U.S. Panel: No Decision on Tougher Chemical Security Rules Until 2016

The remains of an apartment complex next to the fertilizer plant that exploded on April 18, 2013, in West, Texas. A final decision on whether to issue tougher chemical security and safety rules likely will not be made until at least 2016, according to a federal report issued Friday.
National Journal
Douglas P. Guarino
June 9, 2014, 10:17 a.m.

A fi­nal de­cision on wheth­er to is­sue tough­er chem­ic­al se­cur­ity and safety rules likely will not be made un­til at least 2016 — three years after the tra­gic ex­plo­sion of a fer­til­izer plant in Texas, a fed­er­al work­ing group says.

The in­ter­agency pan­el, which is act­ing un­der an ex­ec­ut­ive or­der Pres­id­ent Obama is­sued after the April 2013 dis­aster killed 14 people and leveled homes in the small city of West, is­sued its fi­nal re­port to the pres­id­ent on Fri­day.

The re­port says the U.S. En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency will is­sue a form­al “re­quest for in­form­a­tion” this sum­mer, at which point stake­hold­ers will be able to pro­pose re­com­mend­a­tions on how to im­prove the agency’s Risk Man­age­ment Pro­gram.

The agency would then pro­pose any po­ten­tial changes to the pro­gram next year, ac­cord­ing to the re­port. The doc­u­ment leaves open the pos­sib­il­ity that fi­nal de­cisions will not be made un­til after Obama leaves of­fice. There is “in­tent to fi­nal­ize such amend­ments in 2016, sub­ject to any tim­ing ad­just­ments that may be ne­ces­sit­ated by new in­form­a­tion,” the re­port says.

So far, the agency is con­sid­er­ing wheth­er re­act­ive and ex­plos­ive chem­ic­als — such as those that were to blame for the Texas ac­ci­dent — should be ad­ded to the list of sub­stances reg­u­lated by the pro­gram. The agency, along with the Oc­cu­pa­tion­al Safety and Health Ad­min­is­tra­tion, could also re­quire com­pan­ies to con­duct risk ana­lyses aimed at de­term­in­ing wheth­er they should switch to us­ing safer tech­no­lo­gies or sub­stances at their chem­ic­al fa­cil­it­ies, the re­port says.

“EPA or OSHA would not, however, de­term­ine spe­cif­ic tech­no­logy, design, or pro­cess se­lec­tion by chem­ic­al fa­cil­ity own­ers or op­er­at­ors,” the group adds.

The state­ment could hint at a po­ten­tial com­prom­ise between a co­ali­tion of labor and en­vir­on­ment­al groups, who have long called for the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment to is­sue rules re­quir­ing com­pan­ies to switch to safer tech­no­lo­gies, and in­dustry groups, who have lob­bied against the idea.

House Demo­crats re­cently at­temp­ted to in­sert a risk-as­sess­ment re­quire­ment sim­il­ar to the one sug­ges­ted by the in­ter­agency re­port in­to a bill that would ex­tend the life of the Home­land Se­cur­ity De­part­ment’s chem­ic­al se­cur­ity pro­gram. The Re­pub­lic­an ma­jor­ity re­jec­ted the amend­ment, however.

In­deed, in a state­ment Fri­day, the Amer­ic­an Chem­istry Coun­cil ex­pressed con­cerns about the pro­spect of such a re­quire­ment. The in­dustry group said it “could have the po­ten­tial for cre­at­ing an un­ne­ces­sary lay­er of du­plic­at­ive re­quire­ments that would only serve to cre­ate con­fu­sion for the reg­u­lated com­munity and stretch agency re­sources.”

The En­vir­on­ment­al Justice and Health Al­li­ance for Chem­ic­al Policy Re­form, mean­while, ex­pressed cau­tious op­tim­ism to­ward the re­port’s re­com­mend­a­tions.

“It’s clear that the [in­ter­agency group] listened to the voices of the com­munit­ies and work­ers most at risk of chem­ic­al dis­asters,” said Richard Moore, co-co­ordin­at­or of the act­iv­ist group. “There are re­com­mend­a­tions in their re­port that can help pre­vent dis­asters if they are en­acted. “¦ The ad­min­is­tra­tion now has to turn those words in­to “¦ reg­u­la­tions that are ad­op­ted with­in the next 18 months.”

Last month, Moore’s group re­leased an ana­lys­is as­sert­ing that com­munit­ies host­ing chem­ic­al fa­cil­it­ies “are dis­pro­por­tion­ately Afric­an Amer­ic­an or Latino, have high­er rates of poverty than the United States as a whole and have lower hous­ing val­ues, in­comes and edu­ca­tion levels than the na­tion­al av­er­age.”

In ad­di­tion the pos­sible changes to EPA and OSHA rules, the Home­land Se­cur­ity De­part­ment is con­sid­er­ing changes to its Chem­ic­al Fa­cil­ity Anti-Ter­ror­ism Stand­ards. In re­cent months the de­part­ment has been look­ing at the pos­sib­il­ity of adding ad­di­tion­al chem­ic­als to the list of those reg­u­lated by the pro­gram, ac­cord­ing to the in­ter­agency group’s re­port. The de­part­ment will pro­pose these and oth­er po­ten­tial changes in a pre­lim­in­ary rule­mak­ing no­tice, the re­port says, but it does not spe­cify when this would hap­pen.

The re­port also re­com­mends that Con­gress take sev­er­al ac­tions it says would im­prove the DHS pro­gram, in­clud­ing stream­lin­ing the “multi-step en­force­ment pro­cess” the de­part­ment must fol­low be­fore it can fine or shut down a fa­cil­ity.

“It is im­port­ant that, in ex­treme cir­cum­stances, DHS has the abil­ity to im­me­di­ately is­sue or­ders to as­sess civil pen­al­ties or to close down a fa­cil­ity for vi­ol­a­tions, without hav­ing to first is­sue an or­der call­ing for cor­rec­tion of the vi­ol­a­tion,” the re­port says.

Con­gress should also re­move an ex­emp­tion that pre­vents wa­ter treat­ment fa­cil­it­ies from be­ing reg­u­lated by the DHS pro­gram, the re­port says.

“Many wa­ter and wastewa­ter treat­ment fa­cil­it­ies may present at­tract­ive ter­ror­ist tar­gets due to their large stores of po­ten­tially high-risk chem­ic­als and their prox­im­it­ies to pop­u­la­tion cen­ters,” ac­cord­ing to the re­port.

In­dustry groups have long favored the ex­emp­tion, but House Re­pub­lic­ans in April did al­low an amend­ment to the CFATS reau­thor­iz­a­tion bill that calls for a third-party study that would as­sess wheth­er the clause cre­ates a se­cur­ity gap.

What We're Following See More »
BACKING OUT ON BERNIE
Trump Won’t Debate Sanders After All
2 days ago
THE LATEST

Trump, in a statement: “Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. ... I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.”

AKNOWLEDGING THE INEVITABLE
UAW: Time to Unite Behind Hillary
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

"It's about time for unity," said UAW President Dennis Williams. "We're endorsing Hillary Clinton. She's gotten 3 million more votes than Bernie, a million more votes than Donald Trump. She's our nominee." He called Sanders "a great friend of the UAW" while saying Trump "does not support the economic security of UAW families." Some 28 percent of UAW members indicated their support for Trump in an internal survey.

Source:
AP KEEPING COUNT
Trump Clinches Enough Delegates for the Nomination
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Donald Trump on Thursday reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination for president, completing an unlikely rise that has upended the political landscape and sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign. Trump was put over the top in the Associated Press delegate count by a small number of the party's unbound delegates who told the AP they would support him at the convention."

Source:
TRUMP FLOATED IDEA ON JIMMY KIMMEL’S SHOW
Trump/Sanders Debate Before California Primary?
3 days ago
THE LATEST
CAMPAIGNS INJECTED NEW AD MONEY
California: It’s Not Over Yet
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Clinton and Bernie Sanders "are now devoting additional money to television advertising. A day after Sanders announced a new ad buy of less than $2 million in the state, Clinton announced her own television campaign. Ads featuring actor Morgan Freeman as well as labor leader and civil rights activist Dolores Huerta will air beginning on Fridayin Fresno, Sacramento, and Los Angeles media markets. Some ads will also target Latino voters and Asian American voters. The total value of the buy is about six figures according to the Clinton campaign." Meanwhile, a new poll shows Sanders within the margin of error, trailing Clinton 44%-46%.

Source:
×