ADVERTISEMENT
2 /3 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Safety

Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program Taking Effect

More than half of covered sites have security plans approved; 104 sites have opted to reduce risk instead

by Glenn Hess
September 15, 2014 | APPEARED IN VOLUME 92, ISSUE 37

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has “authorized”—or given preliminary approval to—more than half of the nearly 4,000 high-risk facilities covered under its chemical plant security program.

DHS says 2,039 of the 3,882 facilities covered under the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program had passed at least the midway point of the regulatory process as of Sept. 1 by having their site security plans approved by department officials.

CFATS, which the department established in 2007, identifies and regulates high-risk chemical facilities.

The department notes that 1,060 of the 3,882 facilities have had their security plans fully approved. DHS inspectors have visited these sites and verified that the facilities have implemented security measures that meet CFATS requirements.

The number of facilities covered by CFATS is falling. In August, there were 3,986, but 104 sites dropped out of the program during the past month. Facilities are no longer considered high-risk targets if they reduce their on-site holdings of about 300 “chemicals of concern” or make process changes that mitigate risk.

The latest figures are further evidence that CFATS “compels companies to reduce inherent hazards,” says William E. Allmond IV, vice president of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates, an industry group. This is occurring “not through regulatory mandates but on an individual company’s expert judgment to implement changes where they make the most sense,” he says.

X

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

Comments
Anonymous (September 18, 2014 6:07 PM)
I do hope that the reduction in risk is not the result of the regulation encouraging the loss of manufacturing jobs or capabilities. Reduction of unneeded chemical inventory or engineering changes that reduce process risks are most welcome. However, transferring risk (to other countries) because the busines environment has become too difficult would be an unfortunate consequence. The U.S. needs a vibrant chemical sector.

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment