Government agencies are ramping up programs to prevent future chemical accidents.
Within days of the accident in Tulare, federal, state and county public health officials turned to a new assessment tool in an effort to reduce chemical accidents. Called ACE, or Assessment of Chemical Exposures, the investigation focuses on circumstances surrounding a chemical accident, the health effects and recommendations for prevention.
As a result of the federal visit, the state mailed an alert urging 1,200 metal recyclers to take only containers that are cut open, dry or without a valve or plug; treat closed containers as potential hazardous waste, and develop and practice an evacuation plan to stay upwind of a hazardous gas release.
The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, a national trade association, sent the California alert to its 1,500 members in a weekly newsletter, said John Gilstrap, safety director. When he and his staff train employees in an OSHA 10-hour safety program, they warn that containers "are extremely hazardous unless they've been rendered incapable of holding pressure," he said.
Carrying out the practice of accepting only cut tanks may sound elementary, he said, but metal recyclers handle truckloads of scrap cargo and so monitoring is challenging.
In Tulare, Beverly Martinez, a Tulare native and seven-year employee of Tulare Iron and Metal, and the other workers now reject all uncut containers.
"We've turned away tons of tanks because they're not cut in half. I say, 'I don't care how good a customer you are. We're not taking it,'" said Martinez, an office manager.
"I can honestly say it was a life-altering event. I never came so close to death, or what you feel it would be. We all lived through it. That was the good thing.”
This article originally ran at Environmental Health News, a news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentWhat exactly is the point of this article? I read it all the way through - to the point where it just abruptly stopped. Is there some kind of conclusion or proposed plan, or something at all?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo raise awareness and let people know that this is a problem and a much greater risk than most might have assumed. The article is the action - Increase Awareness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnote the source:
This article originally ran at Environmental Health News, a news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
Honestly. In Scientific American? Which readers didn't know chlorine is dangerous? Who hasn't heard of the accidents, injuries, and fatalities? I feel I'm bout average in scientific knowledge and media exposure. I don't think I learned one new thing. It's a weak article for SA; Filler
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislamorpa, "In Scientific American? Which readers didn't know chlorine is dangerous?" you are kidding right? This is the site whose comment sections are full of B.S. from climate deniers, creationists, UFOlogists, anti-environmentalists, anti-scientists, anti-sciamists, etc. So not only would I expect few of those people to know anything about the dangers of chlorine (the deniers would argue that it isn't a toxin but instead a nutrient in sea water), even fewer would know about the relative frequency of accidents, which is the main point of the article. I would argue that few sciam readers know about how often accidents occur. I certainly learned something and I have clients in some of those industries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLast time I checked, sciam doesn't use you as the measuring stick with which they determine if an article is too obvious for consumption. Get over yourself.
RS, two thumbs up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChlorine! It's for your drinking water!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally. Ask your city government. Florine, too. Plus, now, UV light. Won't surprise me when they find a drinking water use for CFC's.
.
Two thoughts related to the article: First it seems curious that there is no reference to military chlorine-exposure experience, particularly of WWI. Second, it seems that, even in county/municipal dumps, within short distance of major population centers, I have not seen controls which would identify similar hazards and eliminate the possibility of similar accidents, and I don't think my experience is unique.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, because you feel that the article was unnecessary, it shouldn't have been published? Perhaps there are others out there, like me, who would want to read it. It seems obvious that you are critisizing for no good reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article failed to mention the many unreported small accidents caused by careening pool service trucks loosely loaded with chlorine and muratic acid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHazMat Experts and Firefighters petition Dow Chemical and Union Pacific for safe rail tank cars transporting gas chlorine. Secondary containment is a necessary improvement that must be implemented. See- PETITION C KIT for First Responders Comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHazMat Experts and Firefighters petition Dow Chemical and Union Pacific for safe rail tank cars transporting gas chlorine. Secondary containment is a necessary improvement that must be implemented. See--PETITION C KIT for First Responders Comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWARNING: FIRST RESPONDERS’ use of THE CHLORINE INSTITUTE “C” KIT may cause the catastrophic failure of a chlorine tank car, instantly creating a toxic gas plume with a distance of not less than seven miles. The first mile will have chlorine concentrations of 1,000 ppm, causing death after one or two breaths with no opportunity for escape. To learn more, see PETITION C KIT, click on “First Responder Warnings.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWARNING: FIRST RESPONDERS’ use of THE CHLORINE INSTITUTE “C” KIT may cause the catastrophic failure of a chlorine tank car, instantly creating a toxic gas plume with a distance of not less than seven miles. The first mile will have chlorine concentrations of 1,000 ppm, causing death after one or two breaths with no opportunity for escape. To learn more, see PETITION C KIT, click on “First Responder Warnings.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this