Chemical safety board

Patrick Crow
Washington, D.C.
[email protected]

Normally, there would be little reason to applaud the establishment of another federal agency in Washington, D.C.

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board may be an exception.

The board will investigate accidents at chemical plants, refineries, and similar facilities in the same way the National Transportation Safety Board investigates transportation accidents.

NTSB makes recommendations to prevent future occurrences but has no regulatory powers to enforce its findings.

Congress established the chemical board in the mid-1990s, and President George Bush appointed three of the five board members. But the agency never started up because Congress never appropriated it any money.

That was largely because the Clinton administration opposed funding on the grounds the chemical board would duplicate efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

A few congressmen continued to press for funding, arguing EPA and OSHA were much too slow-and much too partisan-to investigate major chemical and refinery accidents.

Funds cleared

Last fall, a coalition of 79 environmental, labor, and health groups mounted a campaign to fund the agency.

The coalition said, "The board can investigate the root causes of industrial accidents, conduct research, oversee the performance of chemical safety standards, and recommend improvements in chemical manufacturing, processing, transport, and storage-all free from political and industrial interference."

They said the board would have investigative powers that EPA and OSHA do not and said that chemical manufacturers are reluctant to provide accident information to the same agencies that regulate them.

They noted the board's conclusions and recommendations could not be admitted as evidence or otherwise used in litigation against manufacturers, as in the case of NTSB.

Last fall, Congress appropriated $4 million for the chemical board in fiscal 1998, and proponents persuaded President Bill Clinton not to strike the funding with his line item veto.

The board soon will establish offices in Washington, hire up to 15 staff members, and hold its first meeting.

Industry reaction

The Chemical Manufacturers Association said the agency "presents a better option for carrying out timely, accurate, and independent analysis of significant chemical accidents."

But it said the board should be careful to hire personnel with the expertise and experience needed to investigate chemical accidents.

The National Petroleum Refiners Association was neutral toward the board but interested in how it would operate. A spokesman said, "In theory, how could you oppose it?"

In the long run, the chemical board may prove to be more effective than NTSB.

In its reports, NTSB frequently has urged the Transportation Department to issue specific rules to prevent accidents. DOT has frequently ignored those recommendations.

However, EPA and OSHA are likely to be more receptive to the chemical board's safety suggestions.