Arkema Plant Explosion Sparks Criticism of Trump EPA Relaxing Chemical Safety Rules
Thursday's explosions at the Harvey-damaged Arkema chemical plant in Crosby, Texas have prompted criticism of the Trump administration's delay of an Obama-era chemical safety regulation that was designed to "improve chemical process safety, assist local emergency authorities in planning for and responding to accidents, and improve public awareness of chemical hazards at regulated source."
The 2013 Risk Management Program rule was developed after a Texas fertilizer plant in the city of West exploded in 2013 and killed 15 people. However, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt the program on hold for two years in order to reconsider industry objections.
Notably, the International Business Times reports that Arkema and its industry colleagues lobbied Pruitt and the EPA to delay the regulation, claiming it was too expensive and burdensome to implement.
After the explosions, Harris County sheriff's office said 15 deputies complained of respiratory irritation and were treated at a local hospital. The office said that all 15 were released from the hospital and healthy.
The blasts also occurred just a day after a federal court refused to force the EPA to implement the Obama rule.
But if the EPA had implemented the regulation, none of the officers would have been at risk, Mathy Stanislaus, who led the agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response during the Obama administration, told E&E News.
The rule, which Stanislaus helped draft, would not have prevented the explosions but would ensure "that the local responders were fully aware of the particular chemical and the particular method to respond to an incident," he said.
Stanislaus said that it also would have strengthened efforts to head off accidents and help keep the public informed of potential risks at such facilities.
The substances that caught fire at the Arkema plant were organic peroxides for the production of plastic resins, polystyrene, paints and other products. The company, however, has not provided a full list of chemicals stored at the plant.
"There was a gap in specific knowledge. People need to know what chemicals (are being stored) and what kind of precautions are in place," Stanislaus told the Associated Press.
EPA spokeswoman Amy Graham told the AP that "the agency's recent action to delay the effectiveness of the 2017 amendments had no effect on the major safety requirements that applied to the Arkema Crosby plant at the time of the fire."
The EPA has since sent emergency response personnel to the site and is reviewing data received from an aircraft that surveyed the scene, Pruitt said Thursday.
"There are no concentrations of concern for toxic materials reported at this time," the EPA administrator said.
But Nathan Donley, senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity's environmental health program, cried foul.
"Trump's EPA chief say's there's nothing to worry about at Arkema. Quite frankly, I don't believe him," Donely said. "These are incredibly reactive chemicals that the EPA, under previous administrations, has recognized as dangerous. But once again Trump's EPA is siding with industrial polluters rather than looking out for the health of the American people."
Bakeyah Nelson, executive director of Air Alliance Houston, also criticized the Trump administration's continued regulatory rollbacks.
"It's extremely frustrating, it's disheartening, it's unfair to the communities that face these risks," Nelson told POLITICO. "Not just in a natural disaster-type situation, but on a daily basis."
The unprecedented rain and flooding from Harvey has sparked concerns about the risks of the Gulf Coast's massive petrochemical infrastructure. According to data from the Sierra Club, the area is home to 230 chemical plants, 33 oil refineries and hundreds of miles of pipelines.
By Robin Scher
Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.
- Can Urban Farms Prevent Hunger in 54 Million People in the U.S. ... ›
- New Report Finds Malnutrition World's Top Killer Amid Pandemic ... ›
- Oxfam Warns 12,000 Could Die Per Day From Hunger Due to ... ›
- Three Ways to Support a Healthy Food System During the COVID ... ›
- Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits - EcoWatch ›
- Pandemic Threatens Food Security for Many College Students ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.
As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.
- 15 Top Conservation Issues of 2021 Include Big Threats, Potential ... ›
- How Blockchain Could Boost Clean Energy - EcoWatch ›
By David Drake and Jeffrey York
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
The Big Idea
People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.
- Major Milestone: More than 100,000 MW Worth of Coal-Fired Power ... ›
- Coal Will Not Bring Appalachia Back to Life, But Tech and ... ›
- Renewables Beat Coal in the U.S. for the First Time This April ... ›