2014 Chemical Sector Security Summit

Well, apparently you won’t publicly hear this from DHS, but they are holding the 2014 Chemical Sector Security Summit (CSSS) on July 22^nd thru the 24^th. SOCMA has their announcement up but there is no DHS site for the 2014 CSSS and the 2013 CSSS site returns an ‘Access Denied’ message as it has no for almost a month.

I actually heard about these dates over a week ago from a reader who thought that he might have received a phishing email. I tried to check it out with my normal PR contact, but my emails are not being returned again.

Anyway the SOCMA page provides the necessary information, though it is more focused on the Expo that they are holding in conjunction with the CSSS. Registration for the CSSS can be done here.

While ISCD Director Wulf has bragged about the outreach success of the CSSS in congressional hearings, it really looks like DHS is trying to phase out the CSSS. They provide less and less advance notice, continue to make information about the presentations hard to find, and wonder why fewer people are attending. I don’t think it will last much longer.

NOTE: DHS PR has contacted me with the link to to the DHS web site for the 2014CSSS - http://www.dhs.gov/2014-chemical-security-summit [2:20 CDT, 6-6-2014].

CFATS Reauthorization Update

There is an interesting blog post over at ChemicalProcessing.com by guest blogger Alexis Rudakewych from SOCMA. She looks at the status of three CFATS authorization bills that are wending their way through the legislative process. She pays particular attention to the procedural issues related to their passage.

SOCMA Deadline

She notes in her closing paragraph the concern of SOCMA that a reauthorization bill should be passed before Congress takes its scheduled fall recess on September 23rd. I’m not sure why SOCMA is setting this artificial deadline of getting reauthorization legislation passed this fiscal year. The House version of the DHS appropriations bill that is waiting Senate action contains a standard one-year extension. One would suppose that similar language would be included in any Senate bill that might finally make it through the inactive Senate Appropriations Committee (okay, ‘inactive’ may be misleading; how about ‘otherwise occupied’?). Such language was formally requested by Sen. Lieberman as I noted in an earlier posting.

In any case, the appropriations process will certainly ensure that the CFATS program continues through FY 2012. There is no reason that passage of a one-year extension in the appropriations bill should have any affect on implementation of any of the CFATS bills currently before Congress. Such an extension would take the pressure off any CFATS bill and that could make it easier to work out a compromise or it may stop work on the process. Its hard to tell at this point.

Now I certainly understand SOCMA’s concern that the CFATS program should be put on a firmer footing than depending on the politically charged appropriations process for authorization. While no one has suggested that the CFATS program should be canceled, money managers at covered facilities are concerned about making large security expenditures for a program that might not survive the depreciation schedule for their capital expenditures.

Political Issues

While Ms Rudakewych addresses the procedural issues involved in passage of a CFATS bill, she does not touch on any of the political issues involved. SOCMA has been a vocal industry critic of proposals for including such provisions as IST and public law suits. Such industry opposition was responsible for the failure to pass HR 2868 last session. Failure to address these issues may allow environmental and labor activists to stop passage of HR 901/908 or S 473 this session.

Interestingly it seems that this year the issue that may control final action in the House will have nothing to do with actual security measures. The reason for three separate House bills that essentially do the same thing (different lengths of time for the authorization being the closest thing to a difference in security measures) is that there is an internal House issue about personal political power; which Committee gets the authority to oversea the CFATS program.

SOCMA has been very careful not to pick sides in this debate as has most of the industry. Unfortunately ignoring this issue has done little to solve the problem. It is about time that this power sharing issue is publicly discussed.

In the Senate the political issues actually revolve around the CFATS issues that have been plaguing the chemical security discussion since almost 2001. IST has been probably the largest single sticking point with the two sides taking an all or nothing stance on the issue. Given the Senate rules it doesn’t appear that either side will be able to get enough votes to allow a straight up or down vote on IST.

This session industry appears to have a stronger political position in the debate, but it still looks like the environmental and labor advocates for IST have enough votes to prevent the passage of a cloture motion on the bill. I still think that compromise language is possible and I believe that industry is in a better position to push for compromise. Greenpeace and their friends have spent too much time demonizing the chemical industry to be able to justify compromise to their supporters.

Failure to publicly address these issues is going to insure that we will continue to rely on the DHS authorization process to keep the CFATS program working.

Reader Comment SOCMA Podcasts

An anonymous reader posted a comment to last weeks posting about the 2011 Chemical Sector Security Summit. Anonymous was responding to my suggestion that DHS provide video coverage of presentations at next year’s Summit, writing:

“Though it's far removed from video coverage, SOCMA posts podcasts on its website conducted with key DHS officials during the summit. You may have to register for access (can't recall) but there is no fee to download it.”

Anonymous is correct, SOCMA (who co-funded the 2010 Summit) provided a link to their Summit Podcast in their post-Summit review. The podcast includes comments from some of the presenters and Summit participants. I thought that I had covered this in one of my post-Summit blogs, but I can’t find any mention in my records.

SOCMA was one of the providers of information from the Summit this year and I hope they do the same next. Tweets and blog posts helped those of us who could not attend follow what was going on. Since this is supposed to be another method for DHS to keep the chemical security community updated on the CFATS process and other chemical security programs managed by DHS, I think it is important that the information be shared in as wide a variety of means as possible. SOCMA certainly helped this year, but it is really DHS’s job to make sure that this happens.

Again, I realize that there may be issues in providing video coverage of some of the industry presentations (though I think that most PR departments would look at it as free advertising), but that would not apply to the presentations made by Federal employees. I also understand that there might be concerns about inadvertent disclosure of security sensitive materials, but I’m not asking for live broadcasts. I would be happy if DHS just posted edited videos of the presentations on the Internet after the Summit is over, much the same way that they post the slides used in those presentations.

A major reason for DHS to sponsor this Summit is to ensure that the regulated community gets the information that they need to comply with the CFATS regulations. Since it is not possible for all covered facilities to have security team members attend this Summit, DHS has a responsibility to ensure that the information provided here has the widest possible dissemination. Providing copies of the slide presentations on their web site was a good move, but those slides are only a very minor component of the presentations. We need to hear the words, the voices of the presenters.

SOCMA Response

The folks at SOCMA did not take any time at all to come out with their response to the introduction of the new CFATS legislation by Sen. Lautenberg; it came out the same day. No one will be surprised that they are opposed to the IST mandate provisions included in the bill. While I have disagreed with SOCMA on occasion this response is a fair statement of their position and does propose a positive alternative to Lautenberg’s bill.

If this bill does actually start to move forward in the legislative process (unlikely in my opinion) I would hope that SOCMA and other chemical organizations would provide alternative suggestions for modifications of the bill to make it more acceptable to their interests. I fully understand their opposition to the IST provisions as written, but I am a firm believer in the process of politics and the art of compromise. I would hope that the industry would be part of that process.

S 2996 Mark-Up?

An article over on EPOnLine.com again mentions the possibility of Sen. Collins’ (R, ME) CFATS reauthorization bill (S 2996) being marked up in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. I mentioned an earlier claim for a mark-up being scheduled for this bill and I have also discussed what I thought would be necessary to get such a mark-up successfully completed in that Committee. It is almost too late now to get this bill (or any CFATS reauthorization bill) to the floor of the Senate before the summer recess in August, especially since we have the 4th of July ‘weekend’ (a week long weekend) coming up at the end of this week. While the Collins’ bill might get out of Committee I don’t believe that it would be considered (favorably or otherwise) on the floor of the Senate. The current level of mistrust for big chemical companies is just too high because of the BP leak in the Gulf. The rest of the article is a very interesting and readable account of the Chemical Sector Security Summit being co-sponsored by SOCMA and DHS next week. If you don’t already have confirmed reservations it’s too late. But, you can read tweeted updates by following SOCMA on Twitter®.

CFATS Webinar

The folks at Chemical Processing Magazine and ADT Advanced Integration are sponsoring a CFATS Webinar on June 17th at 1:00 pm EDT. The three presenters, Ryan Loughin (ADT), Michael Kennedy (SOCMA), and Steve Roberts (Roberts Law Group) will address:

• CFATS Road Map & Timeline • CFATS Regulatory & Legislative Updates • CFATS Regulatory Considerations for SSPs

All three of these presenters are very knowledgeable and experienced speakers. The topics are timely and they certainly have the experience and background to provide valuable insights on their respective topics. Traci Perdum, the Senior Digital Editor for ChemicalProcessing.com will be moderating the program and live Q&A session that will follow the presentations. The only thing missing from this webinar is participation by DHS. ADT has had DHS presenters at earlier webinars. What would be interesting would be to have Larry Stanton give his presentation on the IST reporting tool that DHS is considering adding to the CFATS program. I have an article on their proposal coming out in the upcoming issue of the Journal of Hazmat Transportation. Stanton made his presentation back in March at a CCPS meeting and it would be interesting to see the response to the proposal before a more general audience like this.

Reader Comment 02-19-10 IST Misstated

Anonymous posted a comment about an earlier blog about the introduction to Sen. Collins’ S 2998. Anonymous’ full posting can be seen at the end of that blog, but it does included this important quote from a statement made by Sen. Collins:

“Forcing chemical facilities to implement IST could wreak economic havoc on some facilities and affect the availability of products that all Americans take for granted. For instance, according to October 2009 testimony by the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, mandatory IST would negatively restrict the production of pharmaceuticals and microelectronics, unnecessarily crippling those industries.”

In today’s political climate we have come to expect and excuse politicians exaggerating their opponent’s position into something that can not be easily equated with the perceived reality. This is one of the reasons that the public is so disgusted with the political process. It was, however, professionally disheartening to me to see an organization that I have had a great deal of personal respect for stoop to the same level of disinformation in their Congressional testimony, especially when it is subsequently used by professional politicians to justify their own misinformed stand on an issue. There are a number of serious shortcomings with the IST language in HR 2868. First conducting an IST concurrently with the SSP submission is counterproductive since it does not allow for full accounting for the security costs of not applying the IST in determining the financial feasibility of the program. The language seriously underestimates the complexity of conducting an IST assessment in a chemical manufacturing environment and doesn’t provide a way out of the implementation when new and more detailed information shows that a marginal IST process it is no longer technically or financially feasible. It provides no inducement for industry to conduct the necessary research to develop useable IST programs. Ignoring these real difficulties (that could be overcome if industry, activists and Congress would work together) while slandering an entire piece of necessary legislation with made-up problems demeans the political process and provides legitimate adversaries with further justification for their mistrust of the chemical industry. The pharmaceutical industry is almost certainly the least likely industry in the United States to be affected by the current IST language in HR 2868. Their formulations and manufacturing procedures are strictly controlled by the Food and Drug Administration and can only be changed after extensive research, testing and evaluation. The time for completing those process change procedures would certainly be justification, under this legislation, for declaring that there is no current IST option available for assessment. Likewise, the electronic industry’s well known need for pure, uncontaminated raw materials mean that there will have been little process work done on diluted acids (for example) to replace the anhydrous materials currently in use. The lack of detailed process work that must precede the assessment of alternative materials would preclude the affirmative assessment that there are technically feasible alternatives to the chemicals currently in use. In fact, throughout the chemical manufacturing industry there will be very few alternative chemicals that will have had the laboratory and process research, or the customer re-evaluation of the manufactured product necessary to determine if there is a technically viable alternative process. In fact, it is not uncommon for manufacturers belonging to SOCMA to require months or years of work to qualify the same raw materials from alternative suppliers. Introduction of new materials typically requires years of research, testing, and evaluation. There are legitimate problems with the current legislation. Rather than throwing up straw obstacles to non-existent problems the chemical industry needs to work pro-actively with Congress to develop real, workable chemical security legislation. Doing anything less will just provide further ammunition to the more radical activist organizations proving that the chemical industry does not care about the safety and security of their workers and neighbors.

ACS and IST

There is an interesting article over at C&EN at Pubs.ACS.org about inherently safer technology. C&EN is the weekly news magazine of the American Chemical Society. The editorial outlines the ACS position on the ICS provisions of HR 2868. ACS was another organization that openly proclaimed that they were working with Congress on HR 2868 to make it more acceptable to the chemical industry, a stance that many in the industry complained about according to the article. While the editorial is worth reading in it’s own light, the real reason that I point it out here is that how I found the article is more interesting still. I found the link to the piece on the Joe’s Blog page of the SOCMA web site. There is probably no bigger contrast in the public opposition to IST in the industry than between the approaches of SOCMA and ACS, yet the link is there. If we can get the discussion going within the industry, then maybe we can get an IST provision in the final bill that the industry can support, or at least not actively oppose. Then we can move on to helping DHS and EPA write good regulations implementing the legislation. BTW: Thanks Joe (and Bill) for updating the link to my blog on your page. It means a great deal to me.

Reader Comment – 11-23-09 – SOCMA Reply

It did not take long for William Almond, a Vice-President for SOCMA, to reply to yesterday’s blog about the efficacy of their recent efforts to block the passage of HR 2868. Since legislative liaison is one of his responsibilities with SOCMA, his comments are well worth reading. Bill’s comments are too lengthy to be totally reproduced here, but they are available at the end of yesterdays post and should be read by anyone interested in the politics of chemical security or HR 2868 in particular. Political Efficacy Bill did write, in the beginning of his response, that:

“The fact that any Democrats voted against HR 2868 was a welcomed development. You are the only one that I know of who seemed to think that it wasn't particularly surprisingly. If SOCMA had members in all 21 Democratic districts, perhaps our success rate would have been higher. But we are quite pleased with our ability to utilize our grassroots to help swing votes in districts where we do have members [emphasis added]. We don't have members in all 21 districts that voted against HR 2868, so, of course, we can't make a case that we helped impact the vote for the other districts.”

No, I wasn’t surprised that there were Democrats that voted against the bill. The chemical industry is large (very large when you define chemical facilities the way that CFATS does) and employees large numbers of people around the country. The chemical industry has done a good job of making their opposition to HR 2868 well known, especially its potential impact on jobs. Right now jobs are a pretty big issue. The Democratic Party has seldom been able to muster total control of their legislators on any measures other than those at the very core beliefs of their members. Chemical Facility Security has never been that high a priority for the House Leadership. With more than enough votes to pass the bill, there was no major effort to maintain a party line vote on this measure outside of the two committees drafting the legislation. I will admit that I did not take into account the number districts that were involved in the grassroots lobbying effort when I calculated the efficacy of the SOCMA effort; that number was not available in the article that I was looking at and was not mentioned in Bill’s response. That number would certainly give a better analysis of the efficacy of that effort. If 20 representatives had been targeted and 2 changed their votes, that would have given some heart to the other participants in the program. But, then again, that wasn’t what the article was bragging about; it bragged about the changing of two votes. As I was pointing out, changing two votes out of more than two hundred was not particularly impressive, especially since a total of 40 Democratic votes were needed to change the outcome. Bill does make the point that the “fact that Democrats voted against HR 2868 gives us momentum going into the Senate”. I’m not sure that I agree with that political calculus, particularly in regards to grassroot efforts like the one mentioned in the referenced article. Grassroot efforts by smaller organizations, businesses or political interest groups, do not have as much sway in Senate campaigns as they do in House races; too many votes and too much money to run a campaign. That, of course, changes in very close races, especially if the targeted member is influential. If SOCMA has a couple of member facilities in Nevada, for instance, their talking to Sen. Reid may be more effective than pressuring a Senator that road into office on President Obama’s coat tails and won’t be up for re-election for five more years. Political Strategy One of the things that has concerned me about SOCMA’s campaign against HR 2868 (and the Greenpeace campaign in favor of the bill) is that, publicly at least it has been an all or nothing effort. SOCMA has been very vocal in support of a straight re-authorization of §550. They have been equally adamant in their opposition to HR 2868 with special attention against IST and Citizen Suits. While I understand their position, and in fact agree with large portions of it, I am also aware that politics is the art of the achievable. In the current world, there is no way that Congress is going to re-authorize CFATS as it stands today. There are just too many dangerous holes in the coverage of that program and almost no protections of legitimate worker’s rights. What industry needs to do is look at the provisions of HR 2868 that offend them, and there were certainly some doozies included in the original draft, and find a way to make them practical. One example is the changes made to the citizen suit provisions. This is one of the areas where ACC has taken some credit (which has been acknowledged publicly in committee and on the floor of the House) for helping to get rid of some potentially disastrous language. Bill takes me to task for not acknowledging SOCMA’s contribution to this change; saying “It goes without saying that we have achieved much more than you have selectively pointed out in your blog that, because it hasn't been publicly reported, you are unaware of.” Everyone who has followed this bill in the news knows that SOCMA has been vocally opposed to this language, but I have seen nothing in the press that SOCMA has been working with the committees to achieve modification of the language. If SOCMA has been working behind the scenes to get these changes made, bully for them. But, I can only report on what I see in the press and on the net. I am not an investigative reporter with personal contacts on the Hill. If SOCMA wants public credit for their work behind the scenes, they need to let the press (including bloggers like myself) know about that work (which of course, Bill has just done). LATE NOTE: I just got additional confirmation of that work by a long term reader who was involved in the process. There may be more on that in a later blog. Highlighting SOCMA To Bill’s credit, he doesn’t make much of my attention to SOCMA over other industry organizations. I do pay more attention to what SOCMA does than any number of the other pro-industry groups. The reason for that is that SOCMA represents that portion of the chemical industry where I spent my chemistry career, the smaller specialty chemical manufacturers. I understand their concerns, limitations, and motivations on a personal level that I cannot feel for the major refiners or the large commodity chemical manufacturers. I have friends and neighbors that still work in that industry. I want the industry to survive and thrive. So I suppose that Bill and I will be having more of these discussions in the future. BTW: On a personal note, Bill, can you get Joe to change the link to my blog on his web site; I haven’t been on AOL for over a year now. I left numerous messages on the site, but have gotten no response. He was one of the first in the industry to post a link to this blog on his site and that means a bunch to me.

Pharmaceuticals and IST

Many people have complained in recent years about the decline in the civility of political discourse. One of the reasons that this has gotten so bad is that too many political discussions resort to hyperbole and exaggeration to make their point.

A perfect case in point is a recent article that I found n the SOCMA (new name - Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates) that claims that new chemical security legislation will have negative consequences for “consumers of pharmaceuticals”. The article states that “SOCMA speculates [emphasis added] that the substitution provisions” will result in American chemical companies becoming “barred from manufacturing chemicals” that are necessary to make drugs.

One presumes that that the ‘substitution provisions’ are the inherently safer technology (IST) provisions that organizations like Greenpeace and the Center for American Progress have been calling for. Now I have not seen the draft version of the legislation still being ironed out between the staffs of the Homeland Security Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee. Neither apparently has anyone from SOCMA or else they wouldn’t be ‘speculating’ about the provisions of the bill and their consequences. To jump to the outrageous conclusion that the bill might include provisions that would prohibit the manufacture of pharmaceuticals or their intermediates is the worst sort of political polemic.

HR 5577 IST Limitations 

If the provisions of last year’s HR 5577 are any guide (and that is what Greenpeace and CAP have been actively and publicly promoting) the IST portions of the legislation will be directed at only the most hazardous chemical facilities. Even then, there are two very specific provisions that would stop such legislation from prohibiting the manufacture of pharmaceuticals or their intermediates. The Secretary {in Section 2110(b)(1) of HR 5577} could only order IST implementation if the facility conducted assessment of the alternative manufacturing procedures showed that the change:

(B) “can feasibly be incorporated into the operation of the covered chemical facility;” and

(C) “would not significantly and demonstrably impair the ability of the owner or operator of the covered chemical facility to continue the business of the facility at a location within the United States.”

Given that changes to the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and their immediate intermediates is closely controlled by the FDA and any changes in the manufacturing process have to undergo extensive trials and testing, it is unlikely that any manufacturing of these chemicals would be changed by security regulations.

I fully understand why any chemical company would be reluctant to have DHS make any decisions about their manufacturing processes. While there are many fine people working at DHS, they are not (with the possible rare exception) chemical engineers or chemists. Even those personnel with the requisite training are unlikely to be familiar enough with the processes at any given facility to adequately judge what changes can safely be made to a particular chemical process.

Politics Favoring IST

More importantly though, SOCMA and the chemical industry as a whole must realize that a few facilities, Bayer CropScience outside of Institute, WV is the most recent example, have so damaged the reputation of the chemical industry that there are large portions of the population that do not believe that the chemical industry can be trusted to do what is right or safe.

There may be entirely reasonable explanations why large quantities of extremely hazardous chemicals (like methyl isocyanate- MIC, or chlorine, or anhydrous ammonia) must be stored near populated areas, but fewer and fewer people are willing to trust a large chemical company’s explanations, especially when those explanations consist of: “It is safe. We know. Trust us”.

If SOCMA, or anyone else in the chemical industry wants to prevent ‘bureaucrats’ at DHS from having unreasonable control over their manufacturing processes they need to start working with Congress and Greenpeace/CAP to come up with a reasonable outside review procedure for chemical manufacturing processes that contain significant quantities TIH chemicals. Otherwise it is likely that the ‘uneducated and unwashed’ will dictate procedures to the chemical industry. Not 'procedures that will drive the manufacture of pharmaceuticals off shore', but procedures that will be a paperwork problem for legitimate chemical manufacturers.

HR 2477 Dead

One last point; HR 2477 is a political dead end. Nobody needs to waste anytime in supporting this bill. However well intentioned the bill may be (and I have high respect for Congressman Dent’s intention in submitting this bill), anyone with any experience at watching congressional politics will recognize that the Democratic leadership has no intention of this bill ever coming to a floor vote. If it had any possible chance, it would have been referred to the House Homeland Security Committee, a committee to which the author and both co-sponsors belong. Without a positive report from the Homeland Security Committee, this bill will never get to the floor.

Reader Comments – 03-08-09 – IST Comments

We had a comment on each of two separate IST blog posts from last week posted to the blog on Sunday. Both were posted by Anonymous; though it is possible that they are from two different people using the Anonymous tag. Since both posts deal with IST I’ll add this to the ongoing series of blogs on this topic. Other blogs in the series include:

Writing IST Legislation Reader Comment – 02-24-09
What Standard to Apply for IST - Limits
What Standard to Apply for IST – Cost Estimates
SOCMA and IST

SOCMA List 

The first comment was appended to my blog about SOCMA and a list of their resources on IST. Anonymous asked: “Have you previously posted resources for those supporting IST?” and pointed towards AICHE as a potential source. I have not listed any specific information from either AICHE or the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) as I have not seen either organization weigh in on the IST debate. Both organizations have certainly got plenty of information on Inherently Safer Technology as a tool for process safety.

As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, there is no reputable member of the process chemical industry that has ever opposed IST as one of many process safety tools that should be routinely involved in the evaluation of chemical process safety. But that is not what the ‘IST debate’ is about.

To date the IST debate has been about different issues depending on the side of the debate. On one hand many advocacy groups correctly point out that there is no such thing as absolute security. This means that the only way to completely protect the innocent population around a chemical facility from the effects of a PIH release that would result from a successful terrorist attack is to remove the PIH chemical or greatly reduce the volume on site.

The chemical industry, on the other hand, argues that the government (and certainly not DHS in particular) does not have the expertise necessary to adequately evaluate what manufacturing process is used at a chemical facility. Add to those disparate stands a deep mistrust for the motives of the other side and you have a debate with little middle ground.

That is one of the things that I am trying to develop is a middle ground where both sides of the issue can meet and find something to agree upon. That is the only way that a workable political solution will be found. Now to answer the unasked question; why did I recommend an obviously anti-IST reference site but did not include a pro-IST site?

I have covered IST proponents (and will continue to do so) in the past, most notably the CAP Chemical Security 101 site which is probably the most effective pro-IST political document to date. The reason that I mentioned the SOCMA site is that they have not addressed their concerns to the wider public, relying instead on direct political action (that dirty word: lobbying) and preaching to the choir (the process chemical industry). To get a real debate going both sides need to know the arguments that the other is making.

IST Standards 

The second comment, appended to the first IST Standards blog, gets to the heart of the pro-IST argument. Anonymous makes the statement that: “Giving chemical management any kind of discretion (for anything) e.g., to determine what is acceptable in the market, is a poison pill for IST.”

The comment goes on to use the railroad re-routing issue (certainly a form of IST) as an example of how allowing market factors to dominate the decision process destroys any hope of increased safety for the public. This mistrust of the management of chemical facilities certainly has its roots in a long history of unsafe actions and cover-ups at many notorious chemical facilities.

Unfortunately, these actions are not limited to the past. One only has to look to the litany of incidents investigated by the Chemical Safety Board to see that there are many legitimate concerns about process safety at many facilities around the country. This country does run on a regulated market economy. This means that corporate managers have a two fold responsibility. First they have a responsibility to their owners (shareholders in most cases) to ensure a reasonable rate of return on their investments. They also have a responsibility to society (through the government) to protect the health and safety of their workers, neighbors and customers.

Both responsibilities are legally defined by the Federal government. One thing that is certain, any company that cannot turn a profit by manufacturing a given product will eventually get out of the business of selling that product or go out of business. There are certainly a number of IST techniques that are technically feasible, but that cannot be economically implemented. The cost of implementing and operating those safer techniques are too high to be able to sell the resulting products at a profit.

Likewise, there are techniques that can be implemented at a profitable return; though the business idealist would like to think that these would have already been implemented as part of sound business practice. Likely, most of the IST initiatives fall into the gray area in between; they are neither obviously profitable nor obviously unprofitable. This is the area that needs to be carefully addressed in any successful IST legislation. Management is going to have to be responsible for conducting this evaluation and economic factors must play an important part in that evaluation. But, in the words of Ronal Reagan, we need to ‘trust and verify’ the results of that evaluation.

 This is why any successful IST legislation must include provisions for submission of a detailed IST report by the facility management and a technical evaluation of that report. DHS does not have the manpower nor the process or business knowledge to conduct that evaluation. That is why there needs to be provisions for an outside, technically qualified, agency to evaluate those reports. This could be done under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences or even contracted out to some group like the CCPS. In any case, only a dispassionate educated review of both the technical and economic feasibility will help keep the reports honest.

SOCMA and IST

The Specialty Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA) recently posted a brief news item about the re-authorization of the CFATS rules. It related back to a “public forum on homeland security priorities of the 111th Congress hosted by the George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI)” upon which I have previously reported. The SOCMA article referenced back to an IST page on their web site. It took a little searching (I hate it when people reference a web page without providing a link), but I found the SOCMA IST page.

The page does provide a definition of IST that is intellectually unsatisfying (“IST is a conceptual framework that covers chemical processing procedures, equipment, protection, and, when feasible, the use of safer substances.”) in its brevity and generality. Of much more use is a bibliography of web based resources on the SOCMA position on IST. Anyone that is going to be involved in the IST discussion needs to be familiar with these documents.

New SOCMA Approach to IST

The Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA) has long opposed mandatory application of inherently safer technology (IST) as a method of reducing the risk of terrorist attack on high-risk chemical facilities. I have noted that I thought that their attacks on IST were politically short-sighted and unpersuasive. Last Friday they took a slightly different tact in a posting on Blog.TheHill.com; they started explaining some of the problems associated with an imposed IST requirement. IST as Chemical Engineering Anyone that has experience in working in the chemical process industry is familiar with the concept of IST. Every time that a new chemical process is introduced into a facility or modified at that facility a series of safety reviews are conducted. Reviews are conducted on new hazardous chemicals, on the storage and handling of those chemicals, and finally on the process where the chemicals will be used. Any reputable chemical company will automatically consider a wide variety of inherently safer technologies to help reduce safety risks associated with hazardous chemicals. Chemical engineers, chemists, industrial hygienists, regulatory affairs personnel, and hourly employees will all be involved in that process. Unfortunately, the term ‘reputable chemical company’ does not necessarily cover all facilities that handle hazardous chemicals. There are a large number of facilities that use hazardous chemicals that are not considered to be chemical facilities and lack the staff, training, and regulatory requirement to conduct these extensive safety evaluations. There are other facilities that lack the funds and expertise. Finally there are facilities that just cannot be bothered to expend the time or money. An aggressive enforcement effort of existing chemical safety laws by EPA and OSHA would bring many of these facilities into line. IST as Chemical Security What is new is the security aspect of IST. As more companies are coming to face the reality of increased security costs associated with the COI listed in Appendix A to 6 CFR 27, many are re-evaluating the cost-benefit analysis of many alternative processing methods and techniques. In many cases changing chemicals or processes in ways that were too expensive are now becoming economically viable when security costs are included in the calculations. What concerns organizations like SOCMA and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is that many people that are pushing the IST requirement see it as the be all and end all of chemical safety and security. Many IST supporters see these requirements in new regulations forcing most users of many hazardous chemicals, poison inhalation hazard (PIH) chemicals in particular, to get rid of these chemicals without due consideration of the economic viability of doing so. Realistic Compromise As in many political arguments today (and this is, at its most essential, a political argument) neither side seems to be willing to listen to and address the legitimate concerns of the other side. What is required is a workable, realistic compromise and a reduction in the volume of the rhetoric. Such a compromise would have to be based on the following principals:

Every high-risk chemical facility owes it to its owners, its workers, and its neighbors to periodically re-evaluate its use of DHS COI to see if there are safer chemicals or process changes that can reduce the potential safety and security risks associated with the use of those high-risk chemicals. Many of the technical and business calculations that will go into the evaluation will be facility specific. Personnel without the appropriate technical background will be ill equipped to second guess those decisions. An independent technical body should be formed to provide for an appropriate technical review of decisions not to implement IST alternatives. In areas where there exists an extraordinary hazard to a large civilian population, the government should consider the use of financial incentives to implement IST provisions that are not otherwise economically viable or to move the facility to another location.

Industry owes it to their owners and employees to remain viable economic concerns. It does not appear that blind opposition to IST will prevail in the current political climate. Therefore industry needs to work with IST proponents to work out a program that will be economically viable.