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 »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×