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
Add to Briefcase
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 »
CITES CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
3 days ago
THE LATEST
MINIMUM 2 PERCENT GDP
Trump Tells NATO Countries To Pay Up
4 days ago
BREAKING
MANAFORT AND FLYNN
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
4 days ago
THE DETAILS

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Source:
BUT WHITE HOUSE MAY USE AGAINST HIM ANYWAY
Ethics Cops Clear Mueller to Work on Trump Case
5 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."

Source:
BUSINESSES CAN’T PLEAD FIFTH
Senate Intel to Subpoena Two of Flynn’s Businesses
5 days ago
THE LATEST

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA) will subpoena two businesses owned by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Burr said, "We would like to hear from General Flynn. We'd like to see his documents. We'd like him to tell his story because he publicly said he had a story to tell."

×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login