By Rob Thompson
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, there are 700 chemical facilities in the United States that put more than 100,000 people at risk of death or serious injury.
Stephen Flynn with the Council on Foreign Relations recently described the chemical plant threat as “[t]he equivalent of weapons of mass destruction prepositioned in some of the most congested parts of our country.â€
So, five and a half years after the September 11th attacks, what are we doing to improve chemical safety in North Carolina and across the country?
Last year’s fire and explosion in Apex was a not-so-friendly reminder of this problem. The explosion prompted Gov. Easley and the General Assembly to push legislation that will improve safety around the specific type of chemical plant involved in that disaster. This legislation is thorough and solves many of the problems illustrated in that incident, but its scope is limited to facilities like the one in Apex that only store and treat hazardous materials. Even if North Carolina legislators decided to implement sweeping chemical security measures, legislation passed by the previous Congress allows the Department of Homeland Security to preempt state law.
The regulatory void that exists in North Carolina and across the country demands a national program that establishes minimum security requirements at all chemical plants.
In April, the Department of Homeland Security finalized temporary regulations intended to protect Americans from more than 15,000 chemical plants storing dangerous quantities of acutely toxic chemicals like hydrochloric acid or chlorine gas. A single accident or deliberate release of these toxics could kill or seriously injure thousands.
Unfortunately, these regulations are far too weak and were adopted at a stiff price – they headed off stronger, comprehensive chemical-security legislation aimed at protecting communities in the danger zones around these plants.
For more than five years, the chemical industry and its allies have derailed chemical security bills, winning weak regulations after backroom negotiations that preserve a dangerous status quo.
Above all, the new regulations ignore the most effective way to make chemical plants safer and more secure, which is to replace toxic chemicals with safer alternatives where feasible. We can throw more guards and guns at the problem, but as long as dangerous chemicals permeate our communities the risk will remain.
According to the EPA, four toxic chemicals – chlorine gas, anhydrous ammonia, hydrogen fluoride and sulfur dioxide – account for 55 percent of harm to surrounding communities.
For most uses, all of these chemicals have cost-effective, safer alternatives. Chlorine gas, for example, can be replaced by sodium chlorate.
Fortunately, Congress already has a blueprint to establish a more protective program.
Last year, the House Homeland Security Committee approved legislation that would require safe alternatives to toxic chemicals where feasible. In the coming weeks, we expect similar, but stronger, legislation to be introduced in the House.
If they want to help assure that the Apex fire remains an isolated incident, Rep. Etheridge (who serves on the Homeland Security Committee) and all of North Carolina’s congressional delegation should support this comprehensive chemical-security legislation that promotes safer alternatives.