Preventing Mass Casualties from Release of Hydrofluoric Acid at Refineries Act of 2026
- Bill Number
- H.R. 7384
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Environmental Protection
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-02-04: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-18T16:02:42Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The legislation aims to protect public health and safety by prohibiting the use of hydrogen fluoride (hydrofluoric acid, a highly dangerous chemical) in petroleum refineries. It seeks to prevent potential mass casualty events from accidental or intentional releases of this chemical, which is used in refining gasoline, by mandating a switch to safer alternatives.
Key Provisions
- Findings Section: Establishes that hydrogen fluoride is used in about 40 U.S. refineries, poses severe risks to workers and nearby communities (up to 25 miles away, affecting over 14 million people, many in environmentally burdened areas), and that safer alternatives already exist and are used in most refineries.
- Prohibitions on Use:
- New refineries (starting operations on or after enactment) cannot use hydrogen fluoride at all.
- Existing refineries must stop using it within 5 years of enactment.
- Enforcement:
- Violations carry a civil penalty of $37,500 per instance (higher than the standard under the Toxic Substances Control Act).
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot grant waivers to these prohibitions, even under existing flexibility rules.
- The bill amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a federal law regulating chemicals, by adding these rules to Section 6.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Adds a new subsection (j) to TSCA Section 6, which previously focused on regulating chemical manufacturing and processing but did not specifically address hydrogen fluoride in refineries. The existing subsection (j) is renumbered to (k).
- Introduces a strict, time-bound ban without exceptions or waivers, differing from TSCA's usual approach that allows EPA discretion for safety rules.
- Increases penalties specifically for these violations, overriding the default TSCA penalty structure.
Potential Impacts
- On Citizens: Reduces risks of death, injury, or long-term health effects from chemical releases for refinery workers and communities, especially low-income or minority groups near refineries. Could improve environmental justice by easing burdens on vulnerable areas.
- On Government Agencies: EPA gains enforcement responsibilities, including monitoring compliance and imposing fines, potentially requiring new resources for oversight during the 5-year transition.
- On Industry and Economy: Refineries (about 40 affected) must invest in converting to alternative technologies, which could raise short-term costs for gasoline production but promote safer operations long-term. No direct impact on international relations mentioned, though it may influence global chemical safety standards.
- Broader effects include safer gasoline refining without altering supply, as alternatives are commercially available.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Petroleum Refineries and Operators: Must comply with the ban, invest in technology upgrades, and face penalties for non-compliance; approximately 40 facilities nationwide are directly impacted.
- Workers and Nearby Communities: Gain protection from chemical hazards; over 14 million residents in surrounding areas benefit, with emphasis on disproportionately affected environmental justice communities.
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Responsible for enforcement, rulemaking, and ensuring transitions occur.
- Gasoline Consumers and Producers: Indirectly affected through potential temporary cost increases during conversion, but overall safer production methods.
- Chemical Manufacturers: Suppliers of hydrogen fluoride may see reduced demand in the refining sector.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Strengthens TSCA by adding targeted, non-waivable prohibitions, potentially setting a precedent for chemical bans in high-risk industries. The fixed penalty and no-waiver rule limit EPA's flexibility, which could face legal challenges from industry on feasibility or cost grounds.
- Constitutional: No apparent conflicts; aligns with Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce and protect public health under the Commerce Clause. Does not infringe on states' rights, as it applies federally.
- Political: Highlights tensions between environmental/public safety priorities (supported by bill sponsors focused on community protection) and industry concerns over conversion costs and timelines. Could spark debates on regulatory burdens in energy sectors, especially amid broader pushes for chemical safety reforms.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (7)
Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36], Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44], Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9], Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]
Recent Actions
- 2026-02-04: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 2026-02-04: Introduced in House
- 2026-02-04: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Preventing Mass Casualties from Release of Hydrofluoric Acid at Refineries Act of 2026 — issued 2026-02-04 — PDF (4 pages)