Fear And Frustration Over EPA Move To Kill Chemical-Disaster Protections

[Coyote]

Seriously? Why? This is a total giftwrapped do-as-you-wish package to industry and it makes no sense. These regulations were common sense and they benefit the larger community and especially emergency responders!

Fear And Frustration Over EPA Move To Kill Chemical-Disaster Protections

Obama-era rules require companies to routinely disclose which hazardous chemicals they use, share information with emergency planners, submit to outside audits and publish reports on the root causes of explosions and leaks. The regulations were supposed to take effect in March 2017, but earlier that year, groups representing the chemical and petroleum industries petitioned the EPA to reconsider.

Last month, after delaying the rules, the agency announced that it intends to block most of them from ever taking effect. But that decision isn't final pending public comment.

At the time, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the plan would "reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, address the concerns of stakeholders and emergency responders on the ground, and save Americans roughly $88 million a year."...

...But this "bad apple" idea ignores the importance of preparing for leaks and other disasters, local emergency planners say.

"The entire community is responsible for preparedness. That means the entire community needs to understand the risks to the community," Timothy Gablehouse, who leads a local emergency planning committee outside Denver, told the EPA panel. "The response does not begin at the 911 call."

He and others cited the deaths of first responders in West, Texas as well as Hurricane Harvey-caused fires at the Arkema chemical plant outside Houston last year. Police and other first responders involved in the Arkema incident said they were exposed to toxic fumes partly because local officials didn't have enough information about what was stored at the plant, and how to handle an emergency like the one that unfolded during the storm.

The rules the EPA wants to rescind would require companies to disclose information to local emergency planners about the types and amounts of hazardous chemicals at their facilities. In their petition to the EPA, industry groups say disclosing such information "could expose vulnerabilities to terrorists and others who may target refineries, chemical plants and other facilities."

The chemical and oil industries have a long history of opposing anti-terror regulations that require them to switch to safer technologies.​

 

[BluesLegend]

Possession, storage, shipping of chemicals is regulated to the nth degree at the federal level just relax.

 

[Norman]

Thanks, didn't know about this.

Sounds like a brilliant move.Nice!

 

[Coyote]

Possession, storage, shipping of chemicals is regulated to the nth degree at the federal level just relax.

Apparently NOT enough, given what has happened at multiple disasters because this information is not shared with communities or first responders.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Because f you. That's why.

Gosh honest truth of the matter.

 

[Natural Citizen]

There's a far, far, better chance of a non-terrorist related event.

 

[OKTexas]

Seriously? Why? This is a total giftwrapped do-as-you-wish package to industry and it makes no sense. These regulations were common sense and they benefit the larger community and especially emergency responders!

Fear And Frustration Over EPA Move To Kill Chemical-Disaster Protections

Obama-era rules require companies to routinely disclose which hazardous chemicals they use, share information with emergency planners, submit to outside audits and publish reports on the root causes of explosions and leaks. The regulations were supposed to take effect in March 2017, but earlier that year, groups representing the chemical and petroleum industries petitioned the EPA to reconsider.

Last month, after delaying the rules, the agency announced that it intends to block most of them from ever taking effect. But that decision isn't final pending public comment.

At the time, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the plan would "reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, address the concerns of stakeholders and emergency responders on the ground, and save Americans roughly $88 million a year."...

...But this "bad apple" idea ignores the importance of preparing for leaks and other disasters, local emergency planners say.

"The entire community is responsible for preparedness. That means the entire community needs to understand the risks to the community," Timothy Gablehouse, who leads a local emergency planning committee outside Denver, told the EPA panel. "The response does not begin at the 911 call."

He and others cited the deaths of first responders in West, Texas as well as Hurricane Harvey-caused fires at the Arkema chemical plant outside Houston last year. Police and other first responders involved in the Arkema incident said they were exposed to toxic fumes partly because local officials didn't have enough information about what was stored at the plant, and how to handle an emergency like the one that unfolded during the storm.

The rules the EPA wants to rescind would require companies to disclose information to local emergency planners about the types and amounts of hazardous chemicals at their facilities. In their petition to the EPA, industry groups say disclosing such information "could expose vulnerabilities to terrorists and others who may target refineries, chemical plants and other facilities."

The chemical and oil industries have a long history of opposing anti-terror regulations that require them to switch to safer technologies.​

Wa, Wa Wa. Uncle sugar isn't doing what local communities could do better. Tell me, what is stopping the communities where these plants are form doing this?

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45


.

 

[Nosmo King]

Possession, storage, shipping of chemicals is regulated to the nth degree at the federal level just relax.

Without sharing vital information with the community, there is a marked increase in potential hazards. All chemicals are not created equal. Firefighters should know specifically how to fight a fire. Hospitals should know what types of treatments they should have on hand.

The 88 million dollar saving will be offset by justifiable claims against the companies when a disaster inevitably happens.

 

[Nosmo King]

Seriously? Why? This is a total giftwrapped do-as-you-wish package to industry and it makes no sense. These regulations were common sense and they benefit the larger community and especially emergency responders!

Fear And Frustration Over EPA Move To Kill Chemical-Disaster Protections

Obama-era rules require companies to routinely disclose which hazardous chemicals they use, share information with emergency planners, submit to outside audits and publish reports on the root causes of explosions and leaks. The regulations were supposed to take effect in March 2017, but earlier that year, groups representing the chemical and petroleum industries petitioned the EPA to reconsider.

Last month, after delaying the rules, the agency announced that it intends to block most of them from ever taking effect. But that decision isn't final pending public comment.

At the time, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the plan would "reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, address the concerns of stakeholders and emergency responders on the ground, and save Americans roughly $88 million a year."...

...But this "bad apple" idea ignores the importance of preparing for leaks and other disasters, local emergency planners say.

"The entire community is responsible for preparedness. That means the entire community needs to understand the risks to the community," Timothy Gablehouse, who leads a local emergency planning committee outside Denver, told the EPA panel. "The response does not begin at the 911 call."

He and others cited the deaths of first responders in West, Texas as well as Hurricane Harvey-caused fires at the Arkema chemical plant outside Houston last year. Police and other first responders involved in the Arkema incident said they were exposed to toxic fumes partly because local officials didn't have enough information about what was stored at the plant, and how to handle an emergency like the one that unfolded during the storm.

The rules the EPA wants to rescind would require companies to disclose information to local emergency planners about the types and amounts of hazardous chemicals at their facilities. In their petition to the EPA, industry groups say disclosing such information "could expose vulnerabilities to terrorists and others who may target refineries, chemical plants and other facilities."

The chemical and oil industries have a long history of opposing anti-terror regulations that require them to switch to safer technologies.​

Wa, Wa Wa. Uncle sugar isn't doing what local communities could do better. Tell me, what is stopping the communities where these plants are form doing this?

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45


.

James Madison never saw Love Canal. We aren't talking about a tallow works or tannery.

 

[initforme]

We should enourage communities to demand what chemicals they might be exposed to industry wise. Any industry worth having would be willing to provide this information with those who may come in contact with them. If an industry is not wanted because of those chemicals let the people of the community send them somewhere else.

 

[initforme]

Imagine the myriad of chemicals some are exposed to without knowing. It's anti American for an industry to do expose people to even small amounts of toxins. Many chemicals have never been tested for human safety. I guess people have to pay the price health wise for industry to thrive.

 

[OKTexas]

Seriously? Why? This is a total giftwrapped do-as-you-wish package to industry and it makes no sense. These regulations were common sense and they benefit the larger community and especially emergency responders!

Fear And Frustration Over EPA Move To Kill Chemical-Disaster Protections

Obama-era rules require companies to routinely disclose which hazardous chemicals they use, share information with emergency planners, submit to outside audits and publish reports on the root causes of explosions and leaks. The regulations were supposed to take effect in March 2017, but earlier that year, groups representing the chemical and petroleum industries petitioned the EPA to reconsider.

Last month, after delaying the rules, the agency announced that it intends to block most of them from ever taking effect. But that decision isn't final pending public comment.

At the time, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the plan would "reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, address the concerns of stakeholders and emergency responders on the ground, and save Americans roughly $88 million a year."...

...But this "bad apple" idea ignores the importance of preparing for leaks and other disasters, local emergency planners say.

"The entire community is responsible for preparedness. That means the entire community needs to understand the risks to the community," Timothy Gablehouse, who leads a local emergency planning committee outside Denver, told the EPA panel. "The response does not begin at the 911 call."

He and others cited the deaths of first responders in West, Texas as well as Hurricane Harvey-caused fires at the Arkema chemical plant outside Houston last year. Police and other first responders involved in the Arkema incident said they were exposed to toxic fumes partly because local officials didn't have enough information about what was stored at the plant, and how to handle an emergency like the one that unfolded during the storm.

The rules the EPA wants to rescind would require companies to disclose information to local emergency planners about the types and amounts of hazardous chemicals at their facilities. In their petition to the EPA, industry groups say disclosing such information "could expose vulnerabilities to terrorists and others who may target refineries, chemical plants and other facilities."

The chemical and oil industries have a long history of opposing anti-terror regulations that require them to switch to safer technologies.​

Wa, Wa Wa. Uncle sugar isn't doing what local communities could do better. Tell me, what is stopping the communities where these plants are form doing this?

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45


.

James Madison never saw Love Canal. We aren't talking about a tallow works or tannery.

Nice deflection, care to answer why communities aren't responsible for taking care of THEIR citizens? Different communities have different assets to address these concerns. Why do regressives insist on a one size fits all federal regulatory regime? Well other than being statist that is.


.

 

[initforme]

How about whenever an industry that uses chemicals wants to expand the people get an opportunity to grill the CEO and management along with a list of chemicals being used.

 

[initforme]

Let communities create their own set of strict regulations.

 

[BluesLegend]

Possession, storage, shipping of chemicals is regulated to the nth degree at the federal level just relax.

Apparently NOT enough, given what has happened at multiple disasters because this information is not shared with communities or first responders.

Do you honestly think you can government regulate yourself a 100% safe world? How many died last year because moron drivers don't know how to drive safely? Now how many died in your multiple disasters, a tiny fraction of 1% get your priorities straight.

 

[BluesLegend]

Possession, storage, shipping of chemicals is regulated to the nth degree at the federal level just relax.

Without sharing vital information with the community, there is a marked increase in potential hazards. All chemicals are not created equal. Firefighters should know specifically how to fight a fire. Hospitals should know what types of treatments they should have on hand.

The 88 million dollar saving will be offset by justifiable claims against the companies when a disaster inevitably happens.

Okay then government should regulate trees, they may fall over and kill someone. All trees to be inspected on a monthly basis. There's like a trillion trees think of how many people may die.

 

[Coyote]

Seriously? Why? This is a total giftwrapped do-as-you-wish package to industry and it makes no sense. These regulations were common sense and they benefit the larger community and especially emergency responders!

Fear And Frustration Over EPA Move To Kill Chemical-Disaster Protections

Obama-era rules require companies to routinely disclose which hazardous chemicals they use, share information with emergency planners, submit to outside audits and publish reports on the root causes of explosions and leaks. The regulations were supposed to take effect in March 2017, but earlier that year, groups representing the chemical and petroleum industries petitioned the EPA to reconsider.

Last month, after delaying the rules, the agency announced that it intends to block most of them from ever taking effect. But that decision isn't final pending public comment.

At the time, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the plan would "reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, address the concerns of stakeholders and emergency responders on the ground, and save Americans roughly $88 million a year."...

...But this "bad apple" idea ignores the importance of preparing for leaks and other disasters, local emergency planners say.

"The entire community is responsible for preparedness. That means the entire community needs to understand the risks to the community," Timothy Gablehouse, who leads a local emergency planning committee outside Denver, told the EPA panel. "The response does not begin at the 911 call."

He and others cited the deaths of first responders in West, Texas as well as Hurricane Harvey-caused fires at the Arkema chemical plant outside Houston last year. Police and other first responders involved in the Arkema incident said they were exposed to toxic fumes partly because local officials didn't have enough information about what was stored at the plant, and how to handle an emergency like the one that unfolded during the storm.

The rules the EPA wants to rescind would require companies to disclose information to local emergency planners about the types and amounts of hazardous chemicals at their facilities. In their petition to the EPA, industry groups say disclosing such information "could expose vulnerabilities to terrorists and others who may target refineries, chemical plants and other facilities."

The chemical and oil industries have a long history of opposing anti-terror regulations that require them to switch to safer technologies.​

Wa, Wa Wa. Uncle sugar isn't doing what local communities could do better. Tell me, what is stopping the communities where these plants are form doing this?

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45


.

James Madison never saw Love Canal. We aren't talking about a tallow works or tannery.

Nice deflection, care to answer why communities aren't responsible for taking care of THEIR citizens? Different communities have different assets to address these concerns. Why do regressives insist on a one size fits all federal regulatory regime? Well other than being statist that is.


.

Maybe because those different systems and assets failed them or carry insufficient weight. Multiple times. Perhaps that is when the federal system needs to step in. It’s worth noting that those communities, many deeply red, aren’t too happy with this.

 

[Coyote]

Possession, storage, shipping of chemicals is regulated to the nth degree at the federal level just relax.

Apparently NOT enough, given what has happened at multiple disasters because this information is not shared with communities or first responders.

Do you honestly think you can government regulate yourself a 100% safe world? How many died last year because moron drivers don't know how to drive safely? Now how many died in your multiple disasters, a tiny fraction of 1% get your priorities straight.

Is anyone talking about 100% safety? Why no. Nice strawman though.

 

[OKTexas]

Seriously? Why? This is a total giftwrapped do-as-you-wish package to industry and it makes no sense. These regulations were common sense and they benefit the larger community and especially emergency responders!

Fear And Frustration Over EPA Move To Kill Chemical-Disaster Protections

Obama-era rules require companies to routinely disclose which hazardous chemicals they use, share information with emergency planners, submit to outside audits and publish reports on the root causes of explosions and leaks. The regulations were supposed to take effect in March 2017, but earlier that year, groups representing the chemical and petroleum industries petitioned the EPA to reconsider.

Last month, after delaying the rules, the agency announced that it intends to block most of them from ever taking effect. But that decision isn't final pending public comment.

At the time, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the plan would "reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, address the concerns of stakeholders and emergency responders on the ground, and save Americans roughly $88 million a year."...

...But this "bad apple" idea ignores the importance of preparing for leaks and other disasters, local emergency planners say.

"The entire community is responsible for preparedness. That means the entire community needs to understand the risks to the community," Timothy Gablehouse, who leads a local emergency planning committee outside Denver, told the EPA panel. "The response does not begin at the 911 call."

He and others cited the deaths of first responders in West, Texas as well as Hurricane Harvey-caused fires at the Arkema chemical plant outside Houston last year. Police and other first responders involved in the Arkema incident said they were exposed to toxic fumes partly because local officials didn't have enough information about what was stored at the plant, and how to handle an emergency like the one that unfolded during the storm.

The rules the EPA wants to rescind would require companies to disclose information to local emergency planners about the types and amounts of hazardous chemicals at their facilities. In their petition to the EPA, industry groups say disclosing such information "could expose vulnerabilities to terrorists and others who may target refineries, chemical plants and other facilities."

The chemical and oil industries have a long history of opposing anti-terror regulations that require them to switch to safer technologies.​

Wa, Wa Wa. Uncle sugar isn't doing what local communities could do better. Tell me, what is stopping the communities where these plants are form doing this?

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45


.

James Madison never saw Love Canal. We aren't talking about a tallow works or tannery.

Nice deflection, care to answer why communities aren't responsible for taking care of THEIR citizens? Different communities have different assets to address these concerns. Why do regressives insist on a one size fits all federal regulatory regime? Well other than being statist that is.


.

Maybe because those different systems and assets failed them or carry insufficient weight. Multiple times. Perhaps that is when the federal system needs to step in. It’s worth noting that those communities, many deeply red, aren’t too happy with this.

Or maybe the local folks should reevaluate what they have and how it could be improved. The previous systems worked pretty well until something unanticipated happened, give them a chance to fix it before you put the boot of government on their necks. I know you have no faith in people in flyover country, but we have some pretty smart ones despite your snobby opinion.


.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Reminds me of the lie libs peddled on fracking chems…..how nobody knew what was being used