Archive for federal regulation

Fracking could lead to demand for more potentially explosive ammonia factories

what the frack sign Via The Tyee.ca

So much madness, so little time.

The last safety “inspection of the West fertilizer plant happened in– 1985.” Because, you know, fertilizer components aren’t flammable and dangerous and don’t require any regulation whatsoever. Nor are ingredients such as ammonium nitrate ever used in, say, domestic terrorist attacks like, oh I dunno, the Oklahoma City bombing.

Nor do they ever explode.

Nor do they pollute the air with noxious fumes when they never explode.

Nor do those explosions that never happen ever kill people.

So, of course, no forward-looking country with clear-thinking leaders would ever consider exposing its citizens to even more noxious ammonia factories. Nor would they encourage any powerful corporations to engage in any undertakings that would rely on chemicals that could easily pollute and ignite the way the plant in West, Texas did.

Grist:

The U.S. could soon be home to a lot more ammonia factories — not a comforting thought after a deadly explosion at an ammonia fertilizer plant in Texas on Wednesday evening. You can blame the fracking boom. [...]

Australian company Incitec Pivot this week announced [PDF] that it will be building a hulking new $850 million ammonia facility in Waggaman, La., just outside New Orleans. [...]

U.S.-based Mosaic announced in December that it may build a $700 million ammonia plant in St. James Parish, La. U.S.-based CHS Inc. said in September that it would construct a $1.2 billion ammonia plant in North Dakota. Also in September, Egypt’s largest company, Orascom Construction, said it would spend $1.4 billion to build a fertilizer plant in Iowa.

Well, erm, okay, but surely ammonia production has a good safety record overall, and the Texas disaster was just an anomaly. Right?

The history of ammonia production and storage is littered with spectacular accidents.

Oh, and there’s this:

The Dallas Morning News reports that the Texas fertilizer plant that exploded Wednesday night told the Environmental Protection Agency and local public safety officials that it presented “no risk of fire or explosion.”

They lied to the EPA and were not in compliance with EPA regulations (EPA regulations do not allow felony violations of 18 USC 1001). If the company was in compliance with EPA regulations, then the 540,000 lbs of the explosive ammonium nitrate, stored at the facility, would not have blown up.

The EPA said the company corrected the deficiencies and filed an updated plan in 2011. It said it now complies with EPA regulations.

Now think about all those impending new ammonia facilities. What could possibly go wrong?

All our posts on the environmental rapes perpetrated by frackers can be found here (scroll).

forward off cliff

Shhh! FDIC made settlement deals with banks rather than sue– and promised not to tell.

banks too big to jailwhat's the big secret

Elizabeth Warren said, “When banks are too big to fail, too big to jail, too big for trial, too big to regulate, too big to shrink… they are just too big.”

Gee, ya think she’s on to something? She also said:

This is wrong — just plain wrong. We are a country that believes in equal justice under the law — not special deals for the big guys. And that’s not all the special deals that the big banks get.

Which brings us to a rather lengthy L.A. Times above-the-fold front-pager that could have been subtitled:

shhh

[T]he government cut a deal with the bank’s lawyers to keep it quiet: a “no press release” clause that required the FDIC never to mention the deal “except in response to a specific inquiry.” [...]

Under the Freedom of Information Act, The Times obtained more than 1,600 pages of FDIC settlements, made from 2007 through this year with former bank insiders and others accused of wrongdoing. The agreements constitute a catalog of fraud and negligence: reckless loans to homeowners and builders; falsified documents; inflated appraisals; lender refusals to buy back bad loans.

Defendants benefit by settling because they can avoid admitting guilt and limit the damages they might face in court. The FDIC benefits by collecting money without the hassle and expense of litigation. The no-press-release arrangements help close those deals.

Here’s what Quicken Loans spokeswoman Paula Silver had to say:

Quicken Loans and the FDIC entered into a ‘confidential’ agreement nearly three and a half years ago which clearly states that no party admits liability nor wrongdoing.”

Former bank examiner Richard Newsom, who specialized in insider-abuse cases for the FDIC in the aftermath of the S&L debacle, said he couldn’t understand the shift, unless the agency doesn’t “want people to know how little they are settling for.”

And coincidentally, as I was writing this up, I spotted this tweet:

tweet fdic deals banks

Elizabeth Warren: “When banks are too big to fail, too big to jail, too big for trial, too big to regulate, too big to shrink… they are just too big.”

elizabeth warren senate banking committee hearinggo get 'em

http://warren.senate.gov
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Q&A at the March 7, 2013 Banking Committee hearing entitled “Patterns of Abuse: Assessing Bank Secrecy Act Compliance and Enforcement.” Witnesses were: David Cohen, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, United States Department of the Treasury; Thomas Curry, Comptroller, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; and Jerome H. Powell, Governor, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Too big to fail has morphed into too big to prosecute. Attorney General Holder:

I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.”

Today, Senator Warren sent this email out:

Laffy–

Attorney General Eric Holder indicated in testimony before the U.S. Senate that some Wall Street banks have gotten so big that they are now above the law.

He actually said earlier this week:

I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.

This is wrong — just plain wrong. We are a country that believes in equal justice under the law — not special deals for the big guys. And that’s not all the special deals that the big banks get.

According to recent calculations by Bloomberg, the top ten biggest banks receive an $83 billion subsidy every year in the form of lower borrowing costs — something not available to your community bank or credit union. The markets think that, if things get tough, the government will be there to bail out the big banks again but not the little guys.

To put things in perspective — that $83 billion subsidy is about the same amount of money being fought over in the sequestration.

So why are we still debating this issue at all? Isn’t it obvious that the “too big to fail” problem still exists and is bad for small banks? Bad for taxpayers? Bad for our economy? Bad for justice?

Here’s one theory that worries me: maybe people believe that the banks have in fact become too big to shrink. They have started to say that we can’t cut these banks down to size.

I’m not one of them, and neither are colleagues of mine like Sen. Sherrod Brown who have been fighting hard on this issue. We know we can take on the big banks and their army of lobbyists and win because we’ve done it before.

When banks are too big to fail, too big to jail, too big for trial, too big to manage, too big to regulate, too big to shrink, and too big to reform… they are just too big.

We’re just getting started here.

Thank you for being a part of this,

Elizabeth

Have I mentioned how utterly thrilled I am that she’s a U.S. Senator? We need 99 more like her.

“Guns are not… absolutely necessary, outside of war or law enforcement by law enforcement personnel.”

guns v cars

In my previous post, Cars v. guns, there was an OregonLive.com, letter to the editor, that said, in part:

At first, James Johnston’s letter (Feb. 9) troubled me. Because cars kill more Americans than guns do, he reasoned, cars should be banned before guns are. Come on.

Cars are intended to be safe, whereas guns maim and kill by design. Still, his syllogism may offer a solution to the gun control debate. Although we’ll never ban cars nor, alas, guns either, we can and do regulate both to be as safe as possible.

That letter was followed by this one:

In 2009, the last year I could find data on this, the numbers in Oregon and Washington were: Oregon deaths from guns: 417, motor vehicles: 394; Washington guns: 623, cars: 580, according to an analysis by the Violence Policy Center.

The cars vs. guns wrangling continues as you can see below, via today’s L.A. Times Calendar section. The Times doesn’t post the Calendar letters online so I cannot provide a link:

The car-gun argument

My heart bleeds as much as Dan Baum’s does, maybe more ["One of the Gun Guys," Feb. 17]. Like Baum, I earnestly seek to engage in rational, calm discussion about gun control. Put aside for a moment that, though well-regulated car ownership and use are not constitutionally protected. What I wish to understand is how, in the first instance, there is any basis on which to compare the societal worth of cars and guns in the context of gun control.

Cars are absolutely necessary to modern commerce and society. As any number of gunless societies have proved, guns are not necessary, much less absolutely necessary, outside of war or law enforcement by law enforcement personnel.

Terry Sternberg

West Hills, CA

Cars v. guns

guns v cars

Via OregonLive.com, letters to the editor, Friday February  15, 2013:

At first, James Johnston’s letter (Feb. 9) troubled me. Because cars kill more Americans than guns do, he reasoned, cars should be banned before guns are. Come on.

Cars are intended to be safe, whereas guns maim and kill by design. Still, his syllogism may offer a solution to the gun control debate. Although we’ll never ban cars nor, alas, guns either, we can and do regulate both to be as safe as possible.

Top-fuel dragsters are prohibited from city streets, so it’s likewise reasonable to prohibit large-capacity magazines, rapid fire and various enhancements to otherwise perfectly lethal weapons.

And how about mandatory firearms proficiency certification courses for gun owners (like police officers take)? If you fail to attend, you keep your gun but join a registry of skill-deficient gun owners and pay monthly fines until you renew your competency certificate.

BRUCE TOIEN
Sherwood

And this:

We keep hearing that that cars kill more people than guns, but this is no longer true in the Northwest.

In 2009, the last year I could find data on this, the numbers in Oregon and Washington were: Oregon deaths from guns: 417, motor vehicles: 394; Washington guns: 623, cars: 580, according to an analysis by the Violence Policy Center.

BILL PFEIFER
Vancouver 

H/t: Pigboy

California’s numbers strongly indicate that gun regulation works

head explode

I consider myself so fortunate to have lived in California my entire life. We’ve got it all here: Great weather; gorgeous beaches, deserts, and forests; an innovative, creative, and inclusive population; you name it, we’ve got it.

And we are often trendsetters for the entire country on such things as environmental regulation and to get to my point, according to many experts, California’s firearms regulations are the toughest in the nation.

Michael Hiltzik’s L.A. Times column today concentrates on “taking aim at the gun industry.” He notes that, despite our tough laws, more than 600,000 hand guns, rifles, and shotguns were sold here in 2011 (the most recent year stats were made available). In addition, even though California has such strict laws, it is still one of the country’s major gun markets. And here’s another fact: Our background checks ended up denying a measly 1% of all applicants, so what’s all the fuss about?

Speaking of stats, here’s one that will likely make gun zealots’ heads explode:

Consider the most important statistic related to California’s gun laws. In 1981, before the most stringent rules were adopted, California’s rate of 16.5 firearms-related deaths per 100,000 population was 31st worst in the nation and higher than the national average; by 2000, a decade after the laws started getting tightened, the state ranked 20th, with a rate of 9.18, below the national average. In 2010, the latest year for which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers figures, the state ranked ninth, with a rate of only 7.9.

Yeah, that really happened, and freedom and liberty are still intact, nobody’s guns were yanked from their cold, dead hands, nor did Big Guvmint infringe on anyone’s Second Amendment rights. Go figure.

And this is a big, diverse state with not inconsiderable pockets of gang lawlessness and drug abuse, and sizable populations of hunters, target shooters and other gun fanciers. Many factors may have contributed to the downward trend in firearm deaths since 1990, but the numbers strongly indicate that regulation works.

California’s hostility to guns is focused mainly on assault weapons, which are outlawed — all others are legal, but regulated. The assault weapons ban is being extended to the makers of these dangerous products.

Of course, “Wayne LaPierre & NRA exist to make you think of anything other than gunmakers when you feel outraged by gun violence.”

Today, California law requires that almost all transfers of firearms, including private deals and gun show sales, be made through a licensed dealer and completed after a waiting period. High-capacity magazines are illegal except for those owned before 2000. There’s a long list of people prohibited to possess firearms, including felons and people judged to be a danger to themselves or others.

The new proposals include measures to close a loophole in the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and to require a background check and a permit to buy ammunition.

As Hiltzik points out, the new proposals won’t eradicate gun violence in California. No laws, guidelines, or regulations eradicate all crime, but as the statistics show, they sure can help save lives.

And isn’t saving lives the goal of gun owners, too? Or is their War on Tyranny fantasy– the one in which there is no way their Glocks and AR-15s could win against drones and bombs– propping up the gun industry, and influencing elections more of priority that their so-called “pro-life” agenda?

“Substitute the word ‘buyers’ for sellers, ‘guns’ for marijuana, ‘purchase’ for sale, & you have common-sense gun control.”

republicans guns

Today’s L.A. Times letter to the editor, because our voices matter:

Re “Colorado’s new high,” Jan. 27

The Times’ article on Colorado’s new constitutional amendment legalizing recreational use of marijuana was quite interesting. It states: “In Colorado, sellers of medical marijuana must have a background check … and submit to inspections by the state. Every plant is tagged and numbered, from seed to sale.”

Substitute the word “buyers” for sellers, “guns” for marijuana and “purchase” for sale, and you have common-sense gun control. That would be downright impossible to come up with, given that weird stuff the House GOP is on.

Stan Seidel

Rancho Palos Verdes