On May 19 the “Chemical Facility Security Authorization Act of 2009″ was introduced in Congress simply to extend an existing law to October 2012, which was put into effect in June 2007.
But, in draft legislation dated June 4, 2009, the House Homeland Security Committee revised this simple time extension and may be proposing next week to give Homeland Security broad new authority to control products and processes in the chemical industry.
“(12) The term ‘method to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack’ means a measure used at a chemical facility that reduces or eliminates the potential consequences of a chemical facility terrorist incident, including-
‘‘(A) the elimination or reduction in the amount of a substance of concern possessed or planned to be possessed by an owner or operator of a covered chemical facility through the use of alternate substances, formulations, or processes;
‘‘(B) the modification of pressures, temperatures, or concentrations of a substance of concern; …”
Do we want a government bureaucracy mandating product substitutions, formulations and process changes based on bureaucratic ideas of safety?
In recent months Congress has taken control over banks, insurance and auto companies. Do we need or want new legislation that would enable more federal control of the chemical industry, too?
Many industry associations want the law extended, not revised
More than 30 groups representing broad American businesses and local city services are asking members of Congress to extend the existing law, instead of giving the Department of Homeland Security broad new authority to control the chemical industry.
This group of associations in a letter to members of Congress is saying:
… we strongly urge you to oppose disrupting this security program by adding provisions that would mandate government-favored substitutions, weaken protection of sensitive information, impose stifling penalties for administrative errors, create conflicts with other security standards or move away from a performance (or risk-based) approach. …
Our top concern is that legislation could go beyond security protections by creating a mandate to substitute products and processes with a government-selected technology. Congressional testimony found that this could actually increase risk to the businesses that the bill intends to protect. Such a standard is not measurable and would likely lead to confusion, loss of viable products, prohibitive legal liability, and business failures.
Of interest to those in Kansas, some of the farm-related associations signing this letter include:
- Agriculture Retailers Association
- American Farm Bureau Federation
- Croplife America
- International Dairy Foods Association
- Midwest Food Processors Association
- National Oilseed Processors Association
- National American Millers’ Association
- Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Assn
- The Fertilizer Institute
What could happen to agriculture?
From the Agribusiness Freedom Foundation:
But interference with product formulation and the complicated processes worked out scientifically over years of research and experience is not the proper purview of government security regulators or environmental activists. It is a separate issue from security and terrorism. Such interference is more likely to create new manufacturing and worker safety hazards – another issue.
There are literally no known substitutes with the action and affordability of some key ingredients fertilizer manufacturers feel are threatened. Interfering with the supply of certain nutrients farmers need for specific crop and soil requirements is inappropriate, the Fertilizer Institute said. Forcing product substitution could jeopardize the availability of lower- cost plant nutrients farmers and ranchers need. …
The upshot for agriculture could be tighter and more expensive supplies – or the lack of key chemical products – to raise the crops and livestock Americans depend on.
Who is pushing for more government control of the chemical industry?
One group pushing for more government control of the chemical industry is the Center for American Progress. The executive summary in their Chemical Security 101 from Nov 2008 says:
Most of the nation’s 101 most dangerous chemical facilities could become less attractive terrorist targets by converting to alternative chemicals or processes
This 57-page report only mentions the word “economical” three times, with two of the references in the endnotes. Here is the single “economical” reference in the body of the report:
Indeed, converting to safer, more secure technologies may provide the most economical solution to chemical security. According to survey findings from the Center for American Progress, 76 of 226 facilities (34 percent) that recently adopted safer alternatives expected to save money as a result, and half did not anticipate any increase in costs
Note the analysis by the Center for American Progress only cites “survey findings” to justify their “economical solution” via a change to “more secure” technologies.
Where is the engineering analysis? Where is the analysis by expert economists in collaboration with engineers? Wouldn’t engineering and economic analysis be far more conclusive than a survey?
If authorized by Congress, DHS could consider mandating “alternative chemicals or processes” without engineering and economical analysis.
The Center for American Progress is a liberal think tank in Washington, DC. What is their stated goal? From their IRS 990 (2007):
“To promote progressive ideas and rebut those of conservatives”
Some notable names on their board of directors (IRS 990 from 2007) include:
- Peter B Lewis, with connections to Moveon.org and Media Matters. See Muckety chart.
- John Podesta. See Muckety chart.
- Marion Sandler. See Muckety chart.
- Tom Daschle. See Muckety chart.
What are the limitations in applying “Inherently Safer Technology”?
From James Cooper’s testimony submitted to the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (June 21, 2006):
Inherently Safer Technology (IST) is a philosophy that began in the late 1970’s. Its goal is to use traditional engineering, chemistry, and other scientific concepts to reduce the risks associated with chemical processing. Since its inception, IST has been ingrained as a normal part of the research and development (R&D) process development and manufacturing discipline in the chemical industry for many years.
Few terms in chemistry are as misunderstood as “inherently safer technology.” While ostensibly self-explanatory, the term as used in chemistry and engineering is not as easily understood by non-scientists. IST is a conceptual framework that covers chemical processing procedures, equipment, protection, and, when feasible, the use of safer substances. Many non-scientists have been led to believe that the only road to inherent safety is by way of reducing the amount of hazardous chemicals used in manufacturing and processing. IST, however, is limited by the laws of physics; a simple reduction in the use of hazardous chemicals is often not possible or may only result in the redistribution of risk, without actually reducing it.
What you can do
Consider telling your representative in Congress what you think about possible increased government control of the chemical industry through new Homeland Security regulations. Click here to let representatives know about Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act.
Related:
- US site security law likely to have safer technology mandate, ICIS.com, June 15, 2009.
- CFATA 2009 High Level Summary, Chemical Facility Security News, June 14, 2009.
- Regulation is expensive, Voice for Liberty in Wichita, June 8, 2009.
- Chemical facilities act would increase cost, not safety, Voice for Liberty in Wichita, June 4, 2009.
- Commentary: Taking chemical plant security in Pittsburgh seriously, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 26, 2009.
- Homeland Security To Regulate Farm and Ranch Inputs?, Agribusiness Freedom Foundation, May 22, 2009.
- Npra Applauds Proposal To Extend Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, NPRA, May 21, 2009.
- CFATS Summary — “30,000 Feet” View, Roberts Law Group PLCC: Homeland Security Law & Policy.
- Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, Department of Homeland Security
Tags: CFATS, Chemical Facility Security Authorization Act, chemical security, farming, Homeland Security, regulation
