Advertisement

May 22, 2013

Fourth Fire this Year Strikes Refinery that Relies on Toxic Acid

Company reports no chemical releases but event underscores risks to nation's aging fuel factories

In another sign of ongoing risks facing the refining industry and people who live nearby, a fire broke out Wednesday morning at Sunoco Inc.’s Philadelphia oil refinery. It was the fourth known blaze this year at the plant, which uses a highly toxic acid that threatens more than 1.3 million people in the Philadelphia area.

The Sunoco refinery in Philadelphia. Matt Rourke/Associated Press

The fire started at about 5 a.m. in a crude unit, was quickly extinguished, and caused no injuries or off-site chemical releases, Sunoco spokesman Thomas Golembeski said.  Experts and even oil industry trade groups say that fires can be key indicators of larger problems with the handling of hazardous substances at the nation’s aging fuel factories.

The Philadelphia refinery uses hydrofluoric acid, a substance highlighted in an iWatch News-ABC News investigation for its ability to travel great distances in a cloud that could cause sickness or death.

Nationwide, 50 refineries use the acid , despite the availability of a safer alternative.  Companies using significant amounts of the chemical have to file worst-case scenarios with the Environmental Protection Agency, and an iWatch News review of these documents showed that at least 16 million Americans live in the potential path of the acid, known as HF, if it were released in an accident or terrorist attack.

In Philadelphia, Sunoco agreed to switch to a modified form of the acid after local organizations pushed for a change.  Sunoco completed the switch in 2010, but the company’s own worst-case scenario shows that 1.31 million people still could be affected by a release.

An alternative, known as solid acid catalyst, would pose virtually no risk to communities and is now commercially viable, proponents say.  A company preparing to build a new refinery in South Dakota recently said it was planning to use an HF alternative based on solid acid technology.

In 2009, an HF release from the Sunoco refinery, located near downtown Philadelphia, sent 13 contract workers to the hospital.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued more than 35 violations to the refinery during the past five years for alleged problems related to the handling of highly hazardous substances such as HF.  The company is still contesting some of the violations.

In April, a Pennsylvania state legislator held a hearing on the risks posed to workers and the nearby community by the refinery.  The refinery’s general manager, Mike Bukowski, defended the use of HF, saying that “there has not been a single, documented incident of off-site impact or injury to a member of the public.”  Bukowski faced criticism from union officials and State Rep. Maria Donatucci of Philadelphia, who said that Sunoco “must look to safer alternatives.”

Over the past five years, authorities have cited 32 of the 50 refineries using HF for willful, serious, or repeat violations of rules designed to prevent fires, explosions, and chemical releases, according to U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration data analyzed. These “process safety management” standards require companies to conduct inspections, analyze hazards, and plan for emergencies.  

Reprinted by Permission © 2013, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Staff Writer

Chris Hamby has a master’s degree in journalism with a concentration in investigative reporting from the University of Missouri, and he has a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Richmond. In 2010 he completed a yearlong re-examination of a disputed murder case, supported in part by an investigative reporting fellowship. He has written about subjects such as politics and policy, the criminal justice system, and the environment for various print and online publications.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.