Risk Management Program has been extended and rolled back under successive governments
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun to reconsider and ‘reassess elements’ of the previous administration’s Risk Management Program (RMP), which requires facilities that use extremely hazardous substances to develop Risk Management Plans that identify the potential effects of a chemical incident, as well as steps being taken to prevent such incidents, and spell out emergency response procedures should an incident occur.
The RMP, which has been described as the US’ primary defence against catastrophic industrial chemical releases, fires, and explosions, covers approximately 12,000 commercial and industrial chemical facilities across the country that use or store large amounts of certain highly toxic or highly flammable chemicals. The EPA’s review is expected to conclude by the end of next year.
In January, more than a dozen industry groups – including the American Chemistry Council, the American Petroleum Institute, US Chamber of Commerce – wrote to EPA administrator Lee Zeldin and urged him to consider rolling back the RMP rule. They argued that it ‘imposes misguided and illegal new requirements’ that ‘have not been proven to reduce the number and severity of process safety incidents at chemical facilities’.
If this rule is aimed at loosening regulations, it will put the public at increased risk from chemical releases
Christine Todd Whitman, former EPA head
Under former president Barack Obama, the EPA added new requirements to the RMP rule in 2017. But, during his first term as president, Donald Trump’s administration rolled back those regulations. Last year, president Joe Biden’s EPA reinstated the Obama RMP and added further requirements, which industry groups protested.
California-based environmental non-profit group Earthjustice voiced concerns at the review. ‘This is the second time the Trump administration targets safeguards against chemical disasters. Any rollback of health and safety protections from chemical disasters will face legal challenges.’ Earthjustice asserts that fatal or life-threatening chemical incidents occur at chemical facilities on average every 2.5 days, and over $5 billion in damages have resulted from these disasters.
‘This is almost certainly a replay of Trump 1’s reversal of Obama’s RMP rule. Biden countered and Trump 2’s striking back,’ says Patrick Coyle, a chemical safety and security specialist based in Georgia, US who writes a chemical facilities security blog. ‘Regardless of what one thinks of the state of chemical safety, the chemical industry does not need the yo-yo regulations.’
Andrew Whelton, an environmental chemist and engineering professor at Purdue University in Indiana, US, who studies topics like environmental disasters and public health, notes that many of the problems with protecting communities when disasters like chemical facility incidents occur are due to the federal agencies involved not having a playbook. ‘The ability to rapidly make decisions that prevent harm and expedite cleanup and recovery is lacking,’ Whelton states. ‘That’s the type of work we’ve been focused on.’
Christine Todd Whitman, who led the EPA under former president George W Bush, suggests that the chemical industry has been ‘one of the most reluctant to accept rulemaking to protect themselves from outside attacks and the public from accidents and spills’.
‘If this rule is aimed at loosening what regulations are in place, it will put the public at increased risk from chemical releases,’ she adds. ‘However, if they are aimed at increasing oversight, have at it.’
No comments yet