Didn't feel it needs its own thread as it pretty much reinforces the article above:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/west-explosion/headlines/20130423-why-didn-t-2400-tons-of-ammonium-nitrate-at-west-plant-raise-concerns.ece
Snips from various parts of the article:
The notation in a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality permit form apparently raised no concerns, either internally or with other agencies, about explosion risks or the proper management of a chemical already notorious in Texas history for its deadly qualities when heated to extreme temperatures or exposed to shock.
Other agencies that knew about the dangerous stockpile also failed to pose such questions to their peers, records and interviews indicate.
No such scrutiny
But the regulatory scrutiny for ammonium nitrate storage that Shaw outlined does not exist.
The federal pipeline agency governs only transportation, not storage. And the head of the state chemist’s office, Tim Herrman, said his agency has no legal authority or expertise to pursue fire or explosive safety at places that store ammonium nitrate
.
Uniform rules lacking
There are no uniform federal rules for ammonium nitrate storage, and state rules vary.
AT A GLANCE: What they do
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: An independent agency that regulates air and water pollution, toxic waste, drinking-water systems, water-supply rights, some environmentally related occupational licenses and other areas. The agency says it does not evaluate fire or explosive risks of ammonium nitrate fertilizer; it says that is the job of the Office of the Texas State Chemist.
Office of the Texas State Chemist: An arm of Texas A&M University that regulates the quality and purity of grains and fertilizers and keeps records of ammonium nitrate fertilizer stocks for national security purposes. The agency says it has no authority or expertise to regulate the fire and explosive risk of storing the chemical.
Italics: Emphasis is mine.
= new reply since forum marked as read