Safe Chemicals and Facilities

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced Thursday that it plans to rehash regulations under the Risk Management Program (RMP). The decision comes after lobbyists for the chemical industry sent a letter requesting the agency weaken the rule requiring nearly 12,000 highly hazardous industrial facilities to prevent and plan for chemical disasters.

The EPA is bending to the will of corporate lobbyists who are seeking to eliminate stronger rules finalized in 2024. These more protective rules were the result of years of public debate and incorporated input from industry and the public alike, including advocacy by environmental justice, labor, occupational and public health, and environmental organizations.

“It would mean a real disservice to communities, first responders and workers,” said Adam Kron, an attorney with Earthjustice. “It would put them in greater harm’s way from these chemical disasters.” Earthjustice is part of a coalition of environmental groups that tracks chemical disasters. This coalition has found that since January 2021, there have been more than 1,100 chemical incidents. The news of a potential rewrite comes days after Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress, in which he vowed to take on toxic chemicals, saying, “our goal is to get toxins out of our environment, poisons out of our food supply and keep our children healthy and strong.” Yet that rhetoric also comes as Trump has pledged broad deregulatory action, which could clash with upholding chemical safeguards. 

So-called sustainable and/or green chemistry is being promoted in many circles as a means to both harness chemistry innovation to support more sustainable economies and reduce the environmental and public health impacts of chemical manufacturing.  As we work to build research and policy which deliver health protections and justice to communities most impacted by the toxic harm of the chemical industry, we must critically examine sustainable chemistry initiatives and ask who will benefit from the technologies and practices.  When something is promoted as “sustainable chemistry,” who is it sustainable for?  Read more of this joint blog from Coming Clean and EJHA. 

"The chemical industry is asking the Environmental Protection Agency ... to hide chemical facilities at the highest risk of disaster and their safety records from public view." This story in The Lever highlights Coming Clean's and EJHA's report on "Chemical Incident Tracking 2021-2023," part of our decade-long collaboration to prevent chemical disasters.

On October 16, 2024, Coming Clean and the Union of Concerned Scientists published The Community Guide to Cumulative Impacts, a resource to drive policy changes at the state and local level to protect overburdened communities from cumulative chemical and pollution harms. The Guide is available in English and Spanish. The Guide was co-developed with over eight local organizations across the country, including Los Jardines Institute, Clean + Healthy, and COPAL (Communidades Organizando el Poder y la Acción Latina), that have long advocated for holistic policies that can reduce stressors on community health. The Guide defines cumulative impacts as “the combined chemical and non-chemical stressors on a community’s health, well-being, and quality of life.” It compares various metrics and mapping tools that can help environmental justice communities show policymakers that their community is experiencing multiple, reinforcing health stressors, such as proximity to many highly polluting facilities releasing multiple chemicals, lack of access to affordable healthcare and housing, and language barriers.

Over 125 organizations in the Coming Clean network agree that reducing cumulative impacts on environmental justice communities is one of our collective policy goals, as outlined in the Louisville Charter for Safer Chemicals. We know that environmental justice communities are not exposed to only one polluting facility or one health-harming pollutant at a time. When reviewing permits for polluting facilities, regulators should have to take into account the combined harm of existing industry on community health, and should have the authority to deny permit applications from facilities that add to disproportionate pollution burdens and existing health stressors. Passing cumulative impacts legislation at the state and local level is one promising way to make this possible. In 2021, Coming Clean released a policy brief by Drs. Nicky Sheats and Ana Baptista on state cumulative impacts legislation that passed in New Jersey, which we hoped would serve as a model for other states and cities. Since then, New York, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Connecticut have also passed cumulative impacts laws. Cities and counties are also pursuing creative ways to assess and reduce cumulative impacts, while involving impacted community members in decision making. Could your state or city be next? Read our Community Guide to Cumulative Impacts! 

Expanding the list of chemicals to bring more facilities under federal oversight has become a priority for environmentalists, explained Maya Nye, the federal policy director at Coming Clean, an environmental health nonprofit focused on chemical industry oversight. Being subject to Risk Management Program requirements, Nye said, “would have required [BioLab] to think about, ‘What is the emergency response plan? What may lead to a chemical disaster?’” Environmentalists fought hard to strengthen the EPA’s Risk Management Program to account for the impacts of extreme weather on chemical accidents. Thanks to the regulations finalized this year, facilities covered by the program will be required to consider, and map out, the potential hazards posed by climate change. But BioLab’s facilities, which fall outside of the program, will not.

NEW FACTSHEET In spring 2024, after a multi-year collective advocacy effort, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the “Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention” rule which updated the Risk Management Program (RMP) rule “to further protect vulnerable communities from chemical accidents, especially those living near facilities in industry sectors with high accident rates.” You can read our high-level summary takeaways here.