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.​

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.


.

The local folks are the ones in favor of this regulation. The chemical industries are not.

 

[OKTexas]

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.


.

The local folks are the ones in favor of this regulation. The chemical industries are not.

I don't think you can support that statement.

Here's just one resource available to chemical plants and cities.

Chemical Plant Emergency Preparedness and Response Planning

I know local governments in TX have disaster drills with local refineries and plants.


.

 

[Coyote]

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.


.

The local folks are the ones in favor of this regulation. The chemical industries are not.

I don't think you can support that statement.

Here's just one resource available to chemical plants and cities.

Chemical Plant Emergency Preparedness and Response Planning

I know local governments in TX have disaster drills with local refineries and plants.


.

The article I quoted supports it.

 

[SmokeALib]

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.​

Ah, it was a chemical plant. It stands to reason that chemical plants produce and store hazardous materials. HAZMAT placards that identify hazardous materials are already required to be posted at these plants. Emergency responders are trained and certified to identify these placards and appropriately handle these materials. No amount of money and/or government intervention can will a first responder to exercise the proper procedures they were trained to follow.

 

[OKTexas]

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.


.

The local folks are the ones in favor of this regulation. The chemical industries are not.

I don't think you can support that statement.

Here's just one resource available to chemical plants and cities.

Chemical Plant Emergency Preparedness and Response Planning

I know local governments in TX have disaster drills with local refineries and plants.


.

The article I quoted supports it.

Yeah, it says CA is putting in similar regulations, I know TX already has them, so what's your argument for federal regulations again?


.

 

[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.

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.


.

Because pollution doesn't respect state lines!

I live in the upper Ohio River valley near Pittsburgh. Coal fired power plants once dotted the banks of the rivers like sooty pearls on a string. The sulfuric acid released fro those power plants drifted on the predominate westerlies, fell as acid rain on the forests of the Adirondacks in up State New York.

The constitution proclaims at its very beginning that the document was written to promote the general welfare. With politically ignorant pollution just sneaking across the state's borders it becomes a national problem. A problem that detracts from, rather than promotes the general welfare

 

[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.

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.

Do you really think trees pose a greater environmental and health and safety concern than a chemical depot?

 

[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.


.

Because pollution doesn't respect state lines!

I live in the upper Ohio River valley near Pittsburgh. Coal fired power plants once dotted the banks of the rivers like sooty pearls on a string. The sulfuric acid released fro those power plants drifted on the predominate westerlies, fell as acid rain on the forests of the Adirondacks in up State New York.

The constitution proclaims at its very beginning that the document was written to promote the general welfare. With politically ignorant pollution just sneaking across the state's borders it becomes a national problem. A problem that detracts from, rather than promotes the general welfare

First thing you need to learn is the difference between the definitions of "promote" and "provide".

Second this thread is about local disaster planning, not general pollution.


.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.


.

The local folks are the ones in favor of this regulation. The chemical industries are not.

Why do you suppose that is? And why should the chemical industry be allowed to endanger first responders? They'll claim 'proprietary information' thus making a fire fighter's job even more dangerous.

The chemical industry make "Safety First" an intracompany slogan. It's dangerous to see the obverse of that slogan.

 

[OKTexas]

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.


.

The local folks are the ones in favor of this regulation. The chemical industries are not.

Why do you suppose that is? And why should the chemical industry be allowed to endanger first responders? They'll claim 'proprietary information' thus making a fire fighter's job even more dangerous.

The chemical industry make "Safety First" an intracompany slogan. It's dangerous to see the obverse of that slogan.

Why do you assume localities and States are incapable of doing this? Well other than being a stateist that is.


.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.​

The regulations were never enacted. Why panic over something that never was?

 

[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.

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.


.

Because pollution doesn't respect state lines!

I live in the upper Ohio River valley near Pittsburgh. Coal fired power plants once dotted the banks of the rivers like sooty pearls on a string. The sulfuric acid released fro those power plants drifted on the predominate westerlies, fell as acid rain on the forests of the Adirondacks in up State New York.

The constitution proclaims at its very beginning that the document was written to promote the general welfare. With politically ignorant pollution just sneaking across the state's borders it becomes a national problem. A problem that detracts from, rather than promotes the general welfare

First thing you need to learn is the difference between the definitions of "promote" and "provide".

Second this thread is about local disaster planning, not general pollution.


.

What you are not familiar with, or cannot appreciate the validity and necessity of this regulation is the preponderance of chemical plants, storage depots, reprocceyfacilities and disposal facilities to be located along state lines. Think about driving from the Bronx to Philadelphia along I-95. Through New Jersey, you're never more that seventy miles from a state line. And then there's the lower Delaware River Valley and Chesapeake Bay.

Or drive from Buffalo to Pittsburgh to Cleveland to Toledo and on to Detroit. The very types of hazardous materials sites clustered on major river systems, the Great Lakes and the upper Midwest.

Hazards are beyond the capabilities of local fire departments. And to be hampered by the lack of information is reprehensible at best, criminal at worst.

 

[OKTexas]

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.


.

Because pollution doesn't respect state lines!

I live in the upper Ohio River valley near Pittsburgh. Coal fired power plants once dotted the banks of the rivers like sooty pearls on a string. The sulfuric acid released fro those power plants drifted on the predominate westerlies, fell as acid rain on the forests of the Adirondacks in up State New York.

The constitution proclaims at its very beginning that the document was written to promote the general welfare. With politically ignorant pollution just sneaking across the state's borders it becomes a national problem. A problem that detracts from, rather than promotes the general welfare

First thing you need to learn is the difference between the definitions of "promote" and "provide".

Second this thread is about local disaster planning, not general pollution.


.

What you are not familiar with, or cannot appreciate the validity and necessity of this regulation is the preponderance of chemical plants, storage depots, reprocceyfacilities and disposal facilities to be located along state lines. Think about driving from the Bronx to Philadelphia along I-95. Through New Jersey, you're never more that seventy miles from a state line. And then there's the lower Delaware River Valley and Chesapeake Bay.

Or drive from Buffalo to Pittsburgh to Cleveland to Toledo and on to Detroit. The very types of hazardous materials sites clustered on major river systems, the Great Lakes and the upper Midwest.

Hazards are beyond the capabilities of local fire departments. And to be hampered by the lack of information is reprehensible at best, criminal at worst.

You can deflect form the topic all you want, go back and read the OP, it's about coordination between plants and local responders.


.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.


.

The local folks are the ones in favor of this regulation. The chemical industries are not.

Why do you suppose that is? And why should the chemical industry be allowed to endanger first responders? They'll claim 'proprietary information' thus making a fire fighter's job even more dangerous.

The chemical industry make "Safety First" an intracompany slogan. It's dangerous to see the obverse of that slogan.

Why do you assume localities and States are incapable of doing this? Well other than being a stateist that is.


.

For the same reason we agreed it's a bad idea for states to issue their own scrip in lieu of a national currency. Because it works.

Some problems are national problems and some problems are local problems. Some localities are too cash strapped to mount an effective response. Consider the fact; municipalities where dangerous marierial is handled are municipalities with crappy tax bases because nobody wants to live near those facilities. Fully funding the highly specialized response team is over the fiscal top for many chemical towns.

A national standard would ensure consistent training and licensing protocol. There is no reason a worker, citizen and first responder should be at greater and unnecessary danger because they lived in Alabama than Massachusetts. Licenses would be granted reciprocity across all state lines (only possible with a national standard). In the case of another Houston catastrophe, first responders could react from the whole nation rather than keeping the local first responders so busy and in the blind fighting their own chemical fire. What with the hurricane and all, it wasn't as if the local first responders weren't busy to begin with.

With national consistency comes lowering of insurance costs. Every policy writer could be assured of every safety measure. When companies own plants in West Virginia, Michigan, Texas and California, banking on consistent quality control can save millions.

A national standards regulation helps trade, both ways. When our standards are recognized as the Gold Standard, our products are recognized and quality products responsibly manufactured. That makes our market the world leader. Nations producing goods while not up to our standards could be rejected at the ports. Chinese roys with lead paint for example.

So, is that non-statist enough for you?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Name one "disaster" where these regulations would have saved a single life.

 

[bripat9643]

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.


.

The local folks are the ones in favor of this regulation. The chemical industries are not.

Why do you suppose that is? And why should the chemical industry be allowed to endanger first responders? They'll claim 'proprietary information' thus making a fire fighter's job even more dangerous.

The chemical industry make "Safety First" an intracompany slogan. It's dangerous to see the obverse of that slogan.

Why do you assume localities and States are incapable of doing this? Well other than being a stateist that is.


.

For the same reason we agreed it's a bad idea for states to issue their own scrip in lieu of a national currency. Because it works.

Before the federal Reserve, each bank would issue its own currency, and that system worked far better than our current system. For one thing, it had zero inflation. States have never issued currency, but your theory on that issue is just as wrong.

Some problems are national problems and some problems are local problems. Some localities are too cash strapped to mount an effective response. Consider the fact; municipalities where dangerous marierial is handled are municipalities with crappy tax bases because nobody wants to live near those facilities. Fully funding the highly specialized response team is over the fiscal top for many chemical towns.

A national standard would ensure consistent training and licensing protocol. There is no reason a worker, citizen and first responder should be at greater and unnecessary danger because they lived in Alabama than Massachusetts. Licenses would be granted reciprocity across all state lines (only possible with a national standard). In the case of another Houston catastrophe, first responders could react from the whole nation rather than keeping the local first responders so busy and in the blind fighting their own chemical fire. What with the hurricane and all, it wasn't as if the local first responders weren't busy to begin with.

With national consistency comes lowering of insurance costs. Every policy writer could be assured of every safety measure. When companies own plants in West Cirginia, Michigan, Texas and California, banking on consistoquality control can save millions.

A national standards regulation helps trade, both ways. When our standards are recognized as the Gold Standard, our products are recognized and quality products responsibly manufactured. That makes our market the world leader.

So, is that non-statist enough for you?

Statist douchebags always try to turn everything into a national issue. It's seldom the case. It's mostly just an excuse to extend government control.

 

[OKTexas]

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.


.

The local folks are the ones in favor of this regulation. The chemical industries are not.

Why do you suppose that is? And why should the chemical industry be allowed to endanger first responders? They'll claim 'proprietary information' thus making a fire fighter's job even more dangerous.

The chemical industry make "Safety First" an intracompany slogan. It's dangerous to see the obverse of that slogan.

Why do you assume localities and States are incapable of doing this? Well other than being a stateist that is.


.

For the same reason we agreed it's a bad idea for states to issue their own scrip in lieu of a national currency. Because it works.

Some problems are national problems and some problems are local problems. Some localities are too cash strapped to mount an effective response. Consider the fact; municipalities where dangerous marierial is handled are municipalities with crappy tax bases because nobody wants to live near those facilities. Fully funding the highly specialized response team is over the fiscal top for many chemical towns.

A national standard would ensure consistent training and licensing protocol. There is no reason a worker, citizen and first responder should be at greater and unnecessary danger because they lived in Alabama than Massachusetts. Licenses would be granted reciprocity across all state lines (only possible with a national standard). In the case of another Houston catastrophe, first responders could react from the whole nation rather than keeping the local first responders so busy and in the blind fighting their own chemical fire. What with the hurricane and all, it wasn't as if the local first responders weren't busy to begin with.

With national consistency comes lowering of insurance costs. Every policy writer could be assured of every safety measure. When companies own plants in West Virginia, Michigan, Texas and California, banking on consistent quality control can save millions.

A national standards regulation helps trade, both ways. When our standards are recognized as the Gold Standard, our products are recognized and quality products responsibly manufactured. That makes our market the world leader. Nations producing goods while not up to our standards could be rejected at the ports. Chinese roys with lead paint for example.

So, is that non-statist enough for you?

Then this set of regulations would be worthless to those cash strapped localities anyways, wouldn't they?


.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Name one "disaster" where these regulations would have saved a single life.

Easy! Early 2011. First responders arrived at a steel processing mill just twenty five miles down river from me. The firefighters were not told about a pallet of drums containing manganese. When they hit the fire with water, it exploded the manganese and killed three.

Some folks think there's never a sound reason for regulations. These are the same folks who lose health, life or property after a disaster shouting "There oughta be a law!"

 

[Nosmo King]

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.


.

The local folks are the ones in favor of this regulation. The chemical industries are not.

Why do you suppose that is? And why should the chemical industry be allowed to endanger first responders? They'll claim 'proprietary information' thus making a fire fighter's job even more dangerous.

The chemical industry make "Safety First" an intracompany slogan. It's dangerous to see the obverse of that slogan.

Why do you assume localities and States are incapable of doing this? Well other than being a stateist that is.


.

For the same reason we agreed it's a bad idea for states to issue their own scrip in lieu of a national currency. Because it works.

Some problems are national problems and some problems are local problems. Some localities are too cash strapped to mount an effective response. Consider the fact; municipalities where dangerous marierial is handled are municipalities with crappy tax bases because nobody wants to live near those facilities. Fully funding the highly specialized response team is over the fiscal top for many chemical towns.

A national standard would ensure consistent training and licensing protocol. There is no reason a worker, citizen and first responder should be at greater and unnecessary danger because they lived in Alabama than Massachusetts. Licenses would be granted reciprocity across all state lines (only possible with a national standard). In the case of another Houston catastrophe, first responders could react from the whole nation rather than keeping the local first responders so busy and in the blind fighting their own chemical fire. What with the hurricane and all, it wasn't as if the local first responders weren't busy to begin with.

With national consistency comes lowering of insurance costs. Every policy writer could be assured of every safety measure. When companies own plants in West Virginia, Michigan, Texas and California, banking on consistent quality control can save millions.

A national standards regulation helps trade, both ways. When our standards are recognized as the Gold Standard, our products are recognized and quality products responsibly manufactured. That makes our market the world leader. Nations producing goods while not up to our standards could be rejected at the ports. Chinese roys with lead paint for example.

So, is that non-statist enough for you?

Then this set of regulations would be worthless to those cash strapped localities anyways, wouldn't they?


.

Should the federal government issue grants to police forces?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Name one "disaster" where these regulations would have saved a single life.

Easy! Early 2011. First responders arrived at a steel processing mill just twenty five miles down river from me. The firefighters were not told about a pallet of drums containing manganese. When they hit the fire with water, it exploded the manganese and killed three.

Some folks think there's never a sound reason for regulations. These are the same folks who lose health, life or property after a disaster shouting "There oughta be a law!"

Manganese isn't a toxic chemical, dumbass. It wouldn't have even been covered by this regulation. If the fire fighters had simply contacted the plant management, they would have been told about the manganese.