Chemical plant safetyHouse tightens chemical plant safety bill
Published 10 November 2009
A House bill is set to tighten some provisions of the original chemical plant safety bill of two years ago; specifically, the House bill demands that chemical plants be obligated to replace the most toxic and volatile — and, hence, the most dangerous — chemicals they use in their operations with safer substitutes — but in a nod to the chemical industry, the bill focuses only on the highest-risk plants, and it would make them use safer chemicals or processes only when DHS determines that they are feasible and cost-effective
The other day the New York Times editorial noted that, more than eight years after the attacks of 9/11, the House of Representatives has passed a bill to shore up security at U.S. chemical plants. “The requirements are reasonable, vital and long overdue.” the editorial says. If terrorists were to attack a chemical plant near an American city or large town, they could unleash a toxic cloud that could endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands.
Environmental groups, most notably Greenpeace, and organized labor have been pushing Congress to enact tough chemical plant security legislation, but the chemical industry — concerned about the cost — has long resisted.
The first chemical plant safety bill was passed nearly two years ago, but it contained three major concessions to the chemical industry: Chemical plants, even those in close proximity to population centers, were not obligated to replace the most toxic and volatile chemicals they were using with safer substitutes; the federal law was made to supersede state chemical safety laws — if the latter were more stringent than the federal law; and much of the information chemical plants were made to share with the federal government about their security measures was exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure requirements.
The House bill to which the Times refers set out to correct the first of these concessions. The Times writes that the House bill is a carefully written compromise that is more than accommodating to the concerns of industry. It focuses only on the highest-risk plants, and it would make them use safer chemicals or processes only when DHS determines that they are feasible and cost-effective.
“Now the Senate needs to act,” the Times implores. Senators will be under considerable pressure from industry to pass a watered-down version. Industry lobbyists are arguing that it should be their decision, not the government’s, whether it is feasible or cost-effective to replace unsafe chemicals. “The Senate should pass a bill that parallels the House version, and President Obama should sign it,” the Times says.
While the House was considering the issue, the Clorox Company announced earlier this month that it was choosing to convert all of its factories that use chlorine gas — a lethal substance — to safer chemical processes. Greenpeace estimates that that will eliminate the risk to the more than 13 million Americans who live in range of Clorox’s facilities. The switch will also greatly reduce the threat to many more Americans who live near the rail lines used to transport the chlorine to Clorox’s plants — another point of high vulnerability to terrorist attack or accident.
“Clorox deserves credit for its decision,” the Times editorial writes. “But many more companies are continuing to put the public at risk on a daily basis. On a life-or-death issue like this, voluntary actions are not enough. There needs to be a strong safety law, with the enforcement power of the federal government behind it.”
More Stories:
