Cheryl Seal
Unsecured Chemical plants: Bhopals waiting to happen?
Fri Dec 2, 2005 14:49
64.12.117.8
US Chemical Plants: The Next Bhopals?
by Cheryl Seal
Chemical plants are potential ground zeros for massive disasters even when "secure" (as in well-policed). For example, the release of just a few pounds of pure chlorine gas (a very common chemical) into the environment could have horrific consequences. The compressed gas rapidly expands to 500 times its initial mass, spreading out and hugging the ground in a toxic, choking, lung-rupturing killer cloud. Such an accident, in a heavily populated area, could have an impact similar to the Bhopal disaster.
If terrorists who knew what they were doing targeted a chemical plant, the consequences could make Bhopal look moderate.
Yet US chemical plants continue to be disasters waiting to happen. Why? Because the owners of the most potentially deadly facilities are, without exception, major Bush donors. are sacred cows under the current EPA and GOP-dominated Congress.
Take Big Oil, for instance. Here's a classic example involving the extremely hazardous chemical hydrogen fluoride (HF), as reported by the "Philadelphia Weekly" in April 2005.
When accidentally released, HF forms a dense, ground-hugging cloud of lethal gas that can travel for 5 miles before dissipating. Currently, Sunoco uses and stores 355,000 pounds of HF at its Southwest Philly refinery, according to a Risk Management Plan the company filed with the EPA in August. The plan cites a gas release of HF as Sunoco's "worst-case scenario" involving toxics at the Philadelphia refinery. About 4.4 million people live within a 25-mile radius of the plant, the document notes.
"Inhalation of the chemical can be lethal. Nonfatal effects of HF exposure include severe pain and slow-healing burns. The substance may cause skin and eye damage, and even heart failure. It can turn bones to jelly and eat away at lungs.
So why is nothing being done to secure this "Bhopal in waiting"?
The Weekly reports, "In January U.S. Sen. John Corzine announced plans to reintroduce the Chemical Plant Security Act, which would toughen security standards at chemical facilities throughout the country. Corzine, a Democrat from New Jersey, characterizes chemical facilities as "a widely recognized homeland security problem."
"He sponsored a bill last session, but Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chair James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, blocked it from a floor vote. Corzine's measure would have required the EPA to identify "high priority" chemical facilities that contain large quantities of toxic or flammable chemicals. Once designated a high priority, a plant would need to assess its vulnerability and develop plans for avoiding a hazard-including the use of safer chemicals."
Think this irresponsible move by the Congressional Bushies was bad? It gets worse. Just a few weeks ago, the EPA announced that it plans to loosen regulations on the reporting of toxic releases by "remodeling" the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program. The TRI program monitors the amount of toxic chemicals that facilities release into the environment. Since it was established in 1987, the TRI program is credited with reducing chemical releases by 1.5 billion pounds. That's a GOOD THING, right? Not in Bush World.
Here are the changes to the TRI program proposed by the EPA, as summarized by BushGreenwatch: www.bushgreenwatch.org/
***** Move from the current annual reporting to every other year reporting for all facilities, essentially eliminating half of the TRI program.
***** Allow companies to release 10 times as much pollution (raising the reporting threshold from 500 pounds to 5,000 pounds) before requiring them to report on how much pollution was produced and where it went.
*****Allow facilities to withhold information on low-level production of persistent bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs), including lead and mercury, which are dangerous even in very small quantities because they are toxic, persist in the environment, and build up in people's bodies."
According to the EPA itself, the changes will 24,000 facilities and 650 chemicals. The excuse for the changes, as given out by the Bush administration: to streamline bookkeeping and save roughly $2 million per year. Which, in today's US government budget, is barely chump change.
And look what we're likely to get for that savings! Tom Natan, research director of the National Environmental Trust says that alternate-year reporting will likely lead to an increase in chemical hazards by creating an incentive for facilities to increase releases during nonreporting years.
Now, don't you feel safer?
READ MORE on the EPA's proposed rule changes:
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/nov/policy/jp_toxicrules.html
by Cheryl Seal
Chemical plants are potential ground zeros for massive disasters even when "secure" (as in well-policed). For example, the release of just a few pounds of pure chlorine gas (a very common chemical) into the environment could have horrific consequences. The compressed gas rapidly expands to 500 times its initial mass, spreading out and hugging the ground in a toxic, choking, lung-rupturing killer cloud. Such an accident, in a heavily populated area, could have an impact similar to the Bhopal disaster.
If terrorists who knew what they were doing targeted a chemical plant, the consequences could make Bhopal look moderate.
Yet US chemical plants continue to be disasters waiting to happen. Why? Because the owners of the most potentially deadly facilities are, without exception, major Bush donors. are sacred cows under the current EPA and GOP-dominated Congress.
Take Big Oil, for instance. Here's a classic example involving the extremely hazardous chemical hydrogen fluoride (HF), as reported by the "Philadelphia Weekly" in April 2005.
When accidentally released, HF forms a dense, ground-hugging cloud of lethal gas that can travel for 5 miles before dissipating. Currently, Sunoco uses and stores 355,000 pounds of HF at its Southwest Philly refinery, according to a Risk Management Plan the company filed with the EPA in August. The plan cites a gas release of HF as Sunoco's "worst-case scenario" involving toxics at the Philadelphia refinery. About 4.4 million people live within a 25-mile radius of the plant, the document notes.
"Inhalation of the chemical can be lethal. Nonfatal effects of HF exposure include severe pain and slow-healing burns. The substance may cause skin and eye damage, and even heart failure. It can turn bones to jelly and eat away at lungs.
So why is nothing being done to secure this "Bhopal in waiting"?
The Weekly reports, "In January U.S. Sen. John Corzine announced plans to reintroduce the Chemical Plant Security Act, which would toughen security standards at chemical facilities throughout the country. Corzine, a Democrat from New Jersey, characterizes chemical facilities as "a widely recognized homeland security problem."
"He sponsored a bill last session, but Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chair James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, blocked it from a floor vote. Corzine's measure would have required the EPA to identify "high priority" chemical facilities that contain large quantities of toxic or flammable chemicals. Once designated a high priority, a plant would need to assess its vulnerability and develop plans for avoiding a hazard-including the use of safer chemicals."
Think this irresponsible move by the Congressional Bushies was bad? It gets worse. Just a few weeks ago, the EPA announced that it plans to loosen regulations on the reporting of toxic releases by "remodeling" the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program. The TRI program monitors the amount of toxic chemicals that facilities release into the environment. Since it was established in 1987, the TRI program is credited with reducing chemical releases by 1.5 billion pounds. That's a GOOD THING, right? Not in Bush World.
Here are the changes to the TRI program proposed by the EPA, as summarized by BushGreenwatch: www.bushgreenwatch.org/
***** Move from the current annual reporting to every other year reporting for all facilities, essentially eliminating half of the TRI program.
***** Allow companies to release 10 times as much pollution (raising the reporting threshold from 500 pounds to 5,000 pounds) before requiring them to report on how much pollution was produced and where it went.
*****Allow facilities to withhold information on low-level production of persistent bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs), including lead and mercury, which are dangerous even in very small quantities because they are toxic, persist in the environment, and build up in people's bodies."
According to the EPA itself, the changes will 24,000 facilities and 650 chemicals. The excuse for the changes, as given out by the Bush administration: to streamline bookkeeping and save roughly $2 million per year. Which, in today's US government budget, is barely chump change.
And look what we're likely to get for that savings! Tom Natan, research director of the National Environmental Trust says that alternate-year reporting will likely lead to an increase in chemical hazards by creating an incentive for facilities to increase releases during nonreporting years.
Now, don't you feel safer?
READ MORE on the EPA's proposed rule changes:
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/nov/policy/jp_toxicrules.html
Main Page -
Saturday, 12/03/05
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
