Comments on: Chemical plant security should be based on technology, not politics http://wichitaliberty.org/regulation/chemical-plant-security-should-be-based-on-technology-not-politics/ Individual liberty, limited government, and free markets in Wichita and Kansas Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:47:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Scott Jensen http://wichitaliberty.org/regulation/chemical-plant-security-should-be-based-on-technology-not-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-60083 Scott Jensen Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:32:14 +0000 http://wichitaliberty.org/?p=6921#comment-60083 The American Chemistry Council strongly disagrees with those that claim you can secure all chemical facilities by simply requiring them to use different chemicals. Changing chemical processes is rarely as simple as activists and others suggest. An effective security plan addresses potential security vulnerabilities while at the same time taking into account other important considerations like protecting jobs, managing energy consumption and ensuring worker safety. America's chemistry industry is the lifeblood of our economy, directly touching 96 percent of all manufactured goods. The business of chemistry employs nearly one million Americans and $500 billion worth of chemistry products flow through the economy. We understand Americans expect strong and decisive protective measures from facilities that use or store hazardous chemicals, and since 9/11, members of the American Chemistry Council have invested nearly $8 billion dollars to enhance security. In 2006 Congress passed bipartisan legislation requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to regulate the industry by establishing a comprehensive chemical security program, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS). This program is up for renewal, and we along with the Obama administration fully support its extension. Under CFATS thousands of facilities across the country are taking action to thwart terrorist attacks while lowering the attractiveness to terrorists of these sites. The rules require chemical facilities to address a wide range of threats, such as preventing a bomb-laden car from reaching a target, or preventing the theft or diversion of materials from a site. However, they do not box facility operators into a singular approach for securing their facilities This is a security program with teeth and bite for those who fail to take security seriously. Any facility that fails to act can, and should, be fined and/or shut down by DHS. We are working with Congress to extend CFATS and ensure effective chemical security rules that do not shutdown facilities that provide good jobs and essential products. Scott Jensen, American Chemistry Council The American Chemistry Council strongly disagrees with those that claim you can secure all chemical facilities by simply requiring them to use different chemicals. Changing chemical processes is rarely as simple as activists and others suggest.
An effective security plan addresses potential security vulnerabilities while at the same time taking into account other important considerations like protecting jobs, managing energy consumption and ensuring worker safety.

America’s chemistry industry is the lifeblood of our economy, directly touching 96 percent of all manufactured goods. The business of chemistry employs nearly one million Americans and $500 billion worth of chemistry products flow through the economy.

We understand Americans expect strong and decisive protective measures from facilities that use or store hazardous chemicals, and since 9/11, members of the American Chemistry Council have invested nearly $8 billion dollars to enhance security.

In 2006 Congress passed bipartisan legislation requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to regulate the industry by establishing a comprehensive chemical security program, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS). This program is up for renewal, and we along with the Obama administration fully support its extension.

Under CFATS thousands of facilities across the country are taking action to thwart terrorist attacks while lowering the attractiveness to terrorists of these sites. The rules require chemical facilities to address a wide range of threats, such as preventing a bomb-laden car from reaching a target, or preventing the theft or diversion of materials from a site. However, they do not box facility operators into a singular approach for securing their facilities

This is a security program with teeth and bite for those who fail to take security seriously. Any facility that fails to act can, and should, be fined and/or shut down by DHS.

We are working with Congress to extend CFATS and ensure effective chemical security rules that do not shutdown facilities that provide good jobs and essential products.

Scott Jensen, American Chemistry Council

]]> By: Anonymous http://wichitaliberty.org/regulation/chemical-plant-security-should-be-based-on-technology-not-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-59908 Anonymous Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:14:35 +0000 http://wichitaliberty.org/?p=6921#comment-59908 You did not mention that the "article" you said was in The Hill was in fact an op ed piece by the oil industry lobby, and on the blog, not in the main publication. No principles? You did not mention that the “article” you said was in The Hill was in fact an op ed piece by the oil industry lobby, and on the blog, not in the main publication. No principles?

]]>