Comments on: Chem Plant Security Gets Serious

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:51:28 +0000

Im not to sure about the rest of the Country, but in Lima Ohio Home of the M1A1/A2. Security is not a major concern anymore, The one thing we have plenty of other than petroleum,chemicals,tanks and bars is Limestone. So Lima has 6 to 8 foot thick 10 to 14 ft high, 16 to 20 ft long slabs of bedrock surrounding our chemical plant and key refinery points. Along with the maze of reinforced k-rails and security checkpoints. With all that in place it virtually eliminates the ground threat. What does lack security is General Dynamics Lima Army Tank Plant. In the weeks following 9/11 the facility looked like Downtown Baghdad, Apaches,Fully Armed M1A2’s, And a Fleet of Hummers equipped with 50 cals and AVENGER systems, and a compliment of 200 troops and combat crews. Fast Forward to present day security consist of 2 DOD police officers with M9’s. Call me crazy if you want but I feel our country will not be safe until our Military forces are doing the job that the Government has forgotten about, Defend Our SHORES, Defend Our BORDERS, Defend Our SKIES, I mean come on, always talking about how much it costs to fund Our Military, well it would cost much less if Our Military was in Our Country. You dont see Our Allies with bases and ports all over the globe, Heck the only time you see or hear of our Allies is when they want US to eliminate a threat for THEM!

By: James

James — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:36:14 +0000

One doesn’t really have to imagine. The Bhopal incident demonstrates what is probably the worst-case scenario. It also demonstrates the limits of the theory that companies are rational actors who will limit their own risk.
Union Carbide simply wrote off their assets in India and hid behind first the limited-liability status of their Indian subsidiary and then the political protection of the US government. Finally they concocted a scheme in which they sold all of their assets to Dow Chemical and left the company an empty shell. Nothing left to seize.
For those who think the Indian government’s penalties were “unfair,” only a few years later the US imposed much, much larger penalties on Exxon over the Exxon Valdez spill, which didn’t kill anyone.
But none of that answers the question, “Why can’t Oklahoma regulate its own industries?”

By: Shaun wilson

Shaun wilson — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 03:13:26 +0000

I personaly can’t image the damage done if one got hit?I live in the state of oklahoma wich has numerous oilrefineries,thousands of oklahomans will lose their job if one is hit.I live 1 mile frome one in woodward,Ok.States like us need prtection frome terror attacks. Kill thousands or save thousands its up to you America!!!

By: James

James — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:11:11 +0000

Brian: I understand that. My reading of the article was that 1) after 9/11, the Administration argued that they didn’t want Federal regulation of security at chem plants; 2) New Jersey and other states recently took up the issue on their own; and 3) DHS has belatedly decided they wish to seek Congressional authorization to write new rules after all.
The clear statement that state rules would be superceded by Federal rules with the emphasis on “particularly if they are more stringent” provides us with the motive. The industry groups don’t like what they’re seeing in the statehouses so they’re running to the Administration for cover. But that can be a very dangerous tactic. Administrations change, but the precedent of Federal authority lasts forever. I think they will regret getting DHS involved in this down the road.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:09:06 +0000

Premises!

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:40:52 +0000

James, Bush can’t just snap his fingers and nullify the New Jersey regulations. There have to be federal regulations in place before anything like that can happen. With no current federal regulations, New Jersey is well within its rights to create their own.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:28:25 +0000

There is a bill in congress right now. It’s the Collins Lieberman Chemical Security Bill. It will give DHS authority and oversight over chemical plants. As it now stands, DHS isn’t even allowed on to the premisis!!!

By: James

James — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:15:06 +0000

Mark’s got a point. Insurance companies use risk-based assessments, so why try to duplicate their work? But remember that many companies like to play the “self-insurance” game, in which they create a shell corporation whose liability is limited by law and transfer their assets to it. Something goes wrong? Let them seize the ruined plant and walk away. The OPA of 1990 got around that by insisting the company show it had sufficient assets in reserve to cover liabilities before a license was issued. So now we’re back to regulations…
I guess I read this as industry reacting to the states writing their own legislation by playing a friendly federal government off them. (And I don’t think anyone doubts this particular administration is very friendly to industry.) Note the emphasis on not allowing the states to adopt more stringent rules. Another example of alleged conservatives cheerfully abandoning their federalist “principles” as easily as a stripper doffs her g-string, if you throw enough money on the stage.
All that said, why not let New Jersey regulate the plants? Why not let metro areas assess their own risks? Most states and cities have policies in place to consider environmental issues that cross municipal boundaries. One reason, I guess, is because FEMA will be called in to pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong.
There is a tangle of competing issues here that goes to the heart of how we run this country and the only thing I can be sure of is that we won’t address the underlying issue of where state and federal responsibilities lie. Or, for that matter, public and private responsibilities. The agencies will bicker, the politicians will grandstand, industry will try to put the costs off on someone else. In the end, taxpayers will pick up a tab bloated by poor risk assessments and pork masquerading as “protecting the public.” Nothing to see here, folks, move along…

By: Mark Denovich

Mark Denovich — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:58:28 +0000

Just make these companies legaly liable in the case of a catastrophe. That would effectively require them to have insurance. The insurance companies would then effectively enforce hightened security/disaster planning through their premiums. An insurance company isn’t going to be happy with just “window dressing”, they will want real/effective/adaptive security.
Federaly mandated security will result in brittle (one-size-fits-all) guidelines, and the companies will respond with the minimum required by those laws.