Representatives Tim Murphy (R-PA) and Gene Green (D-TX) have introduced H.R. 908, a bipartisan bill to extend the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) at the Department of Homeland Security to September 30, 2018. (They are now set to expire on March 18.) This is a sensible approach that allows the effective implementation of the CFATS standards, ensuring the safety of chemical plants while avoiding the unnecessary costs, complications and litigation of bills last session that sought more to restrict chemical usage than to achieve facility security goals.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, issued a statement endorsing the bill:

First authorized in 2006, the program ensures chemical facilities throughout the U.S. have the information and technical guidance they need to safeguard their facilities from terrorists and to comply with the CFATS standards.

“Protecting our chemical plants from terrorist threats is a key national security priority, and I welcome the bipartisan sponsorship of Congressmen Murphy and Green,” said Upton. “Together with Chairman John Shimkus and the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, and our colleagues in the House, I look forward to helping advance this legislation to the President’s desk to ensure chemical plant security is maintained.”

On the Senate side, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has introduced S. 473, with bipartisan cosponsors Sens. Mark Pryor (D-AR), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Rob Portman (R-OH). In her statement introducing the bill, Collins contended that the program currently works and should be extended. From Page S1223 of The Congressional Record:

Changing this successful law, as was proposed last year by the House of Representatives in partisan legislation, would discard what is working for an unproven and burdensome plan.

We must not undermine the substantial investments of time and resources already made in CFATS implementation by both DHS and the private sector. Worse would be requiring additional expenditures with no demonstrable increase to the overall security of our Nation.

In the 111th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives debated a provision that would alter the fundamental nature of CFATS. The provision would have required the Department to completely rework the program. It would have mandated the use of so-called “inherently safer technology,” or IST.

What is IST? It is an approach to process engineering. It is not, however, a security measure. An IST mandate may actually increase or unacceptably transfer risk to other points in the chemical process or elsewhere in the supply chain. (continue reading…)

The Senate Homeland Security Committee demonstrated concern for the economy, jobs and domestic security this week when it unanimously approved H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Act, with an amendment by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) that allows the current federal security efforts to become fully effective. Rather than disrupting the ongoing implementation of effective security measures as the House-passed bill would, the Senate measure extends the current anti-terrorism security program for three years.

The bill now reflects Collins’ S. 2996, the Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security Act. The Senator’s office issued a news release, “Homeland Security Committee Unanimously Approves Senator Collins’ Bill to Extend Chemical Facility Security Law“:

“Chemical facilities are tempting targets for terrorists,” said Senator Collins. “The Department of Homeland Security has done a remarkable job developing a comprehensive chemical security program, creating the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program. Although it is not even four years old, it has yielded a successful collaborative, risk-based security framework – providing a model for other security-related programs.

“While the Department has strong authority under the law to shut down non-compliant facilities, the key to this risk-based approach is that it makes the owners and operators of chemical plants partners with the government. The roles under the law are clear: the federal government sets requirements but recognizes that owners and operators of facilities are in the best position to design appropriate security measures to meet those requirements for their facilities.”

Her news release includes statements from Sens. George Voinovich (R-OH), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Mark Pryor (D-AR) endorsing the approach. (continue reading…)

The House Energy and Commerce Committee today reported out H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act by a 29-18 vote. (For the mark-up and amendments, go here.) While the goal of protecting chemical facilities from terrorist attacks is obviously desirable, the legislation complicates recent Homeland Security rules and adds significant new costs and burdens that make it more difficult to operate chemical plants. In the process, risks that chemical companies now manage well could be transferred to other venues less able to deal with the threats.

The National Association of Manufacturers joined 20 other trade associations in sending a letter to the committee expressing the groups’ opposition to the legislation. The major point of objection is the bill’s imposition of Inherently Safer Technology requirements. Sounds benign, but …

Specifically, we strongly object to the Inherently Safer Technology (IST) provisions of this legislation that would allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to mandate that businesses employ specific product substitutions and processes. These provisions would be significantly detrimental to the progress of existing chemical facility security regulations (the “CFATS” program) and should not be included in this legislation. DHS should not be making engineering or business decisions for chemical facilities around the country when it should be focused instead on making our country more secure and protecting it from terrorist threats. Decisions on chemical substitutions or changes in processes should be made by qualified professionals whose job it is to ensure safety at our facilities.

Furthermore, forced chemical substitutions could simply transfer risk to other points along the supply chain, failing to reduce risk at all. Because chemical facilities are custom-designed and constructed, such mandates would also impose significant financial hardship on facilities struggling during the current economic recession. Some of these forced changes are estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars per facility. Ultimately, many facilities would not be able to bear this expense.

More risks plus more costs equal fewer jobs. High energy costs over the past decade have already driven new chemical facilities overseas, and H.R. 2868 will just continue the trend.

In addition, the bill contains language to encourage “citizen suits” against facilities, letting environmental groups and others use the courts to attempt to manage (or more likely, prevent operation of) chemical facilities.

The committee defeated several amendments that would have improved the bill, including a sensible proposal to allow three years for the Department of Homeland Security to complete implementation of Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards. Instead of predictability and reasonable phase-ins, what’s left is a jobs-killing piece of legislation that conceivably worsens the security of chemical facilities.

More …

• News release, National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, “Coalition Cautions House Committee on Detrimental Impacts of ‘Security’ Bill“
• Letter, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates
• Voice For Liberty in Wichita blog, October 15, “Chemical security bill passes committee“

The Senate last week passed H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security’s appropriations bill, which included a one-year extension of department’s authority over security for chemical facilities potentially threatened by terrorist attacks. This one-year extension helps continue the progress that the agency and chemical industry have made in implementing safety and security regulations adopted in 2007, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards. (CFATS)

The House has also passed a one-year extension, and the approach is far superior to the permanent legislation passed by the House Homeland Security Committee, H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act. That seemingly well-intentioned piece of legislation would U.S. production and storage of chemicals more burdensome and costly while providing no benefit public safety or national security.

Bill Allmond, vice president of government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), put it well: “As we have argued for the past several months, Congress needs to address the October 2009 CFATS deadline expeditiously. Because the House appears, so far, to be more interested in passing controversial amendments like inherently safer technology (IST) to the existing regulations rather than make the rules permanent, this extension is the most responsible action.”

Earlier posts.