Chemical plant securitySharp divisions over chemical plant security measure

The extension of the 2006 Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), which now has gained the approval of committees in both House and Senate, has not tempered the debate over whether or not the measure goes far enough to secure the thousands of chemical facilities in the United States.

The chemical industry is for it. Until the fall of 2006, the industry fought tooth and nail against the measure, and for five years after the 9/11 attacks was successful. The tide was slowly turning against it, though, and the industry realized it was wiser to accept a moderate security measure rather than fight it and risk the imposition of a tougher measure.

This is why the industry fought for the extension of the 2006 bill and opposed changes to it which would have made it tougher.

The American Chemical Council (ACC) said in a press release that in response to the Senate committee is important vote, American Chemistry Council (ACC) President & CEO Cal Dooley issued the following statement:

“We applaud today’s bipartisan vote and commend the leadership of Chairman Joe Lieberman, Ranking Member Susan Collins and the members of this committee over the years to establish an effective chemical security regulatory program. The carefully crafted legislation approved today ensures the effort to secure chemical facilities will continue to advance under CFATS and provides the regulatory certainty that is vital to protecting the economic health of the nation.”

The ACC notes that since 2001, ACC members have took many step to bolster chemical security, investing more than $8 billion on facility security enhancements.

Critics of the CFATS, who opposed the measure in 2006, remain opposed. The OMB Watch, writing last week about the passage on 22 June of the House version of the bill (H.R. 901), argued that vulnerabilities to chemical infrastructure, including chemical plants and facilities, remain unaddressed by current law.

OMB Watch specifically notes that H.R. 901 fails to require safer and more secure chemical processes or any real disaster prevention for another seven years (when the bill will come up for extension).

OMB Watch says that on several occasions, DHS has asked Congress for the authority to require the highest risk chemical plants to switch to safer alternatives to eliminate or reduce the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack. Despite DHS’s concerns, OMB Watch says, the House committee approved a bill that:

• Prevents DHS from requiring specific security measures;
• Fails to require safer and more secure chemical processes;
• Exempts thousands of potentially high risk chemical and port facilities, including “approximately 2,400 water treatment facilities and 400-600 port facilities, including 125 of 150 U.S. refineries”; and
• Prevents plant employees from participating in assessing vulnerabilities and developing security plans.

We should note that in the 22 June markup, a few amendments were approved, out of more than ten offered. On a voice vote, the Committee passed an amendment, proposed by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), requiring DHS to consider making background checks for other federal security programs sufficient for the CFATS program. Among other amendments approved: an amendment, proposed by Representative Danny Davis (D-Illinois), requiring DHS to conduct an assessments of the impact of CFATS on jobs; and an amendment, proposed by Representative Kathy Hochul (D-New York), calling for DHS to provide technical assistance to facilities that need help filing site security plans (SSP).

One of the amendments that failed to pass was proposed by Representative Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi), to include water and wastewater facilities in the bill.