1. United States
2. Calif.
3. Letter

I am writing to urge you to oppose the EPA's proposed rollback of the Risk Management Program rules that protect communities from chemical disasters. Congress created the RMP in 1990 under the Clean Air Act with a clear directive: prevent catastrophic chemical accidents and protect workers, first responders, and surrounding communities. This proposal reverses that mandate. Between 2004 and 2025, the United States experienced a chemical accident that harmed humans or the environment every other day on average. Approximately 180 million people live within several miles of a plant covered by these rules. The 2024 Biden administration rule, 12 years in the making, addressed this crisis by requiring facilities to implement newer disaster-prevention technology, establish backup measures, and replace hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives. The Trump EPA is now moving to eliminate most of these protections at the chemical industry's request. I need answers to critical questions about this rollback. How does eliminating these protections align with Congress's directive in the Clean Air Act to prevent accidental releases of hazardous substances? How many of the more than 12,500 RMP facilities will be affected by these regulatory changes? What evidence demonstrates that eliminating safer technology assessments will not increase the likelihood or severity of catastrophic incidents like the 2010 Chevron explosion that injured 15,000 people or the 2017 Arkema plant explosion during Hurricane Harvey? The EPA has already removed the public website that informed communities and first responders about which chemicals are in use at facilities, moving this information to a reading room at one EPA office. How will nearby residents and first responders obtain timely and actionable hazard information without online access? What analysis has EPA conducted regarding the impact of these rollbacks on underserved and rural communities, like those in Roseland, Louisiana, where an oil facility explosion caused oil to splatter onto homes 20 miles away? How does EPA reconcile its current proposal with its statutory obligation to protect public health? I urge you to demand answers to these questions and oppose any rollback that prioritizes industry profits over the safety of your constituents.