In testimony today in the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, Marty Durbin of the American Chemistry Council explained that “More than 96 percent of all manufactured goods are directly touched by the business of chemistry.”
Durbin’s testimony didn’t mention agriculture, farming or ranching, all of which are of great importance to the economy of Kansas, but they could all be affected by the proposed changes in Congress.
Today the House Homeland Security Committee was considering whether to extend the current Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) law, or make controversial modifications to it, which could affect farming and almost all industries.
If you’re not familiar with how chemistry and farming are related, take a look at this old 1892 book, “Chemistry of Farming for Practical Farmers.” Obviously the chemistry of farming has been studied for a very long time and has advanced greatly since then. Farming today is quite dependent on a number of chemical products and processes, ranging from fertilizers to insecticides and pesticides.
The modification to the CFATS law opposed by many in the chemical industry involves granting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the authority to mandate changes to chemical products or processes. Marty Durbin told Congress today:
…we believe the provision that would give DHS authority to mandate process changes is unnecessary. Through its use of risk-based performance standards, CFATS essentially drives each facility to consider all possible risk reduction options – including “methods to reduce consequences” or “inherently safer” approaches when developing a site security plan.
A fair amount of discussion around inherently safer approaches and chemical security has tended to focus on the consideration of chemical substitution. It is important to remember the inherent value or benefit of chemicals like chlorine to modern society. For example, there are no chlorine-free processes that produce silicon of the purity required for products such as integrated circuits. Nor is there an economically viable chlorine-free route to the production of titanium. In these instances, you cannot simply eliminate potential security risks, you must work to manage or mitigate them.
Testimony also today from the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA) explained the flawed logic of “inherently safer technology” (IST) and giving bureaucrats the control over changing chemical products and processes:
SOCMA argued that IST would fundamentally change the way chemical site security is achieved within the federal regulatory system. It would remove decisions about risk from those at facilities who manage it every day to a government bureaucrat in Washington who may be under qualified to make such decisions. Another change caused by IST would be toward a hazard-based approach, derived from environmental laws like the European Union’s REACH regulation, which is entirely unlike the risk-based approach being implemented today to protect facilities against attack.
Supporters of IST claim a chemical is “safer” anytime the suggested alternative may have less off-site impact in the case of a worst-case scenario release. This is a very narrow, if not naïve, view of how the hazards in a chemical manufacturing process should be assessed.
As an example of an unintended, negative consequence of IST, SOCMA explained the possible impact to generic and prescription drugs if manufacturers of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) were required to substitute a “safer” chemical in their processes. Introducing an alternative to an API process would certainly have impacts on the supply and possibly the effectiveness of the consumer drugs for which they are intended, as it takes years before an API is ready for Food and Drug Administration approval and subsequent manufacture.
Hector Rivero from the Texas Chemical Council explained his view of the proposed legislation:
The proposed regulations also go beyond security protections by placing mandates on American manufacturers as to which products and process they use. These mandates will be imposed without any regard for practicality, availability or cost. If current provisions of the proposed bill are implemented, unemployment will shoot even higher and consumers may see prices for everyday consumer products skyrocket.
The chemical industry understands the importance of operating safe and secure manufacturing facilities. However, this can be accomplished without compromising our economic security.
One group that thinks IST is a good idea is the “progressive” Center for American Progress, who recently published the overview New Strategies to Protect America: Securing our Nation’s Chemical Facilities. This group acknowledges economical limitations in some of their proposals:
Substitution may not be immediately economically feasible for companies that manufacture acutely toxic chemicals as products. However, the government should develop financial incentives – including tax breaks, upfront low-interest loans or homeland security grants – for research and development of safer alternatives.
The Center for American Progress worries about economical damages from terrorism at a chemical plant:
Industry needs to adapt its facilities and operations based on the real possibility that intruders will deliberately try to kill or injure as many people as possible, destroy as much property as possible, and instill panic and economic disruption within major communities.
But, shouldn’t we also worry about damage to the economy and loss of jobs caused by imposed federal regulations from modifications to the existing CFATS law? Shouldn’t economics, engineering and science also be considered in changes imposed by DHS on chemical plants?
The federal government continues its push for unprecedented control of more aspects of our lives while there is little public discussion of the changes and consequences. The mainstream press is mostly ignoring changes being discussed now in Congress regarding chemical security, which could have a huge impact on most industries, including ones important to Kansas.
Shouldn’t Kansans speak up about more federal controls that may affect Kansas farms? Don’t Kansas farmers know more about farming than federal bureaucrats?
Related:
- Extend law that regulates chemical-facility security, Houston Chronicle, June 17, 2009.
- Current chemical security regulations should be reauthorized, Voice for Liberty in Wichita, June 17, 2009.
- Senior Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Protect Chemical Facilities, redOrbit, June 16, 2009.
- In the World of Chemical Security, the Real World, ShopFloor, June 16, 2009.
- Associations urge Congress to renew chemical facility security law, Oil & Gas Journal, June 16, 2009.
- ACC to Congress: America Needs Permanent Chemical Facility Security Regulations, PR Web, June 16, 2009.
- US site security law likely to have safer technology mandate, ICIS, June 15, 2009.
- Do we want Homeland Security telling businesses how to run their businesses? Telling farmers how to farm?, Kansas Meadowlark, June 12, 2009.
- New Strategies to Protect America: Securing our Nation’s Chemical Facilities, Center for American Progress.
- National Petrochemical & Refiners Association Study Examines Realities of “Inherently Safer Technology”
- Inherently Safer Technology (IST), Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates
- Follow CFATS (or #CFATS) or ChemSecurity (or #chemsecurity) on Twitter
Tags: CFATS, Chemical Facility Security Authorization Act, chemical security, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, farming, inherently safer technology, IST, regulation
