 |
 |
| Back Issues |
|
|
|
|
ACS Members can sign up to receive C&EN e-mail newsletter.  |
|
|
 Join ACS |
|
|||||||||
|
GOVERNMENT
A voluntary program in which EPA assists and encourages chemical companies to develop counterterrorism and security protections was announced last week by the agency as part of its new Strategic Plan for Homeland Security.
According to the plan, the agency's strategy for working with chemical companies on site security is one of "assisting," "encouraging," and "exploring" security guidelines, vulnerability assessments, and inherently safer technologies at plants, rather than requiring such actions or verifying that they were done. The Administration and EPA, Whitman said, had considered using its regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act and other laws to require companies to take antiterrorism steps. She believes EPA has such authority, but several industry groups do not. Whitman said that, after internal debate, EPA decided the "push back" in the form of litigation would be too great. Consequently, she said, about a month ago EPA abandoned the regulatory approach. Chris VandenHeuvel, communications director of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), called the strategy a "good stop-gap measure that encourages all chemical companies to take steps like those our members already have under way." But he added that the federal government has yet to provide guidance on its eventual role in plant security.
"This is a good interim measure. It provides no new authority, no new regulations, no new effort to compel companies." Chris VandenHeuvel, ACC
Robert Perks of the Natural Resources Defense Council called the strategy a "complete failure" that does not address "the very real threat to the public of a terrorist attack on the nation's chemical plants." A day before Whitman's announcement, Maj. Gen. Bruce M. Lawlor, a senior official in the White House Office of Homeland Security, said the Administration will support legislation requiring chemical facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and take counterterrorism actions. Speaking at a Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association security conference, Lawlor said that such a law would "perhaps" include money for companies to implement security improvements. Meanwhile, Whitman said EPA remains committed to legislation that could require companies to conduct terrorism vulnerability assessments and take mitigation measures, particularly companies that handle dangerous chemicals but are not members of trade associations that are voluntarily implementing security measures. "It is always better to get legislation and have parties start to come together in a bipartisan way," she said. "This is the clearest, cleanest, best, and fastest way to get this done." However, no such legislation has been made public (C&EN, Sept. 30, page 8). Whitman, Lawlor, and ACC all oppose S. 1602, sponsored by Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-N.J.), the only bill that actually requires vulnerability assessments and risk reduction efforts. It unanimously passed in committee but appears dead for this congressional session. ACC also opposes involvement by EPA in plant counterterrorism efforts. But Whitman pointedly told reporters that President George W. Bush has designated EPA as the lead federal agency for reducing vulnerability of the chemical industry. Consequently, if legislation does come forth, EPA's role in antiterrorism activities at the plant level or in a Homeland Security Department will be hotly contested. |
|||||||||
|
Chemical & Engineering News |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
