Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Saturday, January 29, 2000State action needed
on chemical spillsCHEMICAL spills from industrial facilities are violations of state and federal regulations. The problem is that government measures aimed at averting such spills are inadequate, as the potentially disastrous Thanksgiving spill at Campbell Industrial Park demonstrated. Preventive measures are needed.The issue: The state lacks a program for inspection of industrial chemical tanks to prevent spills.
A faulty valve allowed sulfuric acid to leak from one of three holding tanks at the Brewer Environmental Industries facility at the industrial park. The acid ate its way through a concrete bunker, resulting in 35 tons of it spilling into a containment area. The acid's contact with remnants of chlorine bleach wash sent a cloud of chlorine gas into the air. Fortunately, tradewinds blew the toxic fumes out to sea and no one was injured.
The state Health Department fined Brewer $7,000 for failing to notify it immediately about the spill -- employees of another company downwind reported the fumes -- and Brewer must pay for the $60,000 cleanup. The federal Environmental Protection Agency may levy fines of up to $25,000. Brewer has said it will spend $1 million to upgrade the plant to prevent future spills.
None of those measures provides total assurance that a similar spill won't occur at Brewer or at another company's facility. Gary Gill, state deputy health director for environmental health, said at a hearing that no state program exists to inspect chemical plants. Creating such a program would cost several million dollars.
In lieu of such a program, the Health Department recommends adoption of tighter rules requiring more information from companies, such as when tanks were last inspected and whether the companies have spill-containment systems. If the Legislature determines that establishment of an inspection program would be too costly, the department should expedite adoption of the proposed rules.
Tourism assessment
IN reaction to a Sierra Club lawsuit seeking to require the Hawaii Tourism Authority to conduct environmental impact studies before spending state funds on marketing programs, two bills have been introduced in the Legislature.
One would exempt the authority from the environmental requirement. Another would limit the environmental requirement in the existing law to projects that involve development or construction. The law's language now covers "any program or project" planned by an agency.
The Sierra Club contends that the tourism authority is required to conduct of an environmental assessment of its $114 million marketing plan to promote the tourism industry. It is inconceivable that the Legislature intended that the law be applied in this manner -- and it never has thus far. But if a judge rules in favor of the Sierra Club, a revision of the law would seem necessary.
A legal victory for the Sierra Club in this case could mean that any expenditure of state funds -- not necessarily for tourism purposes -- could be stalled by a similar demand. Robert Fishman, the chief executive of the tourism authority, gave as an example recruitment of students for the University of Hawaii, which could bring more people into the state.
Under this interpretation of the law, the state could have been forced to make environmental assessments before spending money to bring the Miss Universe contest and the "Baywatch" television series here. By the time the assessments were completed, it might have been too late to obtain those attractions.
Similarly, there is an urgent need for the tourism marketing program. To have it stalled for months or years while an environmental study was done -- and then subjected to legal challenge if its findings were favorable -- would be intolerable.
The best outcome would be for the Sierra Club suit to be dismissed. If it isn't, the Legislature should change the law.
Ruling on pay raises
A state judge has ruled that the law prohibiting negotiations on pay increases for public employees for two years is unconstitutional. That is a victory for the public worker unions. But it may not be much of a victory.
Governor Cayetano has warned that if arbitrators award raises to the union members he will finance the payments by laying off employees. The unions wouldn't like that, of course. The governor has proposed elimination of the arbitration provision for all public workers except police and firefighters.
The Hawaii Government Employees Association is currently in negotiations with the state and is about to go into arbitration. The arbitrators are expected to reach a decision on increases for its 23,000 members by March.
Senate President Norman Mizuguchi suggested that if a four-year contract was approved the increases might be made in the third and fourth years of the contract. But House Speaker Calvin Say rejected that idea.
The Legislature, in approving the ban on pay negotiations, was responding to the fact that the state can't afford raises. The court ruling doesn't alter that fact.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
