How close to an oil refinery is too close?
August 17, 2023 8:18 PM Subscribe
All else being equal, obviously no one would move close to an oil refinery. There is one a 5 minute drive away from a condo I’m looking at. (If you have knowledge of environmental risk assessments especially, I would love to hear your thoughts! Others too though!)
Looking for a place in the greater Toronto area, that meets other requirements (transit access, layout, size, proximity to family). The market here is absurd, so it’s tough. Anyhow, being a five minute drive from an oil refinery does freak me out. (Then again, my family isn’t that far from it either, so I’d have to be near it anyway. But *how* near is just not a good idea?) I expect to live there for about five years.
(Does wind direction matter? What criteria like that matter and how should I think about them?)
Looking for a place in the greater Toronto area, that meets other requirements (transit access, layout, size, proximity to family). The market here is absurd, so it’s tough. Anyhow, being a five minute drive from an oil refinery does freak me out. (Then again, my family isn’t that far from it either, so I’d have to be near it anyway. But *how* near is just not a good idea?) I expect to live there for about five years.
(Does wind direction matter? What criteria like that matter and how should I think about them?)
I would assume from context, though you do not say so directly, that you would be connected to a modern urban water system and not drawing from a well..
posted by Nerd of the North at 9:32 PM on August 17, 2023
posted by Nerd of the North at 9:32 PM on August 17, 2023
There is a lot of research on this if you hit Google Scholar. There was just too much for me to post. You can also google the news on oil refineries and fires, public health or air quality. There is a lot there as well. I definitely would not do it. Having COPD sucks.
posted by Toddles at 9:48 PM on August 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Toddles at 9:48 PM on August 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
Results show that odour can travel up to 7 km from the refinery under certain weather conditions.
We observed that proximity to an oil refinery was associated with a statistically significantly increased risk of incident cancer diagnosis across all cancer types. This study defined near proximity as < = 30 miles in 10 mile increments.
However, current evidences on the association between residential exposure to PICs and the incidence of leukemia remained inconclusive....Hence, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the association between exposure to PICs and the risk of leukemia, focusing on different characteristics of populations and exposure-response effects across various time periods.
Regarding exposure indicators, eight (62%) of the reviewed studies used a distance-based measurement, ranging from < 0.80 km to 7.90 km.
Sudden events like refinery explosions or leaks can have more rapid effects on community health due to higher concentrations of toxins in the air. Even more concerning, some refineries use different chemicals from other companies. ... According to the California government, some adverse health effects living near a refinery include: increased risk of asthma, cancers, birth defects, neurological damage, cardiovascular damage, difficulty breathing, and blood disorders. Additionally, those who live closer to oil refineries are statistically more at risk to develop these health disorders, even if they are 10 miles away.
I think you also might want to check your local newspapers, online forums, court records, local government meeting minutes, Toronto/Canadian based environmental justice orgs, etc. for any complaints levied against the specific company and/or refinery.
posted by oceano at 10:21 PM on August 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
We observed that proximity to an oil refinery was associated with a statistically significantly increased risk of incident cancer diagnosis across all cancer types. This study defined near proximity as < = 30 miles in 10 mile increments.
However, current evidences on the association between residential exposure to PICs and the incidence of leukemia remained inconclusive....Hence, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the association between exposure to PICs and the risk of leukemia, focusing on different characteristics of populations and exposure-response effects across various time periods.
Regarding exposure indicators, eight (62%) of the reviewed studies used a distance-based measurement, ranging from < 0.80 km to 7.90 km.
Sudden events like refinery explosions or leaks can have more rapid effects on community health due to higher concentrations of toxins in the air. Even more concerning, some refineries use different chemicals from other companies. ... According to the California government, some adverse health effects living near a refinery include: increased risk of asthma, cancers, birth defects, neurological damage, cardiovascular damage, difficulty breathing, and blood disorders. Additionally, those who live closer to oil refineries are statistically more at risk to develop these health disorders, even if they are 10 miles away.
I think you also might want to check your local newspapers, online forums, court records, local government meeting minutes, Toronto/Canadian based environmental justice orgs, etc. for any complaints levied against the specific company and/or refinery.
posted by oceano at 10:21 PM on August 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Found some possibly interesting info for you.
First, there is decent evidence that living closer to oil refineries does have health impacts: 1 2 3 4 5 . That is not the greatest/most conclusive list of studies, but a couple of things are clear:
- There is a greater risk of various health issues when living close - stroke risk is 5% higher if living within 3 miles; cancer risk 5-10% higher living within 10-20 miles; respiratory issues are probably several times higher if living very close, etc.
- The strength of the effect varies considerably with distance. You would expect the pollutants to dissipate roughly exponentially with distance. So living within say 1 mile would be highest risk, within 3 miles a lot lower, within 5 miles a lot lower, within 10 miles a lot lower, within 20 miles a LOT lower, more than 20 miles probably little to no increased risk.
- Predominant wind direction is going to have a big effect. Living 1 mile upwind might be about the same as 3-5 miles downwind, etc.
- Even though some of those numbers are alarming, try to keep them in context. A 5-10% increase in cancer risk is . . . maybe less than the risk you accept by living near a heavily traveled road, or moving into an apartment that has been recently painted and has new carpets. And if you live anywhere within a big metro area, you probably live close enough to a heavily traveled road to have that kind of increased risk. So understand there are increased risks but also try to keep them in context. 5-10% movement in cancer rates is . . . not really very large.
Personally I would be very worried living within (say) a mile of a normal oil refinery - in fact, I probably wouldn't do it at all - still pretty worried less than 3 miles, still worried about it less than 5 miles, thinking about it less than 8 miles, more than that probably not thinking about it too much.
An addition important fact, however: If the refinery you are concerned about is Petro-Canada Lubricants in Mississauga, it turns out that this particular lubricant refinery has notably low emissions compared with other refineries.
There is a study comparing hospital emissions in Oakville (next door to Mississauga) before and after the oil refinery there was closed in about 2004. It has some interesting results:
- The fall/winter respiratory hospitalizations appeared to be the most affected. They dropped from about 6.5 per thousand population to 4.5 when the plant closed. So - a pretty significant difference. That over 40% increase in respiratory illnesses due to emissions from the plant.
- The hospitalization rates in Oakville after the plant closed look pretty similar to those in Toronto and the greater Toronto metro area as a whole. So reducing the plant emissions by that much (because closing the refinery reduced, but did not completely eliminate, its emissions) pretty much solved the problem for Oakville.
So very, very relevant to your question is this bit of information: The emissions from the Oakville plant after it was shut down are about equal to, or even a bit higher than, the emissions from Mississauga lubricant refinery now.
The health authorities considered it a very significant advance to reduce the Oakville refinery emissions to the level the Mississauga lubricant refinery is now emitting. And, again, Mississauga is emitting less than that amount even while running.
Also, the fact that hospitalizations in Oakville dropped to about the same rates as other communities in the area after the oil refinery was shut down (but still emitting at some level - in fact, a level slightly greater than the amount the Mississauga refinery is currently emitting) give us some confidence that getting emissions that low is very helpful in reducing health consequences.
All that tells me, the Mississauga plant is probably at least an order of magnitude less polluting than your ordinary oil refinery would be. And that emissions at that level are not nearly as bad as emissions from a regular, fully operating oil refinery, especially if you are not living right smack on top of it.
The information about the current emissions of the Mississauga lubricant refinery comes from this report from EcoJustice.ca If you look at that report, one thing you'll note that the Mississauga refinery is one of the few that actually has emissions below the U.S. emissions standard for many pollutants. (Unfortunately, most Canadian refineries have emissions FAR HIGHER than their U.S. counterparts. Suggestion: Don't live close to any of those.)
However, if you dig in, you can get a little more specific information about Mississauga. Just for example, looking on page 6 of the report, you can calculate that total sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions from the Mississauga refinery are around 700 tons per year. Looking at the Oakville research paper, Table 2, we see that the Oakville refinery emitted between 4600 and 6000 tons of SO2 per year before it was closed, and over 900 tons/year after it was closed.
In short, the Mississauga plant has lower SO2 emissions while it's running than the Oakville refinery does after it's been shut down.
If you look at other pollutants listed, most of them follow the same general trend: Mississauga running looks a lot like Oakville closed - or perhaps even a bit better.
So putting it all together, living close to a refinery can indeed be a health hazard. But the Mississauga refinery is a lot less polluting than most.
Personally, as a guess, I'd be worried living closer than, say, 1 mile to the Mississauga plant, especially if downwind of it OR living in a place where I could frequently smell any emissions from it even if it's more than a mile.
More than a mile or so from the plant, especially if more towards the upwind side and neighbors don't report ever smelling anything, I don't know how worried I would be. Compare those to my thoughts about a normal oil refinery above - my sense is, this one is far less dangerous that your average oil refinery.
Those thoughts on "safe" distance to live are just my general impressions from looking at a few studies and applying some rules of thumb - by no means a really rigorous look at anything. But they might give you something to think about.
posted by flug at 10:52 PM on August 17, 2023 [21 favorites]
First, there is decent evidence that living closer to oil refineries does have health impacts: 1 2 3 4 5 . That is not the greatest/most conclusive list of studies, but a couple of things are clear:
- There is a greater risk of various health issues when living close - stroke risk is 5% higher if living within 3 miles; cancer risk 5-10% higher living within 10-20 miles; respiratory issues are probably several times higher if living very close, etc.
- The strength of the effect varies considerably with distance. You would expect the pollutants to dissipate roughly exponentially with distance. So living within say 1 mile would be highest risk, within 3 miles a lot lower, within 5 miles a lot lower, within 10 miles a lot lower, within 20 miles a LOT lower, more than 20 miles probably little to no increased risk.
- Predominant wind direction is going to have a big effect. Living 1 mile upwind might be about the same as 3-5 miles downwind, etc.
- Even though some of those numbers are alarming, try to keep them in context. A 5-10% increase in cancer risk is . . . maybe less than the risk you accept by living near a heavily traveled road, or moving into an apartment that has been recently painted and has new carpets. And if you live anywhere within a big metro area, you probably live close enough to a heavily traveled road to have that kind of increased risk. So understand there are increased risks but also try to keep them in context. 5-10% movement in cancer rates is . . . not really very large.
Personally I would be very worried living within (say) a mile of a normal oil refinery - in fact, I probably wouldn't do it at all - still pretty worried less than 3 miles, still worried about it less than 5 miles, thinking about it less than 8 miles, more than that probably not thinking about it too much.
An addition important fact, however: If the refinery you are concerned about is Petro-Canada Lubricants in Mississauga, it turns out that this particular lubricant refinery has notably low emissions compared with other refineries.
There is a study comparing hospital emissions in Oakville (next door to Mississauga) before and after the oil refinery there was closed in about 2004. It has some interesting results:
- The fall/winter respiratory hospitalizations appeared to be the most affected. They dropped from about 6.5 per thousand population to 4.5 when the plant closed. So - a pretty significant difference. That over 40% increase in respiratory illnesses due to emissions from the plant.
- The hospitalization rates in Oakville after the plant closed look pretty similar to those in Toronto and the greater Toronto metro area as a whole. So reducing the plant emissions by that much (because closing the refinery reduced, but did not completely eliminate, its emissions) pretty much solved the problem for Oakville.
So very, very relevant to your question is this bit of information: The emissions from the Oakville plant after it was shut down are about equal to, or even a bit higher than, the emissions from Mississauga lubricant refinery now.
The health authorities considered it a very significant advance to reduce the Oakville refinery emissions to the level the Mississauga lubricant refinery is now emitting. And, again, Mississauga is emitting less than that amount even while running.
Also, the fact that hospitalizations in Oakville dropped to about the same rates as other communities in the area after the oil refinery was shut down (but still emitting at some level - in fact, a level slightly greater than the amount the Mississauga refinery is currently emitting) give us some confidence that getting emissions that low is very helpful in reducing health consequences.
All that tells me, the Mississauga plant is probably at least an order of magnitude less polluting than your ordinary oil refinery would be. And that emissions at that level are not nearly as bad as emissions from a regular, fully operating oil refinery, especially if you are not living right smack on top of it.
The information about the current emissions of the Mississauga lubricant refinery comes from this report from EcoJustice.ca If you look at that report, one thing you'll note that the Mississauga refinery is one of the few that actually has emissions below the U.S. emissions standard for many pollutants. (Unfortunately, most Canadian refineries have emissions FAR HIGHER than their U.S. counterparts. Suggestion: Don't live close to any of those.)
However, if you dig in, you can get a little more specific information about Mississauga. Just for example, looking on page 6 of the report, you can calculate that total sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions from the Mississauga refinery are around 700 tons per year. Looking at the Oakville research paper, Table 2, we see that the Oakville refinery emitted between 4600 and 6000 tons of SO2 per year before it was closed, and over 900 tons/year after it was closed.
In short, the Mississauga plant has lower SO2 emissions while it's running than the Oakville refinery does after it's been shut down.
If you look at other pollutants listed, most of them follow the same general trend: Mississauga running looks a lot like Oakville closed - or perhaps even a bit better.
So putting it all together, living close to a refinery can indeed be a health hazard. But the Mississauga refinery is a lot less polluting than most.
Personally, as a guess, I'd be worried living closer than, say, 1 mile to the Mississauga plant, especially if downwind of it OR living in a place where I could frequently smell any emissions from it even if it's more than a mile.
More than a mile or so from the plant, especially if more towards the upwind side and neighbors don't report ever smelling anything, I don't know how worried I would be. Compare those to my thoughts about a normal oil refinery above - my sense is, this one is far less dangerous that your average oil refinery.
Those thoughts on "safe" distance to live are just my general impressions from looking at a few studies and applying some rules of thumb - by no means a really rigorous look at anything. But they might give you something to think about.
posted by flug at 10:52 PM on August 17, 2023 [21 favorites]
Health issues are well discussed above, but I'll chime in to question the issues of noise and traffic? Are there heavy trucks or equipment that will be accessing roads around you?
These may not be relevant to your situation, but I can tell you that our squeaky clean large electric power plant generates plenty of noise several nights a week and has large trucks using a road 1/4 mile away that are extremely loud in a quiet evening or at night. And although it's a minor quibble, the lighting around the plant has ruined what used to be a wonderful night sky.
posted by BlueHorse at 10:43 AM on August 18, 2023
These may not be relevant to your situation, but I can tell you that our squeaky clean large electric power plant generates plenty of noise several nights a week and has large trucks using a road 1/4 mile away that are extremely loud in a quiet evening or at night. And although it's a minor quibble, the lighting around the plant has ruined what used to be a wonderful night sky.
posted by BlueHorse at 10:43 AM on August 18, 2023
I previously worked onsite at both the Oakville and Mississauga refineries mentioned above. I don’t have any additional technical details, but I thought the difference in SO2 emissions between the two refineries was notable.
The Lubricants plant in Mississauga doesn’t actually process any crude oil (unlike the Oakville refinery). The Lubricants plant used as inputs products that were already refined at more traditional refineries. So, it doesn’t surprise me that this might translate into significantly lower SO2 emissions. The Lubricants plant I think is more analogous to a chemical processing plan than a typical oil refinery. So, I would have fewer reservations about living in the vicinity of that plant versus the Oakville refinery.
posted by bkpiano at 7:45 PM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
The Lubricants plant in Mississauga doesn’t actually process any crude oil (unlike the Oakville refinery). The Lubricants plant used as inputs products that were already refined at more traditional refineries. So, it doesn’t surprise me that this might translate into significantly lower SO2 emissions. The Lubricants plant I think is more analogous to a chemical processing plan than a typical oil refinery. So, I would have fewer reservations about living in the vicinity of that plant versus the Oakville refinery.
posted by bkpiano at 7:45 PM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
Mod note: [By the way, flug's answer and this post have been included in the sidebar.]
posted by taz (staff) at 1:58 AM on August 19, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 1:58 AM on August 19, 2023 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: I must agree, taz, flug’s answer absolutely represents the best of Metafilter!
Can’t thank you enough, flug, for taking the time to offer such a careful, considered, and jaw-droppingly helpful answer.
posted by cotton dress sock at 7:55 AM on August 19, 2023 [1 favorite]
Can’t thank you enough, flug, for taking the time to offer such a careful, considered, and jaw-droppingly helpful answer.
posted by cotton dress sock at 7:55 AM on August 19, 2023 [1 favorite]
« Older Need to record a game playback on ESPN | Best way to keep track of who owes who money Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:34 PM on August 17, 2023