The 111th Congress has shown yet again a dangerous urge to govern before thinking. The House on Nov. 6 passed a security bill that would put the federal government in the middle of safety decisions that instead should be made by facility designers and operators.
The Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 contains provisions that have the effect of mandating design and operational principles called inherently safer technology (IST; OGJ Online, Nov. 9, 2009). That phrase has irresistible appeal. Who can oppose something with such a name? It's easy to see why politicians yearning to govern would want to enshrine it in law with their names attached.
Flexibility needed
But that's the problem. IST is supposed to guide decisions in the real and ever-changing world of processing businesses. To be effective, it must be flexible and responsive, able to accommodate fresh technologies and complex, dynamic relationships. It works best as a central dimension of decision-making, starting at the earliest stages of a project. It's not meant for statutory rigidity. It's certainly not meant to be imposed retroactively by the Department of Homeland Security.
The legislative usurpation of IST brought quick statements of opposition from industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute and National Petrochemical & Refiners Association. API warned the bill would endanger jobs and "create a mandate for government-selected changes to our operations, which is not consistent with a risk-based approach." NPRA called IST "a philosophy developed by professional chemical engineers," which has been "hijacked by political activists in a thinly veiled attempt to further their own agenda."
Equally troubling is the tendency of the current Congress to ignore warnings about costs and jobs and to smash the grimacing face of American commerce against the hard floor of official caprice. The House Committee on Homeland Security heard a level-headed description of the perils of mandating IST in a June 16 hearing but reported out a bill containing the mandate anyway. Now, just as heedlessly, the House has passed it.
The description came from Neal Langerman, chief executive and principal scientist of Advanced Chemical Safety, San Diego, representing the American Chemical Society. Pointing out that industry has applied the concept for decades, Langerman said IST "collectively captures a group of processes and technologies that improve safety by greatly reducing or eliminating hazards through a permanent and inseparable element of the process." Safety, he noted, "is built into the process from the outset, not added on, and the hazards are reduced or eliminated, not simply controlled." IST can include engineering changes, material substitution, or quantity reduction, he said, and is one among many ways to reduce risk. Objecting to inclusion of a requirement for IST in facilities covered by legislation that became the bill passed by the House, Langerman said, "Application of IST is a complex and nuanced process. Professionals, in a real-world context, need to apply these principles and processes where appropriate."
He went on to describe how designing for inherent safety tries to minimize quantities of hazardous substances, substitute less-hazardous materials where possible, moderate conditions that elevate risk, and simplify processes to reduce chances for error. IST design also balances process safety with production efficiency. Citing a case study in which application of IST principles guided changes to a boiler that cut emissions of nitrogen oxides, Langerman said, "Deciding among several designs requires evaluating a variety of metrics, including volume of hazardous materials, area affected by and frequencies of releases, consequence and severity of releases, and the life-cycle costs."
Creating problems
Can government officials in Washington, DC, effectively balance all these considerations for all facilities covered by the bill? No. Can they flexibly apply IST guidance to existing facilities? Of course not. And Congress can't fix IST principles in law and force them into practice without creating more problems than it solves—including problems involving safety and security risks, not to mention employment and economic health.
Despite good-faith warnings, the frenzied House has produced another harmful bill. Its signature recklessness is fast becoming one of America's biggest security threats.
More Oil & Gas JOurnal Current Issue Articles
More Oil & Gas Journal Archives Issue Articles
View Oil and Gas Articles on PennEnergy.com