I read an article recently about safety regulation (in America) that made me frown.
The background: In 2013 you may remember reading about an explosion that occurred in a small town in Texas called ‘West’ (pic). West was home to the West Fertilizer Company, which stored about 240 tons of fertiliser grade Ammonium Nitrate (FGAN) and 50 tons of anhydrous ammonia at any one time. We know both these substances to be hazardous. The focus of this story is on FGAN, which is stable at ambient conditions, but becomes violently explosive when exposed to high temperatures, a shock wave or when in the presence of as little as 0.2% carbon [1].
In April 2013 that facility caught fire and while firefighters were responding to that fire, there was a massive explosion originating in the vicinity of the FGAN storage. The force of the explosion was reported to be equivalent to up to 10 tons of TNT; 15 people were killed, 160 people injured and about 150 buildings destroyed. I put together a ‘safety moment’ about this incident back in 2013 and I remember being shocked that there was a school barely a stone’s throw away from the facility. ‘Luckily’ the incident occurred on a school night and nobody was present at the school.
Following investigations of the incident, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed changes to safety legislation with new regulations due to take effect in June of 2017. These were delayed when a new EPA administrator came into office.
The new regulations would have required that [2]:
• Companies share information with the public on chemical risk and the potential for major accidents;
• Independent auditors be hired to improve risk management planning; and
• Companies assess options and considering safer technology to prevent/ mitigate major accidents (essentially, ALARP Demonstration).
The new EPA administrator has scrapped these new rules as of 18th of May 2018 in what I see as a commercial-political play; the rules were proposed during Obama’s time in office. The rationale given for scrapping these new regulations was that they would save taxpayers up to $88-million annually and would reduce an ‘unnecessary’ administrative burden.
As a safety and risk professional myself, it goes without saying that I’m rather appalled by such a U-Turn. I am not intimately familiar with American risk management legislation but the new rules for me make a lot of sense. This is in line with I would suggest with every risk report I would conduct.
This has happened in America, but their way of doing things may not be as far from the way of doing things in South Africa as we might like to think. Two lobby organisations, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates and the National Association of Chemical Distributors were reported to be ‘happy’ with the scrapping of these new regulations. These associations represent the biggest chemical producers in the world and one would of course expect them to protect their territory and resist any further expenditure. There were no doubt a few phone calls, golf outings and some strong words to Trump and his people, urging them to reverse that legislation in the name of political expediency.
Lobbying is not a new thing, of course. I know that money talks and that politicians want what is popular for their constituents. This happens worldwide; but can we really let commercial interest get in the way of improved safety and risk regulation? Yes, sure, compliance is hard work but if that saves your company from major losses, reputational damage, and you from personal liability for industrial accidents, surely the extra effort is worth it?
[1] Wiley, J R, West Fertilizer Company fire and explosion: A summary of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board report, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Elsevier, September 2017.
2 HazardEx, Trump administration to rescind most safety regulations proposed after fatal West explosion, 22 May 2018. Retrieved on 23 May 2018 from http://www.hazardexonthenet.net.