Joyce Cassin – 5/19/17

 


This page was last updated on May 24, 2017.


Shell plant needs top safety monitoring; Joyce Cassin (JC); Beaver County Times; May 19, 2017.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.


“The more I read about Shell Chemical’s planned ethane-cracker plant in Potter Township and its various pipelines, the first petrochemical hub in western Pennsylvania, the more concerned I get.”

[RWC] My initial reaction to this letter was where has JC been the last several years?

“Shell claims it’ll contaminate the air by less than half of the previous facility, yet it doesn’t provide numbers.  To me it seems like Shell plans to pollute both the air and water table.”

[RWC] Just about all human activities pollute, including “green” industries.  Hydroelectric powerplants, solar panels, wind turbines, and so on don’t grow on trees.

Does JC “plan” to pollute when she fires up her house’s heating system?

“Emission credits are going to be purchased locally, providing ‘maximum local benefits,’ according to Shell.

“So local companies that strive to operate well below acceptable limits will be rewarded financially, and Shell will be able to pollute at a rate higher than acceptable.”

[RWC] Wikipedia has a decent overview of pollution trading/cap and trade.

Remember, the goal of pollution regulations is to set acceptable limits for an area, not for an individual business.

Businesses don’t “strive to operate well below acceptable limits.”  Due to the nature of their operation, it’s easier for some businesses to reduce their emissions and harder for others.  This is what allows for the gradual reduction of pollution without unnecessarily driving companies out of business.

“Shell’s facilities in Louisiana, Texas, and California have suffered explosions and hazardous gas leaks resulting in death and injury to many, while placing a lot of stress on municipal first-responders.  There are claims of higher incidents of cancer and other chemical-related deaths in these areas.

“My hope is that local government, when approving the applications, puts Shell’s feet to the fire, and ensures they have proper fence-line monitoring and other safety features so that accidents don’t happen, and that safety/evacuation plans are approved by local first-esponders [sic] prior to construction of the plant.”

[RWC] Why should “local government, when approving the applications, puts Shell’s feet to the fire?”  Just as other government levels, shouldn’t local governments just make sure Shell’s plans comply with their laws?

“Although the cost to Shell would increase, the value of people’s lives is infinitely more.”

[RWC] It may surprise JC, but businesses already take safety very seriously.  That said, no amount of trying will guarantee “accidents don’t happen.”


© 2004-2017 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.