Ads are not an endorsement by the blog author.

Chemical Facility Security News

Public Journal
 Back to Journal Archives | Subscribe to Alerts Alerts Subscribe to Alerts | Feeds
< Updates of CSAT T
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
HR2419 Update 05- >
Thursday, May 15, 2008
May 2008
DHS FAQ Page Update – 5-30-08
Chemical Incident Review – 5-31-08
Ballistic Attacks on Hazmat Shipping
Ballistic Protection for Railcars
Commercial Comments
HR 5577 Status Update – 5-29-08
Ethanol Producers as Chemical Facilities
Comments on Rail Security and Safety Rules – 5-23-08
Security Equipment Review 5-28-08
Another DHS FAQ Update for 5-23-08
Reader Question 5-24-08
Industrial Chemicals as Weapons of Mass Destruction
Canadians Notice Farm Bill Chemical Security Grants
Chemical Terrorism Insurance?
Public Law 110-234
Another DHS FAQ update – 5-23-08
Farm Bill Passes Over Bush Veto – Maybe
DHS FAQ Update – 5-22-08
Teaching Chemical Facility Security
DHS FAQ Page Update – 5-20-08
Hazmat Rail Routes and the Mayo Clinic
Reader Questions 5-20-08
Possible Chemical Attack Averted
Infrastructure Protection Activities Grants Awarded
Ammonia Safety Information
Comments on Rail Security and Safety Rules – 5-16-08
National Hazardous Materials Fusion Center
To Stop an Attack, Spot the Surveillance
HR2419 Update 05-14-08
IST In New Jersey
Updates of CSAT Top Screen Manuals
Blog Comment 5-12-08
Updates of CSAT Registration Manuals
Comments on Rail Security and Safety Rules – 5-9-08
Security Guard Background Checks
Potential DHS PHISHING Alert
Update of CSAT Web Page and Manuals
Reverse 911 System Exercise
The cost of replacing Chlorine
Cloned Vehicles
Vacation
Alternative to HR 5577
Reader Comments – 05-02-08
Chemical Security Legislation Influenced by Lobbyists
Chemical Sector Security Summit Registration Available
Bizarre Anhydrous Ammonia Release
Inherently Safer Technology Implementation under HR 5577
« May 2008 Archive
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Subject: IST In New Jersey
Time: 12:52:00 PM EDT
Author:  pjcoyle



New Jersey has the reputation for being the bad boy in the chemical security world, holding industry’s feet to the fire to insure the safety of the population around what is one of the largest concentrations of chemical manufacturing in the United States. Recent news shows that they are not as radical as they have been portrayed; new rules call for mandatory evaluation of IST by high-risk chemical facilities but do not require implementation.

Many had expected that the Corzine administration would require implementation of IST rather than just evaluation. The political reality is that the chemical industry is a 500 lb gorilla in New Jersey because of the 80,000+ jobs and large amount of money that it spends in the economy and in politics. You do not get to remain governor for more than 1 term if you shoot big holes in the profits of your state’s major industry.

Needless to say many environmental and union groups are upset that Corzine backed off of mandatory implementation. What these groups fail to understand is that IST is not a golden bullet that will cure all security and environmental ills. While it is effective in many cases it can also be as counterproductive as cutting off one’s head to cure acne; it works but it may kill the patient.

The one thing that everyone must remember in this debate is that chemical companies are in business to make money. They have a legal responsibility to their owners (a very large number of whom are also workers) to make money. Granted they have a responsibility to do it safely and legally, but if they cannot make money they will not stay in business.

Mandatory evaluation, if done properly, will lead many facilities to implement IST programs. The evaluations will show that those companies can save money by avoiding the costs of environmental and security controls. The company stockholders will then mandate implementation.

Information Note: In looking at the series of blogs and articles about this latest news I ran across an interesting document from the New Jersey hearings on the new IST rules. It is a listing of the various comments (and hearing officer responses) received at the hearings. I’ve only had a chance to quickly scan the document, but it surely shows the naivete of some of the people making presentations at the hearings.



Written by pjcoyle Blog about this entry
This entry has 0 comments: (Add your own)