because Texas has LOW regulations!
***********
For what it’s worth regarding regulations Texas isn’t the only one with regulations involved in this explosion.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/20/us-usa-explosion-regulation-idUSBRE93J09N20130420
snip:
Fertilizer plants and depots must report to the DHS when they hold 400 lb (180 kg) or more of the substance. Filings this year with the Texas Department of State Health Services, which weren’t shared with DHS, show the plant had 270 tons of it on hand last year.
A U.S. congressman and several safety experts called into question on Friday whether incomplete disclosure or regulatory gridlock may have contributed to the disaster.
******
Apart from the DHS, the West Fertilizer site was subject to a hodgepodge of regulation by the EPA, OSHA, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Texas Department of State Health Services, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Office of the Texas State Chemist.
But the material is exempt from some mainstays of U.S. chemicals safety programs. For instance, the EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP) requires companies to submit plans describing their handling and storage of certain hazardous chemicals. Ammonium nitrate is not among the chemicals that must be reported.
In its RMP filings, West Fertilizer reported on its storage of anhydrous ammonia and said that it did not expect a fire or explosion to affect the facility, even in a worst-case scenario. And it had not installed safeguards such as blast walls around the plant.
A separate EPA program, known as Tier II, requires reporting of ammonium nitrate and other hazardous chemicals stored above certain quantities. Tier II reports are submitted to local fire departments and emergency planning and response groups to help them plan for and respond to chemical disasters. In Texas, the reports are collected by the Department of State Health Services. Over the last seven years, according to reports West Fertilizer filed, 2012 was the only time the company stored ammonium nitrate at the facility.
It reported having 270 tons on site.
***********
end snips
What is not mentioned, and may or may not be applicable, are the requirements of the plant insurance carrier. The insurance industry, particularly the highly protected risk (HPR) segment has well known and published standards for ammonium nitrate storage that often form the basis for code making organizations. This however, appears to be a change of hazard that requires reporting to the underwriter.
There are plenty of regulations as you illustrate but no regulation can guarantee that they are properly implemented, enforced and guarantee a 100% risk free environment. The principle of diminishing return also applies. California's pursuit of being 100% risk free, if that is what the seek, is both theoretically impossible and can be overwhelmingly expensive. They will get their risk-free state by driving every risk out, and that means all human activity.