Climate change is making chemical disasters more likely — here’s what agencies can do

_{When people think about climate change the thought of toxic chemical spills and industrial explosions don’t often come to mind. But the connections between our warming world and chemical disasters are clear.}

_{Underscoring this reality, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a new report that examines the climate vulnerability of some of the nation’s largest industrial facilities. These sites, like chemical manufacturers and oil refineries, are subject to federal environmental regulations designed to prevent chemical disasters at facilities that use, store or produce hazardous substances. The rules are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Risk Management Plan (RMP), which has largely failed to live up to its responsibility to prevent chemical disasters, putting people and the planet at increasing risk as our climate warms.} 

_{Even without stronger hurricanes and rising seas, these facilities pose significant risks to nearby communities. But when you add to the mix raging firestorms that melt power lines and roads, storm surge that hurls debris miles inland, as well as flooding that damages equipment and storage tanks, a dangerous dual threat emerges.} 

_{Indeed, the GAO found that more than 3,200 hazardous chemical facilities are exposed to natural hazard and climate risks. These findings align with a 2021 analysis we coauthored with the Union of Concerned Scientists and Earthjustice. We found that one-third of more than 12,000 facilities covered under EPA’s Risk Management Plan are exposed to significant and worsening risks of flooding, wildfire, storm surge and sea-level rise. More than 200 million people, disproportionately Black, Latino and low-income residents, live in so-called “worst case scenario zones” near these facilities. The GAO concludes that the EPA’s Risk Management Plan does not adequately assess nor manage the risks posed by natural disasters.}  

_{While addressing risks from large facilities is essential, smaller and more numerous hazardous chemical facilities cannot be ignored. Beyond the reach of the Risk Management Plan, there are likely hundreds of thousands of unregulated (and largely unknown) hazardous chemical storage tanks across the country.} 

_{In December, my colleague and I published new research on these facilities and found that the EPA has likely significantly underestimated the quantity and extent of these tanks, as well as chemical spills and other incidents. Like RMP facilities, the risk of spills, explosions and other incidents involving these tanks is growing due to climate impacts. In Virginia, for example, we found that the number of chemical storage tank incidents increased between two- to eight-fold following recent hurricanes in the state.} 

_{What’s more, chemical storage tanks and related incidents are disproportionately sited and occur within or near low-income communities and communities of color in the state. The growing risk to these communities, already overburdened by industrial pollution, highlights the urgency of regulatory action.}

_{Until now, both Republican and Democratic administrations have refused to address the dual hazards of climate change and chemical disasters at the federal level. But that may soon change. This year, the EPA will undertake two rulemakings on RMP facilities and chemical tanks that provide the agency an opportunity to offset climate-driven risks of chemical disasters. To be successful, the agency cannot merely require facilities to identify climate risks. Rather, the rules must include requirements to adapt and strengthen chemical release prevention practices to offset those risks.}

_{There are multiple solutions the agency could include in its rules. For example, the agency could require facilities to physically elevate and harden chemical storage facilities above and against flood risks, or it could require companies to move hazardous facilities out of flood zones altogether. The RMP rule should require facilities to adopt safer chemical processes and to use less toxic and hazardous chemicals where alternatives are available.}

_{And there is more that the EPA can and should do beyond preventing chemical disasters. It should also mitigate the harm to workers and communities at the fenceline of facilities by meaningfully including them in the development and implementation of these rules and bolstering community disaster preparedness with continuous emissions monitoring and rapid emergency notifications.}

_{The bigger picture is also important, and, as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently highlighted, adaptation is not just inevitable — it is desperately urgent. Federal pollution control programs all need to adapt to climate change, as well as comprehensive adjustments and updates are necessary to address cumulative pollution impacts that communities face. That would help prevent the possibility of a chemical disaster at one facility causing a cascade of harms that could undercut protections adopted by other facilities, emergency planners, and the public.}

_{David Flores is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform and a co-author of recent reports on climate change and chemical disasters, including Preventing “Double Disasters” and Tanks for Nothing: The Decades-Long Failure to Protect the Public from Hazardous Chemical Spills.}