Chemical Plant Safety

Not surprising, the government has been dragging their feet on this one, and this article shows a lot of the finger pointing going on. You'll note that the article fairly clearly blames the President. I'd have sworn that the Congress could move on such legislation on its own, but maybe I'm deceived.

Addressing an American Chemistry Council forum, Chertoff stopped short of endorsing a Senate bill that would authorize his department to shut down high-risk plants that fail to submit adequate security plans. But he backed its approach of assigning 15,000 U.S. plants to one of four risk groups, setting performance goals for each category and leaving details up to operators.

"Congress can pass a balanced, risk-based security measure for the chemical industry this year" that "relies ultimately on the expertise and the knowledge of the chemical sector itself," Chertoff said.

In speeches to industry leaders and the Senate this month, Chertoff has led a carefully choreographed election-year push to close one of the most lethal security gaps that experts say the Bush administration has neglected since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

No one else neglected these problems? You have to love when a fair and balanced article points the blame at a single party, when multiple parties are required to pass legislation and all of them have been doing more important things. You know, like passing large piles of pork into unrelated legislation.

"The public sector should set and enforce the homeland security standards that the private sector must meet," said the American Chemistry Council's president and chief executive, Jack N. Gerard, echoing Chertoff's call for federal standards for all industry members.

What? The public should trust the industry to manage itself? Doesn't that strike anyone as slightly STUPID? Security costs money. Industry is there to make money. So in order to maximize the money, they will minimize the security. They don't allow the Nuclear industry to set it's own standards, why the hell would you do the same for the chemical industry? (Well other than there will be unreasonable controls in various sectors put in place by legislators that don't have a clue about what they are talking about, but I digress.)

Sen. Susan M. Collins (R-Maine) said that Chertoff "outlined principles that are critical components" of the bill she introduced with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) in December, and that she looked forward to continuing talks.

Democrats and environmental groups, however, contended that Chertoff was offering a fig leaf to an industry that has avoided regulation for four years.

"If all the administration does is call for minimum standards, it will get standards that are minimal," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who instead proposed mandatory rules, on-site inspections, whistleblower protections and a controversial requirement that industries replace toxic chemicals with less dangerous materials when feasible.

"It still remains unclear as to whether the Bush administration chemical security plan will involve more than just paperwork," he said.

Here's the Collins' bill mentioned. Oh and here is the older bill that Markey is a co-sponsor of.

You have to enjoy Markey's comments. Who else would pull out such a moronic statement. Setting a minimum standard doesn't mean it is minimal by any means.

Oh sod, fire alarm, I'll finish this later.

Continued:
Got to love fire alarm testing that no one is notified of.

Umm. Minimal standards. Markey is at his rhetorical best here. Does here really want us to believe that all the minimal standards set for all safety and security systems are minimal in the security they require? That is foolish beyond scope. Security and safety standards are set for a balance between providing insurance that the public safety is protected with reasonable processes. That means that the safety measure doesn't require unreasonable controls that go beyond the associated risks and threats. Chlorine bleach is a hazardous material, but you don't require it to be stored in 3 foot thick steal walled containers stored in a bomb proof shelter.

A seat belt is the minimum safety standard for driving in a car. So I suppose by Markey's statement he and his family all wear helmets and pads when they drive in the car. Or is that excessive for the related risk?

I also love his controversial measure that he wants to "require" that industry use less dangerous chemicals when feasible. Couple of problems there, who decides what is less dangerous and what is feasible? Should a chemical that is less dangerous, but impossible to dispose of be used in place of one that is more dangerous, but easy to dispose of? Well, I suppose after looking at Markey's stand on Nuclear Power the answer he would stand behind is an obvious yes.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who was appointed to fill out Corzine's Senate term and faces an election in November for a full six years, called Chertoff's suggestion that plants use a sliding scale of security standards instead of universal ones "unacceptable."

"Anything less discounts the grave risk these facilities represent in our communities," Menendez said.

Sliding scale? No information in this article as to what that means. I haven't been having luck finding anything else on that statement. I'm going to guess that this is a poor idea. It again sets up interpretations of the law that can be simply designated from the start. I'd really like to know more specifics on what they're talking about.

In response to questions, Chertoff generally backed an industry push to preempt state and local governments from enacting tougher rules. He said inconsistent rules that expose businesses to "ruinous liability" would create "a regulatory regime that is doomed to failure." He criticized as "interference with business" a proposal backed by environmental groups that would require industry to substitute "inherently safer" chemicals and processes.

I agree with Chertoff here. Patchworks of regulations merely make a mess by allowing conflicting legislation to exist side by side. This is no different than states disallowing local gun regulations that would preempt state laws. It ensures uniformity and protects people and industry from violating local laws that would require a database to keep track of. It wouldn't remove all local control either. Cities and the like could locally zone their location to disallow such businesses.

No doubt that something must be done to increase this security, I just find the idea that the industry should implement it as amazingly foolish. Even worse, this is going to end up with another large increase in the federal government to implement and audit the safety standards that are put in place.