« et al.: Yikes — a terms of services you can understand! | Home | URGENT: with colossal storm hitting West, share my tips! »
Beefed up chemical security could be a win-win
By WDavidStephenson | January 3, 2008
With 85% of the United States’ critical infrastructure in private hands, public-private collaboration to protect that infrastructure is critical, yet the chemical industry, utilities and others have not been particularly enthused about these new responsibilities.
Now there’s another imposed on them.
This week, chemical companies and chemical users must file their first reports under
Appendix A of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), which DHS considers a critical element of chemical security efforts. About 300 “chemicals of interest,” including common industrial chemicals such as chlorine, propane and anhydrous ammonia as well as specialty ones were listed.
Based on their potential to create significant human life or health consequences, those who produce or use the chemicals in amounts exceeding the thresholds had to perform preliminary “Top Screens” within 60 days after the Appendix was published.
Chemicals were added to the list based on whether they could have “significant adverse consequences” for life or health if intentionally released or detonated, if they could be used or turned into weapons if stolen or diverted, and if they were mixed with other readily available materials (i.e., McVeigh’s use of fertilizer in Oklahoma City), could be used or converted into, weapons.
Based on these reports, DHS will make a preliminary determination if a given facility is a high-level security risk, and should therefore comply with CFATS’ substantive requirements to improve security.
So here’s the deal.
If CFATS and other new regulations are seen solely as unfunded mandates with no economic benefit, it’s likely that industry will fight them. The challenge to groups such as the Partnership for Critical Infrastructure Security is to reframe the issue, especially to emphasize compliance through tools such as:
- real-time logistics tracking (Dow Chemical’s real-time supply chain initiatives are a great example)
- and real-time remote monitoring of pipelines or production processes
that will yield both security and economic benefits.
I saw the same thing with environmental compliance when working in that field in the 1980s.
At first, all companies fought regulations, which tended to dictate specific technologies to use (the discredited “command-and-control” approach), then some leaders such as DuPont, 3M and Monsanto realized pursuing a real-waste strategy could gain an economic advantage and reduce their compliance costs (if you don’t produce waste, you don’t have to report it).
Technorati tags: homeland security DHS Department of Homeland Security War on Terror antiterrorism homeland security 2.0 disaster management 2.0 disaster management business continuity disaster planning disaster planning 2.0 chemicals
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: technology, profitable corporate preparedness, e-gov transformation, networked security | |
