Menu

Caught up in the Washington debate over homeland security issues is a proposed chemical security act that would require new chemical site security upgrades at facilities with certain hazardous materials. This would include some farm chemical suppliers.

American Farm Bureau pesticide specialist Rebeckah Freeman said the intent may be good, but there are some serious problems with the plan.

One of AFBF’s biggest concerns is that under the proposal, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would regulate the new provisions. "We certainly don't think EPA has expertise in chemical sites and certainly not an expertise in terrorism. They're an emergency response, accidental spill, type of agency, not a terrorist prevention agency," Freeman said.

She said voluntary efforts by the chemical facilities should be considered, but if they aren't sufficient, then a mandatory security program may be warranted. If so, it should be under the control of the Office of Homeland Security.

Beyond security issues, Freeman said AFBF is wary of EPA’s past performance as a regulator. "We're not convinced that EPA won’t eventually be on the farm trying to (regulate farmers), and they'll be treating us like they treat a big chemical company."

She said another Farm Bureau concern is that the federal government may charge ahead on these plans without having the proper authority to do so. Said Freeman: "We are concerned the administration is perceiving that it has the authority to do at least some of the things that the legislation wants to do. They perceive they have that authority already under what they call the general duty clause of the clean air act."

AFBF plans to monitor both the overall homeland security issue as well as the specific ways farm chemical facilities might be affected.