Policy Concentrates BIOTECHNOLOGY
Refinery ignored safety risks Safety Board criticizes Tesoro for acid leaks The Tesoro refinery in Martinez, Calif., for years ignored safety problems and fostered a weak safety culture, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board says in a report released on Aug. 2. Board officials urged Tesoro and other refiners to elevate the importance of process safety and encouraged state and local regulators to frequently conduct preventive safety inspections of the facility.
A piping failure during a maintenance operation to replace a sulfuric acid sampling system injured workers at the Tesoro Refinery in Martinez, Calif. Triggering CSB’s report and investigation were incidents in February and March 2014 at the facility’s alkylation unit, which carries out a process common at U.S. refineries. Tesoro’s unit uses sulfuric acid as a catalyst to reformulate low-value hydrocarbons, such as propane and butane, to produce a premium, high-octane gasoline blend stock. The first of the two accidents was the result of a piping failure that released some 38,000 kg of sulfuric acid over two hours and burned two employees. Tesoro initially characterized the accident as minor and refused to allow CSB to investigate. In the second incident a month later, two contract workers were sprayed and burned with sulfuric acid at the same unit. The two incidents followed 13 similar sulfuric acid accidents at the facility since 2010, CSB says. It suggests the company failed to learn from past mistakes and allowed accidents to continue. The second incident, CSB notes, had similarities to a 1999 incident at the refinery in which four workers were killed. Much of CSB’s report focuses on the February 2014 accident which occurred in piping for the plant’s sulfuric acid sampling system. Tesoro had purchased and intended to install a new, closedloop, so-called inherently safer acid sampling system that is similar to those used at other California refineries. However, the company claimed the system was unreliable, CSB says, and never installed it. Instead Tesoro slightly upgraded its existing sampling system, which requires workers who draw samples to wear personal protective gear to counter the expected release of sulfuric acid vapors. Tesoro officials would not comment on the specific accident or decision not to install inherently safer technology. They, however, cited unspecified “inaccuracies” in CSB’s report.—JEFF
JOHNSON, special to C&EN
14
C&EN | CEN.ACS.ORG | AUGUST 8, 2016
Genetically modified wheat disrupts trade Japan, S. Korea halt U.S. wheat shipments Japanese and South Korean authorities have put a hold on purchases of western white wheat from the U.S. for food use and stopped distribution of already purchased U.S. wheat. The move comes in response to a farmer’s discovery of 22 genetically modified wheat plants growing in an unplanted field in Washington state. It is unclear how the wheat ended up in the Washington field. The Department of Agriculture has not approved the cultivation or sale of any genetically modified wheat varieties in the U.S. USDA confirmed the discovery on July 29, identifying the wheat as Monsanto’s MON71700, containing the CP4-EPSPS protein. This molecule, an enzyme, helps plants tolerate the herbicide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup and many generic herbicide formulations. Organizations representing the wheat industry—U.S. Wheat Associates and the National Association of Wheat Growers—are downplaying the significance of the incident. The groups expect that testing will show there is no detectable MON71700 in the U.S. wheat supply and that exports to Japan and South Korea will start again quickly. “The materials needed to create the test assay are in Japan, and it should only take two to three weeks” for the Japanese government to start testing, they say. “The results will end the suspension very soon,” the groups predict. The test was developed by Monsanto and validated by USDA to identify MON71700 in grain shipments. It is available to international trading partners to test U.S. wheat, USDA notes. USDA officials say there is no evidence that the genetically modified wheat made its way into commerce. And if the grain had made its way into the food supply, the Food & Drug Administration says, “it is unlikely that the wheat would present any safety concerns” because of the small number of plants involved. The variety is similar, but not identical, to genetically modified wheat found growing in Oregon in 2013. Some food safety advocates suggest it could have been because of lax oversight of field trials of MON71700 conducted by Monsanto from 1998 to 2001. Because of pressure from such groups, USDA this year beefed up its regulations to require a permit instead of just a notification to conduct field trials with genetically modified wheat.—BRITT ERICKSON
CREDIT: CSB (PIPES); SHUTTERSTOCK (WHEAT)
INDUSTRIAL SAFETY
