Chemical plant securityFate of chemical security bill uncertain
Late last month the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved legislation to extend federal regulations designed to keep chemical plants safe from terrorist attacks, but the bill’s ultimate passage is far from guaranteed; the bill that was recently passed is one of two competing House proposal — the proposals each envisions a different congressional panel monitoring chemical plant safety — and it is unclear which will make it to the floor for debate; in addition, many Democrats and some northeastern Republicans want the extension of the bill to be tied to toughening its language; further to examine what DHS is doing to secure the U.S. chemical facilities from terrorist attack, ASIS is hosting a panel on the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) at ASIS annual conference in Orlando, Florida
2009 Bayer CropScience chemical plant explosion // Source: wvgazette.com
Late last month the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved legislation to extend federal regulations designed to keep chemical plants safe from terrorist attacks, but its ultimate passage is far from guaranteed.
The bill would extend the existing DHS security regulations, known as the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), for an additional seven years. The law was originally passed in 2006 and is set to expire in October of this year. The proposed law, however, faces several stiff political challenges and the future of CFATS remains uncertain. One challenge is the result of a turf war between two House panels – the Homeland Security Committee and the Appropriations Committee – over which panel would be in charge of monitoring chemical plant security. The other challenge, supported by many Democrats and a number of northeast Republicans, wants to see the extension of CFATS tied to a toughening of the original, 2006 bill on two fronts: the first is whether or not there should be a federal preemption of state chemical plant regulations, and the second is whether or not to allow DHS to require that plants located close to large urban areas replace the more toxic and volatile chemicals they use with safer, but more expensive, chemicals.
The bill that was recently passed is one of two competing House proposal and it is unclear which will make it to the floor for debate.
The other proposed chemical security bill was passed by the Homeland Security subcommittee 14 April and is part of a broader turf war between congressional committees. The law passed in April would allow DHS to oversee high-risk plants for an additional seven years, but the extension comes as a modification of the 2002 law that created DHS.
According to Representative Dan Lungren (R- California), the bill’s sponsor, this move would, in effect, give the Homeland Security Committee, rather than the Appropriations Committee, full jurisdiction over the implementation of chemical security measures.
Meanwhile in the Senate, there has been little movement on its version of the chemical security bill. A bill sponsored by Senator Susan Collins (R – Maine), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, was introduced in March but has not been touched since.
Members of the chemical industry worry that laws will not be passed and that CFATS will only be extended for another year.
“We want to see legislation passed this year within the next few months,” said Bill Allmond of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates. “The industry and any facility that is covered by this regulation remains in uncertainty until Congress extends it beyond this year-after-year appropriation.”
On the other side, critics of the current CFATS program hope that the legislation continues to be stalled.
Chemical watchdogs argue that CFATS is insufficient and puts millions of Americans at risk.
Rick Hind, the legislative director for Greenpeace, said reauthorizing CFATS for only another year would provide more vigorous debate over the program and could eventually result in a stronger bill.
“The only difference in our nation’s security between a one year extension and a multi-year extension is that with a one-year extension Congress will have the opportunity to more quickly address disaster prevention and other loopholes in CFATS, such as exemptions for thousands of water treatment plants and hundreds of port facilities,” Hind said. “That is exactly why Congress put a sunset provision in CFATS when it was originally enacted in 2006.”
Further to examine what DHS is doing to secure the U.S. chemical facilities from terrorist attack, ASIS is hosting a panel on CFATS at its annual conference in Orlando, Florida.
Attendees of the 2011 ASIS Security Conference will have the opportunity to learn what DHS is doing to secure the nation’s chemical facilities through the CFATS program.
The event will be held from 19 September to 22 September and feature former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Vicente Fox, the former president of Mexico.
ASIS is the leading organization for security professionals and has more than 37,000 members across the world. The organization is dedicated to increasing the effectiveness and productivity of security professionals by developing educational programs and materials that address security interests.
