In April, a large explosion occurred at a fertilizer plant in the town of West, Texas - killing 14, injuring many, seriously damaging a school and a nursing home, and destroying many homes. After the fact, it was learned that the company had been storing a large quantity of a chemical which can act as an explosive. For that reason, the federal government requires companies to notify officials if they are storing more than a designated quantity. The company had not done so.
In response, Greenpeace has put together information about other US chemical facilities that can put citizens at risk. The Greenpeace data was discussed in a recent Scientific American article. The article includes a link to a color-coded map Greenpeace created.
According to Greenpeace, one in three Americans could fall victim to a similar poison gas disaster by virtue of living near upwards of 12,000 plants that store and use highly toxic substances. ... Greenpeace has identified 483 U.S. facilities where 100,000 people or more would be at risk during a disaster. And one in five of those threatens areas with populations topping one million.
“Even though chemical plant safeguards fail every week, the chemical industry has largely refused to make their plants safer and more secure,” says Greenpeace. “Congress even amended the Clean Air Act in 1990 to try and address this problem, but the amendment has gone largely unused.”
An earlier Scientific American article,
"Why Didn't Regulators Prevent the Texas Fertilizer Explosion?" reported:
Seven different agencies regulate fertilizer plants in Texas, but none has authority over how close they are to homes and schools
Here's what we do know: The fertilizer plant hadn't been inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration since 1985. Its owners do not seem to have told the Department of Homeland Security that they were storing large quantities of potentially explosive fertilizer, as regulations require. And the most recent partial safety inspection of the facility in 2011 led to $5,250 in fines.
According to
Reuters:
Despite being located within a short walk of a nursing home, school and residential buildings, West Fertilizer Co in central Texas had no blast walls and had filed no contingency plan to the Environmental Protection Agency for a major explosion or fire at the site.
Reuters says of the 2011 company report to the EPA on plans for emergencies, "the safety plan did not envisage any blast scenario."
Weeks after the disaster, CBS reported:
Texas law enforcement officials on Friday launched a criminal investigation into the massive fertilizer plant explosion that killed 14 people last month, after weeks of largely treating the blast as an industrial accident.
That action followed the arrest of a paramedic who helped evacuate residents after the explosion. He was charged with possessing a destructive device. The lack of investigation previously and the initiation of investigation after this arrest suggests that it still is not the company's actions which are under scrutiny.
McLennan County Sheriff Parnell McNamara said residents "must have confidence that this incident has been looked at from every angle and professionally handled — they deserve nothing less."
But does "every angle" include possible negligence by the same company which is known to have failed to follow regulations on reporting the large amount of explosive material, filed no blast emergency scenario, was fined for safety violations the last time there was an inspection, etc.?
The question here is not whether the company intentionally caused the explosion or even if they were thinking it might happen. If a regular guy parks his car on a hill, forgets to put on the emergency brake, and later the car rolls down the hill and kills someone - he can be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter. Investigators have said they can't determine the cause of the fire which led to the blast, but that's not the point either. In the example of the car rolling down the hill, investigators may never figure out why the car started rolling an hour after it was parked. The driver is guilty for not acting responsibly with the brake. There's plenty of reason to wonder whether the company acted responsibly in proper precautions. But the possibility does not seem to be discussed in the mainstream.
I don't claim to know of strong evidence of negligence playing a part in this explosion, but is the US media above discussing hints of wrong-doing by members of the 99%? Why don't we hear more, "We should find out more about that company's practices"?
Let me stick my neck out here. Running a business should not be a fundamental citizen's Right. It doesn't have to be a matter of the same level of due process to decide whether to revoke approval to operate a business. Whether a regular American can have a drivers license or a professional license to work as a teacher is not the kind of due process which is required in a criminal court. Perhaps, the known issues with the fertilizer company and the occurrence of a major disaster of undetermined cause should be sufficient basis to forbid the owners from running any plants with potentially disastrous events. Where should we draw the line? I don't think it should only be after people have died or a criminal conviction has been reached - if we are merely withholding a license for something which is not a basic right.