Stop Toxic Pollution Reports
Search
•
RSS Feed
Executive Summary
Environment America is the new home of U.S. PIRG's environmental work.
Across the country, pulp and paper mills, petroleum
refineries, chemical plants and other industrial facilities use and store large
amounts of hazardous chemicals that could be released in the event of an
accident or terrorist attack. Releases at these chemical facilities could
endanger thousands or even millions of people working and living in nearby communities.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), more than 100
facilities each would endanger at least one million people in a worst-case
chemical release. Another 3,000 facilities each would endanger at least 10,000
people or more.
Many of these chemical facilities can eliminate
the health and safety risks they pose to local communities. Chemical facilities
often have multiple options for their production processes, and some of these
options are inherently safer than others. Facilities that reduce or eliminate
the use of hazardous chemicals, or that make changes to storage pressure or
other processes, can remove the potential of a hazardous chemical release, making
the facilities inherently safer and less appealing targets for terrorists.
Pulp and paper mills stand as a salient example of
chemical facilities that can implement readily available safer alternatives to
eliminate or reduce unnecessary risks to workers and local communities in the
event of an accidental or deliberate chemical release.
Chlorine and chlorine dioxide are used as
bleaching agents in many pulp and paper-making processes. The dominant industry
processes are the elemental chlorine (EC) process, which relies on chlorine
gas, or the elemental chlorine-free (ECF) process, which uses chlorine dioxide,
a gas with hazards similar to chlorine.
In the event of an accidental or deliberate
release, chlorine and chlorine dioxide present serious hazards. Chlorine, used
as a chemical weapon, is highly toxic and corrosive. It irritates the mucous
membranes of the nose, throat, and lungs, and causes breathing difficulties,
violent coughing, acute tracheobronchitis, and chemical pneumonia. Exposure to
relatively low levels of chlorine can be fatal. Similarly, chlorine dioxide causes
shortness of breath, bronchitis, and emphysema. Acute exposure can cause
potentially fatal pulmonary edema.
To estimate the number of Americans at risk of
injury or death in the event of a chlorine or chlorine dioxide release at a
pulp and paper mill, we examined Risk Management Plans submitted to EPA by the
owners or operators of each facility. These plans, legally required under the
Clean Air Act, estimate the distance that an extremely hazardous chemical could
travel off-site in the event of a release, and the number of people living in
the affected area or “vulnerability zone.” This data analysis revealed that
pulp and paper mills that continue to rely on chlorine or chlorine dioxide
endanger millions of people.
Key
findings include:
• In the United States, 16 pulp and paper
mills still use chlorine and 58 use chlorine dioxide in their processing or
store it on-site.
• These 74 facilities use and store almost 4 million
pounds of chlorine and chlorine dioxide, endangering 5.7 million people living
in 23 different states.
• The states with the most pulp and paper
mills using or storing chlorine and chlorine dioxide include Alabama with
seven, Florida and Georgia with six, and Louisiana, Maine, and South Carolina
with five each.
• In Ohio, two pulp and paper
mills place a total of almost 1.3 million people at risk. In Tennessee, three pulp and paper
mills endanger a total of 730,000 people. Pulp and paper mills that continue to
rely on chlorine and chlorine dioxide endanger at least 400,000 people in Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Washington.
• A single pulp and paper facility
that uses or stores chlorine or chlorine dioxide can endanger a large number of
people. In Ohio, a single facility places 1.2 million people at risk in
a worst-case chemical release; in Tennessee, a single facility endangers more than 600,000 people.
The pulp and paper industry has readily available safer
alternatives to chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaching that can reduce or eliminate
these risks. The most commonly used chlorine-free bleaching process, typically
called a totally chlorine-free (TCF) process, is oxygen based and uses either
hydrogen peroxide or ozone. TCF bleaching protects worker and community health and
safety by eliminating the presence of chlorine, chlorine dioxide, and highly
toxic chlorinated byproducts, such as dioxins and furans. Another equally safe
technology is processed chlorine-free bleaching (PCF), which also eliminates the
need for chlorine and chlorine dioxide. TCF material originates from virgin
pulp, whereas the PCF process uses recycled material.
Despite the safety and environmental benefits
associated with chlorine-free bleaching, most pulp and paper mills have not
switched to these safer and more secure technologies.
In order to adequately address the recognized safety
and security threats created by facilities using and storing dangerous
chemicals, the United States needs a comprehensive policy dedicated to making
its pulp and paper mills—and all chemical plants—safer. This policy should:
• Eliminate
or reduce the use of highly toxic chemicals by switching to safer technologies
where feasible. Safer technologies are the most effective way to secure
facilities and to protect workers and communities in the event of a deliberate
or accidental chemical release. Pulp and paper mills can eliminate or
significantly reduce the use of chlorine and chlorine dioxide by implementing
readily available safer alternatives.
• Maintain
and expand public access to basic information about chemical use and hazards at
individual facilities. In order to evaluate, understand, and respond to
potential chemical threats, workers and communities must have access to
information about the use, storage, and release of hazardous chemicals.
• Preserve
the ability of states and localities to address chemical facility safety and
security. Threats at chemical facilities vary by community and state. Confronting
these threats requires collaboration between local, state, and federal
officials. In order to promote effective collaboration, states and localities
must be allowed to establish safety and security programs that are more
protective than federal requirements. In the absence of a comprehensive and
permanent federal program, states including Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina already have adopted
measures to improve chemical security and safety within their borders.
By adopting safer technologies, chemical
facilities can achieve a number of benefits. For example:
• Safety
and security reliability. Hazard reduction makes chemical and industrial
processes inherently safer by reducing or eliminating the use of highly toxic,
volatile, or flammable chemicals or by limiting the quantity of these
substances used or stored on-site. From a security perspective, eliminating the
source of the threat can make facilities less attractive targets for
terrorists.
• Improved
environmental performance. In addition to safety and security benefits, safer
technologies also can improve environmental performance at chemical facilities.
Using hazardous chemicals in production and manufacturing processes often
results in toxic byproducts or pollution. For example, chlorine-based pulp and
paper bleaching processes generate dioxins and furans. Chlorine-free technologies
eliminate these toxic pollutants by taking chlorine out of the equation.
• Operating
cost savings. Although switching to safer technologies may require an
initial capital investment, these technologies can offset recurring operating
costs. For example, pulp and paper mills that eliminate the use of chlorine or
chlorine dioxide can achieve significant cost savings associated with pollution
control, workplace safety requirements, emergency response, employee training,
security costs, and safety equipment. In the long-term, avoiding or reducing
these annually recurring costs can save facilities money.
|
