The English-speaking people of the world aren't always as smart as, say, Stephen Hawking who writes about cosmic stuff like time, black holes and the universe, but wouldn't you think the people in charge of U.S. security would at least be able to measure distance?
I'm not talking about the distance from earth to the moon or anything hard like that. Just a few feet is all I'm talking about here.
It might startle you to learn that the U.S.-Mexico border fencing fuss has resulted in something so funny that nobody could possibly make it up, not even Dave Barry or Erma Bombeck.
I hope you're sitting because otherwise, you might fall down from laughing as you read on.
It seems that a 1.5 mile barrier along the border has been discovered to have been erected on the wrong side. That's right, you heard me. It was mistakenly built inside Mexico's boundaries instead of on the border.
Embarrassed U.S. border officials aren't sure if it's one foot or maybe it could be six feet inside the Mexican border. For one thing, isn't it about time these officials converted feet into centimeters like the rest of the world so everybody doesn't have to stop what he's doing and look it up?
I just looked it up and what they've done is put the fence from 3.28 meters to as much as 19.69 meters on the wrong side.
You've got to love North Americans. These mistakes seem much funnier if you do.
The barrier in question was part of more than 15 miles (that would convert to 24.14 kilometers) of border fence built in the year 2000 (no conversion necessary) stretching from Columbus, New Mexico, to James Johnson's onion farm.
Johnson places the blame for this screw-up on his forefathers who put up a barbed wire fence back in the 19th century and seemingly were unable top draw a straight line between two points. Sure, try telling that to the Mexican farmer on whose land great, great, great, great grandpa stuck his fence a couple of hundred years ago. "It was a mistake," says Johnson. Well, yeah.
Now we have a bunch of bureaucrats on both sides of the border getting into the act. The U.S.A. spokesman for Customs and Border Protection, Michael Friel, said the barrier was "built on what was known to be the international boundary at the time." He acknowledged to Fox News that the method used was "less precise than it is today." Brilliant deduction.
The International Boundary and Water Commission, a joint Mexican-American group that administers the 2,000-mile-long (3,218.68 kilometers) border, said the border has never changed and is marked every few miles by tall concrete or metal markers. I guess Mr. Johnson's great, great, great, great, etc. granddaddy failed to notice them.
According to Fox, Sally Spener, a commission spokeswoman in El Paso said the agency is generally consulted for construction projects to ensure that treaties are followed. The commission is working with the Department of Homeland Security "to develop a standardized protocol" for building fences and barriers.
"We just want to make sure those things are clear now," Spener said. Well, dearie, they aren't clear at all. Nobody knows what you're talking about; even the other bureaucrats are confused.
The super polite Mexican government sent a nice note to the U.S.A. asking for its land to be returned. "Our country will continue insisting for the removal to be done as quickly as possible," said the Foreign Relations Department in its diplomatic missive to Washington.
Mr. Johnson is not happy and said he doesn't understand why the placement of the barriers has become an issue. "The markers are in the right place, and the fence is crooked," Johnson said. Maybe granddaddy was looped that night.
The media is reporting that "the mistake could cost the federal government more than $3 million to fix."
Note that the taxpayer is referred to by the generic title, "the federal government," like the taxpayer can't figure out that it's really him.
All we have to do to get a laugh these days is read the border directives coming out of Washington. And this time, we can measure the laughs in either miles or kilometers.
www.maggievanostrand.com
Maggie Van Ostrand's award-winning humor column appears in local hard copy newspapers and online publications in the United States, Mexico and Canada.
Her articles appear regularly in the Chicago Tribune, and have appeared in the Boston Globe, Newsday, the Philadelpha Inquirer, Amarillo Globe-News, Sun-Sentinel, and many other national newspapers, as well as national and niche magazines.
A prolific writer, Maggie churns out three humor and one human interest columns weekly, plus a monthly humor column.
She is a member of National Society of Newspaper Columnists, the Erma Bombeck Writers Workshop, and the Society of Women Writers and Journalists in the U.K.
Maggie was also a judge of the worldwide Erma Bombeck Writers' Contest in 2004, 2005 and 2006, and judge of 2007 Arizona Press Club Award for journalism.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Maggie_Van_Ostrand
Friday, July 13, 2007
Update on Revisions of Appendix A, 6 CFR part 27
Last month, during the Chemical Sector Security Summit (June 11 thru 13, 2007) in Falls Church, VA, Lawrence Stanton, Director, Chemical Security Compliance Division, took part in a discussion with Gregory Minchak the Manager of Communications and Public Relations for SOCMA (a chemical manufacturer's organization) that was podcast for SOCMA. DHS recently posted a transcript of that conversation on their web site.
One of the things that was covered in their discussion was the revision of Appendix A, Chemicals of Concern, for the new Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) regulation (6 CFR part 27). The draft of this appendix was published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2007 and the comment period closed on May 9, 2007. It was expected that the final revised version would be published a little after June 8, 2007. It has not yet been published.
During the comment period for the draft Appendix there were three major issues raised: The Screening Threshold Quantity (STQ) for Propane (the propane industry thought that it was way too low), lack of definition for dealing with chemical mixtures, and the 'Any Quantity' STQ for many chemicals that were related to chemical weapons manufacture. A number of legitimate questions were also made about how to deal with very small quantities of the 'Any Quantity' chemicals that were found in school and hospital labs around the country.
Early indications were that there was not going to be any major revisions to this list of chemicals or the STQ listed in the draft. This was based on the amounts listed in the Top Screen User's Manual published on June 8th. There were no changes to any of the STQs that had been listed in the draft. There was nothing dealing with mixtures. The only changes to the 'Any Quantity' STQ was that the words were missing from the tables, but they had not been replaced with any thing else.
Director Stanton made a number of points in this interview about the revised Appendix A. First he assured everyone that all of the comments were seriously considered and substantial revisions were being made to Appendix A based on many of the comments. Secondly, the revised Appendix A would be issued in the near future; no specific time was given.
In regards to the mixture questions Director Stanton replied: "...what we have done as a response in a lot of the comment we've received is we have developed a specific mixture rule for each specific chemical wherever the need for such a mixture rule was evident to us." He also indicated that if a more complex, or authoritative rule was found to be necessary, they would develop one over the next year or so.
This was the only thing that was specifically discussed about Appendix A other than Director Stanton assuring everyone that DHS had carefully reviewed the 6,000 plus pages of comments that they had received and had made appropriate changes. In his words the revised Appendix A: "...is going to be a very good, very easy to understand, very useful and very effective tool, and we think that industry is going to be quite pleased with it."
If there have been substantial changes to the STQ, the Top Screen User's Manual will have to undergo some revisions. The advent of mixture rules for selected chemicals will almost certainly require revisions. That may be what is holding up the release of the revised Appendix A. For most facilities the 60 day clock to complete their initial Top Screen starts on the day Appendix A is published. DHS may want to insure that the revised Top Screen and its manual are firmly in place before publishing Appendix A.
The original Top Screen User's Manual had to be in place on June 8th because DHS expected to direct a number of chemical companies previously identified as being potentially high risk facilities (most probably refineries, LPG facilities, and producers of Inhalation Hazard chemicals) to start the Top Screen Process. Most of those Top Screen's should have been completed by now. The new version of Appendix A should be published anytime.
Patrick J. Coyle has 15 years experience with the US Army, including a stint as a Physical Security NCO in Europe. He has also spent 12 years working as a Process Chemist is a specialty chemical manufacturing company.
Further information about the new regulations concerning protecting chemical plants from terrorist attack can be found at http://www.members.aol.com/ChemPlantSec/ChemPlantSecurity.htm
Transcript: http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/gc_1183756213780.shtm
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Patrick_Coyle
One of the things that was covered in their discussion was the revision of Appendix A, Chemicals of Concern, for the new Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) regulation (6 CFR part 27). The draft of this appendix was published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2007 and the comment period closed on May 9, 2007. It was expected that the final revised version would be published a little after June 8, 2007. It has not yet been published.
During the comment period for the draft Appendix there were three major issues raised: The Screening Threshold Quantity (STQ) for Propane (the propane industry thought that it was way too low), lack of definition for dealing with chemical mixtures, and the 'Any Quantity' STQ for many chemicals that were related to chemical weapons manufacture. A number of legitimate questions were also made about how to deal with very small quantities of the 'Any Quantity' chemicals that were found in school and hospital labs around the country.
Early indications were that there was not going to be any major revisions to this list of chemicals or the STQ listed in the draft. This was based on the amounts listed in the Top Screen User's Manual published on June 8th. There were no changes to any of the STQs that had been listed in the draft. There was nothing dealing with mixtures. The only changes to the 'Any Quantity' STQ was that the words were missing from the tables, but they had not been replaced with any thing else.
Director Stanton made a number of points in this interview about the revised Appendix A. First he assured everyone that all of the comments were seriously considered and substantial revisions were being made to Appendix A based on many of the comments. Secondly, the revised Appendix A would be issued in the near future; no specific time was given.
In regards to the mixture questions Director Stanton replied: "...what we have done as a response in a lot of the comment we've received is we have developed a specific mixture rule for each specific chemical wherever the need for such a mixture rule was evident to us." He also indicated that if a more complex, or authoritative rule was found to be necessary, they would develop one over the next year or so.
This was the only thing that was specifically discussed about Appendix A other than Director Stanton assuring everyone that DHS had carefully reviewed the 6,000 plus pages of comments that they had received and had made appropriate changes. In his words the revised Appendix A: "...is going to be a very good, very easy to understand, very useful and very effective tool, and we think that industry is going to be quite pleased with it."
If there have been substantial changes to the STQ, the Top Screen User's Manual will have to undergo some revisions. The advent of mixture rules for selected chemicals will almost certainly require revisions. That may be what is holding up the release of the revised Appendix A. For most facilities the 60 day clock to complete their initial Top Screen starts on the day Appendix A is published. DHS may want to insure that the revised Top Screen and its manual are firmly in place before publishing Appendix A.
The original Top Screen User's Manual had to be in place on June 8th because DHS expected to direct a number of chemical companies previously identified as being potentially high risk facilities (most probably refineries, LPG facilities, and producers of Inhalation Hazard chemicals) to start the Top Screen Process. Most of those Top Screen's should have been completed by now. The new version of Appendix A should be published anytime.
Patrick J. Coyle has 15 years experience with the US Army, including a stint as a Physical Security NCO in Europe. He has also spent 12 years working as a Process Chemist is a specialty chemical manufacturing company.
Further information about the new regulations concerning protecting chemical plants from terrorist attack can be found at http://www.members.aol.com/ChemPlantSec/ChemPlantSecurity.htm
Transcript: http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/gc_1183756213780.shtm
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Patrick_Coyle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)