THE OLD “JOB KILLER” ARGUMENT IS AN
EXCUSE TO POLLUTE, INJURE PEOPLE AND DESTROY PROPERTY
We often hear the argument from certain politicians and
industry reps that a certain safety improvement or new reporting law will kill
jobs. Well, we all know by now that
environmental or safety laws are good for business and create jobs. On the other hand, avoiding safety
inspections, protesting same and preventing new safety enhancements on the name
of risking jobs have all led to disasters one way or the one. Prime examples are the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster,
the Texas City BP refinery disaster, the Chevron refinery disasters, and so on. One however that has stuck in our minds is
the fertilizer explosion in West Texas that killed so many people 1.5 years ago. We have been arguing for many years that the
conditions in many Texas industries are unsafe because of that lax regulatory
and safety environment. Recently, 4 DuPont
workers died by being suffocated with legal concentrations of methyl mercaptan. One of the workers died by trying save his brother, having no protection with him. We have also found out that the West Texas fertilizer
plant was pushing for exemptions under grandfathered clauses so that they save
money by not installing modern fire control measures. This attitude end up destroying a small
community.
We have presented in other blogs
many examples of ammonium nitrate explosions both on the road and at storage
facilities. The risk is there and
everybody knows it, but they refuse to take proper risk reduction measures on
the name of job killing; they killed
people instead and destroyed their properties.
We wish that they will live with the burden of those deaths for the rest
of their lives, but people who behave like that have no real conscience.
Here are some prior posts on the
risks of ammonium nitrate explosions.
CATCHING FIRE.
ANOTHER Ammonium nitrate TRUCK explodes during transport incident
ANOTHER
AMMONIUM NITRATE TRUCK EXPLOSION - Road train driver unhooked trailer 'moments'
before ammonium nitrate exploded, witnesses say
https://sites.google.com/site/metroforensics3/explosion-at-the-west-fertilizer-plant-in-texas
LACK OF PROTECTION FOR
COMMUNITIES AT RISK FROM AMMONIUM NITRATE STORAGE FACILITIES. LACK OF REGULATION AT ALL LEVELS OF
GOVERNMENT.
West Fertilizer Plant Pushed For 'Exemption' From Safety
Rules, Targeted Workplace Inspections
The Texas fertilizer plant that blew up on April 17, killing at
least 15 people, appears to have been claiming an arcane exemption that allowed
it to avoid targeted workplace inspections and safety requirements and enter a
“streamlined prevention program” with environmental regulators, a government
spokesman confirmed.
The owner of the facility near Waco, West Chemical and
Fertilizer, apparently determined that the exemption — a few words advocated by industry groups, including The
Fertilizer Institute, as part of a 20-year-old regulation — applied. In the
wake of the deadly blast in West, Texas, last month, the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration is investigating whether this claim was justified, an
OSHA spokesman said.
By claiming the exemption, the company became subject to other,
less stringent requirements and avoided certain OSHA and Environmental
Protection Agency rules.
West Chemical and Fertilizer did not respond to requests for
comment.
The interlocking web of company-claimed exceptions has
implications beyond a small town in Central Texas. Sites across a host of
industries housing large amounts of dangerous chemicals could claim they sell
primarily to end users and avoid stricter regulation, though the number of
facilities invoking this exemption is unclear. A representative for a company
storing toxic chlorine gas, for example, wrote to OSHA in 2005 to clarify that
the exemption applied to the site.
“It’s a major flaw,” said Bryan Haywood, an Ohio consultant who
advises companies on the safe use of dangerous substances. “This incident’s
going to get a lot of people’s interest into how people are squirming out of
[stricter requirements].”
Closely related OSHA and EPA rules require facilities using
large quantities of hazardous substances to take preventive steps and plan for
accidents. West Chemical and Fertilizer had enough anhydrous ammonia — a
chemical that attacks the eyes, skin and respiratory system — to require it to
follow OSHA’s Process Safety Management standard, issued more than two
decades ago.
But the standard contains what is known as the “retail
exemption.” The Fertilizer Institute spoke out in favor of the exemption while
the rule was being developed. Soon after the rule became final, the institute
asked OSHA to confirm that it would not apply to facilities that store and
blend fertilizer and sell it primarily to end users, often farmers.
OSHA responded that a fertilizer facility could indeed avoid the
strictures of the rule as long as more than half of the company’s sales were to
end users. OSHA, however, does not check
on the validity of an exemption unless it inspects the site, an agency
spokesman confirmed.
The Fertilizer Institute said in a statement to the Center for
Public Integrity that it agreed with OSHA when the agency concluded in 1992
that retail facilities “did not present the same degree of hazard to employees
as other workplaces covered by the proposal.”
But the institute added, “While the cause of the West, Texas,
explosion has yet to be determined, we will re-examine our stance if necessary
when the report on the cause is made final.”
OSHA is also investigating whether the West plant was covered
by a legislative rider that makes sites with fewer than 10 employees in
industries with low reported injury rates off-limits for regular inspections,
an agency spokesman said. The site had
not been inspected since 1985.
Invocation of the “retail exemption” can begin a chain reaction
of less stringent standards. The EPA’s program for designating the risk posed
by a facility relies, in part, on the site’s standing with OSHA. The amount of
anhydrous ammonia stored at West Chemical and Fertilizer normally would have
placed the facility in the EPA category requiring extensive preventive measures
and accident-response plans. But because the site claimed the OSHA exemption,
it qualified for a “streamlined prevention program” under the EPA’s Risk
Management Plan program, known as RMP.
The agency said in a statement that it “reviewed the RMP from
the facility to determine the RMP was complete and correct.” Asked whether it
verified the basis for placing the site in a lower-risk category — its
exemption from the OSHA rule based on its sales records — the EPA did not
respond.
This EPA designation, along with the site’s lack of a history
of accidents or recent inspections, removed it from a list of facilities
subject to an OSHA special inspection program targeting locations using large
amounts of hazardous substances, such as anhydrous ammonia.
It is unclear how many facilities enjoy more relaxed regulation
as a result of their self-designation as retailers, but Haywood said the number
could be large. “A lot of these businesses like in West, Texas, they’re
everywhere,” he said. “They’re in every small farming community in the
country.”
The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit, independent
investigative news outlet. For more of its stories on this topic go to publicintegrity.org.
