We urge Congress to recognize the progress that has been made to secure chemical plants and enable the chemical industry to continue its work with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and local law enforcement agencies to protect these facilities.

DHS has implemented the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), which establish 18 risk-based performance standards covering items such as securing the perimeter and critical targets, controlling access, deterring theft of potentially dangerous chemicals, and preventing internal sabotage.

The original law, signed in October 2006, authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security, for the first time, to mandate greater security at our nation’s chemical facilities to help prevent a terror attack, and to shut down those facilities that do not comply with applicable security standards.

The current standards are both comprehensive and demanding, but flexible enough to accommodate the unique needs and capabilities of individual sites.

Since CFATS became effective in June 2007, DHS has reviewed nearly 38,000 facilities and has notified more than 7,000 of their high-risk designations.

According to DHS, nearly 1,000 former high-risk facilities avoided Tier 1 or 2 designations because of voluntary material modifications that lowered – or even eliminated – the use and storage of hazardous chemicals onsite, thus lowering risk profiles and increasing the safety to our communities. This review process clearly demonstrates that CFATS is working as intended with minimal disruption to manufacturing production and industry jobs.

But in November 2009, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would slow or even stop progress when it comes to securing chemical facilities in the United States and impose unnecessary and costly burdens on the economy.

For example, the House bill would allow DHS to mandate that certain chemical facilities implement inherently safer technology (IST). Some owners and operators of chemical facilities may choose to implement IST in their processes.  But any decision to implement IST should be made by the business owner or operator based on science and analysis of proprietary technologies, and not as a result of an unqualified bureaucratic mandate from Washington, D.C.

Congress should not dictate specific industrial processes under the guise of security when a facility may choose other alternatives that meet the nation’s security needs.

Forcing manufacturers to implement IST could cause severe economic damage and adversely affect the quality and availability of consumer products.  And such a government mandate could result in loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs to overseas competitors.

In February 2010, four members of the U.S. Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee introduced bipartisan legislation to extend existing federal regulations on chemical plant security by 5 years.

S. 2996 by Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), and George Voinovich (R-Ohio), would give DHS sufficient time to fully implement standards that it developed in 2007.

Chemical manufacturers have made great strides in bolstering security and are committed to continuing an aggressive approach to safeguarding America’s chemical facilities. In fact, over the past decade, chemical companies across the nation have spent more than $8 billion to enhance security.  The Senate version of the CFATS bill would allow them the certainty and regulatory guidance to continue making those important investments.

Members of the Texas Chemical Council are committed to protecting the safety and security of their manufacturing plants, their employees, and the communities where they operate.

To learn more about our industry’s commitment to safety and security, we invite you to attend the TCC/ACIT EHS Seminar at Moody Gardens Hotel and Conference Center in Galveston, TX, from June 7 to June 10. For information about the conference, speakers, exhibitors, tracks and topics, click here: http://ehs-seminar.com/.

EPA’s action came just one day after the TCEQ approved revisions to the Qualified Facilities rule to satisfy the EPA's previous concerns.

To view the EPA News Release, please click on the following link: News Release

TCC attended a meeting with EPA and industry representatives on April 2^nd to discuss the Qualified Facilities Program and EPA future actions with regard to Flexible Permits, NSR Reform and BACT. We will continue to monitor all EPA actions and keep you informed. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mike McMullen at (512)646-6404 or mmcmullen@txchemcouncil.org.

One program that is being considered will be a Plastic Bag “Take Bag” program with education and outreach campaign, supplemented by customer incentives to reduce plastic bag use. The goals of the program are as follows:

· Eliminate plastic bags in their curbside program
· Reduce plastic bag litter in San Antonio
· Increase recovery rate of plastic bags
· Increase use of reusable bags

The Division is planning to conduct another round of stakeholder meetings in mid-April to further gather ideas and input to be utilized together with the City’s goals in developing a policy for San Antonio.

TCC has participated in these stakeholder meetings along with representatives from the American Chemistry Council’s Progressive Bag Affiliates Division. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mike McMullen at (512) 646-6404 or via email at mmcmullen@txchemcouncil.org.

“This is not a decision that I’ve made lightly,” he said in remarks at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. “But the bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs and keep our businesses competitive, we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel, even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy.”

Obama’s decision is closely tied politically to the fate of the climate change bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) And while it could gain the president support from conservative Democrats and Republicans – Graham has said he would not support a bill that “doesn’t have offshore drilling in a meaningful way” – it is also likely to rile part of Obama’s Democratic base, particularly environmentalists.

In urging Congress to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation, Obama attempted to bridge the political divide by tying offshore drilling to the nation’s security and stressing that it’s one piece of a larger energy plan.

“There will be those who strongly disagree with this decision, including those who say we should not open any new areas to drilling,” Obama acknowledged. “But what I want to emphasize is that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and long term.”

Obama is proposing the first new offshore oil and gas sales in the Atlantic in two decades. The decision modifies a 20-year-old ban that limited new drilling, confining most to the seas off the Gulf of Mexico. The new policy would permit exploration 50 miles off the coasts of Virginia and, under some circumstances, Florida.  The government will continue lease sales in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico.

While Obama gave a nod to environmental groups, by cancelling proposed leasing in Alaska’s Bristol Bay, he tapped other wells of discontent by allowing exploration elsewhere. Opposition to offshore drilling — for fear of pollution of the seas and coastline — has been one of the key galvanizing forces of the environmental movement for more than 40 years.

Obama cast his decision as a one that balances environmental concerns with the need for the United States to depend more on home-grown energy sources. He said he and his top advisers closely examined the idea of offshore drilling for more than a year.

Obama said his energy plan will boost the economy by putting the United States in position to compete in global energy marketplace “so that we are no longer tethered to the whims of what happens somewhere in the Middle East.”

The president urged those on both sides of the energy debate to cede some ground. Addressing Republicans who believe his offshore drilling initiative doesn’t go far enough, Obama suggested they embrace his clean energy initiatives by pointing out that the United States has 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, yet is responsible for 20 percent of global consumption.

“Is this President Obama’s clean energy plan or Palin’s ‘drill, baby, drill’ campaign?" asked Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford. “While China and Germany are winning the clean energy race, this act furthers America’s addiction to oil. Expanding offshore drilling in areas that have been protected for decades threatens our oceans and the coastal communities that depend on them with devastating oil spills, more pollution and climate change.”

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the plan did not go far enough.“Opening up areas off the Virginia coast to offshore production is a positive step, but keeping the Pacific Coast and Alaska, as well as the most promising resources of the Gulf of Mexico, under lock and key makes no sense at a time when gasoline prices are rising and Americans are asking ‘Where are the jobs?’ ” Boehner said.

Drafts of the Senate climate bill include proposals to give greater federal revenues to states that opt for drilling off their coasts, according to lobbyists who’ve been briefed on the legislation.

The issue is expected to emerge as a major battle, if Congress takes up the issue this spring.But some moderate Democrats say the legislation cannot get 60 votes needed to move along in the Senate without an expansion of drilling.

“It’s just impossible to pass any piece of legislation without it,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). “In order to get any bill through here, there’s going to be expanded drilling opportunities both on-shore and off.”

“It will be a fight — it always is,” she said, “but I think we'll win.”

The proposed legislation, encouraged by President Barack Obama, dilutes a climate bill that stalled last year in the Senate. The senators have hosted meetings with industry groups over the past month, revealing details about their plan that would cap carbon emissions while expanding offshore oil drilling and nuclear power generation.

Nearly six months have passed since the Senate’s most recent climate bill failed to win over conservatives and moderates, a political stalemate that cast a shadow at the Copenhagen climate summit. But some Democrats say the passage of healthcare reform has opened the door for climate change legislation, while acknowledging trade-offs will be needed to secure 60 Senate votes.

“They know that to pass a comprehensive bill they will have to ease concerns of some special interests and mid-western senators whose states have manufacturing-oriented economies,” said Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal think-tank.

Environmental groups are divided over the bill, with some decrying the push to pre-empt existing state and federal greenhouse gas regulations. But many moderate groups are withholding judgment until the bill is introduced, saying concessions to industry bodies will be necessary.

According to people briefed by the senators, the bill aims to cut carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 17 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050, largely by implementing separate caps on utilities and manufacturers. The federal government would sell separate pollution permits to each sector, using a “hard price collar” to limit greenhouse gas allowances to between $10 and $30 per ton, and committing to flood the market with credits if the price ceiling is exceeded.

Sen. Lindsey Graham

The bill’s sponsors – John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, Joseph Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut, and Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican – said the new “sectoral” approach would begin imposing carbon caps on utilities in 2012 and manufacturers in 2016.

The bill includes a new gasoline tax, which would be passed on to consumers, though this could be vulnerable in the efforts to reach a compromise. By mentioning investment in conventional energy, the senators have elicited favorable responses from industry leaders, including lobbyists from the US Chamber of Commerce, who opposed the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed by the House of Representatives last spring. After meeting the senators, Bruce Josten, the chamber’s top lobbyist, said their efforts were “largely in sync” with industry targets.

Graham, distinguishing his legislation from last year’s bill, told reporters “the cap-and-trade bills in the House and Senate are dead” and would be replaced.

He hopes his sector-by-sector approach to regulation, unlike Waxman-Markey’s economy-wide cap, will help him save face among conservatives. His role in the bill’s formulation was itself in doubt after he said the Democrats’ handling of healthcare reform “poisoned the well” for bipartisan co-operation.

The senators hope to send details of the bill to the Environmental Protection Agency this week. The bill is likely to be introduced by late April.

Federal regulators have been ramping up their scrutiny of the plastic-hardener at the behest of scientists and activists who claim it can interfere with infant growth and development.

The EPA said in a statement it would begin measuring levels of BPA in drinking and ground water. More than 1 million pounds of BPA are allegedly released into the environment each year, according to the agency. The EPA will also “look for ways to reduce unnecessary exposures, including assessing substitutes.”

BPA is found in canned food linings, water bottles, CDs and hundreds of other household items. In January, the Food and Drug Administration changed its position on the chemical’s safety, voicing “some concern” about its effects on children and infants. The agency previously concluded in 2008 that the trace amounts of the chemical that leach out of food containers are safe.

“We share FDA's concern about the potential health impacts from BPA,” said Steve Owens, an assistant administrator with EPA.

The EPA’s action did not come without some political prodding. In March, Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York urged the EPA to develop an action plan for BPA. He noted that BPA was left off a list of four chemicals subject to tighter regulation, despite EPA director Lisa Jackson publicly voicing concern about the chemical.

The federal government has been grappling with the safety of BPA for almost three years. The FDA and has set aside $30 million to study BPA’s safety over the next 18 to 24 months.

While the FDA gathers more information, consumer safety advocates have urged the EPA to push ahead with tighter regulation of the chemical. The EPA has authority to restrict the use of chemicals that pose risks to the environment and public health. The FDA regulates ingredients and packaging of processed foods and drugs.

The American Chemistry Council has argued that BPA is safe and has been used widely since the 1950s. “It is important to recognize that EPA is not proposing any regulatory action regarding human health,” the group said in a statement.

Although the law was effective on the date the President signed it, not all of its provisions are effective immediately. For example, certain coverage mandates don’t take effect until the first plan year starting on or after September 23, 2010. Other provisions are phased in between 2011 and 2018.

The sweeping reform package — the most extensive piece of health care legislation since Medicare — mandates that all individuals purchase health care insurance or face penalties, places an excise tax on benefit-rich ‘Cadillac’ plans, mandates that all companies with 50 or more employees offer health insurance or face fines of as much as $2,000 per employee, and creates a framework for states to set up insurance marketplaces where small businesses and people without employer-provided coverage can buy insurance.

In addition, manufacturers that are incorporated as subchapter S corporations may be subject to a new tax on their investment income

For a list of questions and answers for employers regarding the new health care legislation, click here: Health Care Q&A.

“My experience will be better used fighting this effort by the president and the Congress to do so much to take away the essence of America,” she said in an appearance with her Texas Republican colleague, Sen. John Cornyn, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

McConnell and Cornyn hailed her announcement. “We need Kay Hutchison in the Senate, and all of her Republican colleagues are grateful that she has decided to stay and fight,” McConnell said.

The decision scrambles plans for more than a half-dozen candidates who were considering a run to fill Hutchison’s seat if she resigned.

Governor Perry praised Hutchison’s move.“Her experience will be crucial to reforming the health care disaster and to holding job-killing cap and trade legislation at bay,” he said in a written statement. He also noted that a special election could have cost the state millions of dollars.

Hutchison is in her third full Senate term. She first won election in 1993, a special election to replace Democrat Lloyd Bentsen, who resigned to be treasury secretary in the Clinton administration.

• Air Liquide
• BASF
• CDI
• Chemic Engineers
• Chevron Phillips
• ConocoPhillips
• Dow Chemical
• ENGlobal Engineering
• Freeport LNG
• Gulf States, Inc.
• Infinity Construction Services
• PICS
• Psychemedics
• S & B Engineers & Constructors
• SI Group
• Testengeer, Inc.
• The Economic Development Alliance for Brazoria County

ACIT thanks the exhibitors of the Reverse Trade Show for their participating in the show that attracted more than 320 attendees.  ACIT also thanks the following Trade Show Sponsors:

• 24 Hour Safety, LLC
• AmeriTrac Railroad Services
• AXion Logistics
• Compositech Filters
• Dunn Heat Exchangers
• Great Western Metals
• Gulf Coast S & S
• Gulftex Vending & Coffee Services
• Lisco Valve Service
• PetroSpect Inspection Services
• RailWorks Track Systems – Texas
• Ray Anthony International
• Reliable Turnaround Services, LLC
• Sprint Waste
• The Mat Rental Company
• Total Safety US, Inc.
• Wells Fargo Advisor, LLC

More photos of the ACIT Mid-Coast Reverse Trade Show can be found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chemicalcouncil/sets/72157623568497291/