NPRA nervous about impending chemical plant safety regulation
Even as the debate continues, it is clear that some legislation to regulate safety measures at chemical plants will emerge from Congress; the chemical industry, which until last December, opposed any such legislation, is now in its fall-back position, trying to make sure that such legislation has federal preemption of state safety rules; has no mandatory IST; and that safety information companies provide the government is exempt from FOIA
Some things never change. The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) is worried that more and more legislators are losing patience with the chemical industry’s foot-dragging on chemical plant safety measures. To recap the main facts: 1) There are about 15,000 facilities in the United States producing, using, or storing chemical materials; 2) Security experts agree: Short of a direct nuclear attack on a U.S. city, these plants pose the most serious risk for a mass-casualty catastrophe for the U.S. population; 3) More than one million people face death or serious injury if a terrorist attack or an accident occurs in any one of about 100 of these plants; more than 50,000 people face death or serious injury if a terrorist attack of an accident occurs in any one of about 250 additional plants; 4) the industry and its friends in Congress and the White House managed to thwart any efforts to impose federal safety measures on these plants, and the industry has been allowed instead to develop what is euphemistically called “voluntary, industry-developed” safety measures; security experts and industry insiders call these measures “window dressing” and a “sorry joke.”
As more and more legislators are losing patience with what they regard as an unacceptable situation, the industry has shifted its emphasis from blocking safety legislation to weakening this legislation. Today, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) submitted a statement for the hearing record of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity, concerning the proposed Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. In his presentation to the committee, NPRA president Bob Slaughter repeated the main demands of the industry. These demands were presented as principles on which any such legislation must be based:
Security legislation should give credit for voluntary industry activities
Security legislation should require that DHS develop a risk-based approach in regulating chemical facility security
Security legislation should provide for federal preemption of state and local chemical security laws and regulations
Security legislation should reject any provisions that indirectly or directly require Inherently Safer Technologies (IST)
Security legislation should fully recognize existing U.S. Coast Guard jurisdiction over facility security under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
Security legislation should give sufficient protection to sensitive security-related information required to be submitted to DHS. Government officials should not release sensitive security-related information to other government agencies whose mission has little to do with security
Security legislation should impose penalties fairly and recognize good-faith efforts to comply. In general, NPRA does not favor criminal penalties for parties required to comply with a sweeping new regulatory mandate in a short period of time. If Congress decides to include criminal penalties in chemical security legislation, those penalties should only be assessed for violations that occur both “intentionally” and “knowingly”
Security legislation should include reasonable restrictions on the filing of third party lawsuits. Permission for third party lawsuits, patterned after existing environmental statutes, could impede implementation of security measures due to lengthy and contentious litigation
Security legislation should direct DHS to define criteria for background checks. If background checks of employees and contract employees are required, any new chemical security legislation should direct DHS to define specific criteria for denying workers access to a facility. Companies conducting background checks should also be authorized to access and utilize government resources and databases.
