A US House subcommittee passed chemical security legislation Oct. 14 that critics said would change federal regulations that have not been fully implemented.
The Energy and Commerce Committee's Energy and Environment Subcommittee approved HR 2868, the Chemical Security Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, by 18 to 10 votes and referred it to the full committee. The bill would amend the 2002 Homeland Security Act by adding a title regulating security practices at US chemical facilities, including refineries and petrochemical plants.
If it becomes law, the measure would give the secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authority to designate a chemical as a "substance of concern" and set limits on how much of such substances could be used, stored, processed, manufactured, or distributed at a regulated installation. Risk-based regulated tiers would be assigned for each covered site, which would be notified within 60 days of its designation or any change in it.
The DHS secretary also would have to develop regulations establishing risk-based and performance-based standards, protocols, and procedures for mandatory security vulnerability assessments (SVAs) and site security plans (SSPs) and set deadlines by tier for completing both. The secretary would approve or disapprove SVAs and SSPs within 180 days of their submission. Covered plants would have to review and resubmit SVAs and SSPs at least every 5 years.
The bill also would establish an Office of Chemical Security, and require covered plants to establish security background checks for employees and others with access to the plant's restricted areas.
'Making a mistake'
The measure drew fire from the full committee's ranking minority member. "I think we're making a mistake. I think we're making significant changes to a chemical facility security program that's not even been fully implemented yet," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) as markup of the bill began before the vote. "I think we should wait until it is implemented before we decide to change it."
Chemical security applies to a broad swath of the US economy, from hospitals to farms to factories as well as chemical plants, Barton said, adding, "We should at least identify and understand the problem we are trying to fix before we rush head-long into legislation. We seem to be approaching this from the perspective of crafting a solution in search of a problem."
In a statement following the vote, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association Pres. Charles T. Drevna also noted that current federal chemical facility antiterrorism standards still are in the process of being implemented and should at least have the opportunity to take effect before changes are made.
NPRA also believes mandating an "inherently safer technology" (IST) program for facilities in the two highest tiers, as the legislation proposes, is unnecessary, he added. "IST is an engineering philosophy, not a technique, nor is it a panacea for security. Forced chemical switching under an IST mandate will not necessarily result in safer operations, and in fact, may result in increased risks to facilities, their employees, the public, and the environment," Drevna said.
Increased regulatory and financial burdens under an IST mandate would likely cause many petrochemical and refining businesses to consider simply moving their operations overseas, he warned. "Unfortunately, this bill appears to be nothing more than an attempt to further a partisan environmental agenda in the name of security," he said.
More Oil & Gas Journal Current Issue Articles
More Oil & Gas Journal Archives Issue Articles