space shuttle, space: 2005_12_01_spewingforth

PERMALINK Posted 11:43 PM by Jordan

NJ Issues Chem Plant Safety Regs; Including Safer Technologies

I've written quite a bit over the last couple of years (see below)

about the sorry state of chemical plant security in this post-9/11

world: the ease with which reporters have been able to "infiltrate"

chemical plants, the assassination by the the American Chemical

Council of New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine's bill which would have

required plants to develop and implement security plans that include

"inherently safety technologies," and the ACC's promotion of its

"Responsible Care" guidelines as the model for national standards.

Well, the state of New Jersey has finally broken ground on this issue,

becoming the first state to issue regulations requiring chemical

plants to take measures to reduce their vulnerability to catastrophes

resulting from terrorist attacks. The best part is that 43 (of the

states 140 plants) using the most hazardous chemical are required to

review the potential for adopting inherently safer technologies.

The 43 chemical facilities must analyze and report the feasibility

of reducing the amount of material that potentially may be

released, substituting less hazardous materials, using materials in

the least hazardous process conditions or forms, and designing

equipment and processes to minimize the potential for equipment

failure and human error, according to the governor's news release.

Chemical plants have 120 days to complete review of chemical and

security policies.

Not suprisingly, the New Jersey chemical industry is not pleased,

claiming that they've already spent $100 million on plant security --

by which they mean guns, gates and guards, but not inherently safety

technologies."

For reasons not clear to us, it seems the cooperative approach

between the state and our sector is being abandoned," read a

statement from the Chemistry Council of New Jersey, which

represents about 100 manufacturers. "The prescriptive order seems

to penalize early, responsible actors, while adding requirements

that have little to do with security."

Well, if it's not clear, allow me to clarify. The benefits of

inherently safer processes is that they reduce the target. Many

experts argue that chemical plants are impossible to defend from a

determined terrorist, but if there aren't large amounts of extremely

hazardous chemical on site, then why bother attacking. Second,

inherently safer processes protect not only against terrorists, but

also against your garden variety Bhopal-type of accident.

The response from labor and environmental groups is mixed. Rick

Engler, director of the NJ Work Environment Council said he was

pleased with the inherently safer process part, but was upset that the

regulations don't require management to share relevant documents with

their unions.

Senator and soon-to-be Governor Jon Corzine was also pleased with the

new regulations and promises to strengthen them when he becomes

governor.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the U.S. Senate is considering national

measures:

About one-fifth of the nation's chemical facilities are close to

population centers. Homeland Security has identified 297 chemical

facilities where a toxic release could affect 50,000 or more

people.

Under the draft legislation, which may still be changed, chemical

manufacturers would be required to assess potential security gaps

and tailor specific solutions on a plant-by-plant basis. Both the

assessments and solutions -- which could include measures like

surveillance cameras or limited access to certain areas -- would

then be submitted to Homeland Security for approval.

Chemical manufacturers would also be required to create or update

existing emergency response plans.

Repeated failures to comply could lead the Homeland Security

secretary to "issue an order for the chemical source to cease

operation," according to the most recent draft of the legislation.

In turn, Homeland Security would be required to develop certain

security standards for plants that would be grouped into tiers,

based on the level of risk they pose to surrounding communities.

The agency has identified about 3,400 plants it believes are of

concern

A draft of the bill was obtained by the Associated Press. The

legislation would set no specific minimum standards that the industry

would have to meet in securing its facilities. The bill, written by

Republicans, apparently has no requirements for inherently safer

technologies, wich may be why it is being supported by the American

Chemistry Council.

* WMD Found! Look Over Your Shoulder, May 9, 2005

* "We can't protect ourselves if we are not part of the plan",

February 20, 2005

* NY Chem Company Decides Terrorism Threat Is Over, February 6, 2005

* Department of Homeland Security: Buddy Can You Spare a Dime?,

September 27, 2004

* Weapons of Mass Destruction Found -- In Our Backyards, November

17, 2003

* The War for Chemical Plant Safety, May 4, 2003

Labels: Chemical Plant Security

_________________________________________________________________

Google Groups Subscribe to Confined Space

Email: ____________________

Browse Archives at groups.google.com

Google _______________________________ Google Search

(_) Search WWW (_) Search Confined Space

_________________________________________________________________

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this Blog are my own and do not, in

any way, shape or form, reflect or represent the views or policies of

my employer. Links to or from other websites of individuals or

organizations do not constitute an endorsement of these views.

_________________________________________________________________

Home

space shuttle, space

Thursday, 14 February 2008

2005_12_01_spewingforth_archive

No comments:

Blog Archive

About Me