15 July 2010 17:01 [Source: ICIS news]
By Joe Kamalick
Lawrence Stanton, a senior technical advisor on infrastructure protection at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), told the recent chemical sector security summit that “we are working to develop a new approach that could be utilised regardless of whether legislation to require IST implementation is enacted”.
“By starting the process and research now,” he said, “we can adapt implementation to reflect a mandate from Congress if and when that decision is made.”
Legislation to expand the existing Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) was approved by the US House late last year, including a mandate for IST measures as part of security precautions at high-risk sites.
No parallel legislation has been introduced in the US Senate, but the principal proponents of tougher security rules for chemical plants - Senators Joe Lieberman (Independent-Connecticut) and Frank Lautenberg (Democrat-New Jersey) - favour an IST mandate.
Such a mandate is widely opposed by the chemicals sector, whose officials fear it would give the department authority to force changes in a given facility’s feedstocks, processes or even end products.
For example, he said, a facility can reduce its risk or “tier” level under the rules - or even avoid CFATS jurisdiction entirely - by reducing or changing its chemical holdings or consolidating multiple high-risk operations to a single site.
The new approach to IST as a security measure prior to a specific congressional mandate could help define a role for inherently safer technologies,
“A structured programme to ‘Consider, Document and Report (CDR)’ IST-type options would allow DHS to begin understanding the options and processes in context,” he said.
“Let’s postulate that any ‘IST Option’ could include any or all of the following,”
He also emphasised that the department does not plan to roll out an IST consideration requirement without obtaining input from the chemicals industry, and he invited executives at the summit and others in the chemicals sector to offer suggestions.
“We don’t think we can do this without industry input,”
“It was a surprise,” said Bill Allmond, vice president for government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), who heard
“I question how much authority they have to do this” without a congressional mandate, Allmond said.
“Our position remains that we support the current CFATS, and our priority is to get the Collins five-year extension of the existing rules,” Allmond added, referring to the bipartisan bill authored by Senator Susan Collins of
“We are much more interested in ensuring that the Collins bill gets passed and less interested in how to make IST do-able, whether in a dialogue with Congress or a dialogue with DHS,” Allmond added.
“It would be best for DHS, if they’re planning an IST provision, that they make it public, make a formal proposal and publish it in the Federal Register, so that people can weigh in on it,” he said.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) also weighed in against any sort of interim IST requirements, saying in a letter to the department that it should not add a “Consider, Document and Report” element to the regulatory requirement for site security plans.
“The envisioned documentation and reporting steps would likely require information far beyond what DHS needs to evaluate whether an SSP satisfies risk-based performance standards,” said council president Cal Dooley.
“We believe that a burdensome CDR programme would actually slow the pace of security risk reduction in the chemical industry,” he added.
Like SOCMA’s Allmond, Dooley questioned whether the department “has the authority to implement an IST requirement without formal notice and comment rulemaking in the Federal Register”.
Jim Cooper, petrochemicals vice president at the National Petrochemicals & Refiners Association (NPRA), said he understood that DHS might ask his trade group about the proposed IST approach, “but we have not been approached formally”.
“The first thing is that our stance on IST hasn’t changed,” Cooper said. “We don’t think it is appropriate to regulate inherently safer technology because you can’t measure it.”
“The statute doesn’t provide that authority” for an IST consideration requirement, Cooper said, “but it doesn’t say that they can’t do something like that, and I think that’s the way DHS is looking at it.”
But, he added, “we don’t really know what they’re thinking about just yet.”
In response to questions about a possible IST consideration policy, a DHS official said this week that “There are no current plans nor is there a timeline to implement an IST consideration proposal or policy”.
Citing comments received thus far from industry “expressing concern about this issue,” the DHS official said the department will be clarifying its position in writing.
Department spokesman Chris Ortman said: “In an effort to enhance the security and resiliency of our nation’s high-risk chemical facilities, the department seeks to expand the understanding of inherently safer technology solutions in the context of risk management”.
He said DHS “continues to engage our chemical sector partners in a dialogue around this and other issues”.
To discuss issues facing the chemical industry go to ICIS connect
For the latest chemical news, data and analysis that directly impacts your business sign up for a free trial to ICIS news - the breaking online news service for the global chemical industry.
Get the facts and analysis behind the headlines from our market leading weekly magazine: sign up to a free trial to ICIS Chemical Business.
|ICIS news FREE TRIAL|
|Get access to breaking chemical news as it happens.|
|ICIS Global Petrochemical Index (IPEX)|
|ICIS Global Petrochemical Index (IPEX). Download the free tabular data and a chart of the historical index|