Fred Millar has posted a challenge on his ReRoute-Now blog based on his reading of my blog on Saturday (see: "House Subcommittee Hearing on HR 5533 and HR 5577"). In that blog I noted that the recent congressional testimony of Brad Coffey, the Water Treatment Manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, included a fairly detailed analysis of why that agency switched some, but not all of its facilities away from gaseous chlorine. Fred’s challenge is to see if I would pursue a detailed review of that analysis on this blog.
Fred’s opinion and mine differ somewhat on the IST issue. I think that I can safely characterize Fred as a whole hearted proponent of mandatory IST implementation, at least that is the impression I get from his blog and his previous comments to this blog (see: "Another comment related to Railroad Hazmat Route Selection Rule" for example). I tend, on the other hand, to favor requiring formal IST assessments, but I believe that the on-site technical and business people have a better understanding of the complete picture required to make the implementation decision.
Now it has been more than a few years since I have been coerced into doing something silly/stupid by a dare or challenge, but this does not really fall into that category. I mentioned in my blog that I thought more of the details of that analysis should be published for the benefit of other water departments. I would certainly be interested in doing just such a review. I don’t believe that this blog would be an adequate place to publish such a review, it would be better suited for a professional journal for the water treatment industry. I would certainly comment on such a review in this blog.
Fred does point out in his challenge that there would probably be some resistance to publicly sharing such security data. I have agreed on more than one occasion on the restriction of access to such data as a matter of course. Having said that, Mr Coffey provided a large amount of data in his testimony in a public forum. As I did in my earlier blog, I urge everyone interested in the IST debate to read that testimony.
Any way, I’ll see what I can doabout getting more detailed information. Lacking anything substantially new, I will at least review the testimony provide last week.