An independent federal agency established to prevent chemical accidents, the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) deploys investigators to the site of those that do occur, to determine the causes, or probable causes, and then widely disseminate their findings, with the objective to keep other similar events from happening. The CSB also makes safety recommendations to Congress, state and local governments, plants and refineries, regulatory agencies, industry organizations, and labor groups, and produces safety videos for all audiences, available on the agency Web site, YouTube, and as Podcasts on Apple’s iTunes.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 authorized the creation of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, which became operational in January 1998, mandated to investigate, or cause to be investigated, serious accidents that result from the production, processing, handling, or storage of chemical substances, to determine the conditions and circumstances that led up to them, and then use its findings anyway and anywhere the information might help prevent similar incidents from occurring. Congress modeled the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) on the structure of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which investigates accidents in aviation, railroad, pipeline, highway, and marine transportation, charging that no other agency or executive branch official may direct the investigative activities of CSB, and that it be completely independent in its rulemaking, inspection, and enforcement authorities, so that pursuing the causes of an accident can be a process guaranteed to be free of any other division’s agendas.
In 2010, the CSB revised its investigatory methodology in response to suggestions made in a 2008 General Accountability Office report. The new approach called for making assessments of not only major accident sites, but smaller accidents that have significant consequences, and then generating internal reports that can be applied to future safety studies.
In June 2010, the CSB initiated a “root cause investigation” into the April 20 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion. While the agency’s work has been met with resistance on various fronts, it expects the study’s results to have an impact on future international chemical safety.
The Chemical Safety Board’s (CSB) two main functions are preventing industrial chemical accidents and investigating those that do happen. Among its specific responsibilities:
- Issuing safety reports and recommendations to the commercial and industrial sector, industry organizations, labor groups, and regulatory agencies—a process that has proven to be the CSB’s most effective tool for accomplishing positive change, their observations and guidelines having been applied in varying ways and situations by hundreds of thousands of people since the CSB was established.
- Providing an annual report to the President and Congress: Proposing specific rules and orders; suggesting changes in regulations, standards and guidelines; noting progress in the development of risk-reduction technologies; identifying priorities for study and investigation, including further steps that can be taken to reduce the likelihood or consequences of accidents; and exhibiting the responses to and implementation of previous research findings on chemical safety in the public and private sector.
- Convening community meetings and hearings across the country, to distribute safety information, and solicit and respond to citizen complaints and suggestions.
- Utilizing the expertise and experience of other agencies, including the EPA, OSHA, and NTSB, using in the process memorandums of understanding which define the collaboration terms, allowing each agency to carry out its mission most efficiently without unnecessary duplication of effort.
- Creating safety videos for CSB board members and staff to show at speaking engagements, as well as for the media and general public to view at any time via the CSB Web site, YouTube or iTunes Podcasts, the videos on the agency site having been watched millions of times since they began appearing there in late 2005. Among the available titles (Internet Explorer only):
Animation of 2010 Phosgene Accident
U.S. Chemical Safety Board Iron Dust Testing 2011
Anatomy of a Disaster: Explosion at BP Texas City Refinery
Dangers of Flammable Gas Accumulation: Acetylene Explosion at ASCO, Perth Amboy, New Jersey
Hazards of Nitrogen Asphyxiation: Fatal Accident at Valero Refinery
Reactive Hazards: Dangers of Uncontrolled Chemical Reactions
- Conducting general studies and investigations where there has not yet been an accident, but where there is evidence of a potential hazard to human health or property.
- Deploying chemical safety investigators, including chemical and mechanical engineers, industrial safety experts, and other specialists with experience in the private and public sectors, as well as a public affairs representative, to the site of accidents causing death, serious injury, or substantial property or natural resources damage, to look for root causes. This can include: deficiencies in safety management systems, technical or human; unforeseen chemical reactions; equipment failures; inadequate maintenance; inadequate regulations or standards; and/or lack of proper staffing.
- Sending chemical samples and equipment obtained from accident sites to independent laboratories for testing; examining company safety records, inventories, and operating procedures; and conferring with plant managers, workers, labor groups, and other government authorities.
- Sifting through evidence, and, after it has been analyzed by the experts and studied by the board, drafting key findings and recommendations from all avenues of the investigation into a written document, then disseminating it to the involved parties, and others for whom it is deemed likely to be a valuable guide, and making it available as well to anyone else who wants to read it.
- Tracking and monitoring the entities to whom they make recommendations, to ensure what they’ve advised is implemented.
Revealing the CSB’s Evolution and Future (by Mark L. Farley Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP) (pdf)
From the Web Site of the CSB
According to USASpending.gov, the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) has spent more than $537.9 billion on 3,496,918 contractor transactions in FY 2010. The top five services it paid for are engineering and technical ($17,973,099,421), aircraft fixed wing ($15,484,665,731), ADP and telecommunications ($13,977,606,862), other professional services ($13,041,671,163), and logistics support ($12,338,792,052).
The top five recipients of CSB contract spending in FY 2010 were:
1. Lockheed Martin Corporation $34,664,400,403
2. The Boeing Company $19,243,344,461
3. Northrop Grumman Corporation $15,284,479,427
4. General Dynamics Corporation $14,975,543,810
5. Raytheon Company $14,974,565,182
The CSB FY 2013 Congressional Budget Justification (pdf) provides the following expected distribution of funds for its FY 2013 operations:
Personnel Compensation & Benefits $7,654,750
Other Services $1,734,131
Space Rental Payments $1,038,420
Travel $415,900
Equipment $281,600
Supplies $139,450
Communications, Utilities & Misc. $103,900
Printing $24,100
Transportation of Things $11,000
Total Costs $11,403,251
CSB Jurisdiction Questioned in Deepwater Horizon Disaster
Following the explosion at Deepwater Horizon oil platform in 2010, the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) launched its own investigation into the cause of the accident. But it immediately ran into roadblocks from the rig’s operator, Transocean, which questioned the board’s jurisdiction over offshore oil drilling.
When the board subpoenaed the chief engineer on the Deepwater Horizon, a company attorney said Stephen Bertone would not appear before the CSB because the oil spill was outside the board’s oversight. The company said the board only had statutory jurisdiction over spills on land, and that this would be an expansion of the CSB’s powers.
The CSB, which was asked by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-California) and others to look into the explosion, received no help from Michael Bromwich, the Department of the Interior’s top offshore drilling regulator, who also questioned CSB’s probe.
Following Transocean’s failure to comply with the board’s subpoenas, the CSB sued the company in federal court to force it to do so. The board contended that, first, it has jurisdiction over explosive releases of hazardous chemicals, and, second, the Deepwater Horizon was a stationary installation (not a vessel) because it was anchored to the sea floor.
Deepwater Horizon Engineer Refuses Chemical Safety Board Subpoena, Challenges Jurisdiction (by Ben Geman, The Hill)
Transocean Sued by U.S. Agency Over Gulf-Rig Blast Subpoenas (by Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Margaret Cronin Fisk, Bloomberg News)
Federal Oil Spill Probe Finds U.S. Regulations Lacking (by Jeremy Jacobs, Greenwire)
Terrorism Used to Blunt CSB Accident Investigations
The CSB canceled a 2009 meeting to delve into the cause of a deadly explosion at the Bayer CropScience facility in the Kanawha Valley, West Virginia, following the company’s citing of a federal antiterrorism law.
Bayer attorneys cited the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, an antiterrorism law that requires companies with plants on waterways, to develop security plans to minimize the threat of a terrorist attack. They argued that having a public meeting on the explosion that killed two workers might result in “sensitive security information” being revealed. So board members decided to play it safe and delay the meeting for a month in order to look into the confidentiality claims.
Chemical plant safety advocates were upset by the board’s decision, because it seemed that the company may have found a loophole to stymie inquiries into plant accidents. Rick Hind with Greenpeace said he hoped the decision would not become a precedent for future board investigations.
The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman (D-California), accused Bayer of conducting a “campaign of secrecy” and destroying potential evidence, including disabling plant surveillance cameras.
The safety board investigation eventually resumed, when Bayer representatives would not back up its claims of “sensitive security information.” The CSB report on the accident concluded that company “pressure to resume production” resulted in part of the plant being restarted too soon after it had been offline to correct deficiencies.
A Disaster Waiting To Happen: The Chemical Safety Board Investigation Report On 2008 Bayer Cropscience Fatal Pesticide Chemical Explosion (The Pump Handle)
Safety Board Retreats (by Jeff Johnson, Chemical & Engineering News)
US: Board Cancels Hearing under Bayer Pressure (by Ken Ward, Jr., Charleston Gazette)
Bayer Tried To Prevent Public Debate in US Blast Probe - Exec (ICIS.com)
- Table of Contents
- Overview
- History
- What it Does
- Where Does the Money Go
- Controversies
- Suggested Reforms
- Comments
- Leave a comment
Comments