Chemical Plant Disasters Prompt Factory Relocations

As another chemical plant in China explodes, authorities in Beijing ponder plans to move about 1,000 facilities away from population centers

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Less than three weeks after the massive explosion of a hazardous chemicals warehouse in Tianjin, China, another blast killed five people at a chemical plant in China’s coastal province of Shandong. The accident occurred as Chinese authorities were considering new industrial safety measures.

At a cabinet meeting in Beijing to draft a new water pollution prevention law, China’s minister of industry and information technology, Miao Wei, said that since the Tianjin explosion local governments throughout the country have provided his ministry with plans to relocate about 1,000 chemical plants away from population centers.

According to the official People’s Daily newspaper, the relocation proposals involve plants that are either hazardous or heavily polluting. The project, if it goes forward, would cost a total of about $63 billion. Miao did not provide details on who would pay for the moves.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Punctuating Miao’s announcement, five people were killed on Aug. 31 when a plant operated by Shandong Binyuan Chemical blew up in Dongying in the coastal province of Shandong. The company produces a hydrogenated adhesive as well as guar gum derivatives and clay antiswelling agents. The official Dongying newspaper reports that local authorities are questioning company managers.

Meanwhile, in Tianjin, where the official death toll is approaching 160, the blast remains under investigation. Chinese vice premier Zhang Gaoli, a former Communist Party leader in Tianjin, demanded that no one responsible for the tragedy be spared from punishment, no matter their position, Chinese media reported.

Sodium cyanide is widely cited as a possible cause, but a Chemours spokeswoman tells C&EN that the material could not have played a major role in the blast. Chemours, the former DuPont performance chemicals business, is a large U.S. producer of sodium cyanide but says it has not shipped the material to China since December 2012.

“Sodium cyanide is neither explosive nor flammable,” says Janet E. Smith, a Chemours public affairs leader. When mixed with water—from a firefighter’s hose, for example—sodium cyanide creates some hydrogen cyanide gas. The gas can be explosive at concentrations of more than 6%, but the concentrations generated from mixing water and sodium cyanide are at most 0.03%, Smith says.

This article is reproduced with permission from Chemical & Engineering News (© American Chemical Society). The article was first published on September 2, 2015.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe