Rinchem’s own safety filings model a toxic plume that could reach more than 73,000 people, including schools, neighborhoods and the planned detention center.
Thanks for your ‘in the weeds’ reporting that no one else cares enough to do. I totally trust your editorial and publishing sensitivities, so I’m not expecting you to post what’s below, but hoping maybe you will put a bhg in Indivisible’s ear. I’ll also submit it to their comments portal.
Bob
_____________
Cpmment:
The controversy surrounding the juxtaposition of a building occupied by a thousand or so people with a toxic chemicals storage facility can only be controversial if the building’s occupants have retained their humanity. Apparently, ICE does not see a controversy. Fortunately, ICE does not get to decide.
As a former military helicopter pilot and an attorney, I am trained to take full account of emergency procedures that might never be required or newly discovered information that affects the merits of a matter. So, my first question about warehouses-to-human occupancy as a solution to mass detentions was how would ICE handle emergency evacuations? In the Surprise , Arizona matter reported above, the fire official, Mr. Faraclas, seems to believe he’s a passive reacter and must conform to whatever ICE proposes in the matter of emergency planning for the cuilding.
Not so.
Federal law puts Faraclas in charge. Here’s the telling reporting:
"A general emergency plan already exists for the Rinchem facility, Faraclas said, and his department has reviewed it. But that plan covers the chemical company alone. The detention center, he said, “would prepare its own general emergency or evacuation plan” — a separate document, not yet written, that the operator would produce on its own.
Asked what it would take to protect people who cannot evacuate themselves if an accident occurred, Faraclas said his department would coordinate with the facility’s managers at the time. “No such conversation has taken place at this time,” he wrote. He said the department is responsible for emergency planning in the area and that the work is “ongoing.” "
That’s a rather tepid response under the circumstances. Federal agencies are required to respond to state fire protection planning and enforcement, not the other way around as Faraclas seemas tto believe. Such plans are prepared and reviewed by appropriate local fire officials. 15 USC § 2227(f) states:
"(f) Prefire plan
The head of any Federal agency that owns, leases, or operates a building or housing unit with Federal funds shall invite the local agency or voluntary organization having responsibility for fire protection in the jurisdiction where the building or housing unit is located to prepare, and biennially review, a prefire plan for the building or housing unit."
To assure no other state or local requirements are adversely affectred, subsection (e) states:
"(e) State and local authority not limited
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the power of any State or political subdivision thereof to implement or enforce any law, rule, regulation, or standard that establishes requirements concerning fire prevention and control. Nothing in this section shall be construed to reduce fire resistance requirements which otherwise would have been required."
It is natural and logical that high-risk responders would have the righjt and duty to prepare, enforce, and regularly review the plans they will bear the brunt of executing.
Fire officials are responsible for enforcing local fire codes with respect to Federal buildings to assure as safe as possible emergency evacuation of each affected person. There are strict pre-emergency requirements regarding occupancy loads, sprinkler systems, fire drills, alarms, personnel training, emergency lighting, portable suppression/extinguishing equipment, door swings, door handles, building materials, egress routes (iength, height and width), movement of the non-ambulatory, discharge exits, and occupant access to safe areas available to the general public. All this is to assure the safety and respect the humanity of each person involved.
Local fire officials have a lot to—and often the final—say about the design, construction, and use of every federal building, It’s possible that ICE has taken all that into account, but the current record does not reflect it nor does ICE’s past performance. Accordingly, fire plans must reflect ground truth determined by code-compliant construction and inspection before operational occupancy. Moreover, the emergency evacuation planning is specific to the Federal facility, not just the area surrounding it.
Ice is buying two facilities in San Antonio. I am infuriated and our community needs to take action now.
Ok....? Start it.😷Get mad!!
Hey Michael, have you heard of this group? is there a way to partner w/ them & incorporate it into GTFOICE? It looks like they would go well together.
https://gillianbrockell.com/habeas-flight-watch-new-tool-helps-track-ice-flights-to-your-city/
Yes! They’re on our outreach list, and we’ve previously worked with them. Can’t get too far ahead of myself yet, but hopefully more to come, soon.
👏🏻❗
https://bsky.app/profile/defiant-action.bsky.social/post/3mnd6fbmpxc2v
INDIVISIBLE HAS PROVIDED A LINK TO CONTACT YOUR GOP CONGRESS MEMBERS-🚨TODAY!
NO MORE FUNDING FOR ICE
Michael,
Thanks for your ‘in the weeds’ reporting that no one else cares enough to do. I totally trust your editorial and publishing sensitivities, so I’m not expecting you to post what’s below, but hoping maybe you will put a bhg in Indivisible’s ear. I’ll also submit it to their comments portal.
Bob
_____________
Cpmment:
The controversy surrounding the juxtaposition of a building occupied by a thousand or so people with a toxic chemicals storage facility can only be controversial if the building’s occupants have retained their humanity. Apparently, ICE does not see a controversy. Fortunately, ICE does not get to decide.
As a former military helicopter pilot and an attorney, I am trained to take full account of emergency procedures that might never be required or newly discovered information that affects the merits of a matter. So, my first question about warehouses-to-human occupancy as a solution to mass detentions was how would ICE handle emergency evacuations? In the Surprise , Arizona matter reported above, the fire official, Mr. Faraclas, seems to believe he’s a passive reacter and must conform to whatever ICE proposes in the matter of emergency planning for the cuilding.
Not so.
Federal law puts Faraclas in charge. Here’s the telling reporting:
"A general emergency plan already exists for the Rinchem facility, Faraclas said, and his department has reviewed it. But that plan covers the chemical company alone. The detention center, he said, “would prepare its own general emergency or evacuation plan” — a separate document, not yet written, that the operator would produce on its own.
Asked what it would take to protect people who cannot evacuate themselves if an accident occurred, Faraclas said his department would coordinate with the facility’s managers at the time. “No such conversation has taken place at this time,” he wrote. He said the department is responsible for emergency planning in the area and that the work is “ongoing.” "
That’s a rather tepid response under the circumstances. Federal agencies are required to respond to state fire protection planning and enforcement, not the other way around as Faraclas seemas tto believe. Such plans are prepared and reviewed by appropriate local fire officials. 15 USC § 2227(f) states:
"(f) Prefire plan
The head of any Federal agency that owns, leases, or operates a building or housing unit with Federal funds shall invite the local agency or voluntary organization having responsibility for fire protection in the jurisdiction where the building or housing unit is located to prepare, and biennially review, a prefire plan for the building or housing unit."
To assure no other state or local requirements are adversely affectred, subsection (e) states:
"(e) State and local authority not limited
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the power of any State or political subdivision thereof to implement or enforce any law, rule, regulation, or standard that establishes requirements concerning fire prevention and control. Nothing in this section shall be construed to reduce fire resistance requirements which otherwise would have been required."
It is natural and logical that high-risk responders would have the righjt and duty to prepare, enforce, and regularly review the plans they will bear the brunt of executing.
Fire officials are responsible for enforcing local fire codes with respect to Federal buildings to assure as safe as possible emergency evacuation of each affected person. There are strict pre-emergency requirements regarding occupancy loads, sprinkler systems, fire drills, alarms, personnel training, emergency lighting, portable suppression/extinguishing equipment, door swings, door handles, building materials, egress routes (iength, height and width), movement of the non-ambulatory, discharge exits, and occupant access to safe areas available to the general public. All this is to assure the safety and respect the humanity of each person involved.
Local fire officials have a lot to—and often the final—say about the design, construction, and use of every federal building, It’s possible that ICE has taken all that into account, but the current record does not reflect it nor does ICE’s past performance. Accordingly, fire plans must reflect ground truth determined by code-compliant construction and inspection before operational occupancy. Moreover, the emergency evacuation planning is specific to the Federal facility, not just the area surrounding it.
Robert E. Little, Jr.
702-966-1568
@boblittle1013