To read the policy brief related to this post, click here.
Update: Read Senior Policy Analyst David Flores and Policy Analyst Darya Minovi's July 8 testimony to EPA.
Four years ago, Hurricane Harvey slammed into the coast of Texas, causing severe flooding in the Houston area and leading to a loss of electrical power throughout the region. During the blackout, a local chemical plant lost its ability to keep volatile chemicals stored onsite cool, and a secondary disaster ensued: A series of explosions endangered the lives of workers and first responders and spurred mass evacuations of nearby residents.
This infamous incident was a classic "double disaster" — a natural disaster, like a storm or earthquake, followed by a technical disaster, like a chemical release or explosion.
Also known as "natech" disasters, these events pose a severe and growing threat to public and environmental health — and to workers in particular, who are hurt "first and worst." Hundreds of thousands of Americans have been injured, killed, or forced to shelter in place or evacuate in the wake of such disasters in recent decades, and countless others have been needlessly exposed to toxic pollution.
Low-income people and people of color are at high risk because, as a result of redlining and a legacy of discriminatory housing policies and practices, they are more likely to live near chemical plants, oil refineries, water treatment plants, and other industrial sites. And the threat is rising as our climate changes, bringing with it more frequent and intense storms, floods, and wildfires.
Health, Safety, Equity, and Justice
And yet: Many industrial facilities have not taken adequate steps to prepare for natural disasters, and the federal government does not require them to implement needed safeguards.
We must act now: It's a matter of health, safety, equity, and justice.
To that end, the Center for Progressive Reform is working with a pair of national advocacy groups to press the Biden administration to take bold action to protect communities at risk of natech disasters. We're issuing a joint call for reform with Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law group, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science and research organization.
We've outlined our call in a joint policy brief — Preventing 'Double Disasters' — that explores the risks of natech disasters and makes recommendations for needed change. The brief — released today — comes one day ahead of a public listening session the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is holding on how to prevent toxic chemical disasters.
Our recommendations are aimed at reforms to EPA's Risk Management Program, which requires certain facilities to develop a plan to prevent and respond to chemical disasters but does not go nearly far enough to protect the public. Currently, EPA's regulatory program neither addresses climate change nor requires RMP facilities to take specific action to protect people from natech disasters or the cumulative and compounding hazardous exposures that can result.
The Obama administration took some steps to improve the program, but the Trump administration repealed those efforts at the behest of the chemical industry. Now, it's up to President Joe Biden and his EPA to undo the damage and go further to implement needed regulatory protections.
Stronger Environmental Regulations Needed
Together, we're calling on EPA to strengthen the program and adapt it to account for climate change. Specifically, we recommend that EPA require RMP facilities to:
We're also calling on EPA to:
The good news is that the Biden administration has announced its intention to review RMP regulations, and EPA is holding a public listening session tomorrow to discuss the issue. We, in addition to our co-authors and other advocates, intend to provide oral testimony at the session.
Our recommendations are grounded in science, and we represent the interests of the scientific and environmental communities, the public, and the planet. Our policy brief lays out an evidence-based plan the administration — and the agency — can and must use to move forward. The health and safety of our nation depend on it.
Showing 2,818 results
Darya Minovi, David Flores | July 7, 2021
Four years ago, Hurricane Harvey slammed into the coast of Texas, causing severe flooding in the Houston area and leading to a loss of electrical power throughout the region. During the blackout, a local chemical plant lost its ability to keep volatile chemicals stored onsite cool, and a secondary disaster ensued: A series of explosions endangered the lives of workers and first responders and spurred mass evacuations of nearby residents. This infamous incident was a classic "double disaster" — a natural disaster, like a storm or earthquake, followed by a technical disaster, like a chemical release or explosion. These events pose a severe and growing threat to public and environmental health — and to workers in particular, who are hurt "first and worst." Hundreds of thousands of Americans have been injured, killed, or forced to shelter in place or evacuate in the wake of such disasters in recent decades, and countless others have been needlessly exposed to toxic pollution. Today, the Center for Progressive Reform published a policy brief with Earthjustice and the Union of Concerned Scientists, which contains recommendations to EPA on how to address this problem.
Dan Rohlf | July 6, 2021
While most people around the country were enjoying summer, residents of the Pacific Northwest used to joke about "Junuary" -- the cloudy and often rainy June days before the sun made its relatively brief appearance in the region after the Fourth of July. But as I wrote this post last week in Portland, Oregon -- a city set in a temperate rainforest ecosystem of towering trees and ferns -- it was 116 degrees outside, the third consecutive day over 100 degrees and the second in excess of 110. The only time I've personally experienced a comparable temperature was nearly two decades ago when I visited Death Valley National Park with my family. Now Death Valley had come to me.
James Goodwin | July 6, 2021
The White House is asking for input on how the federal government can advance equity and better support underserved groups. As a policy analyst who has studied the federal regulatory system for more than a dozen years, I have some answers -- and I submitted them on July 6. My recommendations focus on the White House rulemaking process and offer the Biden administration a comprehensive blueprint for promoting racial justice and equity through agencies’ regulatory decision-making.
Maggie Dewane | July 2, 2021
How do we declare our independence from fossil fuels? While there isn't a single silver bullet, there are plenty of legislative and federal actions the United States government can, and should, take.
Daniel Farber | July 1, 2021
For the last century, the Supreme Court has tried to operationalize the idea that a government regulation can be so burdensome that it amounts to a seizure of property. In the process, it has created a house of mirrors, a maze in which nothing is as it seems. Rules that appear crisp and clear turn out to be mushy and murky. Judicial rulings that seem to expand the rights of property owners turn out to undermine those rights. The Court's decision last week in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid illustrates both points.
Alina Gonzalez | June 28, 2021
Environmental justice advocate Sharon Lavigne has won the world's largest prize for environmental advocacy for blocking a chemical giant from building a roughly $1.3 billion plastic manufacturing plant in St. James Parish, Louisiana, a majority-Black community.
Daniel Farber | June 25, 2021
Even most lawyers, let alone the rest of the population, are a bit fuzzy on how the regulatory system works. As the Biden administration is gearing up to start a slew of regulatory proceedings, here's what you need to know about the process.
Allison Stevens, Laurie Ristino, Maggie Dewane, Steph Tai, Victor Flatt | June 24, 2021
The Center for Progressive Reform stands with all who are working to advance equity and equality for LGBTQ Americans. To commemorate Pride Month, we asked three CPR leaders to weigh in on progress in this area.
Robin Kundis Craig | June 16, 2021
In the first part of this post, I briefly touched on the chaotic history of the EPA and Army Corps' definition and regulation of "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. I also pointed out that this definition and its varying interpretations across courts and administrations can have significant impacts on water pollution prevention and the protection of our nation's waterways. With the Biden administration tackling a redo of the "waters of the United States" rule, court challenges are sure to follow. In this post, I'll explore three approaches to the rule that might help it survive judicial review.