To The Escape Zeppelin!: nmrsnr: Odds that someone will go to jail over this? Who wants to set the line?Eh, I'm all for undoing corporations but at least in this case I don't think prison is really warranted. Had people been hurt or a more dangerous chemical been spilled then I'd reconsider. Fine the company the entire cost of the cleanup, penalize them further for failing to follow safety procedures, and watch them like a hawk for years. Oh and find out why they weren't being inspected before this. That part seems to be the biggest failing in all this.
exPFCWintergreen: the money is in the banana stand: With a company dealing with chemicals, shouldn't there be routine inspections so this sort of thing could be either mitigated or stopped from occurring at all? How the fark did it get this far? Back when we had a full-time shop, we had OSHA inspections all the time to make sure that our emissions, fans, storage, and disposal/recycling was being done correctly. We aren't a very large company, and the "chemicals" that we were dealing with were mostly lacquers for refinishing, epoxies, spray booths, and paints. How the fark does a large company like that who deals specifically with hazardous chemicals NOT have routine inspections?Had some of the same questions myself, the systemic amount of overlap in compliance failure related to several different state and federal regulatory agencies for an incident like this to happen is rather surprising. Part of it may be that the company itself is just a middleman, only being a waypoint between the chemical manufacturers and coal refiners. Ideally, a company like this shouldn't exist today, having been outmodded by digital-era logistics and the realization that storing huge amounts of potentially hazardous chemicals in any one place is a bad idea (as this and many other similar incidents have painfully demonstrated). Although if a particular chemical has only limited applications and is only manufactured in batches by one or two companies (which this may be), storage of some sort may be unavoidable (but there are many better alternatives than using one big tank). A company only dealing with the transfer of chemicals could likely operate normally without any employee having any specific chemical-related expertise or experience (and may be able to operate more easily in a regulatory gray-area). In such a case, basic steps like OSHA chemical safety training and EPA waste disposal and containment compliance which should come second nature to anyone who has worked with chemicals weren't there (a cul ...
nmrsnr: Odds that someone will go to jail over this? Who wants to set the line?
Donnchadha: See? This is why government regulation and oversight is a terrible thing. There were absolutely ZERO reported safety violations when nobody was going around looking for them -- and now that they are, it's through the farking roof!
GBB: MechaPyx: So how bad would you say this spill is? What's the twinkie rating on this?[i.imgur.com image 300x168]Imagine if this Twinkie represented a typical glass of water. The creme filling would represent the amount of deadly chemicals in the water.
August11: Government protecting citizens from a corporation??? NEVAR
FUND AND ENFORCE THE GODDAMN REGULATIONS ALREADY!
cameroncrazy1984: Are you saying that regulation and enforcement is essential to safe drinking water? THE HELL YOU SAY
Crewmannumber6: Stay tuned for 'Freedom Industries moves operations to Mississippi' next fiscal year.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Apr 24 2017 18:13:28
Runtime: 0.421 sec (421 ms)