[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: P2 and National Security

The train of thought that Mr. Cooper presents falls right in line with the mindset of the American Chemistry Council in developing their recent "Site Security Guidelines for the U.S. Chemical Industry" where they borrow from the process hazard analysis theories to expand on the notion of reviewing processes/operations for vulnerabilities, consequences, and probability of accidents.  Many of the wholistic elements of developing a strong security program are in-line with those of process safety and/or pollution prevention.  Burton, I think you're profound in making the link between these areas.  As an EHS professional practicing in all three areas (process safety, P2 and now security), I appreciate your bringing this connection to the light and hope there is more discussion in this regard.

William H. Barnes, PE
Environmental Services Manager
2107-A N. Hamilton St.
Richmond, VA 23230
(804) 358-7111 ext. 12
(804) 358-6646 (fax)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Cooper [mailto:cooperre@flash.net]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 5:50 AM
To: Burton Hamner; p2tech; ECDM; AP CP List
Subject: Re: P2 and National Security

Doing a good job of accident prevention is also pollution prevention since pollution is almost always associated with accidents that involve chemical substances.  When I taught seminars on how to prevent chemical accidents, the first step was to identify the possible events that could lead to an unplanned and/or uncontrolled chemical release, including human error (stupidity or cupidity-(;-)!).  Then, after assessing severity of consequences and probability, and organizing the events into hierarchies, find ways to reduce severity and probability of each event, by engineering, procedures, training, etc.  Then do the response training.
This process reduces risk from intentional as well as unintentional events.  It starts with the idea that we can prevent much pollution associated with unplanned and/or uncontrolled releases of chemical substances.
Ralph E. Cooper, Ph.D.
Mediator and Attorney at Law
9901 IH-10 West, Suite 800
San Antonio, TX 78230
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 7:06 PM
Subject: P2 and National Security

Hello all.  I am doing some thinking about Pollution Prevention and national security at request of a colleague and also for a workshop in March.  Is there an obvious connection?  Or some more subtle ones?  Here are some of my thoughts:
- Toxics reduction:  P2 can mean fewer toxic chemicals around for people to make trouble with.
- Minimum requirements for resources:  P2 can reduce the amount of water and energy that people need to get by, so they are less vulnerable perhaps in event of disruption of supply.  Reducing use also makes distributed generation of power and clean water more feasible so systems have fewer vulnerable points.
- Carbohydrate chemistry and chemical substitutions and reduction can reduce the need for imported oil (tho this is hardly likely to make any difference).
Does anyone have other ideas to share?  It may be that this is all just reaching a little too far for relevance to national security.  But that's what listservs are for - reaching way far!
Burt Hamner