Customer Service Place an Ad Become a Carrier Contact Us About Us Mobile Edition E-Mail Updates Report Cancellation
| Subscribe Now Customer Service Place an Ad Become a Carrier Contact Us About Us Mobile Edition E-Mail Updates Report Cancellation
|
 |
 |
|
Weather  Calendar Obituaries Classifieds Jobs Autos Homes Rentals Coupons Ad Center |
Bloomington-Normal, Illinois
|
Home News Sports
Free Time Life Money Nation/World Opinion Blogs/Columns Archives Site Map |
| NewsSaturday, September 1, 2007 10:10 PM CDT |
 Comments (6) |  E-mail this page |  Print this page |  Enlarge type |  Reduce type |  Search archives |  RSS feeds |  Add to My Yahoo! |
Are chicken farms in terrorist crosshairs?
In 28 years of raising chickens, Virgil Shockley has had his share of worries, from bird disease to pollution. But nothing prepared him for the latest concern sweeping the poultry industry: Local farms could be deemed terrorist targets by the U.S. government. “Out here?’’ Shockley exclaimed, gesturing across a rutted dirt road from his home on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, toward six long metal sheds filled with birds. But nestled in the grass between his sheds are rows of large propane tanks, used to heat the chicken houses. They fall under regulations recently proposed by the Department of Homeland Security for the chemical industry. Like many others in the $1.6 billion Delmarva poultry industry, Shockley can’t imagine that a propane tank could pose a threat in that rural area. “Hell, if it blows, you’ve got barbecued chicken!’’ he said. Shockley is part of an unlikely group of people who have been swept up in Homeland Security’s quest to protect the chemical industry from terrorist attacks. The proposed regulations, drafted after years of debate, would require thousands of chemical-using businesses to fill out extensive questionnaires in coming months. Homeland Security would then require the highest-risk companies to draw up detailed security plans. Industry groups and politicians are complaining that Homeland Security is casting too wide a net. In recent months, they have bombarded the agency with concerns that the regulations could affect not only chemical giants but also mom-and-pop dry cleaners, university labs, doctors’ offices and even camper parks. “Given the serious threats that are currently facing our country ... please explain why this initiative is a good use of federal dollars,’’ Sens. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., and Thomas Carper, D-Del., wrote last month to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, complaining of the effect on chicken farms. Homeland Security officials are promising to respond to the furor — hinting that the regulations will be adjusted. “A small percentage of farmers that use or store propane in agricultural facilities will be covered,’’ spokeswoman Laura Keehner said recently. Striking a balance But the controversy illustrates a continuing dilemma for the government: how to strike the right balance between safety and the freedom to conduct one’s business. “There’s got to be some sanity here, or people will stand back and go, ‘Exactly who’s winning here?’ ‘’ said Jim Thrift of the Agricultural Retailers Association, a trade group. Homeland Security officials, politicians and analysts say the regulations are a long-overdue effort to address a serious problem. The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly called for federal anti-terrorism requirements for chemical facilities, warning that voluntary steps by the industry weren’t enough. But for years, Congress and the Bush administration couldn’t agree on how to regulate the industry. That changed last fall, when Homeland Security was put in charge of setting security standards for businesses that manufacture, use, store or distribute certain chemicals. The agency drew up a proposed list of more than 300 chemicals that would trigger reporting requirements — including propane. P.J. Crowley, director of homeland security at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said the Homeland Security survey will undoubtedly sweep in companies that are not high-risk terrorism targets. But he said the exercise would produce numerous benefits, such as giving the agency a broad perspective of chemical use across the country. “The fact that DHS is, in essence, making its presence known does send a very important signal here,’’ he said. “It’s important for those who are involved in the production or use of hazardous materials to review what they’re doing.’’ Keehner said such chemicals as propane and chlorine have been used in terrorist plots in London and Iraq. “At this point, we live in a post-9/11 world,’’ the Homeland Security spokeswoman said. “There are basic measures that are incumbent on us as U.S. citizens. And there are small inconveniences.’’ To the affected businesses, though, the inconveniences are anything but small. Keehner said it will take a few hours, at most, to complete the Web-based questionnaire, but industry groups said it could take much longer. That’s particularly true in rural areas with limited high-speed Internet access — such as Maryland’s chicken-farm belt. “Hell, I go on 10 minutes checking my e-mail, and I get bumped off,’’ Shockley said. The questionnaire could also pose problems for colleges and universities. Ara Tahmassian, a Boston University administrator, told a congressional subcommittee last month that some universities have more than 1,000 laboratories scattered across their campuses. Some may have a mere test-tube full of a chemical on the list, she said, adding that it would be “challenging’’ to quickly track down all the substances. Richard Roldan, head of the National Propane Gas Association, said more than 100,000 propane users would probably have to fill out the questionnaire under the proposed rules, which apply to anyone with more than 7,500 pounds of the substance — about 1,750 gallons. Congressional and industry officials say the situation highlights the inexperience of the four-year-old Department of Homeland Security. Unlike environmental protection officials, who have regulated chemicals for years, Homeland Security personnel are new to the area. Many are former military officers with little industry experience, Thrift said. TNT overlooked He offered an example of the head-scratching inconsistencies: For some chemicals, even the tiniest amount triggers a reporting requirement. But for trinitrotoluene, the threshold is 2,000 pounds. “That’s TNT,’’ Thrift said. “Somebody missed that one.’’ Shockley, the chicken farmer, estimated that three-quarters of the poultry growers in the Delmarva area could be affected by the proposed regulations. Shockley said he understands Homeland Security’s desire to reduce any terrorism vulnerability. In addition to running his chicken farm, he is a Worcester County commissioner and sits on the local emergency planning committee. “I appreciate the fact that they have a job to do,’’ he said. “Having said that, I don’t know who in the world thought this was a good idea.’’ E-mail this story | Print this story | Search archives | RSS Show comments |  Hide comments | Hide comments on all stories |
|
||||||
|
 |
|
Top of Page | Home | News | Sports | Free Time | Life | Money | Nation/World | Opinion | Blogs/Columns | Archives | Site Map | RSS
Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
|