Politicians Must Support Safety Not the Chemical Industry
The chemical blast that occurred this week at the Cortec facility in Spooner is an unfortunate reminder that facilities across Wisconsin and across the country use toxic chemicals every day that risk injuring, and potentially even killing, workers and surrounding community members.
It’s not the first such accident in Wisconsin. In 1996 a train derailment in Weyauwega spilled 9,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide; the town was evacuated for 17 days. And what’s more, the potential for future accidents is great. In Wisconsin, there are 59 facilities that endanger more than 10,000 people in the event of an accident, and 175 that endanger more than 1,000 people.
The good news is that safer substitutes for many dangerous chemicals used at chemical facilities are readily available. The bad news is that the chemical and oil industries resist attempts by Congress to protect workers and communities from avoidable chemical threats.
Nationally, there are more than 14,000 chemical facilities. According to government figures, 100 of these facilities each put more than 1 million people at risk of death or serious injury. Another 445 facilities each endanger 100,000 or more.
The incidents cited above were accidents, but security experts have consistently identified chemical facilities as attractive and vulnerable terrorist targets. Stephen Flynn, a former homeland security adviser for the U.S. Commission on National Security, described chemical facilities as “the equivalent of weapons of mass destruction prepositioned in some of the most congested parts of our country.”
Regrettably, many companies have chosen to disregard available and cost-effective safer technologies. For example, one-third of the nation’s oil refineries still use hydrofluoric acid, a highly toxic gas that burns the lungs and causes suffocation from fluid buildup. All other refineries use safer technologies such as sulfuric acid or solid action catalysts. By not adopting available safer technology alternatives, the recalcitrant refineries needlessly endanger 17 million people.
The magnitude of the chemical plant threat calls for a bold national policy. First, where safer technologies exist and can be feasibly incorporated, chemical facilities should adopt them.
Second, employees must be allowed to participate in the development of safety and security measures, not only because they are on the front lines of exposure, but because they possess a more intimate understanding of the facilities where they work and how to make them safer.
In 2006 the House Homeland Security Committee approved a strong bipartisan bill that included safer technologies, worker participation, and other constructive provisions. The chemical industry vigorously opposed the bill, and Congress eventually capitulated to the industry’s objections by abandoning the comprehensive legislation in favor of a limited and temporary program.
The weak program Congress adopted was devised by the chemical industry. As written, the program actually prohibits the government from requiring that specific security measures be implemented. It may also eliminate more protective state and local chemical security and safety laws.
We deserve better than a hollow program that delivers chemical security in name only. It’s time for Congress to stand up for worker and public health protections, rather than standing up for the chemical industry.
Fortunately, the House Homeland Security Committee recently introduced H.R. 5577 to replace this limited temporary program with a comprehensive chemical security program.
To provide meaningful reform, Congress must pass legislation that replaces dangerous chemical operations with feasible safer technologies and that integrates employee participation in safety and security initiatives. If Congress continues to succumb to a corrosive chemical industry, it will be at the expense of worker and community safety.
Bruce Speight is an advocate with WISPIRG, the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group, a statewide nonpartisan, nonprofit public interest advocacy organization.
© 2008 Capital Newspapers
How do you expect to get the chemical industry to clean up its act when the political industry in this country is dependent on all industries for their financial success?
Hoa binh
I hate to blow your article down but both parties have already been bought out by Big Chemical for the past 80 years ! You pols aren’t going to listen to you, DUH !!!!!
Congress is only doing as paid to NOT do in this case which is to stand by and allow the Bushcos ravage any and all consumer protection.
Put it to a popular vote.
We don’t vote in America - we ratify.
Hoa binh
Obviously, we need a new Congress.
Just the title on this article tells you how bad things are. That there’s even a question that the politicians are looking out for their big contributors over the safety of the citizens tells you how bad things are in this country right now.
And note how the author dances around the issue. The key is that the Democratic leadership who controls Congress obviously ‘weakened’ the bill. The article won’t name names, and tries to somehow hide this. In fact, the way those paragraphs are written you’d be a very confused reader. First he says ‘Congress’ had strong legislation, but then he complains that ‘Congress’ weakened the bill to match what the industry wanted.
This is the key realization about the Democrats. For the Dem leadership, taking power over Congress in 2006 only means that the Dem leadership expects to be paid by the lobbyists. The cynical part of me says that they led the committee chairperson propose a tougher bill only so they could better shake down the chem industry lobbyists for more money.
If you politicians who won’t support chem industry profits over YOUR health and safety, please stop voting for the Democrats (or Republicans). If you want something different, then you need to do something different to send a different Congress back next year.
We just need a congress that votes for the wishes of their constuency and not their paymasters.
simple solution; from a simple man
do not vote for anyone for any office if they do not make their private stock/ bond holdings public…
then you can see who they really work for
Pelosi put impeachment off the table just a soon as her husband received that 800 million dollar no bid contract in Iran…(the $ amount i guessed as the figure is lost to me now..hidden is more likely)
Mr. Speight, such innocence is not credible.
You write about people who do not love their own children; they love money and privilege only.
What Canuck said: No person who owns shares in or is paid by companies that make landmines and cluster bombs and profits from war is fit to make a decision about whether or not to war.