How To Reach C&ENACS Membership Number
Shell


 

September 23, 2002
Volume 80, Number 38
CENEAR 80 38 p. 15
ISSN 0009-2347


GOVERNMENT

SENATE DEBATES PLANT SECURITY
ACC opposes giving EPA lead role in chemical plant security plan

JEFF JOHNSON

Security from terrorists and safety at chemical companies were tied tightly last week as the Senate sparred over legislation that creates a Department of Homeland Security.

Arguments centered on the fate of a proposed amendment to the legislation, one of many that senators wish to add to the bill before it goes to a conference with the House, which has already cleared its version.

The amendment would require chemical companies and other users of large quantities of dangerous chemicals to develop and implement plans to improve plant security as well as reduce potential hazards. It is based on a bill--S. 1602, introduced by Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.)--that was unanimously approved by the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee in July.

Industry groups, led by the American Chemistry Council, strongly oppose S. 1602. ACC has lined up scores of industry associations--farmers, truckers, oil companies, bakers, food processors, electric utilities, and security companies, as well as chemical companies--to oppose the bill.

"This has been an amazing show of how these guys work," says a Senate aide, who works for a bill supporter. "There is real power here."

Corzine has slowly backtracked from his original bill, leaving many details that were once spelled out to be determined by the new department and EPA.

For instance, the bill once covered some 15,000 facilities. Now, it would be up to the new department and EPA to decide how many would be regulated, taking into consideration the population around a plant as well as the potential hazard. It would also allow companies to move ahead and institute their own security programs based on bill language, rather than waiting for new regulations.

"The amendment is not S. 1602 anymore," the aide says. "It has been changed dramatically, and it will be changed on the Senate floor."

But ACC remains opposed. Its main objection is to language in the amendment that puts EPA in charge of the security program.

Paul Orum, director of the Working Group on Community-Right-to-Know, counters: "The new department has no authority in industrial areas. No experience in chemical processes. No nothing. And EPA does." The new department, he says, will not encourage inherently safer chemical operations--such as using and storing less dangerous chemicals--as an alternative to increased security. That, he says, would be "a missed opportunity."

But for Chris VandenHeuvel, ACC director of communications, that is the problem: "S. 1602 is a toxic use reduction bill with a veneer of security added on."


"If S. 1602 were a serious security bill, it would not give an environmental agency primary authority for counterterrorism in a chemical facility. It should flip this around and give this authority to a security agency."

Chris VandenHeuvel, ACC director of communications


If legislation is necessary, he says, it should be modeled on a four-step ACC-run security program required of its members. It includes vulnerability assessments and other actions leading to third-party verification of a plant's security program by early 2004. If there is a role for the federal government, VandenHeuvel says, it could be in third-party verification of security plans, and even then it should not be EPA that does the audits.

An alternative Administration security program to be run by EPA, which was presented just a month ago (C&EN, Aug. 12, page 7), seems to have died, according to several sources. EPA did not return calls seeking comment.

As C&EN went to press, it was unclear if Senate leadership would allow amendments to the Homeland Security bill or, if offered, whether Corzine's would pass.

If amendment supporters fail to tack anything onto the homeland legislation, they say they will look to other bills, and VandenHeuvel says ACC will continue to oppose them.



Top


Chemical & Engineering News
Copyright © 2002 American Chemical Society



 
Related Stories
Homeland Security
[C&EN, Sept. 9, 2002]

CHEMICAL SITE SECURITY PLAN
[C&EN, Aug. 12, 2002]

SEVENTH CODE
[C&EN, Apr. 22, 2002]

SENATE PANEL OKS SECURITY BILL
[C&EN, Jul. 29, 2002]

ANTITERRORISM AT THE PLANT GATE
[C&EN, Nov. 26, 2001]

Related Sites
E-mail this article to a friend
Print this article
E-mail the editor
   

Home | Table of Contents | Today's Headlines | Business | Government & Policy | Science & Technology | C&EN Classifieds
About C&EN | How To Reach Us | How to Advertise | Editorial Calendar | Email Webmaster

Chemical & Engineering News
Copyright © 2002 American Chemical Society. All rights reserved.
• (202) 872-4600 • (800) 227-5558

CASChemPortChemCenterPubs Page