Coursing through the pipelines of two oil refineries situated in the middle of densely populated cities is a chemical so dangerous that it has been banned in virtually every corner of the state. It’s called modified hydrofluoric acid, or MHF.
It boils at room temperature, and contact with it, in liquid or gas form, can severely burn skin, eyes, and lungs. And these aren’t regular burns. MHF enters the bloodstream, eats away at bone and can cause long-term neurological, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular dysfunction – and even death.
But in early September, regulators failed to pass a rule that would phase out MHF, leaving many Southern California residents wondering – how did we get to this point?
The History
Trouble at the refineries started long ago.
In December of 1979, a teenaged resident of Torrance, California named Cynthia Moore was on her way to a concert. Her route required that she pass by the Torrance Refinery, then owned by Mobil Oil. As she drew near the refinery, which now stretches nearly 750 acres throughout the city, Moore’s car suddenly stalled. Moore restarted the car – but as soon as she turned the key, the engine burst into flames and she was set on fire.
Moore didn’t know that at the same moment her car stalled, a cloud of butane gas had drifted from the tank fields of the Torrance Refinery and enveloped her vehicle completely.
Moore lived through the incident – surviving with burns over 97% of her body – but died in the hospital shortly after.
The blast also killed two refinery workers.
Throughout the 1980s, the city and its residents grew familiar with gruesome accidents like the one that killed Moore and two others.
After nearly a decade of explosions, accidents, and death, Torrance sued the refinery’s owner, Mobil Oil Corp, which later became ExxonMobil. The city requested that the California Superior Court declare the refinery a public nuisance.
The city also sought an injunction barring Mobil from polluting the air with toxic chemicals, as well as a court order mandating that the refinery be operated safely.
In the 1989 complaint, then-Torrance City Attorney Kenneth Nelson wrote that Mobil had reported 127 major safety incidents over the past ten years and demonstrated a dangerous lack of safety protocol, unnecessarily putting residents of the densely populated Torrance area in jeopardy.
Although the case dealt with systemic safety issues at Torrance Refinery, Nelson made the danger of hydrofluoride (HF), a chemical used to refine high quality gasoline, a key fixture of his legal argument.
An early scientific experiment known as the “Goldfish Study” determined that large scale releases of HF formed dense, rolling clouds of toxic vapor that were able to travel downwind at distances of three-to-six miles.
Nelson argued that even if a refinery using large quantities of HF mandated the most stringent safety protocols, they would still be vulnerable to a catastrophic accident like the one demonstrated in the Goldfish Study.
“Somehow, sometime Refinery equipment will break down, be damaged or malfunction,” Nelson wrote. “And somehow, sometime Mobil employees or contractors will falter or err.”
He was right. While the case was awaiting trial, another accident happened at the refinery: 100 pounds of hydrofluoric acid were released in an explosion that ignited a 17-hour fire, injured 10 people, and caused $17 million in damage.
Rather than take the case to trial following the accident, Mobil agreed to a settlement drafted by the city known as the Torrance Consent Decree.
The settlement gave Mobil two options: phase out the use of HF by 1997, or modify the chemical with an additive that would reduce the chances of a dense vapor cloud forming in the event of an accidental release.
Thus, Modified Hydrofluoride was created.
Jointly developed by Mobil and Philips in 1990, MHF was successfully commercialized in 1997. The key difference between the two chemicals is that MHF contains an additive chemical meant to prevent the formation of a posionous cloud in the event of an accidental leak.
The Torrance Consent Decree and its modifications set precedent for how the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), the regulator whose written mission is to “clean the air and protect the health of all residents in the South Coast Air District,” would regulate HF and MHF use in the future.
In 1999, however, the standard set by the Consent Decree was changed, allowing a “significant reduction of the modifier” added to HF during the alkylation process.
That change effectively made MHF just as potentially dangerous as its counterpart, full concentration HF.
Years later, the AQMD entered into an agreement with Ultramar, then-owner of the Valero refinery in Wilmington, CA, allowing it to use MHF under conditions similar to those set by the Torrance Consent Decree.
To this day, the Torrance and Wilmington refineries are the only two in California that still use HF or MHF.
What Sparked a Resurgence in Anti-MHF Sentiment?
To many, the legal deals that the ExxonMobil and Valero agreed to were enough; they offered a sense of security to concerned residents.
But the dangers posed by the refinery never truly went away.
In 2015, another explosion rattled the Torrance refinery.
The blast, which occurred during a routine procedure, registered as 1.7 magnitude earthquake on the Richter scale and left the surrounding areas covered in catalytic dust.
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) examined the events that took place leading up to the incident. Their report revealed that the explosion launched a 40-ton piece of debris that nearly struck large settler tanks carrying thousands of gallons of HF and other chemical components.
Torrance Refinery is situated in a densely populated, bustling community. Within a three mile radius of the refinery, there are approximately 330,00 residents, 71 schools, and eight hospitals. Similarly, the Valero refinery in Wilmington occupies a heavily populated, residential area. Due to their proximity to people, a sizable leak of MHF at either refinery could have disastrous implications.
CSB Chairperson Vanessa Sutherland described the Torrance incident as “well short of a worst case scenario” that could have left thousands in harm’s way. The CSB's investigation found that the explosion could have been avoided, but occured due to serious weaknesses in safety protocol among refinery staff – a finding that echoed the refinery’s negative safety record in the 80s and 90s.
The Torrance Refinery Action Alliance, one of the most prominent anti-MHF voices in Southern California, began to advocate for Proposed Rule 1410 after the explosion.
The rule, which would require the refineries to phase-out MHF or switch to an alternative alkylation method, had previously been adopted by the AQMD in 1991 – but the district was sued by Ultramar and forced to overrule the rule due to a procedural error.
It wasn’t until after the AQMD received serious pushback from the Torrance community following the 2015 explosion that concern for rule 1410 became a fixture of the board’s focus.
Connie Sullivan, a four-year member of the TRAA’s steering committee, told Annenberg Media that the process of getting Rule 1410 approved was “a real battle royale.”
Photo Courtesy of the TRAA
Sullivan, along with TRAA colleagues and community supporters, garnered support for the movement to ban MHF over several years. Notable elected officials, including Congresswoman Nanette Barragan, Congressman Ted Lieu and Congresswoman Maxine Waters, wrote letters urging the AQMD to pass rule 1410 and phase MHF out of Southern California.
Agencies including theLos Angeles County Department of Public Health, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra also wrote in support of an MHF phase-out.
Local unions, refinery workers, and residents concerned about the potential economic effects of removing MHF from the refineries spearheaded opposition to rule 1410. Organizations like Californians for a Sustainable Economy (CaSE), represented thousands of local businesses and individuals who were not in favor of the ban.
“The state could potentially lose thousands of jobs, and it could result in higher gasoline prices at the pump for California residents, businesses, and government,” wrote a CaSE representative in a letter to the AQMD. “Having affordable fuel that is readily available is a vital part of the California economy.”
MHF: The Great Divide
The battle to ban MHF in Southern California forced local government officials and businesses to take sides on the issue. Hover over an image to see which officials supported or opposed a ban on MHF.
Despite opposition, Sullivan and the TRAA came close to convincing the AQMD board to enact Rule 1410 last February — but the vote was postponed so that staff members could “seek direction” on how to move forward.
AQMD staff members wrote in a presentation that although MHF may offer slightly increased safety benefits, the “ability of MHF to prevent formation of a vapor/aerosol cloud is highly uncertain” and that a “release of MHF will result in exposure to HF with the same health effects.”
The new judgment day for Rule 1410 was set: Sept. 6, 2019.
“We’re still very hopeful that we can convince seven members of the AQMD to do something meaningful,” Sullivan told Annenberg Media prior to the September vote. “And by that, I mean my hope is to pass a rule that will lead to phase-out.”
Where Were the Regulators?
Four years of public comment, gatherings, and protests came to a head when the AQMD voted on PR 1410, which would have required the use of HF and MHF be phased out at the Torrance and Wilmington refineries.
One week before the scheduled vote on the proposed MHF ban, PBF (current owner of Torrance Refinery) and Valero released two proposals stating their intent to make modifications to the refining process using MHF in order to make it safer.
“It is clear that a safer and viable alternative technology for HF and MHF currently does not exist,” wrote Paul Davis, PBF’s western region president. “Even though the MHF Alkylation Unit’s existing safety systems already have been successful and proven in protecting Refinery personnel and the community, Torrance Refining Company (TORC) has devoted significant time and resources to identifying additional technological enhancements that will ensure the safest possible use of HF and MHF in the Unit.”
Valero’s representatives expressed a similar sentiment.
“We have already installed the best mitigation systems available and continuously work to improve them,” wrote Valero’s vice president Mark Phair. “Now, we stand ready to facilitate the closure of this process by committing publicly to implement even more safety improvements.”
Despite strong opposition, and even acknowledging the uncertainty of MHF’s actual safety enhancements, the AQMD board voted 8-3 in favor of the refineries’ propositions – effectively ending any further action on rule 1410’s proposed MHF phase-out.
Jim Eninger, a member of TRAA’s Science Advisory Panel with advanced degrees in Aeronautics and Astronautics, expressed his disappointment to Annenberg Media following the board’s decision.
“As a long-time Torrance resident, you find out what's there and how many thousands of people that can be killed, it affects your day-to-day life,” he said.
William Burke, chairman of the AQMD board, told Annenberg Media that he voted in favor for the refineries’ offers as instead of a phase-out because he thought it was the best deal the board could broker with the refineries to keep the community safe.
“It’s an extremely complex issue,” Burke said. “I’ve been on the board 28 years, and it’s probably the most difficult, contentious issue that the board has faced in that period.”
Burke said that if the AQMD mandated a phase-out of MHF, it could cost the refineries millions of dollars. AQMD staff estimated that it could cost up to $900 million to transition refinery alkylation technology to a less volatile alternative to MHF.
“The refineries aren’t going to eat that cost,” Burke said. “They’re going to pass it on to the consumer.”
Eninger, who attended many of the AQMD meetings leading up to the vote, said the local unions put a lot of additional pressure on the board.
“One of the tough things in this struggle was that the trade unions were on the refinery’s side,” Eninger said. “They turned out big crowds at AQMD meetings.”
In addition to bringing large crowds to speak during public comment at meetings in support of MHF, unions also heavily advertised their support of the chemical in local papers.
“The record shows the Torrance refinery Alkylation unit has been safely operating without any off-site HF release since 1966 when the unit started up,” United Steelworkers Local 675 wrote in an ad. “We work with MHF everyday and know it is safe and effective.”
Another board member, who spoke to Annenberg Media off-the-record, said that the AQMD may have a better of chance of enacting a phase-out on MHF if the refineries saved as many jobs as possible during a switch to a less volatile refining method.
“My job is to worry about the protection of the public,” Burke said. “But its also my responsibility to care about those people who live on fixed incomes and live in an environmentally challenged area.”
What Happens Next?
On the fifth anniversary of the 2015 Torrance refinery explosion that launched a movement in Southern California, the TRAA announced a new initiative to urge Governor Gavin Newsom’s office to investigate the continued use of MHF in Torrance and Wilmington.
“Pretending it can’t happen is only wishful thinking,” the TRAA wrote in a letter to Gov. Newsom on Feb. 18, 2020. “We urge you to request an investigation of how, over the last three decades, two refineries in Southern California’s South Bay have been allowed to use massive quantities of hydrogen fluoride.”
The TRAA has not received a response from Governor Newsom’s office regarding their call for an investigation, according to Eninger.
Until the AQMD or other regulators can match the influence of refineries and trade unions, Southern California residents will have to hope that mitigation measures are enough to save them if an accident happens.
“Some things you can’t do anything about, like earthquakes,” said Eninger. “But this is something we can do something about. It’s depressing.”