[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.
____________________