Common Sense on Chemical Security
TOOLBOX   Resize
 Save/Share +
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
Sources quoted in the Sept. 1 front-page story "In War on Terror, Md. Farmer One of Many Skeptical Recruits" confused key facts about the Department of Homeland Security's proposed chemical security regulation.
We seek to improve security at high-risk chemical facilities, not complicate the lives of farmers or household users of propane.
It's also important to emphasize that the threshold quantity for filling out a questionnaire on propane use is only a proposal at this point, and Homeland Security has received public comment from around the country. The threshold quantity for propane and other dangerous chemicals will be determined on the basis of several factors, such as the potential human and economic consequences of an attack and industry safety criteria.
We believe that the majority of agricultural users of propane are unlikely to be affected. Speculation that the rule could affect more than 100,000 propane users is grossly inaccurate.
Setting the appropriate security framework for the chemical sector is a complex undertaking that's been a long time coming. Only the facilities that truly pose significant risk will undergo regulatory scrutiny.
BOB STEPHAN
Assistant Secretary
for Infrastructure Protection
Department of Homeland Security
Washington
