We often refer to the 1984 tragedy in Bhopal, India -- when a chemical leak took 2000 lives -- as the wake-up call on the issue of chemical accidents. In the wake of that tragedy, I originated the amendment to the 1986 Superfund bill that established the Toxics Release Inventory, through which companies disclose routine chemical releases and emissions.
In the 1990 Clean Air Act, Congress took the Right-to-Know concept a step further by creating the Risk Management Program, under which companies will disclose worst case chemical accidents scenarios. It is the RMP, of course, which we are discussing today.
Every year, there are dozens of chemical incidents in my state, New Jersey, many requiring evacuations of the surrounding community, many causing injury and, tragically, death. Nationwide, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board reports an average of 60,000 chemical incidents each year, resulting in hundreds of evacuations and injuries, and an average death toll of 256.
Our goal must be, especially in a state with as strong a chemical industry as New Jersey, to make the industry safer -- to make the environment safer -- even as it becomes more productive. Towards that end, we have regulatory programs specifying the minimum safety practices that should be in place at each firm.
We have a Chemical Safety Board, identifying the root causes of the most serious accidents. And, thanks to Risk Management Program created under the Clean Air Act of 1990, we will soon have a Right to Know program that applies to chemical accidents, just as the 1986 Right to Know program applies to routine chemical releases.
Strong regulatory and enforcement programs will always be an essential component of protecting safety, health and the environment in this country. However, Mr. Chairman, Right to Know programs have promoted risk reduction far beyond what the regulatory programs could achieve on their own.
The premier example of this is the Toxics Release Inventory, which, through public disclosure, has led industry to cut toxic chemical releases in half in ten years. The power of public scrutiny manifests itself in several ways. Newspapers run articles naming a specific company or plant "the top chemical releaser" in a town, state, or in the country.
Environmental agency heads publicly call upon the biggest firms to voluntarily reduce their releases. Vendors and consultants market pollution prevention technologies to facilities high on the list. All this is made possible by the Right to Know, and it all contributes to an atmosphere in which industry, through non-regulatory means, is given an incentive to use safer products and processes.
I take very seriously the FBI's concerns that disclosure of some of this information might increase risk due to terrorism. All of us agree on the need to take all reasonable measures to protect our citizens from terrorism. At the same time, it's important to have programs such as Right-to-Know that help reduce public risks from very real and dangerous chemical accidents.
If there are steps we can take to reduce threats from terrorism at chemical facilities, we should certainly try to take them without eliminating the public safety benefits that flow from disclosure of information about chemical facilities. We might want to propose measures to improve site security at these chemical plants, or to even ban the most hazardous chemical operations from residential areas and schools.
I will be very interested to hear, Mr. Chairman, what advice our expert witnesses will give us to help retain the benefits of the Right To Know program while safeguarding ourselves from terrorism.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.