|
Contested Provisions Survive Chemical Security Bill Challenges |
|
|
|
|
by Mickey McCarter
|
|
Thursday, 25 June 2009 |
Homeland Security Committe preserves IST, civil suits
The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009 (HR 2868), as passed by the House Homeland Security Committee Tuesday night, contains a little something to upset everyone.
The legislation, introduced by Chairman Bennie Thompson, got through the committee with provisions strongly opposed by Republicans and the chemical industry. All Democrats voted for the bill and all Republicans against, moving the bill on a vote of 18-11.
The bill would empower the secretary of Homeland Security to mandate the use of inherently safer technology (IST) for chemical facilities and allows uninjured plaintiffs to bring civil suits against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over allegations of failure to enforce chemical security laws or against chemical facilities for failing to comply.
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), an association that opposes the IST mandate, noted that Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) had added amendments to the bill that would compel the secretary of Homeland Security to report to Congress on the impact IST would have on target facilities and would block any IST mandate that would require a facility to cut staff or production.
"[W]e continue to have serious reservations about the proposed legislation, namely its environmental approach to a security issue," Bill Allmond, SOCMA vice president of Government Relations, said in a statement Wednesday. "The IST provision would take the decisions about risk away from workers in chemical facilities and leave them to bureaucrats in Washington. It would force scientists' hands and deal a severe economic blow to SOCMA's member companies. This provision could have disastrous unintended consequences for a number of industries, all while having minimal impact on the actual security of a chemical facility."
Chemical manufacturers also dislike a provision of the bill that would permit civil suits against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for failing to enforce Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) or chemical companies to failing to comply. They would prefer to see an extension of the CFATS law already on the books. DHS is still carrying out the law, which is set to expire Sept. 30.
Environmental activist organization Greenpeace Inc., however, found fault with the new legislation for going too easy on chemical companies.
"Unfortunately, four amendments were adopted that will either delay or derail the most effective security measures at high risk chemical plants. If enacted these loopholes could allow the highest risk plants to forgo the use of safer chemical processes, leaving millions at risk. Congress has a duty to close these loopholes before it is enacted," Rick Hind, legislative director of Greenpeace, said in a statement Tuesday night.
Greenpeace complained of two amendments introduced by Dent to "weaken" the IST provisions. The organization argued that the bill already would require an analysis of the costs of implementing IST and also would require a study of whether application of IST to a chemical facility would economically impair the facility. Therefore, the chemical companies received additional loopholes in the bill that passed the House Homeland Security Committee, Greenpeace contended.
The organization also decried an amendment from Rep. Steve Austria (R-Ohio) that "could exempt the highest risk plants in the US from implementing safer chemical processes if they met the definition of 'a small business concern' established by the Small Business Administration." Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) added language to delay the exemption, which could apply to 40 percent of US chemical facilities in Greenpeace's view, for one year.
In addition, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) added a provision that would allow chemical companies to appeal any IST mandate to an administrative judge--another "loophole" Greenpeace declared unacceptable.
The House Homeland Security Committee shares jurisdiction over chemical facility security with the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is expected to mark up the original bill sometime in July. Thompson has hailed Energy Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) as a like-minded partner in the effort to secure chemical facilities.
|
Mickey McCarter |
| About the author: |
| eNewsletter Editor/Senior Washington Correspondent,
is a journalist with more than a decade of experience in reporting
on
military affairs and information technology.
|
| Read More >> | |
Columns 
