The Department of Homeland Security does not want to interfere with the viability of the agriculture chemical industry or farming interests, Larry Stanton, acting director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Chemical Security Compliance Division, told Green Markets at last week’s Chemical Sector Security Summit.
The conference, held June 11-13 in Falls Church, Va., drew more than 350 attendees, and featured speakers on a range of security issues affecting the chemical industry. Stakeholders that make, sell, or use agriculture chemicals should “stay calm,” Stanton suggested, while DHS finalizes the list of chemicals that it wants protected from attack or use by terrorists.
Ammonium nitrate, urea, and anhydrous ammonia appeared on the preliminary list in various threshold quantities, and will likely remain there, Stanton said. He added that DHS looked closely at some 4,200 comments submitted in response to its preliminary list of “chemicals of interest,” out of a desire to form a true partnership with the many groups involved. The final list is expected in July, and the agricultural chemical industry “will be okay” with the results, Stanton predicted.
Many groups, however, including the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA), looked at the proposed list issued April 2 and argued that thousands of agricultural businesses pose low risk and should not be subject to burdensome regulation (GM May 21, p. 12). ARA also argued that urea should be removed from the list, and that screening threshold quantities for anhydrous ammonia should be changed.
Last week’s three-day summit was convened just outside the nation’s capital by DHS and the Chemical Sector Coordinating Council. It was intended to give stakeholders an update on federal efforts to finalize regulations aimed at making U.S. chemical facilities more secure, and offer specifics on what will be required to implement them.
Many facilities will be regulated and eventually inspected by DHS, depending on the type and amount of chemicals that could be used by or targeted by terrorists. “We need to develop a picture of the risk,” DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff told conference goers, noting the department’s Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT), available at www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/gc_1169501486197.shtm. Demonstrations were offered to help agriculture retailers and distributors gain a better understanding of what type of information facilities are expected to provide during the screening process.
Those facilities identified as high risk will have to tell DHS how they plan to secure their site and protect any potentially dangerous chemicals with a security vulnerability assessment (SVA), including a plan to deal with potential threats. This will be done through a DHS website still in development.
The filings will be due at the end of the year after DHS determines the level of risk for each facility, but Stanton suggested that facilities should start now to prepare. Fail to meet deadlines and “you’re going to be in deep trouble,” he warned.
That sentiment was echoed by Chertoff. “We will hold everyone accountable,” he said, and DHS won’t allow cheating for competitive advantage. A system is being put in place, however, to protect sensitive information both from potential terrorists and competitors.
Regulation will be based on a four-tier approach, with the top tier comprised of hundreds of the most recognizable risks in the chemical industry. Half of the estimated 5,000 to 6,500 regulated sites are expected to be tier four, the lowest risk, Chertoff said. He also stressed that the inspection process for the bottom two tiers will likely be underway by this time next year.
DHS tried to put the risks in perspective and noted tools to help improve awareness, including its Chemical Security Awareness Training website at www.test.chemicalsecuritytraining.com. “There are bushes and there are terrorists, but there is not a terrorist behind every bush,” H.M. Leith of AcuTech Consulting Group told one workshop. There are, however, a “rainbow of prospective adversaries,” Leith said, and planning decisions should be based on the complexity of the facility.
SVA programs are available from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA) at www.socma.org. ARA also offers retailers an SVA tool developed by the Asmark Institute that uses a DHS-approved methodology developed by the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Under the regulations, Tier 4 facilities may utilize alternative SVA programs meeting DHS criteria.
When it comes to chemical fertilizers, DHS is primarily concerned about theft or diversion, Stanton told Green Markets, and the Drug Enforcement Agency website has information that helps determine a legitimate customer. Theft is an obvious problem, Stanton noted, but diversion can involve bribery of customer service personnel. And you’ve got to “make sure to red flag potential problems.”