Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 13:38:02 -0800
Reply-To: Ron Rinehart <rrinehart**At_Symbol_Here**MPC.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Ron Rinehart <rrinehart**At_Symbol_Here**MPC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Homeland Security Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Standards
In-Reply-To: <AC33A304-D740-421D-A84D-2EDCF8A62D1F**At_Symbol_Here**uvm.edu>
I hardly think this is merely a "public perception issue" -- a quick
calculation indicates that 2499 lbs of Cl2 would be more than enough to
bring a cubic kilometer of air over the 1 ppm PEL. A theft of 450 lbs
could indeed lead to something pretty awful.
Ron
Ronald W. Rinehart, Ph.D.
Chemistry Department
Monterey Peninsula College
831-646-4152
mailto:rrinehart**At_Symbol_Here**mpc.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of
Ralph Stuart
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:00 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Homeland Security Chemical Facility Antiterrorism
Standards
If you haven't noticed, DHS released the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism
Standards' Appendix A last week:
http://www.dhs.gov/chemicalsecurity
The rules seems to have taken many of the comments from the laboratory
community into account. But, there are public perception issues, as
expressed in the New York Times:
>
> November 7, 2007
> Editorial
> Chemical Industry 1, Public Safety 0
> Air travelers are asking for trouble if they show up for a flight with
> 3.5 ounces of shampoo in their carry-on bags. But the Department of
> Homeland Security has decided that the government should not even
> trouble chemical plants to account for the storage of anything under
> 2,500 pounds of deadly chlorine. The department's new rules on
> reporting stockpiles of toxic chemicals, issued last week, have
> certainly made the industry happy. They should make the public
> worried.
>
> Chemical plants - and petroleum plants, paper mills and other
> industrial facilities that use dangerous chemicals - are one of the
> nation's greatest vulnerabilities. An attack on such a facility could
> create a deadly chemical cloud that would put hundreds of thousands of
> people in danger. Just consider the result of an accidental train
> derailment in North Dakota in 2002 - a cloud of deadly chemicals
> hundreds of feet high and several miles long - and magnify it by what
> would happen if terrorists planned and carried out an attack in a
> highly populated area.
>
> The government should be doing everything it can to guard against such
> catastrophes.
>
> The Bush administration has shown repeatedly, however, that it does
> not want to impose reasonable safety requirements on chemical plants.
> That may have to do with its general opposition to regulations, or it
> could be connected to the enormous amount of money the chemical
> industry spends on lobbying and campaign contributions. The industry
> does not want to bear the expense of serious safety rules, and it
> fights them furiously. In a recent study, Greenpeace reported that the
> chemical industry spent more money in a year lobbying to defeat strong
> chemical plant legislation than the Department of Homeland Security
> spent on chemical plant security.
>
> The rules the department issued last week are far too lax about when
> facilities need to report stockpiles of chemicals like chlorine,
> fluorine and hydrogen fluoride to the government. According to the new
> rules, which watered-down proposed rules that the department had
> released in April, a chemical plant does not have to report the
> storage of 2,499 pounds of chlorine, even if it is located in a
> populated area - or across from an elementary school.
>
> If 450 pounds of chlorine are stolen, enough to cause mass casualties,
> the theft need not be reported. Chlorine has been used by insurgents
> in Iraq, and it is high on the list of chemicals that should be kept
> out of terrorists' hands.
>
> It is troubling that these industry-friendly rules were developed in
> part by Department of Homeland Security employees who previously
> worked for the chemical industry - and who may one day work for it
> again. Rick Hind, the legislative director of the Greenpeace Toxics
> Campaign, contends that such employees have had an "undue influence."
> The department says it draws on former chemical industry workers
> simply because of their "relevant prior experience."
>
> Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who is chairman of the House
> Homeland Security Committee, has rightly compared the chemical storage
> rules to "putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg." Congress needs to step
> in now and pass a strong new chemical plant law - one that puts more
> weight on the safety of the public and less on industry's bottom line.
>
>
>
>
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post