WASHINGTON — Legislation requiring chemical plants to develop better
security plans has bogged down in the Senate because of a dispute about
whether the federal government will force companies to switch to less
toxic compounds.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, drafted the legislation calling on the
Department of Homeland Security to require companies to develop
security plans based on the types of hazardous materials they have and
how vulnerable they may be to terrorist attacks.
The Homeland Security Committee that Collins heads unanimously approved
the bill June 15. Tougher standards would apply for more dangerous
locations. The chemical industry generally supports the effort in order
to avoid a patchwork of state laws.
But Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., is blocking it from coming to the
floor. His concern is that the bill could force a company to switch
chemicals because of safety concerns.
The dispute raises doubts about whether legislation on the subject will
be approved this year. A House committee is still developing its
version.
"I hope that we can ease whatever concerns that he has," Collins said
of Inhofe. "But it is imperative that we pass chemical security
legislation and that we do that this year."
The urgency of improving chemical security results from the
catastrophic threat from an accidental release or terrorist attack. The
worst example was the 1984 accidental release of methyl isocyanate in
Bhopal, India, which killed 3,000 people and injured 200,000.
About 15,000 facilities nationwide store enough chemicals to kill or
injure people in surrounding communities if released. The Environmental
Protection Agency says more than 100 facilities each have the potential
to kill 1 million people, assuming the worst. In Maine, facilities that
would be regulated would be the fuel-tank farm in South Portland and
paper mills statewide.
Inhofe, who is head of the Environment Committee, held a hearing June
21 - less than a week after the vote on the Collins bill. Inhofe argued
that environmental groups pursued chemical substitution such as a ban
on chlorine for years, but latched on to the security argument since
the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"Despite what some interest groups would have us believe, chemical
companies do not want an attack on their assets any more than we do,"
Inhofe said. "They do not need the federal government coming in and
telling them specifically how to manufacture products."
Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said prohibiting something like chlorine would be
overwhelming and impossible. "It was a bad idea then and it's a bad
idea now," he said.
The dispute puzzled Collins because her committee defeated such an
amendment from Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn. His provision would have
required the riskiest chemical facilities to use safer chemicals,
storage and operations if the strategy was cost-effective, feasible and
would enhance security. The strategy is called employing "inherently
safer technology."
"Clearly that approach has been rejected," Collins said. "I'm frankly
puzzled by (Inhofe) putting a hold on the bill because of his fears
that the department would be able to dictate chemical processes is
clearly not accurate."
In fact, environmental groups criticized Collins for failing to pursue the provision that Inhofe opposes.
Some 284 chemical facilities in 47 states - including two in Maine -
switched to less acutely hazardous processes or chemicals, according to
a report by the liberal Washington think tank Center for American
Progress.
Monson Co. in South Portland eliminated chlorine gas, anhydrous sulfur
dioxide and ammonia from its wholesale chemical business. Katahdin
Paper in East Millinocket switched from a chlorine-gas bleaching
process to a liquid-bleach process.
"A wide range of chemical facilities have made substantial changes at
their facilities to protect communities," said Matthew Davis of the
advocacy group Environment Maine. "Despite chemical industry claims
that this is unworkable, chemical facilities across the country are
changing to safer chemicals and processes to reduce their risk to
surrounding communities."
The advocacy group Greenpeace said senators who opposed
Lieberman's provision received $818,900 since 2001 in political
contributions from companies required to submit chemical disaster plans
to the EPA, including $102,201 to Collins.
"Public safety should not be optional," said Rick Hind, Greenpeace's
legislative director. "Among the bill's most serious failures is the
refusal to require the elimination of unnecessary risks with proven
safer and cost-effective technologies."
Collins said she might support legislation for switching to safer
chemicals in the future, but as an environmental bill, not part of a
security bill.
Martin Durbin, managing director of federal affairs for the American
Chemical Council, told a House subcommittee last week that companies
should be allowed to develop their own security strategies.
"Legislation should not mandate specific security measures," he said.
For her part, Collins said she would continue discussing the legislation with Inhofe to develop a consensus.
"I think the fact that the bill has bipartisan support and was reported
unanimously, which is almost unheard of for such a major piece of
legislation, demonstrates that we struck the right balance," Collins
said.
Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
