Last week saw the release of two reports criticizing Koch Industries for its opposition to heavy-handed regulation of the chemical industry.
Posts tagged as “Chemical facility anti-terrorism standards”
The United States Congress is considering legislation to improve the safety of chemical plants. While a noble goal, this regulation has the potential to actually decrease chemical plant safety while increasing costs and destroying jobs at the same time.
This week the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs heard testimony on S.2996, titled "Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security Act of 2010." This bill would extend the effective date of current chemical security regulations until 2015.
Legislation currently under consideration in Congress will allow citizens to sue the Department of Homeland Security if they believe that chemical plants are not in compliance with new regulations.
The new regulations -- IST, or Inherently Safer Technology -- are troubling enough, in that they may actually work against their stated goal of safety. Allowing citizens to bring lawsuits based on these regulations will create many problems.
As Congress considers legislation that would force our nation's chemical plants to make expensive changes in their processes and technologies, we need to make sure that we don't cripple our economy just to appease a small group of environmental activists -- all in the name of purportedly greater safety.
That's the danger we face from IST -- Inherently Safer Technology. What could be wrong with a law that contains such a noble goal as safety? It has to do with the complexity of a modern industrial economy providing a scene on which unintended consequences develop.
On Tuesday, the United States House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee passed H.R.2868, the "Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009."
This bill contains provisions for Inherently Safer Technology (IST). These regulations seek to force companies to replace existing methods and raw materials with those deemed to be safer. 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.
There's been some good news from Congress recently about Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, or CFATS.
The problem is that chemical manufacturing and processing is a complicated matter, and mandates that force the use of one chemical instead of another can have consequences that lead to less safety.
At the Kansas Meadowlark, there's some video about Chemical facility anti-terrorism standards.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
Congress is about to consider legislation that, on the surface, seems like it implements an important goal. Its name -- Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards -- suggests something that no one could oppose.
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.