tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9122514974659083342.post9068150600341349482..comments2024-02-02T22:30:20.736-05:00Comments on Chemical Facility Security News: IST and TIC ManufacturersPJCoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03390039682578324978noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9122514974659083342.post-43787997863489726412009-10-20T22:25:51.040-04:002009-10-20T22:25:51.040-04:00Your post regarding IST was fine until the section...Your post regarding IST was fine until the section entitled "The Worth of IST." Your opinions suddenly take a detour here. First, you insinuate that facilities in Tiers 3 & 4 are a certain size (i.e., smaller than Tiers 1 & 2). In terms of how DHS determines high-risk, size does not matter. There is enough knowledge about covered facilities in Tiers 1 and 2 to know that i) some are, in fact, not large and ii) off-site consequences was not a primary factor for their placement (i.e., theft and diversion). <br /><br />Your second error is how you paint with one brush large versus small companies' methods of assessing their safety and security programs to reduce their risk. Is Bayer a small company? Indeed, isn't the Bayer facility in West Virginia that recently experienced the MIC incident a large facility? What of the large refineries in the Gulf Coast that have recently been fined in the millions of dollars for safety violations after OSHA conducted its National Emphasis Program? Even if your excuse is true as to why companies "operate the way they always have" (i.e., limited resources), how do you explain away the serious violations found by OSHA at multi-national refineries or the accident at Bayer? Using your reasoning, can't one then assume, because they are large, that these companies have the necessary resources?<br /><br />Your last paragraph also gives false comfort that IST will prevail once facilities are forced to do it. Why not be balanced and mention that many facilities, regardless of size, make IST decisions that are part of the initial pre-production process? The chemical that is ultimately chosen for production is chosen for a specific reason: feasibility for the end-product, in many cases. Some are also dictated by customers. Many are, in fact, already the safer alternative, even while they are hazardous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com