Three years ago, an oil refinery on the banks of the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia caught fire and exploded, releasing deadly amounts of dangerous chemicals into the air. The explosion was felt for miles, and its implications for health, safety and financial security reverberated for years. Five people were injured, and nearby neighborhoods now have higher cancer rates than other parts of the city.
The 1,300-acre complex is still being dismantled and continues to leak unsafe levels of benzyne, a carcinogenic, into the atmosphere. What’s more, more than 1,000 workers lost their jobs when the facility — Philadelphia Energy Solutions — filed bankruptcy and shut down.
The Philadelphia explosion is but one of thousands of chemical disasters that have damaged public and environmental health in recent years — and the risk of these so-called “double disasters” is rising as our climate changes. Indeed, environmental activists sounded the alarm about possible leaks of radioactive waste at former mining plants in central Florida in the wake of Hurricane Ian.
Unlike natural disasters, chemical disasters are entirely preventable — and each one illustrates the clear need for stronger federal regulation of facilities that store dangerous substances. Our government can, and should, better protect us from such double disasters.
Yet, as we and our partners argued in a 2021 policy brief, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) existing regulatory program neither addresses climate change nor requires facilities storing dangerous chemicals to take any specific actions to protect people from the cascading effects of natural disaster-related chemical releases or the cumulative and compounding hazardous exposures that can result.
The Biden administration is taking steps to change that.
Last month, EPA proposed a draft rule to better protect people who live near industrial facilities with hazardous chemicals on site, who are more likely to be low-wealth people and people of color, by updating and strengthening its Risk Management Program (RMP). Mandated by the Clean Air Act, the program requires facilities that use, store, or produce extremely hazardous substances to develop and regularly review a “risk management plan.” The program regulates more than 12,000 refineries, coal and chemical manufacturing plants, along with other facilities, about one-third of which are at risk of disaster sparked by flooding, wildfires, and other impacts of climate change.
The agency took the first steps to strengthen the RMP program in 2017, when it finalized a rule that issued new requirements for accident prevention, response and public disclosure of information. But most provisions did not go into effect — instead, the Trump administration watered down or rescinded them in 2019.
The Biden administration is now reupping the charge. The EPA’s August draft rule would require facilities to consider the effects of climate change in risk assessments and address climate-induced hazards, including loss of electrical power; discuss emergency response plans with local officials and first responders and notify the public of important information about hazards and accidental releases; include workers in decisions about hazard preparedness and response; and more.
We’re relieved the agency is finally considering these changes. That said, the draft rule falls short of its promise.
EPA should expand its zone of protection so that it covers all facilities that manufacture, process or produce chemicals in areas exposed to a heightened risk of wildfires, flooding, storm surge or coastal flooding, and it should cover more dangerous substances.
The rule should also require facilities to install and maintain real-time fenceline air monitors and share that data with nearby communities and officials; reduce or replace hazardous chemicals and processes when safer alternatives are available; notify the public of emergencies in multiple languages; and account for the cumulative impacts of chemical disasters on public health.
Facilities should also be required not only to evaluate risks associated with climate- and natural disaster-related hazards, but also adopt and implement chemical release prevention and safety practices that can respond to those hazards.
Fortunately, the draft rule is just that — a draft — and can be strengthened before it’s finalized next year.
But that won’t happen unless we, the people, exercise our civic duty and call for action. We have a few weeks left to do so: The EPA is soliciting public comments on the draft rule through Oct. 31. Now’s the time to make our voices heard.
Allison Stevens is senior editor and research adviser at the Center for Progressive Reform.
Katlyn Schmitt is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform and an expert in environmental justice.