Should Companies Be Held Liable for Pollution From Big Storms?

• When Hurricane Harvey devastated the Gulf Coast last year, a chemical plant belonging to a company called Arkema caught fire and burned for days.
• Now the company and two of its executives are facing criminal charges. The case raises weighty questions about who should be held responsible for pollution that occurs during predictable extreme weather events.
• Currently, Tropical Storm Gordon is heading for the Gulf Coast, and forecasters expect it to reach hurricane strength before making landfall.

The damage

After Hurricane Harvey struck, chemicals left in trailers at the Arkema plant caught fire, sending toxic clouds of smoke billowing into the air. The chemicals required refrigeration, but when water inundated the plant and knocked out its generators, they combusted.

More than 200 neighbors evacuated their homes, and 21 first responders sought medical treatment for the nausea, vomiting, and dizziness they experienced after exposure to the chemicals.

Those residents and first responders continue to experience health problems one year later. They’re suing Arkema for negligence, saying that the company didn’t properly safeguard its chemicals or inform the community of the “unreasonably dangerous condition” created by their release.

Predictable or not?

Arkema issued a statement on the lawsuit:

“These criminal charges are astonishing. At the end of its eight-month investigation, the Chemical Safety Board noted that Hurricane Harvey was the most significant rainfall event in U.S. history, an Act of God that never before has been seen in this country.”

Prior to Hurricane Harvey, Arkema successfully lobbied the Trump administration to delay new safety rules for chemical plants that would have taken effect in March 2017, and several Texas Republican lawmakers joined the lobbying effort. The company has received more than $8.7 million of taxpayer subsidies from Texas.

Studies have found that climate change made Hurricane Harvey more damaging than it otherwise would have been, and predict that such storms will continue to grow more intense and carry greater risk of major damage.

Other chemical companies in the area relocated their potential pollutants out of harm’s way before Harvey struck.

Ongoing risk

About half the U.S. population lives close enough to a chemical facility to be harmed in a disaster situation. Those at risk are disproportionately low-income and people of color.

A recent report recommends that Texas regulators “plan, coordinate and stagger the often-complicated shutdowns of major industrial facilities during hurricanes and other disasters, as well as the subsequent restarting of plants.”

What do you think?

Should companies be held liable for pollution from their plants during extreme weather events? Why or why not? Hit Take Action to tell your reps what you think, then share your thoughts below.

—Sara E. Murphy

(Photo Credit: iStock.com / RoschetzkyIstockPhoto)