Most gasoline sold in the U.S. contains alkylate, a blendstock essential for the cleanest motor gasoline, capable of satisfying the world’s strictest environmental standards.
Making alkylate requires a catalyst. While others are in various stages of testing, the two primary catalysts refiners use are hydrofluoric acid (HF) and sulfuric acid. Each accounts for about half of U.S. alkylate production. In a gasoline-first market like the U.S., that makes them critically important.
Presently, there are misinformed efforts to make it harder for refineries to use HF. Those pushing for barriers presume incorrectly that refiners have readily available alternatives and that it is simply not possible for refiners to safely manage HF.
If refiners’ use of HF is restricted or banned, consequences could be severe — potentially affecting U.S. fuel supplies, refinery viability, national energy security and prices at the pump. For these reasons, decisions regarding HF must be rooted in accuracy.
The one immovable and enduring goal for every refinery is safety. Operations are managed carefully and methodically to keep refinery workers and community neighbors safe. Refiners use even greater safety measures in and around alkylation units. In addition to following federal and state safety policies — including EPA’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) — refineries develop and adhere to the most rigorous and regularly updated industrial guidelines for HF management, API Recommended Practice 751 (RP 751).
Facilities employ rigorous training and facility equipment checks to prevent any HF-related incidents. They also use a range of risk-mitigating technologies to provide the earliest possible detection and fastest possible containment response to any potential or actual HF release. Acid-detecting paint, water mitigation systems, point sensors, lasers and double-sealed pumps are a few examples.
These safety investments work. Data from actual refinery incident reports and mitigation surveys show the chance of a person sustaining a life-threatening injury close to a refinery because of HF alkylation is 1 in 144,000. By comparison, National Safety Council data show a 1 in 107 chance for a life-threatening injury from a car crash, 1 in 29,000 from a sharp object and 1 in 59,000 from a bee sting.
HF does pose risks (as does sulfuric acid) which is why it’s essential that industrial users understand those risks and carefully manage them. Refineries do, and we continue to push for improvements and additional rigor through RP 751 revisions.
Catalysts cannot be “swapped” without major disruptions to fuel production.
Alkylation units are not an afterthought. They are designed with a specific catalyst in mind and are built to integrate with the rest of a refinery. Sulfuric acid cannot be introduced to an HF unit. The technologies are different and the units distinct.
A catalyst change would likely require a full unit rebuild and investment in catalyst regeneration, something HF does not require. Additionally, facilities would have to make significant logistical arrangements to take in much higher volumes of acid and retrain staff on this technology.
A California study on transition costs from HF alkylation catalyst to sulfuric acid found the bill to a specific refinery could approach $1 billion — more than what the refinery last sold for. In the face of such costs, it’s possible some facilities would shutter. Others might be forced to go “down” for extended time, straining already tight U.S. fuel supplies and potentially raising finished fuel costs. This same study projected a forced transition away from HF could increase regional gasoline costs by an additional 25-cents per gallon.
As long as the world needs gasoline, we will also need alkylate. To produce it, we need HF. Any policy changes that aim to restrict the use of HF at refineries need to be well-informed and evidence-based to avoid further challenges to U.S. fuel security.
For more information, visit afpm.org or call (202) 457-0480.
