Voice For Liberty

Tag: Chemical facility anti-terrorism standards

Articles of interest
Chemical security, national health care, global warming cost, school order.
Extending security standards better decision
A letter in the Montgomery Advertiser makes the case for extending the present Chemical facility anti-terrorism standards. Legislation is under consideration that would give government the ability to regulate processes and technologies.
“Although we believe CFATS should be reauthorized and made permanent, we do not support current draft legislation that replaces CFATS and extends the power of the DHS to dictate how a product is made. Decisions pertaining to feedstocks, processes and products should be left to the engineers and safety experts at local facilities.”
The Stealth Single-Payer Agenda
George F. Will’s column explains that while President Obama and Congress are presently considering a “public option” health care plan, this is just the first step on the road to a single-payer plan. “The puzzle is: Why does the president, who says that were America ‘starting from scratch’ he would favor a ‘single-payer’ — government-run — system, insist that health-care reform include a government insurance plan that competes with private insurers? The simplest answer is that such a plan will lead to a single-payer system.”
The Big Chill
Congress shouldn’t fight global warming by freezing the economy.
In a Wall Street Journal column, Pete Du Pont explains the enormous cost of the Waxman-Markey global warming bill and how little warming it would stop. “Manzi estimates the additional economic costs of the bill would be 0.8% of gross domestic product, while the economic benefits would be just 0.08% — so the costs would be 10 times the benefits. The cost of reducing emissions turns out to be greater than the cost they impose on societies. According to a 1999 Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas estimate, the emissions cuts the Kyoto Protocol would have required in 2010 were likely to reduce America’s GDP by $275 billion to $468 billion, or $921 to $1,565 per person, and of course Kyoto does not apply to fast-growing developing countries such as China and India.”
Taking back control of the classrooms
“The dirty little secret of America’s schools is that teachers have lost control of the classroom. Disrespect is commonplace. Disorder is an epidemic — 43 percent of high school teachers say they spend more than half their time maintaining order instead of teaching, according to a Public Agenda survey. Learning is impossible in these conditions. One misbehaving student steals the floor, spoiling the learning opportunity for the other 29 students. ‘You know, it really doesn’t take very many kids to ruin a classroom,’ observed David Adams, superintendent of Shelbyville Central Schools.”
Phillip K. Howard explains that the problem is too much law: “There is a broad perception — by teachers and students alike — that teachers lack the legal authority to enforce respect and order.”
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
June 22, 2009
In the world of chemical security, the real world
A post on a blog sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers explains a few of the problems with the proposed Chemical facility anti-terrorism standards legislation now making its way through Congress.
One of the issues mentioned in the post In the World of Chemical Security, the Real World is the threat of excessive litigation:
“But there are problems with the proposals, as he makes clear. He cites the ‘private right of action,’ i.e., encouraging litigation against companies as a parallel regulatory process.”
Unlike environmental statutes, CFATS is not a series of prescriptive statutory measures with which compliance is mandatory, like emission standards or discharge limitations, and therefore it is much more difficult for an outsider — whether it be a citizen or judge — to ascertain if a standard is being met or to decide what needs to be done to address an alleged deficiency.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
June 18, 2009
Congress could give government bureaucrats more control of farms and industry
The Kansas Meadowlark blog has a detailed post that explains some of the harm to agriculture that proposed legislation — chemical facility anti-terrorism standards — could cause.
The post also contains a section of helpful related links. Click on Congress could give government bureaucrats more control of farms and industry to read.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
June 17, 2009
Current chemical security regulations should be reauthorized
Currently two committees in the United States House of Representatives are considering legislation that would harm a vital American industry.
This industry is already regulated, and the regulations have accomplished their goal. As explained by the Texas Chemical Council:
The current chemical security regulations are enforced by the Department of Homeland Security, which has clear authority to inspect facilities and apply strong penalties for non-compliance. Since the regulations have been in place, not one incident as a result of terrorism has occurred. These regulations have been effective. Removing the sunset date and making the chemical security regulations permanent would provide the certainty needed to both protect citizens and support our nation’s economic recovery.
The bill, H.R. 2868, is known as Chemical facility anti-terrorism standards. More information from the Texas Chemical Council is below.
(This is a Scribd document. Click on the rectangle at the right of the document’s title bar to get a full-screen view.)

Current chemical security regulations should be reauthorized By Hector Rivero, President & CEO, Texas Chemical Council Americans should take note of the Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Act being debated in Congress. At a time when millions have already lost their jobs, the Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Act (HR 2868) would force more people out of work by imposing needless and harmful regulations on American industry. It would also raise prices for many everyday products, including food, water, pharmaceutical drugs, fertilizers and energy. Securing chemical facilities against deliberate attack is crucial to protecting Americans. The fact is that since 2006, clear and comprehensive chemical security regulations have been in place. Those regulations secure everything from chemical facilities to warehouses and university labs. The rules require facilities to address a wide range of threats, from preventing a bomb-laden car from reaching a target to preventing theft or diversion of materials from a site. The current chemical security regulations are enforced by the Department of Homeland Security, which has clear authority to inspect facilities and apply strong penalties for noncompliance. Since the regulations have been in place, not one incident as a result of terrorism has occurred. These regulations have been effective. Removing the sunset date and making the chemical security regulations permanent would provide the certainty needed to both protect citizens and support our nation’s economic recovery. Proposed legislation poses threats Legislation being proposed by Congress should concern us all. It would create overlapping and conflicting security requirements that will cause disruptions of federal security standards, increase government red tape, and create more economic instability. 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.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
June 17, 2009
Chemical security act would harm business, farmers
The Kansas Meadowlark contributes coverage about a chemical security law that promises to overburden an important American industry. Even the family farm is at risk. That’s the operative word — risk. As has been reported, Congressional testimony found that the legislation could actually increase risk to the businesses that the bill intends to protect.
An important point of this article is the involvement of the left-wing Center for American Progress.
Coverage of this issue on this blog is available by clicking on Chemical facility anti-terrorism standards.
To read the coverage at the Kansas Meadowlark, click on Do we want Homeland Security telling businesses how to run their businesses? Telling farmers how to farm?
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
June 12, 2009
Chemical security act could affect Wichita water rates
The United States Congress is considering legislation that aims to increase the security of America’s chemical industry to terrorism threats. The legislation, if passed, would require chemical companies to substitute government-mandated processes and technology for their current processes. The post Chemical security law goes beyond protection explains more about this legislation.
Even places that we might not consider to be “chemical plants” could fall under this act.
The Center for American Progress — described by Wikipedia as “a liberal political policy research and advocacy organization,” an understatement if there ever was one — has produced a report titled Chemical Security 101: What You Don’t Have Can’t Leak, or Be Blown Up by Terrorists.
The Wichita Water Treatment Plant appears on their list of 202 additional facilities that should be required to change their processes, according to the report. The Wichita plant appears because it uses chlorine to treat drinking water, and, apparently, because it’s located in a large city.
I asked David Warren, Director of Utilities for the City of Wichita, about the proposed legislation and about the Wichita Water Treatment Plant being on a list of dangerous facilities.
While declining — understandably so — to discuss specifics of security at the Wichita plant, he said that if the legislation passes and is found to apply to Wichita’s plant, “it would require expensive changes in our treatment process.”
He also said that the reason for the Wichita plant’s inclusion on the list is due to its location (near the center of Wichita) rather than to any defect in security precautions.
It would be one thing if these changes were necessary and would contribute to national security. But Congressional testimony found that the legislation could actually increase risk to the businesses that the bill intends to protect.
Wichita water rates are already on the rise as the city undertakes capital improvement projects. It’s unknown how much bills might increase if the water plant was forced to make changes to its treatment technology.
But even slight increase can cause hardship. Last year Wichita city council member Lavonta Williams expressed concern that a $1 per month increase in water bills would be a hardship. And in her campaign last year, she stated “We need to start the conversation with service providers about whether we can offer laid-off workers reduced rates for water, heat and other essential services.”
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
June 5, 2009
Let representatives know about Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act
As reported in this website, Congress is considering legislation that threatens to harm the American economy, while at the same time accomplishing little or none of its stated goals.
Articles like Chemical Facility Security Authorization Act threatens American economy give more detail.
It’s important to let your elected representatives in Washington know how harmful this proposed law will be to a vital American industry.
An easy way to let them know is by clicking on this link: Ask Your Legislator to Oppose the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act. This will take you to a form where you fill in your name and address. The site will determine who are your representatives and show you the letter it has created. Then, you can choose to have the site send it for you, or you can print it and mail it yourself.
Either way, it’s important to act.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
June 5, 2009
Chemical facilities act would increase cost, not safety
Update: Let your elected representatives in Washington know about this legislation. Send them a message by clicking here.
As reported earlier, the United States Congress is considering legislation — the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards — that will increase regulation on chemical plants and facilities. Even the Wichita Water Works is on a list of facilities that would possibly be required to undergo expensive modifications if this new law passes. (See Chemical security law goes beyond protection)
The proposed legislation, however, would extend government control into another of our nation’s most important industries. It would require companies to change their manufacturing processes and substitute products in the name of safety.
But the legislation may not produce its intended effect. Congressional testimony found that this could actually increase risk to the businesses that the bill intends to protect.
Here’s a letter from a Texas industry group that explains the problems with the proposed legislation.
(This is a Scribd document. Click on the rectangle at the right of the document’s title bar to get a full-screen view.)
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Facility Standards Letter From Texas Chemical Council
Publish at Scribd or explore others: Law & Government Business & Law terrorism terror
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
June 4, 2009
Chemical Facility Security Authorization Act threatens American economy
Update: Let your elected representatives in Washington know about this legislation. Send them a message by clicking here.
Earlier this week I reported on legislation being considered by Congress that would, under the lofty goal of national security, impose a huge burden on the American chemical industry. (Chemical security law goes beyond protection)
Our agricultural industries need to be concerned, too. The article Homeland Security To Regulate Farm and Ranch Inputs? details some of the harm that excessive government interference will cause.
For example, the legislation “proposes to mandate the government to take a large measure of control over products and processes in the chemical industry, much like it has taken over leadership, compensation and control functions at some banks, insurance and auto companies. … A government bureaucracy would be given power to mandate product substitutions, formulation changes and changes in processes … 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.”
This article gives us a hint at what may be the real motivation behind this legislation: “Interestingly, it is environmental activist groups, many of whom oppose mainstream agriculture’s use of any chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and fossil fuels to produce America’s robust food supply, who are pushing this legislative reach to mandate private industry’s products and processes.”
Wrapping an extremist environmental agenda in the trappings of national security may be an effective scare tactic, but it’s not a good way to formulate national policy.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
May 29, 2009