Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable
Promoting Pollution Prevention Through Information Exchange

Please note that the Topic Hubs developed by this Center have been archived and are no longer being updated. GLRPPR has converted several of its Topic Hubs to LibGuides, which allow for integration of some social features.

View the converted hubs, as well as other LibGuides related to pollution prevention and sustainability, in the University of Illinois' LibGuides Community.

Archived: P2Rx no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

Browse by Keyword

P2 and Environmental Security: Reasons for Change
Table of Contents
Background and Overview
Reasons for Change
Integrating P2 and Security
P2 Opportunities
Key Contacts
Complete List of Links

Essential Links:

Chemical Facilities Security Act of 2003 (S.994)
Senator Inhofe (R-OK) proposed this bill to the 108th Congress. The bill would require the chemical...

Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels
This EPA web site provides information on the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels R...

Chemical Security Act of 2003 (S.157)
Senator John Corzine (D-NJ) proposed this bill to the 108th Congress. This bill proposes some measu...

Clean Air Act 112 (r)
This US EPA website provides information on the section of the Clean Air Act related to hazards asso...

EPRCA Information
This EPA website provides an overview of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPC...

Requirements of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002
Requires most community water systems to conduct a vulnerability assessment and prepare or revise an...

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (H.R. 5005)
This Act established the Department of Homeland Security, which serves to coordinate the executive b...

How Can Pollution Prevention (P2) Projects Within Your Facility Add Value to National and Local Security Efforts?

Individuals within organizations can enhance protection of the environment, staff and facilities, by employing pollution prevention. Parallels exist between P2 and security, and both disciplines stand to benefit by meshing some of the opportunities common to each.

Listed below are a few benefits that P2 offers to enhance security.

  • Broaden the range of protection to areas, resources, organizations and communities over the protection provided by strictly-security measures;
  • Minimize the severity, losses, risks, and potential liabilities of some types of potential attacks;
  • Help take a bite out of the investment and operating costs of security improvements;
  • Reduce long-term reliance on imported resources, especially oil, that increase vulnerability; and
  • Help conserve resources (which can reduce the vulnerability associated with dependence on water, oil and other imported resources).

In addition, pollution prevention projects, whether intended solely to improve security or not, also reduce regulatory burdens and improve insurability.

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "123 chemical facilities located throughout the nation have accidental toxic release 'worst-case' scenarios where more than one million people?could be at risk of exposure." This figure does not account for other industries such as natural gas and oil distribution.

The following examples illustrate potential benefits of practicing pollution prevention as an added security measure:

  • Numerous water treatment facilities have replaced chlorine with sodium hypochlorite, greatly reducing risks associated with chlorine handling and storage. Why is chlorine such a risk? Per the National Transportation Safety Board and the Coast Guard, a large leak of chlorine gas can travel two miles in only 10 minutes and remain acutely toxic to a distance of about 20 miles. (Source: Greenpeace)
  • After the Bhopal chemical accident in 1984, Dupont eliminated all storage of methyl isocyanate (the chemical released in Bhopal) by switching to a closed loop process that only manufactures as much of the chemical as is used immediately in the process. (Source: Environmental Media Services). Studies also show that process integration on the Bhopal facility could have reduced methyl isocyanate inventories from 41 tons to less than 10 kg.
  • In Cheshire, Ohio, American Electric Power selected a urea-based pollution control system rather than one involving large-scale storage of ammonia that would have endangered the surrounding community. (Source: Environmental Media Services)
  • In Cuyahoga County, Ohio, ALCOA reduced its potential off-site impact by working with local emergency planners and ending on-site storage of hydrofluoric acid and nitric acid. (Source: Environmental Media Services).


The Topic Hub™ is a product of the Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx)

The P2 and Environmental Security Topic Hub™ was developed by:

Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable
Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable
Contact email:

Hub Last Updated: 10/2/2012

GLRPPR is a member of the Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange, a national network of regional information centers: NEWMOA (Northeast), WRRC (Southeast), GLRPPR (Great Lakes), ZeroWasteNet (Southwest), P2RIC (Plains), Peaks to Prairies (Mountain), WSPPN (Pacific Southwest), PPRC (Northwest).


One East Hazelwood Drive; Champaign, IL; 61820; (800) 407-0261;