By Rachel Frazin Join us on Telegram , Twitter , and VK . Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su Critics are outraged that the Trump administration is moving to roll back chemical safety rules even as the U.S. faces deadly industrial chemical incidents.
Last week, in Washington state, a chemical tank imploded at a paper industry plant, killing 11 people.
And earlier last month, about 50,000 people were told to evacuate in Southern California because an overheating chemical tank was at risk of exploding. Those orders have since been lifted.
The incidents follow a Trump administration proposal to roll back stricter safety standards for chemical plants that were passed by the Biden administration.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said in a statement that the two recent West Coast incidents are not covered under its proposed changes to the Risk Management Program (RMP) rule.
“Neither of these incidents fell under RMP regulations,” an EPA spokesperson said in an unsigned email. “Both, however, are highly regulated.”
The agency said its proposal will “strengthen chemical accident prevention, enhance compliance, and reduce unnecessary burdens on regulated facilities ensuring stronger safety outcomes through clearer and more workable rules.”
However, critics say the California and Washington events show that this sector needs more regulation, not less.
“There is so much more that can and must be done to prevent chemical disasters and mitigate the life-altering and life-ending horrors that result,” said Cynthia Palmer, senior analyst for petrochemicals at Moms Clean Air Force.
Calling for more regulations, Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics, pointed to the fact that the particular chemical in the California incident is not covered by the rules.
“Those reactive hazard chemicals are not covered by the current Trump rule, not covered by the Biden rule, not covered by Trump 1 and not covered by the Obama-era rule,” Williams said.
“There’s hundreds of these reactive hazard chemical disasters happening that have happened in the last 20 some-odd years,” she said, adding that these chemicals should be included.
The chemical plant regulations the Trump administration is rolling back apply to about 11,500 facilities, including agricultural supply companies, water and wastewater treatment firms, chemical manufacturers and distributors, food and beverage makers, oil refineries and more.
The regulations are intended to prevent chemical accidents that put the public at risk. But their specific details and strictness have modulated between political administrations in recent years.
The Obama administration tightened the regulations after a 2013 fertilizer plant explosion killed 15 people.
The first Trump administration loosened those regulations , while the Biden administration both restored Obama-era safeguards and added new ones .
In particular, the Biden administration required companies to undergo third-party compliance audits and, for companies involved in prior incidents, “root cause” investigations.
It also required companies to evaluate safer technologies and processes for potential use and provide information to communities living within 6 miles of a facility. And it sought to help employees make certain decisions to prevent fatal accidents.
While technically the deadlines to comply with these rules aren’t until next year, “facilities should be working to comply” now, said Emma Cheuse, a senior attorney at Earthjustice. However, Cheuse said, “EPA is attempting to pull the rug out from under the protection before those deadlines fully kick in.”
In February, the Trump administration proposed to roll back certain regulations . It has proposed to axe requirements for existing facilities to assess safer technologies and rescind a requirement for companies to develop a process for employees to report unaddressed hazards.
It’s also proposing to axe companies’ requirements to share information with the public and to instead provide that information through an EPA data tool.
And the administration is weighing whether to rescind the third-party audit provisions altogether or retain them only for facilities with at least two safety incidents in a five-year period.
Among the critics of the Trump administration’s move are the commissioners of the nation’s Chemical Safety Board , which investigates chemical accidents and is currently probing the Washington state incident.
“The EPA’s proposed revisions would be a significant step backwards after more than a decade of safety progress toward preventing catastrophic chemical accidents,” wrote board members Steve Owens and Sylvia Johnson — both Biden appointees — in a formal comment on the proposal earlier this month.
On the other hand, the chemical industry has expressed support for the Trump EPA’s proposal.
“The provisions that EPA proposes to modify or rescind here are overly burdensome requirements that have not been proven to improve process safety and, in some cases, may actually increase the overall risk to communities by requiring facility owners and operators to spend precious time and resources on hazards that pose a minimal risk to local communities, rather than those presenting the most risk,” the American Chemistry Council, a trade group representing the industry, said in a formal comment .
The EPA proposal also comes after President Trump’s significant focus on the chemical spill in East Palestine, Ohio, on the campaign trail, though that incident also would not have been covered by the regulation in question since the incident involved a train rather than a stationary chemical plant.
Meanwhile, the EPA says it is now helping respond to the two incidents in Washington and California.
“EPA immediately deployed responders to the incident at the Nippon Dynawave Facility in Longview,” the agency spokesperson said. “EPA responders are on the scene collaborating with federal, state, and local partners to monitor for potential impacts to local waterways and air quality.”
In California, the spokesperson also said the EPA “immediately responded to the scene to provide air monitoring support and vital air quality information to local authorities.” Original article: hehill.com