The operator of an 800-ton crane at ExxonMobil’s Baton Rouge, Louisiana, polypropylene project construction site lowers a new 150-foot-tall reactor into place.
I remember a few years ago when we were discussing a new regulatory approach being proposed in Europe that would put more of the burden of ensuring chemical safety on industry. It was touted by...
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) today released a new video highlighting the safety approach and measures used by U.S. refineries with hydrofluoric acid (HF) alkylation units.
Governor Gavin Newsom continues to blame fuel refiners for California’s highest-in-the-nation fuel prices. He couldn't be more wrong. The problem and solution to much of California’s fuel price challenge can be found in Sacramento policy. Take a look to better understand the role of policy in regional price differences, why it’s inaccurate to equate “margins” or “refinery cracks” with “profits,” and why windfall profit taxes are a known policy failure.
Refinery utilization, measures how much crude oil refineries are processing or “running” as a percentage of their maximum capacity. It tells us roughly how much of our refining muscle is being put to work manufacturing fuel. American refineries are running full-out, at about 95% of total capacity, contributing more fuel—gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc.—to the global market than any other country. In fact, U.S. refineries process more crude oil every day than the United States produces, and we make more finished fuels than the United States consumes.
The United States has the most complex and efficient refining industry in the world, but we also have less refining capacity than we used to. Where the issue of refining capacity is concerned, it’s important to understand what refining capacity is, why we’ve lost capacity in the United States and how policies can advance the competitiveness of our refineries in the global market.
With the possibility that the EPA and policymakers could make updates to the Risk Management Plan (RMP) program, there are three things we encourage them to keep in mind: 1. RMP is working as intended and keeping people safe. 2. Any changes to RMP must be evidence-based and actionable. 3. Using RMP to zero in on hydrofluoric acid (HF) alkylation at refineries could have major impacts on U.S. fuel supplies.
Because of the extensive safety and mitigation steps refiners take wherever hydrofluoric acid (HF) alkylation is concerned, the risks from this process pale in comparison to those we assume every day when we engage in routine activities like riding a bike, driving a car and playing with pets.
EPA’s existing Risk Management Plan (RMP) is doing what it was designed to do: drive continual safety improvements across workplaces to keep industry employees, contractors, facility neighbors and local environments safe. Any changes to a regulation as effective as the RMP need to be solidly evidence-based. Unfortunately, today’s proposal is filled with costly and misinformed changes, with little-to-no data to back them up. In fact, many of the proposed changes will adversely impact the safety and security missions of refining and petrochemical sites. AFPM looks forward to providing detailed comments on this proposal.