Chemical Accidents
Many of the properties found in chemicals that make them valuable to us can also pose a serious risk to our health and the health of the environment. Agencies, such as the EPA, help protect communities by ensuring that chemical manufacturers and distributors are taking necessary measures to contain and transport these materials as safely as possible.
Chemical Accident Safety Rule
2021-2024
-
August 2022
On August 29, 2022, following a change in administration, the EPA issued a proposed rule to revise the RMP regulations.
-
October 2022
On October 31, 2022, New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 20 AGs in submitting comments to EPA. In their comments, the coalition agreed with EPA that the rule should not have been rolled back in 2019, and supported the agency’s proposal to address the lack of protection from chemical accidents. However, the AGs urged EPA to strengthen the rule, and offered a number of recommendations for how to do so. For example, the AGs recommended that EPA consider the effects of all natural and climate disasters on chemical accident risks, require employees at chemical facilities to be involved in the development of risk management plans, and broaden community access to information about risks at nearby facilities. Additionally, because historically marginalized communities face an increased risk of chemical accidents, the AGs also called on EPA to consider the proposed rule through an environmental justice lens—by, for example, “assessing and redressing barriers to racial and socioeconomic justice, [and] making chemical hazard information available in multiple languages.”
-
March 2024
On March 11, 2024, EPA issued its final rule. The rule goes into effect on May 10, 2024.
2017-2020
-
January 2017
In January 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations in the Chemical Accident Safety Rule (also known as the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements rule) under the Clean Air Act, which required more than 12,000 chemical facilities across the country to conduct “root cause” analyses and third-party audits following accidents and to analyze the use of safer technology and alternatives to prevent accidents. The rule also requires that chemical facilities adopt emergency response procedures, including coordination with first responders so that they will not be exposed to dangerous toxics when responding to accidents at chemical facilities.
-
June 2017
In June 2017, the Trump administration sought to delay the effective date for the Chemical Accident Safety Rule for 20 months until February 2019.
-
July 2017
On July 24, 2017, a coalition of 11 attorneys general filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking a determination by the court that the EPA’s attempt to delay the effective date of the Chemical Accident Safety Rule was unlawful and must be vacated.
-
May 2018
In May 2018, the EPA released a proposed rule to roll back parts of the Chemical Accident Safety Rule. The targeted provisions include a requirement that companies share information about the dangerous chemicals they produce and to take accident preventive measures.
-
August 2018
In August 2018, the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the attorneys general, vacating the June 2017 delay rule as the EPA had not engaged in the reasoned decision-making required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). A week later, the attorneys general requested that the D.C. Circuit issue an order directing the EPA to immediately reinstate the Chemical Accident Safety Rule as the rule had already been suspended for fourteen months. In September, the D.C. Circuit sided with the attorneys general and ordered the EPA to begin enforcing the Chemical Accident Safety Rule. Meanwhile, the EPA is still pursuing efforts to permanently repeal portions of the Chemical Accident Safety Rule.
-
August 2018
In August 2018, a coalition of 12 attorneys general submitted comments to the EPA on the proposed rule. The attorneys general called on the EPA to abandon the rollback because the proposal threatens the safety of workers, first responders and surrounding communities and is unlawful under the Clean Air Act.
-
October 2019
In October 2019, a coalition of 13 attorneys general filed supplemental comments with the EPA, once again urging the agency to withdraw its proposal to roll back parts of the Chemical Accident Safety Rule. The letter pointed to the explosion of hydrofluoric acid at the Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery earlier in 2019 as demonstrating the need for a strong Chemical Accident Safety Rule to prevent deadly chemical accidents.
-
December 2019
In December 2019, the EPA released its final rule to roll back parts of the Chemical Accident Safety Rule. The final rule removed the requirement that companies, when requested, provide chemical hazard information and community emergency preparedness information to the public. Additionally, the requirement that plant owners consider safer technology and the requirement for third-party compliance audits were rescinded.
-
January 2020
In January 2020, a coalition of 15 attorneys general filed a petition for review with the D.C. Circuit to challenge EPA’s final rule.
-
February 2020
In February 2020, New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of seventeen attorneys general in filing a petition for reconsideration of the EPA’s final rule. The attorneys general pointed out that the EPA should revisit the rule given a number of recent, serious chemicals accidents, including the June 2019 fire and explosion at a Philadelphia refinery. The attorneys general also noted that the EPA has ignored recommendations from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board that call for the agency to evaluate the adequacy of risk management plans for refineries that use hydrogen fluoride and to consider the use of safer technologies. The attorneys general urged the EPA to stay its final rule for three months, pending completion of its reconsideration process of the final rule.
-
November 2020
The states successfully moved to stay the litigation until EPA issued a decision on the reconsideration petition. After EPA denied reconsideration, the states filed a petition for review of EPA’s reconsideration denial on November 3, 2020. The court consolidated the actions into Docket No. 19-01260. The case is still in abeyance, given the ongoing rulemaking.
Protecting Communities from Explosions
Highly flammable, highly explosive crude oil is shipped by freight rail via trains throughout the United States, passing densely populated communities and ecologically sensitive areas. These so-called “bomb trains” have been involved in several catastrophic rail accidents in recent years, including a 2013 explosion in Quebec that killed 47 people. Vapor pressure is a key driver of oil’s explosiveness and flammability; pre-shipment treatment of crude oil to reduce dangerous vapor pressure would significantly mitigate the possibility of uncontrollable fires and violent explosions.
In December 2015, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman petitioned the Transportation Department’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to set a vapor pressure standard for the transportation of crude oil via train cars.
2017-2020
-
January 2017
In January 2017, the PHMSA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for a vapor pressure standard.
-
May 2017
In May 2017, the attorneys general of six states submitted comments to PHMSA in support of a nationwide limit on the vapor pressure of crude oil transported by rail in the United States.
-
October 2019
In October 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of four attorneys general in submitting comments in support of the State of Washington and in opposition to an attempt by North Dakota and Montana to preempt a Washington law that sets a limit for the allowable vapor pressure when transporting crude oil by rail in Washington. The comments urged PHMSA to deny North Dakota and Montana’s petition because “Washington’s laws relate to wholly in-state activities for in-state purposes,” and noted that PHMSA has yet to set a protective nationwide limit for vapor pressure of crude oil transported by rail.
-
May 2020
In May 2020, PHMSA issued its administrative determination on the request from North Dakota and Montana. PHMSA determined that the vapor pressure requirement in the Washington law is an obstacle to accomplishing and carrying out the federal Hazardous Material Transportation Law (HMTA) and, as a result, it concluded that HMTA preempts the Washington law.
Transporting Liquid Natural Gas by Rail
2021-2024
-
March 2021
On March 16, 2021, the D.C. Circuit Clerk stayed the litigation until further order of the Court.
-
December 2021
On December 23, 2021, then Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 15 AGs in submitting comments supporting PHMSA’s 2021 proposal to suspend the Trump-era rule that allowed LNG transport by rail without implementing adequate safety controls. The comments argued that the rule was based on an insufficient safety analysis that did not consider the rule’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions or how this dangerous practice could disproportionately affect low-income, minority, underserved, and disadvantaged communities.
-
May 2023
In May 2023, Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown and New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 15 attorneys general in filing a joint motion to lift abeyance with the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and a coalition of environmental groups.
-
October 2023
On October 31, 2023, PHMSA issued a final suspension rule. On October 13, 2023, AG Brown and AG James led the same coalition of 15 attorneys general in filing a brief seeking review of the rule.
-
January 2024
PHMSA filed its respondent brief in January 2024.
-
March 2024
On March 21, 2024, AG Brown and AG James led the 15 AG-coalition in a reply brief. In their reply brief, the AGs argued that PHMSA failed to fully consider “the rule’s impact on public safety, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental justice communities.” Because PHMSA did not engage in “reasoned decisionmaking,” the AGs argued that PHMSA should not be granted agency deference and the LNG by rail rule should be vacated.
2017-2020
-
April 2019
On April 10, 2019 President Trump signed an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Transportation to propose for notice and comment a rule “no later than 100 days after the date of this order, that would treat [Liquified Natural Gas (LNG)] the same as other cryogenic liquids and permit LNG to be transported in approved rail tank cars” and also directed the Secretary to “finalize such rulemaking no later than 13 months after the date of this order.” PHMSA’s proposal would allow LNG to be transported on trains with up to 100 rail cars operated by a single conductor through densely populated areas and on the same rail lines as high-speed passenger trains.
-
October 2019
In October 2019, PHMSA released a notice of proposed rulemaking that would allow liquified natural gas (LNG) to be transported by rail nationwide for the first time. LNG is a highly flammable, odorless, and potentially explosive substance. The proposal admits that the risks of transporting LNG by rail include “fireballs, flash fire, and explosions from ground-level vapor clouds” that reach nearly 2,500 °F.
-
January 2020
In January 2020, a coalition of sixteen attorneys general led by New York Attorney General James and then Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh submitted comments urging PHMSA to withdraw the proposal. In their comments, the AGs warned that the proposed rule would “put the States’ residents, first responders and environmental resources at greater risk of catastrophic accidents”—a threat that PHMSA “has failed to adequately analyze just as it has failed to consider the environmental and climate impacts of allowing LNG to be shipped in rail tank cars.” The comments also stressed that the agencies’ environmental assessment of the proposal was “insubstantial,” and urged PHMSA to withdraw the proposed rule pending the development of a full environmental impact statement as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
-
July 2020
In July 2020, PHMSA, ignoring the concerns raised by the coalition of attorneys general, published a final version of the rule. The rule will allow LNG to be carried on trains of up to 100 rail cars through heavily populated parts of the country.
-
August 2020
On August 18, 2020, then Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 15 AGs in filing a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit challenging PHMSA’s final rule that allows LNG to be transported on trains of up to 100 rail cars through densely populated areas of the United States. The states’ petition for review (Case No. 20-1318) was consolidated with an Earthjustice petition for review (Case No. 20-1317) and with a petition for review by the Puyallup Tribe of Indians (Case No. 20-1431). Before a merits briefing schedule was set, the respondents filed an unopposed motion to hold the case in abeyance for six months, with 90-day status updates.