The next
set of deadlines for the Chemical Safety and Security Working Group,
November 5th, is fast approaching and as we all know the federal
funding fiasco is not allowing any actual work towards achieving the goals that
are targeted for completion on that date. This hiccup isn’t helped when the
Working Group doesn’t even start working on at least one of the problems until
the bureaucratic last minute.
In an
article on the Chemical Engineering News (CEN) web site describing the FFF
effects on the Chemical Safety Board, the Managing Director of the CSB, Daniel
Horowitz is quoted as saying:
“All of that is frozen at this
point,” Horowitz says. “We were also commencing discussions with other agencies
about the presidential executive order on chemical safety and the effort to
coordinate prevention and response efforts across the federal sector. The first meeting [emphasis added] was
scheduled for last week and did not occur due to the shutdown.”
Now I understand that there is a certain amount of conflict
between the CSB and two members of the Working Group (EPA and OSHA) over a
number of outstanding recommendations by CSB. And the public chastising that
CSB regularly issues regarding those recommendations does not make anyone at
those two agencies real happy. In fact, I have privately heard complaints from
EPA officials about the failure of CSB to play nice.
This is, of course, one of the reasons that the President
included the following paragraph in his Executive Order (EO 13650):
“Within 90 days of the date of this
order, the Working Group shall consult with the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) and
determine what, if any, changes are required to existing memorandums of
understanding (MOUs) and processes between EPA and CSB, ATF and CSB, and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration and CSB for timely and full
disclosure of information. To the extent appropriate, the Working Group may
develop a single model MOU with CSB in lieu of existing agreements.” {§4(c)}
Now I do not know why the first meeting was not scheduled
until almost 60 days into the 90-day deadline, but it certainly does not bode
well for working out a solution to the conflicts between the CSB and the EPA,
OSHA and the Justice Department. Writing a memorandum of understanding between
cooperative agencies within the same department (see ISCD and the Coast Guard
on CFATS-MTSA coordination) can be a time consuming process as the agencies try
to work out methods of avoiding stepping on each other’s toes. Where the
agencies have active and ongoing public conflicts that process would be
difficult enough to complete in 90 days. Cutting out the first 60 days before
discussions are even started is a recipe for failure.
I suspect that the Working Group and the CSB management all
understand this and that the delay in scheduling this meeting has not been
because of the deadline being overlooked. I suspect that there has been
on-going negotiations about the ground rules for the meeting and behind the
scenes negotiations about the scope of the MOU changes.
When the November 5th deadlines are inevitably
missed everyone will obviously point at the Congressional funding fiasco as the
reason. With many of the other requirements to be completed by that date, that
may be a legitimate blame-game operation. With this particular requirement
Congress does really not deserve to be saddled with the responsibility; at
least because of the current spending issue.
A lot of the conflict between the CSB and other federal
agencies could have (should have) been foreseen when the agency was established
by Congress. Instead of setting up a chemical version of the Transportation
Safety Board, Congress half-stepped and set up a Transportation Safety Board
Lite. The President’s EO is trying to correct those deficiencies by fiat and it
just won’t work.
Without congressional action to restructure the
relationships between the CSB and the other federal agencies responsible for
chemical safety it is going to take concerted action by the White House to get
these agencies to cooperate. A single paragraph in a related executive order is
not going to get it done. And it certainly can't be fixed in 90-days.
No comments:
Post a Comment