Pulp Fiction: Chemical Hazard Reduction at Pulp and Paper Mills
8/2/2007
Executive Summary
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 papermaking 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. A 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 onsite.
•
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. Chlorinefree 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.y and require
facilities to find safer alternatives to dangerous chemicals.
|