Senate Committee Passes Chemical Security Bill

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, October 23, 2003 (ENS) - The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today passed a bill to require some of the nation's chemical storage facilities to submit vulnerability assessment and security plans to the Department of Homeland Security. Senate Republicans say the bill will improve security at chemical facilities, but critics contend the legislation lacks teeth and depends too much on voluntary compliance by facility operators.

The bill allows the industry to "self regulate without adequate government oversight or opportunity for public participation and judicial review," said Senator James Jeffords, a Vermont Independent.

Republicans, who passed the "Chemical Facilities Storage Act of 2003" out of committee with a partisan vote, argue the measure reflects a common sense approach to an issue Congress has failed to find consensus on.

Unlike a rival bill by New Jersey Democratic Senator Jon Corzine, which passed the committee last year but died on the Senate floor after Republican Senators withdrew support for the measure, the legislation passed today does not require the Department of Homeland Security to review every plan submitted by chemical facility operators.

Instead, it affords the department "the maximum amount of flexibility" in how they review and act on the plans, said Committee Chair James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and sponsor of the bill.

The federal government is unsure of the potential risks from a terrorist attack on a chemical plant. (Photo courtesy Sandia National Laboratories)

Inhofe's comments drew a sharp response from Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat.

"I do not see how you can compare someone making a mistake on their taxes to someone who makes a mistake in security and thousands of people could wind up very sick or dead," Boxer said. ""This sounds like a no brainer."

Boxer added that the concern over certification and compliance is "going to be a big issue on the floor of the Senate."

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat, said concerns by the Department of Homeland Security over a lack of resources to review and certify each assessment and plan should be addressed by the Bush administration.

"If that is the case, the administration should ask us to give them those resources," Clinton said. "Otherwise we are going through an exercise that has no accountability attached to it and that is a fool's errand."

Clinton pressed Inhofe on the issue and asked if he would support some kind of random accountability, whereby Homeland Security officials review and certify a percentage of the plans.

"There needs to be some assurance that we are not just going through an exercise for the sake of doing it," Clinton said.

Inhofe said the bill states "that we are submitting these for review," but added that he would consider Clinton's concerns when the bill hits the Senate floor.

How much information is released about the assessments and plans submitted by chemcial facility operators is another sticking point for critics of the bill.

"We must be careful not to allow sensitive information to fall into the wrong hands, however, it seems fundamental that citizens should know whether the plant in their community has complied with the law," Jeffords said.

But Republicans focused on the need to keep this information secure - Idaho Republican Senator Mike Crapo said "we do not need to be telling terrorists exactly how, where and under what circumstances they can create a problem."

Crapo, who supported the bill, said he is still concerned that it has a "one size fits all approach."

"We must ensure that the adequate alternatives we are requiring companies to consider in their vulnerability assessments are relative to the risks at the particular site," said Crapo, who urged members to recognize the voluntary steps the chemical industry has taken to tighten security.

Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration and many in Congress warned of the vulnerabilities of the nation's chemical facilities.

Local firefighters respond to a fire at a chemical facility. (Photo courtesy EPA)

The report did note that there have been some voluntary efforts by the $450 billion chemical industry to assess and tighten security at its facilities, but the extent of these efforts is "unknown."

Environmentalists and some in Congress have urged for legislation that pressures the chemical industry to reduce risks by adopting "inherently safer technologies" (ISTs), but Inhofe has rejected this concept.

"Some of the radical groups have been working on ISTs for a long time - long before September 11," Inhofe said. "This is a different agenda and not really connected to the issue we are talking about today."

"I do not know what that really means and I do not think that anyone else does," the Oklahoma Republican said. "It is a vague concept ... for this and other reasons I do not think the federal government should mandate ISTs for chemical processing."

The bill calls on chemical operators to consider alternative approaches when they do vulnerability assessments, but does not provide a mechanism to certify whether the provision is complied with.

Critics also took issue with the penalties laid out in the bill - it subjects federal employees to criminal penalties for recklessly or knowingly disclosing vulnerability assessments, response plans and other information but it holds operators who do not comply with the act to civil penalties.

"I am very concerned about provisions that subject federal employees to criminal penalties but do not subject a plant employee who may knowingly provide information to a terrorist to the same penalties," Jeffords said.

Inhofe defended the language and said the "existing penalty provisions offer an adequate deterrent."