[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2854-S2855]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          FEDERAL REGULATIONS

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have today a bizarre example of the 
unthinking impact of conflicting Federal regulations on other 
conflicting Federal regulations and the fact that so often our 
bureaucracy simply does not think out the consequences of what it does.
  Recently, I was in the Tri City area of east central Washington and 
was discussing his business with the manager of a Unocal fertilizer 
plant in the city of Kennewick. He brought to my attention a fairly 
recent message that he had received from the U.S. Coast Guard. The 
Coast Guard has written to everyone with various kinds of facilities in 
ports from California through the State of Washington, warning them 
about potential terrorism, pointing out that the base of the explosive 
at the Oklahoma City courthouse disaster was fertilizer, and telling 
the manager of this fertilizer plant how important it was to guard 
against terrorism, to guard against outsiders getting into the facility 
and engaging in terroristic acts.
  Well, it was oratory in nature and did not suggest any particular 
things to do. I do not think it suggested anything that the plant was 
not already doing. But at the same time, Mr. President, the Unocal 
plant was informed by the Environmental Protection Agency of a truly 
bizarre proposal on its part.
  As a fertilizer plant, and because fertilizers do, under some 
circumstances, raise certain health risks and also certain explosive 
risks, this business is subject to widespread regulation on the part of 
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Environmental 
Protection Agency. In fact, those regulations are so detailed in nature 
that 23 people out of 150 employees in the plant are devoted almost 
solely to abiding by various governmental regulations.

[[Page S2855]]

  In any event, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a new 
regulation to apply to some 122,000 facilities across the country. That 
regulation would require each of these 122,000 facilities to make 
public the worst-case scenario, the worst thing that could possibly 
happen if any of the materials handled by or stored in the facility 
were released.
  So, in other words, Mr. President, we have a Federal Government 
warning against terrorism with one hand and instructing companies to 
publicize the worst thing a terrorist could possibly do with their 
materials on the other hand--in detail.
  The Environmental Protection Agency, when it was asked how many 
deaths had resulted off of the site of one of these 122,000 plants from 
the release of such material, came up with the answer ``zero.'' No such 
deaths. But they have a regulation which will tell the terrorists 
exactly how to cause those deaths in very, very large numbers.
  Mr. President, there is no question but that safety regulations are 
vitally important and environmental protection regulations are 
important. This Unocal plant, I may say, had 1 injury that caused one 
day of lost time in the last several years in its plant, and that was 
from heavy lifting, not the use of hazardous material. It runs an 
extremely safe plant.
  But, Mr. President, could we possibly come up with a better 
illustration of the proposition that we need to look over our old 
regulations after a certain period of time and determine whether or not 
they are still relevant or still working; that before we impose new 
regulations, we ought to figure out what the cost and the downside is 
against whatever the purported gain is before we impose them? Are we 
going to simply publicize ways in which to engage in terrorism, when we 
have not had any serious problems from the very condition that the 
regulation is designed to control?
  Mr. President, should we not have some kind of coordination among 
various Federal agencies as to whether or not the regulation of one is 
not going to undercut the very purpose for which another exists? Well, 
Mr. President, I think the answer to these questions is quite obvious. 
Here is another example of the use of the so-called safety regulation 
or environmental regulation in a way which is destructive of the very 
goals it seeks in the first place.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Coast Guard missive 
and the letter from Mr. Powell of Unocal be printed in the Record at 
this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Department of Transportation,


                                             U.S. Coast Guard,

                                    Alameda, CA, January 14, 1996.
       Dear Waterfront Facility Operator/Maritime Transportation 
     Company: As a result of a series of recent U.S. judicial 
     proceedings, I have received an advisory indicating possible 
     retaliatory acts against U.S. interests. The sentencing of 
     Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and nine others for their 
     involvement in the bombing of the World Trade Center and 
     other New York landmarks may prompt sympathizers to possible 
     retaliate. Similar responses could also follow if the U.S. 
     extradites Musa Abu Marzuq, a member of the ``Islamic 
     Resistance Movement (HAMAS)'' to Israel for his involvement 
     in terrorist activities there. In addition, Salman Rushdie, 
     the target of an Iranian death order, is currently on a 
     multi-city U.S. book tour. Finally, the trial of alleged bomb 
     maker and terrorist Ramei Ahmed Youssef is expected in the 
     first half of 1996. He and his accomplices are charged with 
     conspiring to bomb a U.S. commercial airlines in the Asia 
     Pacific region.
       The possible retaliatory acts to these judicial proceedings 
     may include attacks against the U.S. transportation 
     infrastructure. It should be emphasized that no specific 
     threats against any form of transportation have been 
     identified to date. However, the Secretary of Transportation 
     believes it is prudent and appropriate to ensure deterrence 
     and prevention of these activities. Therefore, I am advising 
     all waterfront facility operators and companies involved in 
     maritime transportation in Northern California to take 
     appropriate and immediate actions to ensure that adequate 
     measures are in place to prevent or deter terrorist actions 
     against facilities and port personnel. These actions should 
     begin with a review of your security measures already in 
     place and an assessment of whether or not additional security 
     measures are necessary.
       To facilitate information sharing and response actions 
     during a security-related emergency, the Department of 
     Transportation has established a hotline for reporting 
     incidents. The number for the hotline is 1-800-424-0201. 
     Should you receive any threats or notice any unusual 
     activities which may compromise your security, I urge you to 
     contact this hotline and appropriate law enforcement 
     agencies. You may also contact the Marine Safety Office's 
     watch office at (510) 437-3073 to report these incidents.
       Your cooperation in ensuring the safety of the port is 
     greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions regarding 
     this matter, please contact Lieutenant Lee of my staff at 
     (510) 437-5873.
           Sincerely,
                                                     D.P. Montoro,
     Captain, U.S. Coast Guard.
                                                                    ____

                                       Unocal Petroleum Products &


                                           Chemicals Division,

                                     Kennewick, WA, June 26, 1995.
     Hon. Richard ``Doc'' Hastings,
     House of Representatives, Longworth Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hastings: Thank you for the time you 
     afforded my entire family when we were in Washington, D.C. 
     last week. Meeting a congressman in his office was a big 
     event for us.
       During our brief talk I told you that I was in town for a 
     meeting of the Fertilizer Institute where EPA's proposed risk 
     management (RM) regulations were discussed in depth. These 
     regulations which focus on community safety are explicitly 
     called for by the 1990 Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7). In 
     addition to our internal discussion, an EPA spokeswoman, Dr. 
     Lyse Helsing of EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness and 
     Prevention Office, provided us with an update of the status 
     of their proposed regulations. EPA's proposed RM regulations 
     will substantially overlap with existing regulations also 
     called for by the Clean Air Act and already implemented by 
     OSHA to protect worker safety. These are OSHA's Process 
     Safety Management (PSM) regulations which went into effect in 
     1992. Unfortunately, the overlapping portions of the 
     regulations are not quite identical. The Fertilizer Institute 
     and Unocal feel this problem can be easily solved and that 
     the solution would be in line with President Clinton's recent 
     directive to eliminate or modify regulations that are 
     obsolete or unnecessary.
       The attached letter explaining the problem with these 
     overlapping regulations was drafted by the Fertilizer 
     Institute. It briefly explains the problem and offers a 
     solution. I hope you will consider sending this or a similar 
     letter to the EPA.
       One element in the RM regulations called for by the Clean 
     Air Act is not dealt with by OSHA in its PSM regulations. 
     That is a requirement that industries storing certain 
     hazardous materials above threshold quantities make public 
     the ``worst case'' scenario for the release of this material 
     including its impact on the surrounding community. RM 
     regulations will effect 122,000 facilities in this country 
     according to EPA's spokeswoman Dr. Lyse Helsing. When asked 
     how many such worst case releases had ever resulted in an 
     injury to a person offsite from the affected facility. Dr. 
     Helsing stated that EPA's records showed zero deaths. She did 
     not comment on injuries, but I suspect there is scant 
     evidence of a problem. However, the requirement to publicize 
     worst case information will be costly and we will in the 
     process of releasing such information make it known to 
     potential terrorists as well as to average citizens. In the 
     wake of Oklahoma City, the Trade Tower incident in New York 
     and subway incidents in Japan, I doubt that public safety 
     will be enhanced by making worse case information public. 
     This is especially true in this instance where EPA 
     acknowledges no history of problem in this country.
       The clock is ticking on EPA's court ordered deadline of 
     March 1996 to issue RM regulations with a requirement for 
     publication of worst case scenarios. I urge you to take 
     action to avoid implementation of this aspect of the Clean 
     Air Act.
       Thank you for your time, your consideration and your 
     constant efforts at improving the workings of our government.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Mark R. Powell.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Washington 
for that statement. That may be the most vivid example of bureaucracies 
running amok, actually endangering the lives of some of our 
constituents. That is unfortunate. I appreciate the Senator for 
bringing that to our attention. I hope we will be able to take some 
corrective action.

                          ____________________