes second place to environmental and public health concerns. Everyone agrees about traffic signals and lane markings and vehicle laws regardless of red or blue allegiance. It has to be that way for the environment and public health.
16
But Honeywell keeps telling me how they’re saving the world in their TV commercials.
Ever wonder why defense contractors and other corporations that do not provide consumer products o these touchy-feely commercials? Besides the tax write off (if they even pay taxes) it’s a indication that some really bad information about them is coming down the road. Soon Boeing will up their advertising.
15
" Each company files a worst-case accident scenario with E.P.A., including the population at risk, but Congress has restricted this information to a handful of E.P.A. reading rooms."
It is blatantly transparent that Congress is not a fan nor keen to promote transparency , especially when it comes to people's safety and security...
...restricting important safety and risk information to a handful of EPA reading rooms suggests once again that the welfare and protection of big business, interest groups and profits almost always come before the interests , security and safety of the people...even a very large amount of people.
Once again, the priorities of the so called representatives of the people do not reflect the reality of their actions or inaction towards those they are supposed to protect, guide and answer to.
15
I think the CEOs of these corporations should be required by law to move their corporate offices to each of these locations. You'd see hydrogen fluoride usage drop by 100% overnight.
31
@Capt. Obvious. Did I miss something? Isn’t Minnesota suing 3m for $5 billion for releasing cancer causing chemicals from their plants there? Do you want them to live above the plants, near the plants, or in between multiple plants? Is your concern about local risk, or poisoning the entire Mississippi River?
2
@Capt. Obvious
...and the Congressional "representatives" within a half mile of the plants.
2
Wondering, do these oil and chemical giants have no risk management officers on the management team? One big disaster will not only wipe our their profits, but likely put themselves out of business from lawsuits and clean-up costs. BP got away cheap because the bungling Gulf Coast states and the only deaths were to fish and game. If it's people next time the costs will be enormous and beyond their assets.
7
@JLM
"One big disaster will not only wipe our their profits, but likely put themselves out of business from lawsuits and clean-up costs."
You're kidding, right?
That would never happen, not in America.
Judges routinely put the ki-bosh on "over large" penalties that might seriously damage the prospects of large corporations. That is, when they haven't managed to rig the system effectively enough to give business its proper due and avoid penalties altogether.
What a naive question they used for the headline, and the author pursues in the text for some reason.
Here's an answer: these companies, to begin with, are not lazy or negligent.
With full knowledge and intent, they're making a calculation that putting millions of lives and billions of other people's dollars at needless risk will leave them holding more money than behaving as as if they are concerned with any other thing.
As if we need it, here's another demonstration that American capitalism, unrestrained and completely in charge is a vile, dangerous, unsupportable system, built on avarice and an absolute lack of responsibility or care.
A system supported aggressively, almost ruthlessly, by the courts, regulatory bodies (so-called), and government.
This could be saved. This could turn around. But it won't.
14
@JLM - There were more deaths than just fish and game; Eleven of the BP Deepwater Horizon workers died in the initial explosion. I'm not criticizing you for forgetting; I'm just pointing out how quickly we forget the real scope of these disasters even when being critical of them.
11
There is a long history of explosions in the world wide chemical industry- Flixborough, Seveso, Texas City, Bhopal (release was thought to be sabotage though), etc, etc. - going back to the 1960's and too numerous to list here.
In a great number of them, the safety investigation resulted in new regulations. As the saying goes in the industry - all regulations have been written in someone's blood.
The author was on the Chemical Review Board of OSHA - which investigates deaths from accidents in the chemical/refining industry. Typically, the safety culture is a key factor in unraveling the root - missed inspections, no process safety reviews, poor training, etc. These are all management system issues and the current environment is to let industry police themselves. They do not want third party reviews and records showing non-conformance to their own practices - especially if process safety findings are never closed.
They will argue low probability of catastrophic events but ignore the severity of the potential impact.
As history shows, it is only a matter of time. No one wants an explosion but ignoring preventive practices or not investing in process safety alternatives is a fool's paradise.
22
Everything you say is true, however the main point of this thoughtful article is that much safer methods exist, but some companies in the industry avoid adopting them just to save a few bucks and increase profit margins.
6
Tremendous public service. Thank you to the author and to all the knowledgeable individuals weighing in.
37
@Wendy L Sunshine
I agree 110%. The info in this article was jaw-dropping.
2
Although we cannot expect much action during the two years of the Trump Administration, I wonder why the Obama administration did nothing in eight years. Obama seemed far more concerned about pollution from coal mines and possible breaks in pipelines.
3
@Richard Winchester
What good would it have done in that political climate?
5
@Richard Winchester
Because the Republican controlled House and Senate would not pass any environmental legislation.
5
@Richard Winchester
Six years of obstruction by Mitch McConnell and the GOP, perhaps?
WHY INDEED Is the highly lethal chemical being stored in a facility that is in a very densly populated area? What purpose does it serve? Why is it necessary to store it? Philly dodged a bullet this time. There must be very close evaluation and monitoring of the storage facilities to ensure that all routine maintenance is performed and safety precautions in place. Any violations, no matter how minor, should result in the strongest sanctions and financial penalties. If there is an accident, the company ill immediately file for bankruptcy, thereby cheating those injured from seeking damages because of the injuries and deaths caused by this lethally toxic gas.
17
Just bear in mind that there are other industrial applications for hydrofluoric acid; notably pickling in stainless steel manufacturing and etching in the metal plating / finishing industry. Before a chemical is banned, we should evaluate all the critical ways in which it is used, and develop alternatives so we don't find ourselves in an unexpected conundrum like a shortage of stainless steel. Having said that, these industries are all looking into alternatives for HF because it really is one of the nastiest and most dangerous chemicals you can imagine. So I agree with the basic premise of this column, but am just warning that there is a bigger picture to be considered here.
18
Should be a legal requirement that all of the executives of these companies be forced to live (actually live, not own a home) within a one mile radius of these facilities.
27
@James
One of the better proposals I have seen - brilliant. When we worship rich people we end up with Trump and pollution - oh and jobs, never forget how rich people are job creators...lol.
1
Sulfuric acid can be used very successfully for alkylation.
Some refineries send their H2S gas to a sulfuric acid plant and receive the acid in return.The refinery therefore eliminates it's odorous sulfur plant, the H2S is used to make the sulfuric acid which replaces the dangerous HF, a perfect environmental solution.
6
Stunning how data has little to no effect, or even evident risk has on those that live their lives marching to dogmas of conservativism, religiosity, and corporate obedience.
"Voting on party lines in Southern California last month, a Republican-controlled committee of air pollution regulators narrowly defeated a community-supported effort to phase out hydrogen fluoride from two of the state's refineries in populated areas near Los Angeles."
This disconnect between critical thinking and conservatives acceptance of what should be referred to as propaganda must have psychological and likely physiological origins. I have read clinical research that conservatives believe they are entitled to what they receive and progressives/liberals think they have to earn their rewards. An interesting observation because it's the complete opposite of the conservatives' storyline that progressives/liberals are "takers" riding on conservative work ethic.
Psychological projection is where someone accuses another of their shortcomings; we see that constantly in Trump and McConnell talking points, blaming Democrats for their leadership failures. Refuting the conservative's fable is data that consistently shows the economy does significantly better under Democratic leadership than Republican.
Conservatives' extreme inability to see the trajectory of evidence before the catastrophic outcomes have gone beyond localized tragedies now threatens the human race and most higher life forms.
47
@Stephan It's the outcome of belief-based thinking and its extension into politics. If you literally believe the fantasy that there's an all-knowing, all-powerful deity in the sky who created everything, controls everything with a purpose and preordained plan, and is personally vested in certain outcomes favoring those who are allegiant ("loyal and devoted") to said omniscient and omnipotent entity, then you will act in a manner that contradicts reality to make it fit with your beliefs. No proof of existence is required--or desired. On an individual level, this is called a delusion and is considered pathological. On a collective level, this delusion is called religion--and the majority brand of relgion/delusion, Christianity, is revered by our political system ("In god we trust.") This delusion, taken to its extreme, is the basis of how modern Republicanism operates. Religion is assumed to be true, and is used to conflate the status quo and the mythical American rugged individualism and business-first mentality of the past with religious entitlement and "patriotism." This belief provides moral justification to conveniently and confidently ignore and distort the unpleasant realities of now, such as the ongoing destruction of the earth and its inhabitants, in the name of "good," i.e, "jobs" and "the economy." Pollution? Not a concern because "God will take care of it." QED.
20
@JCX
Couldn't agree more, the danger now is their medieval mental processing's inability to deal with complex systems of the modern world. Their minds' literally aren't suited for the task but they retain the power to block adaption of solutions. This is the ultimate risk to humanity, a large minority endangering life.
4
@JCX
Brilliant, in depth analysis of the American epidemic of "magical thinking" eroding the brains of the masses.
5
If HBO produced programs on chemical hazards rather than nuclear, the public might, perhaps, obtain a better perspective. For example, a program about the Bhopal India disaster, where a release of methyl isocyanate killed over 10,000 and injured a half million, would not need a lick of embellishment as was needed for the hyped Chernobyl program. The real Bhopal story is terrifying as it is.
21
While it’s easy for someone to look at the embedded map in the article and think this doesn’t effect them, we should also be considering the supply route for HF and the safety precautions that are (or are not) in place as this material moves through our communities to the gas plants.
20
"Millions of Americans will be safer if the E.P.A. takes positive action. If the it fails to do so, Congress must intervene."
What you meant to say is that we cannot expect the Senate as presently constituted to act either. We are dependent on citizens to get out and vote next year for Democratic candidates, especially for presiident, who will mandate a strong EPA making rules to keep all of us safer.
25
Oil companies are literally cooking the planet for profit; why would they care about a little thing like hydrofluoric acid? The chemical industry has no shortage of comparable horror stories or any better regulatory track record.
(Remember the Texas fertilizer plant that blew up - wiping out the town around it?)
What’s going on here is no different from any other business where all that matters is increasing shareholder value. It’s free market capitalism 101: maximize profits and externalize costs.
And now thanks to Citizens United, companies can spend as much as they need to buy the politicians they want.
Money is the ultimate hazardous substance. The only way this will change is when company executives know they will go to prison for institutional negligence and corporate culture stops rewarding this behavior.
56
@Larry Roth
Correction. Prison time won't do it. Confiscating all their personal assets will...since money is the only thing they value & truly fear not having it.
2
@Larry Roth Oil companies are not cooking the planet for profit, we and every other consumer are responsible. We demand oil (and natural gas) - the companies are simply satisfying our demands.
2
A bit disturbing to think that, but for the decisive action by the control room staffer, the entire city and region could have been covered by a cloud of lethal gas.
28
Thanks for the map. I will remain a safe distance.
9
Very informative article!
With the EPA currently overrun by industry influence and not performing its duties, well-placed information like this make the public aware of hazards hidden in plain sight.
Protecting the environment, including human health does matter... vote!
30
"Each company files a worst-case accident scenario with E.P.A., including the population at risk, but Congress has restricted this information to a handful of E.P.A. reading rooms." I had always thought that the word "protection" in the acronym EPA meant "protection of the public". I suppose I'm wrong. It actually means "protection of industry from the public".
23
Yes, there is RISK involved in everything. But the chances of an injury from this chemical pale to insignificance when measured against the odds of being killed in your car on the way to do an inspection of the plant.
And hysterics treat the word “chemical” as if everything weren’t made of chemicals. This particular chemical has been used for centuries.
Let’s be clear: the author’s mission is not to protect people from this “chemical”, but to shut down the oil industry. It plays on popular inability to consider probability and measure costs and benefits.
A scientist would rationally engage in that sort of discussion, not peddle alarmism.
9
@Brenda
I am a scientist. I have worked with hydrogen fluoride in the lab.
It is extremely dangerous---it can dissolve glass, which I saw for myself in a small laboratory accident.
There absolutely should not be industrial quantities of HF adjacent to population centers.
Many little risks add up. The goal is to reduce all risks to human life as much as practical, not to dismiss one risk by saying another risk is worse.
The biggest risk to human life apparently comes from people like these:
"Republican-controlled committee of air pollution regulators narrowly defeated a community-supported effort to phase out hydrogen fluoride from two of the state’s refineries in populated areas near Los Angeles."
56
@Brenda Don't you have a huge blind spot. "...there is RISK involved in everything." We'll let that hyperbole slide, but the fact you conveniently ignore is that of *relative* risk: some things (processes) are riskier than others. As I read his essay, what Dr. Horowitz advocates is transitioning to less risky processes, not seeking out no-risk processes. We should engage in *honest* discussion about alternatives, not just slam the door on inconvenient truths.
19
@Brenda
Brenda, You must have missed the part of the article that points out 60% or so refineries use alternate safer process . Might reread the article. Another posters comment about transportation of these chemicals is also startling.
12
Some of our subway cars have teflon wire insulation. Back in the 1980's when the subway system had many fires, involvement of the teflon in very high temperatures led to release of clouds of HF, the same way that pyrolysis of polyvinyl chloride releases clouds of HCl. Many firefighters responding to these fires had to have the insides of their nostrils cauterized because the HF ate holes in the membranes, leading to continual bleeding, pain, and raised probability of infections.
A few subway fires actually killed and permanently injured passengers.
The problem of dangerous halogens (F, Cl, Br) includes the needless use of HF to make high octane gasoline but also a wide variety of other applications. HF is probably the most dangerous but is less prevalent than chlorinated and brominated chemical species.
32
Astoundingly Americans are exposed to dangerous chemicals that have long been banned in countries most EU nations.
Moreover over 40,000 chemicals used in consumer products in the US, only 1% have been tested for human safety, if EPA estimates are any guide. Such is the power of the $640bn chemical industry which reportedly has a lobby much bigger and more well funded than the NRA.
Somehow American consumers have become blasé about the actual and potential harm chemicals continue to do to their health. They continue to randomly use products such as Round Up and other insecticides/pesticides without any regard to their effects on their health or the environment. They in turn have become facilitators for the chemical industry.
63
@Gadflyparexcellence
You are quite right . Broad spectrum Glyphosate, the active ingredient of 'Round Up', the most widely used herbicide in the USA, is banned in most EU countries. The same applies to Neonicotinoid the world's most widely used insecticide. It has been banned in the EU since April 2018.
This begs the question, posed by your excellent comment, as to why a block of nations with a population of 512 million people would ban these two chemicals when the USA, supposedly so modern and at the cutting edge of everything, does not?
31
@Gadflyparexcellence
Spot on! Here are first-hand experiences of just a couple of these 40,000 chemicals:
--a pair of jeans is treated with chemicals (the smell is still there after the 4th wash) which come in contact with the skin...why is that done? For what purpose?
--walk into a mega chain store (Best Buy, Bed Bath Beyond) and the smell of the strong cleaning products used, the industrial carpets, etc acost your senses.
Twice I had to immediately walk out of a store because I could not breathe. When I brought this up to sales clerks, they replied they didn't smell anything; that should tell you how our bodies are attacked 24/7 without realizing it.
How can these "undetectable" chemicals we are bombarded with (I use the correct word) not affect our health, our nervous system, etc ?
4
@Gadflyparexcellence
Don't get me started on other countries' regulation of food and chemicals vs our sellout to big ag, big chem, and big pharma. It was bad before Trump, but now he's removing the meager regulations we had in place to protect us from his Wall St. and global buddies.
Are Americans less caring about the health of our people than Europeans and Asians who won't buy our chemical-laced gmo food?
2
When I see such stories these days, my first thought is how it could impact Trump's base. Unfortunately, they won't be hearing about it from their carefully culled news sources. nor is it on their minds when they speak of civil war and their willingness to go there. The precariousness of such industrialization, and even what it takes to have potable water will be the death of all of us if they continue to get what they think they want.
25
It is probably a matter of When, not If, that there is a terrible disaster with large loss of life. How the "base" is affected, won't much matter. If something like this happens, no amount of news tweaking will make it go away.
13
@eve palmer
Why does everyone give such weight to 30+%?
Why is it so hard for 60+% of Trump detractors to see that they have the weight of opinion on their side.
Dems need to be smarter this time around and once the nomination has been selected STICK TOGETHER.
Bernie Sanders get out at that point. NO SIPHONING OFF VOTES TO SALBE YOUR EGO.
12
@eve palmer They will get the same level assistance that Puerto Rico did after Maria when something happens, and then they will Still not blame the people who caused the problem, they will instead attack those who said : "I Told You So!"
3
Excellent report and very troubling.
25
I believe it's pretty obvious why this chemical has not been banned. It's more cost effective to use this chemical than by other means so with this current EPA guided by the regulator buster in chief will take the business interest of the refinery over the potential risk to the surrounding population. This should no surprise to anyone following the Trump administration.
42
@VMG
YES. My first thought too.
Why? A one word answer: Trump
2
Capitalism's oft-demonstrated disregard for public safety is one of the more compelling arguments against it. The list of dangerous chemicals and industrial products that have recently made news because of corporate malfeasance is extensive -- why stop with hydrogen fluoride? Donald Trump's evisceration of the regulatory agencies responsible for protecting the public is only the most obvious example of how, for corporate America, profit always takes precedence over our health and environment. Unless these priorities change soon, we are surely headed, as the UN has recently suggested, for he earth's sixth mass extinction event and the collapse of civilization.
66
"Refineries in Utah and Louisiana are quietly installing alkylation units that use safer catalysts like advanced sulfuric acid and ionic liquids that will never vaporize in an accident to threaten workers and the public."
It may not vaporize but it will form mists carried by air currents which have their own serious risks as the CDC describes:
"Sulfuric acid and other acids are very corrosive and irritating and cause direct local effects on the skin, eyes, and respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts when there is direct exposure to sufficient concentrations. Breathing sulfuric acid mists can result in tooth erosion and respiratory tract irritation. Drinking concentrated sulfuric acid can burn your mouth and throat, and it can erode a hole in your stomach; it has also resulted in death. If you touch sulfuric acid, it will burn your skin. If you get sulfuric acid in your eyes, it will burn your eyes and cause them to water. The term "burn" used in these sections refers to a chemical burn, not a physical burn resulting from contacting a hot object. People have been blinded by sulfuric acid when it was thrown in their faces." - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1998. Toxicological profile for Sulfur Trioxide and Sulfuric Acid.
11
"It [sulfuric acid] may not vaporize but it will form mists carried by air currents which have their own serious risks ..."
From a technical perspective, the sentence you quote is one of the weakest in the OpEd.
The author needs to explain where the sulfuric acid is manufactured and stored. Further, the efficiency of the sulfuric acid process may be less, so that MORE sulfuric acid is required.
The author never mentions relative efficiency or trade-offs.
4
baton rouge Louisiana 1963 a chlorine barge struck the Mississippi river bridge and sank. there was no release. the entire metro area was evacuated while a salvage team secured the chlorine.
2
This is a helpful article, and the comments more so. Its not clear to me though how HF catalyzes the dimerization or telermerization of butane. What is missing from that equation?
4
@mocha
The industry term for the isomerization reaction is alkylation and involves the reaction of isobutane with the various isomers of butylene and sometimes propylene. As you note, the writer omitted those details from the article.
10
@mocha, that's a good question for Mr. Horowitz's FB page. Here, though, it doesn't matter. This is an article on how the trump administration will not protect us from for-profit poison.
Regulations are reactionary and only another Bhopal-type disaster will result in tepid safety regulations at best. A surefire way to ensure worthwhile consideration is to have the CEOs and other top executives, as well as the Scott Pruitts reside with their families next to these facilities.
35
@BlackJackJacques
The real fix is to get rid of Trump and replace the current EPA leaders with an administration that truly understands that EPA stand for the Environmental Protection Agency and not Trumps personal tool to deregulate.
38
If you figure out a way to put cold cash in their hands, they might make an effort at regulations. But I have never known a regulation Republicans liked. So perhaps any money would only help to build the Wall.
8
Is there anyone in the US that does not think ANY politician can not be bought or is not in the game for personal gain and aggrandizement ?
9
@TED338. Oops, didn't mean to recommend, but to say: Yes, I don't think they can ALL be bought and I do think that some are more interested in public health and safety than others. It's way too glib to just say "they're all the same", because they're not. In fact, it's just a form of disengagement when we need engagement more than ever.
21
@Ted338, from the article: “...Obama-era environmental rules that finally would have required oil refineries to evaluate using safer technologies.”
Who do you suggest “owned” Obama? Certainly not the coal companies (Clean Air Plan), the fossil fuel industry (vehicle emissions standards and ban on off-shore and public lands drilling) or the oil refineries (regulations Trump is now trying to overturn).
17
@TED338
"that does not think ANY politician can not be bought "
and so the grifters like Trump are given a pass by the cynicism of those who agree with you.
No, everyone does not do it.
People (tend to be Democrats) vote FOR laws that protect the environment.
Other people (tend to be Republicans, who, yes, received campaign donations from polluters) vote against laws and oppose regulations that protect us.
8
Regulation, as well as innovation, costs money, large companies will prefer that these monies remain in their pockets. They also know astutely, that paying off the Legislatures guarantees these results. Money well spent, indeed.
The public are only pawns in the game until we the people demand change and influence nothing will change. Truth contains knowledge and does matter in the survival of mankind and the planet.
12
Major disaster cleanup is also extremely expensive.
4
@Laume
Yes, that is why most cleanup is done at taxpayer expense, if at all.
2
Regulators in the age of Trump are doing the minimum. It's about profits, not health and safety of people and the environment. There is reasoning for this. If you can make money go for it. If people die so be it. If they become ill they have healthcare, hopefully, for now. If they don't have healthcare so be it. This is what happens when you place energy lobbyists in cabinet positions.
31
@carlg
And by doing the "minimum"...they are doing the opposite of what the P stands for in the EPA acronym.
1
If all of the real costs of fossil fuel extraction, refining, clean-up, and distribution were built into their price the actual prices would more than double, if not triple - making alternate energy immediately cheap by comparison. This is what the fossil fuel industry fears - they can absolutely install mitigating safety features and population health protections, but they don't want to add anything to the price consumers pay, knowing that it would drive different choices in the marketplace. And Trump and the GOP enable this for the sake of donor money, which is far cheaper than protecting humans and the environment for these companies. Note the article this past weekend on natural gas being burned off because it can't be transported - millions of tons of CO2 - too expensive to move the gas to markets? Really?
37
How many American lives will the Republican Party put at risk in their choice of Material Interest over Moral Principle?
Well, to do it, the party must dispute points of "fact" and statistical analysis. So, right off the bat, we can expect that the sources of this report will be condemned as "alarmists", that "experts" must be distrusted because "they've been wrong", and that this report is just an attack on Trump.
32
Our American companies didn’t care in Bhopal; why on earth should we think they wouldn’t work with legislators and/or government agencies to make sure this particular toxic chemical continues to be used in the US? If it makes money for them, any concern about humans and safety is just about the last thing on their minds. In addition, you can be sure that this administration is not anxious to look into the downside.
18
"At the same time, oil companies lobbied to oppose further restrictions, and thus the fundamental danger has remained. Each company files a worst-case accident scenario with E.P.A., including the population at risk, but Congress has restricted this information to a handful of E.P.A. reading rooms."
Here we have one of the fundamental reasons that our country's environment (and therefore the quality and safety our lives) is at risk.
What people would expect to happen in a sane political arena is that politicians behave in a responsible manner without actually going out of their way to deliberately endanger our lives.
But lobbying puts an end to all that. The most outrageous and corrupt agreements are quietly made behind closed doors and then dressed up in one way or another to look legitimate. Unless it is stopped, our planet and our children have no chance.
38
My wife's family grew up literally across the street from many of the same refineries mentioned in this article in Lemont, IL. There have been several fires, explosions, and disasters at these plants over the last four decades, some with serious loss of life.
Many new homes have been built on a ridge overlooking the refinery tanks just a few hundred feet away. And Lemont, Lockport, and Romeoville are only a few miles distant; Lewis University, home to 5K+ students, is within a few miles too.
I shudder to think what would happen to my extended family if HF was suddenly released in that area.
But by all means, let's eliminate regulations, cut back funding for inspections, and never even consider more expensive alternatives to fossil fuels. Oh, and cut funding for government science by 33% to save money.
The Trump Administration brings new meaning to the term "the evil that men do." Especially mentally-impaired, old, white, bigoted men who cannot see that their rein is soon coming to an end.
144
" old, white, bigoted men who cannot see that their rein is soon coming to an end."
That certainly has a ring to it doesn't it ? But don't let your wishful thinking get the better of you. Just because the color or age of the rulers change in future - it might not be quite the way you envision.
More than likely it will just be new rulers filling the same old back pockets.
2
@JCTeller There is some special evil for those whose actions serve to denigrate the health and safety of future generations - even their own offspring. Yet - they readily present "God and country" as their shield.
5
Im shocked and appalled to read about the Lemont refinery: this is a highly populated suburban area. Outrageous.
3
Pollution of air, land and water will continue as long as fossil fuel extraction and combustion are mainstays of economies.
Dangers of horrible chemical deaths are dramatic.
We know how to mitigate the situation. We need to accelerate our conversion to a clean, sustainable, safer renewable energy economy.
We need intelligent, well informed leadership, good will and strength of character to engage in a worldwide economic conversion that will require efforts and investments that will far exceed those of the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program.
The Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program were initiated under leaders (FDR and JFK) who believed that enlightenment based American ideals could and should be the basis for inspired efforts on a vast scale.
We know where not to look for heroic, rational, science based leadership.
29
Politicians have only one loyalty.... to the companies that give them money to get re-elected. Just look at Cheney and the private deals made with the oil and fracking industries, private and secret! They do not have to disclose the chemicals used and have no oversight in the disposal of them.
The companies all claim poverty and it would cost too much to change how they do things... we pollute our environment, poison ourselves, our children and grandchildren, all for the promise of jobs and a good economy. When something does happen we protest and complain and nothing changes.
Take money from companies out of politics, make the EPA independent so it can do its job. THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO GET CHANGE.
57
@Mike
Term limits for congress
4
This reminds me of when Greenpeace tried to ban chlorine. They almost pulled it off but the experts managed to convince otherwise.
Is it going to get to the point where we need to ask politicians, journalist and so called scientist are you now or have you ever been a member of the Green Party or Greenpeace?
Although this an opinion piece presented with many facts it's
conclusion is arbitrary. I live in a wood frame house made with highly flammable seasoned tree lumber a renewable source. My house has many flammable objects it. Furniture, rugs and plastic stuff. It has an attached garage. In it two motor vehicles that hold about 20 gallons of gasoline each. Gasoline is very dangerous fire hazard, poison if ingested and it's fumes can kill you plus it has considerable environmental deficits uif spilled or used. Ban gasoline.
6
You will probably get your suggestion in the net 30 years when electric vehicles replace gasoline vehicles .
4
@JoeG - Joe come on now.
You personally choose to live in a wood home and have gasoline-powered cars. Not unusual nor unreasonable. You understand the potential risks and accept them.
The release of HF (or other toxic airborne chemical releases) from an industrial plant / refinery is NOT a personal choice the nearby residents make.
Ask any Industrial Hygienist or Safety Manager if they and their families live adjacent to the industrial facilities they work at. I bet the answer is "Heck No" in 99.9% of the responses.
22
@JoeG No doubt, a Republican, masters of false equivalency. Not many wood houses exploding, ya know?
"The results [of the Amoco tests] were nightmarish: All the spilled hydrogen fluoride immediately became airborne and formed a dense, ground-hugging aerosol cloud."
The author neglects to mention a later (1988), $3.5-million industry-sponsored program to test various safety systems. Preliminary results showed that:
"... showers drenching the highly toxic fumes with large volumes of water mist have been able to knock down up to 90% of the hydrogen fluoride vapor in some of the 70 tests ..."*
That's missing some important details, such as how the water is aimed at the HF vapor and where the HF-contaminated water is disposed of, but the point is that the industry has not been as complacent or resistant as the author suggests:
"[After the 1987 Texas City release,] Hydrofluoric acid manufacturers and users quickly formed the Industry HF Mitigation Program to study ways to diminish the effect of a hydrofluoric acid release. The program is supported by 20 firms, including Chevron, Mobil, Exxon, Shell, Unocal and Texaco."
* Safeguards for Hydrofluoric Acid Tested
by GEORGE STEIN
Sept. 22, 1988
Los Angeles Times
BTW, the tests were "conducted at the Nevada Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas".
5
@WGR
If this is supposed to allay any fears that I might have concerning the overall standard of safety at and the ability of oil refineries using HF- based alkylation to respond in an up-to-date, rigorously tested, and practiced response to an accidental release of HF, then it it failed completely.
10
As an industrial chemist, I have intensely mixed feelings on this article.
On the one hand, my industry could stand to improve practices. Safety culture is paramount, including root cause investigations and unflinching assessments in process safety improvement. The EPA should be doing more in that regard.
On the other hand, having seen how the sausage is made, I have a lot of concern about high-handed regulations like outright chemical or process bans. The cost concern is real, it goes straight to our ability to produce goods that people need. It’s one thing to update a process as the capital depreciates. It’s entirely another to write-down a hundred million dollar plant decades early. You exchange a risk for a certainty.
A ban seems particularly extreme in this case since leading firms are already replacing the old process on their own.
7
@Zachariah I certainly appreciate your knowledgeable perspective. But the map in the article shows only two plants being upgraded and one closed.
If all the other plants in the US can make the higher octane gasoline w/o HFA, why shouldn't all of them? Cost of conversion is impossible to compare with the lives horribly lost when the inevitable catastrophe occurs.
17
@Zachariah
Regarding the write-down concern you mention, aren't companies in question making billions in profit each year?
8
@Zachariah I too worked in the chemicals industry for years, and in retrospect, I admit that I was caught up in the beauty of what we could provide and not paying as much attention to what the long term costs are.
13
Another example of vulture capitalism at it's finest. Maybe if one of those refineries were located near Mar A Lago or closer to the White House, deregulation wouldn't be quite so appealing.
51
Yet another reason to speed the transition to electric vehicles.
Also a reason to fight for EPA re-empowerment
If all hate were self hate, that might explain this otherwise irrational lack of safety regulations that everyone would benefit from.
11
Of course PhD scientists could take an oath to "do no harm" like doctors do. But a guy has to do what he's got to do: pay for the kids' college, nice vacations, etc. Why not wait for regulations first?
2
Dr. Horowitz is correct. I've worked with HF in various positions over the past four (4) decades. While experienced people like me have handled HF safely, it remains about as dangerous a chemical as there is in the workplace. One cannot trifle with it.
107
@dmanuta. I am not only a retired MD but also an organic chemist (PhD) and I absolutely agree with the author of the article that HF is very dangerous stuff. This is a very worrisome, if not plain frightening, situation.
I noted on the map of refinery operations that use HF two maroon dots, one near St. Paul (my home) and the other up north, near Superior, WI. I think we had a very close call with doom at the latter site in the very recent past. That HF operations are conducted so close to large cities (e.g. Houston, LA, etc) really gives me the creeps.
21
This is another argument for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' Green New Deal. We must make clean electricity for our cars to run on. And if progressives rather warhawks were running the government we would invest in solar, wind, geothermal and battery technology with a small part of the the bloated defense budget.
The planet is rebelling with floods and earthquakes and fires. We must cut back on our use of fossil fuels.
86
Industrial regulation is the enemy of prosperity, haven't you gotten the memo? /s
Haven't Republicans promised to eliminate the Department of Energy? Was that before or after they realized (have they realized) that much of what they do is regulate nukes and stuff like this?
More worrisome is that the computer systems that operated these refineries are easily hacked.
28
"... the 149-year-old refinery’s alkylation unit ..."
Obviously, the refinery would have been upgraded during that time, so the age of the plant site is irrelevant.
"None of these [safety] methods have been shown to be completely reliable."
There is no such thing as "completely reliable". The author is committing the nirvana fallacy, which falsely argues that if a solution to a problem is not perfect, it has no value.
"... alkylation units that use safer catalysts like advanced sulfuric acid and ionic liquids ..."
The author should have explained how those processes differ in efficiency from the HF process.
6
@WGR
I'm sure a risk- and outcome-based economic impact assessment is the right thing to do. It should certainly include economic impacts of the potential deaths, injuries, and healthcare costs. Which would not be much of a comfort to those killed or injured, or their loved ones.
I doubt that Dr. Horowitz would oppose that.
The fact that many corporations are already doing it suggests that the costs are not prohibitive.
Why would you raise such pointed objections?
7
@WGR They aren't at risk of releasing aerosolized poisons across a major metropolitan area. Does that explain better how they differ in efficiency?
8
NFC: "Why would you raise such pointed objections?"
Because bad arguments are unpersuasive to people who know enough to recognize them. See:
"An illustrated book of bad arguments" by Ali Almossawi ; illustrations by Alejandro Giraldo.
The entire book is online. A web search will find it.
David Weintraub: "They aren't at risk of releasing aerosolized poisons across a major metropolitan area. Does that explain better how they differ in efficiency?"
No. Lower-efficiency processes have side-effects, such as increased energy consumption or more industrial waste. The author fails to acknowledge that there are always trade-offs when considering alternative solutions to a problem.
BTW, sulfuric acid can be aerosolized too -- where do you suppose the sulfuric acid would come from if it is not manufactured on site?
2
The 'American Way' is increasingly, "well, if it costs more money and dozens haven't been killed yet, it's not necessary." 'Californians for a Sustainable Economy' sounds like an Astroturf organization, just like California's 'Citizens for Fire Safety' group, which consisted entirely of heads of the flame retardant chemical companies whose unnecessary and toxic products were being considered for a ban back in the early 2000s.
45
Makes sense - I agree. The regulations should not be weakened but possibly made even tighter.
28
It's not mentioned how the hydrogen fluoride actually gets to the refineries; presumably its by rail, which puts anyone along the route in peril. My rule is that whenever someone starts spouting about "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!", you know they've been bought.
292
@stan continople is totally on point — how does the HF get to these plants? Dr. Horowitz and NYT, could you please do a follow-up piece or update to include maps of sites of HF production and/or HF transport routes? As @stan c suggested, it is likely that many more millions of us are at risk.
10
@stan continople. Most likely by rail. Usually (!) safe, but we hear about accidents of trains carrying toxic chemicals often enough to minimize the need to transport dangerous and toxic chemicals to a minimum. Getting these refineries to switch to less dangerous processes would also reduce the frequency and bulk of hydrogen fluoride transports.
5
I think we know why business drags its feet on regulatory improvement: greed.
We also know why our elected officials do as well: greed.
And I think we know why the public does not insist on systematic improvements in this and other potentially disastrous operations: ignorance, expediency, and powerlessness.
383
Thank you, HSM~
But your use of the word "greed" to explain this situation in fact doesn't.
Corporate executives are not 'dragging their feet'; they're carrying out their fiduciary duties, which are to maximize shareholder value. If they fail to do this, they'll be booted and replaced with executives who do. Maximizing shareholder value is not "greed"—it's a corporate imperative. Dismiss this imperative and you have no corporation and you have no job.
Likewise, our elective officials are not participating in this for "greed"; they're simply going to work and doing their job, which is to support their most powerful constituents—these corporate executives who ensure that they are able to keep their jobs (i.e., if you had their job, you'd be doing the same thing).
As for the public, you're partly right: powerlessness explains much of what allows this situation to go unimpeded by the public. But keep in mind this powerlessness comes out of massive corporate-led efforts to keep the public atomized—because it's as clear to them as it is to us that an organized & united public could stop this situation in short order.
Too, any ignorance on the part of the public also comes out of a massive corporate-led effort to instill ignorance in the public; after all, these powerful corporations are huge supporters of mainstream media precisely because this media is doing its job of keeping the public atomized and largely ignorant of how corporate-run America actually operates.
8
@Tom Wilde
The corporate imperative which turns greed into a virtue was a human decision. It can and must be reversed if humans want to survive.
14
@Tom Wilde
As someone who has paid the price for 'doing his job' by living up to professional standards and witnessed another who paid a far greater price, I strongly disagree. It is greed and fear. Do I have any regrets? No.
9
Well, first:
here's money to be made via the current chemical technology, and industry bases profitability on its ability privatize profits by socializing costs;
Second, Obama tried to eliminate the danger, so of course Trump will reverse it.
Case closed.
260
@MassBear
So many businesses would not be profitable if they had to be responsible for the damage that they do.
Greed is at the root and our government is complicit.
11
Oh please. HF is not a nice chemical but it's hardly an all-killing menace.
It's not persistent in atmosphere or soil - within days it'll be all bound in unreactive and safe compounds. So while a spill can destroy crops or fish, it won't create a permanent pollution hazard. An affected area will be back to normal within a couple of years.
The safety question is more nuanced, it should be definitely treated with care and if schools or residential areas are nearby then there should be an emergency evacuation plan on file. Refineries can also fairly easily decrease the amount of HF stored between uses, to minimize the danger of spills.
Want to know about REALLY scary stuff that is used every day? Google "phosgenation".
6
@Cyberax If an explosion of an HF tank occurs near a school or neighborhood, activating an emergency evacuation of the area will probably be too late for many people. It is always better to err on the side of caution and safety. If there are safer methods for refining petroleum those methods should be used. The best solution of all would be to accelerate the replacement of petroleum products with renewable energy.
147
@Cyberax
it should be noted that hydrogen fluoride is the acid that cannot be kept in glass containers as it is one of the few materials that dissolves glass. It is rare that any solvent is that corrosive..
107
@Jan Sand Ah, yes. Just out of college, a science teacher who used to work for Corning Glass was telling me about a problem they had: pinholing of the glass heat exchangers in processing, I believe it was, phosphoric acid. The latter started life as Florida phosphate rock.
Fifty years later I can still see the look on Bruce's face when I told him, "Sure, it was the fluoride molecules in the phosphate making hydrofluoric acid." I wasn't a chemist, but having grown up in south Florida, I knew that the discovery about fluoride and tooth decay came from observing the crackers there. Dirt poor, little tooth decay, shallow wells with fluoride in the water!
Profit trumps safety.
We should know this by now.
304
@DKM
"Profit trumps safety," and Trump profits.
5
@DKM
Case in point:
Boeing 737 Max
7