Laissez-faire

**********************

Your DHS (Dept of Homeland Security) has decided to join the chemical regulation world (primarily inhabited by EPA, OSHA and DOT). DHS has proposed a new rule called the “Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards.”

There are 344 chemicals that DHS is proposing to regulate under this regulation. Info on this proposed regulation is here:
http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/laws/gc_1166796969417.shtm

The proposed list of 344 chemicals and their “screening” thresholds are here:
http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/laws/gc_1175537180929.shtm

The intent is noble enough (ID nasty chemicals stored anywhere in the US above certain amounts to ensure they’re kept away from terrorists). But the proposed regulation shows that this new agency is in way over their heads when it comes to writing chemical regulations.

The kicker is that over 100 of the 344 chemicals were given a screening threshold of “any amount.” When you use a threshold of “any amount” (one molecule) when regulating chemicals you run into all sorts of problems. That’s why established regulating agencies such as EPA, OSHA, DOT, etc. are smart enough to not write new rules that way.

Case in point: Among those chemicals with this “any amount” threshold is methyl mercaptan. That is the stinky chemical (odorant) intentionally added in tiny amounts to LPG and natural gas so that you can easily detect a gas leak.

So as currently written every business (and home?) in the US using natural gas or LPG would presumably fall under this DHS regulation. That’s probably not what they had in mind.

Methyl mercaptan is only one of many examples of problems that an “any amount” threshold can cause.

Methinks that maybe the DHS doesn’t have much experience writing chemical regulations?? That’s understandable given they’re a new agency. But perhaps they should have invited chemical regulation writers from established agencies (EPA, OSHA, DOT, etc.) in to assist them. I’m willing to be that they didn’t do that. It’s hard to image that ANY other agency would have given the OK to write a chemical rule that has an “any amount” threshold for over 100 chemicals.

It is my understanding that the proposed rule was swamped with thousands of negative comments; many due to the “any amount” thresholds. The final rule is expected out within a few months so presumably that will be one of the many things corrected.

I certainly hope so ……… living in MN my primary concern with natural gas is that it is always available to heat my home in January. I figure terrorists probably have bigger fish to fry.

– Smitty, 7-29-07

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 29th, 2007 at 9:48 am and is filed under In the News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.