Critics Say Proposed Senate Chemical Bill Leaves U.S. Vulnerable

[Guest guest]

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:07:00 GMT

" BushGreenwatch " <info

 

Critics Say Proposed Senate Chemical Bill Leaves U.S.

Vulnerable to Attack

 

BushGreenwatch

September 23, 2004 | Back Issues

 

 

Critics Say Proposed Senate Chemical Bill Leaves U.S. Vulnerable to Attack

 

Sometime in the next few weeks, the U.S. Senate is expected to take

up, for the first time, the issue of how to protect Americans from

terrorist attacks on domestic chemical plants. But environmental

groups and unions worry that the main piece of legislation under

consideration will provide no real security for chemical plants and is

motivated by pre-election politics.

 

" Senate Republicans are working to sneak an industry-friendly,

do-nothing bill through the Senate to give President Bush a greenwash

feather in his cap before the election, " said Rick Hind, legislative

director for the toxics campaign at Greenpeace.

 

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are more

than 100 chemical facilities in the U.S. that would each put at least

one million people at risk were they to come under attack. The agency

estimates that more than 750 facilities in the U.S. place at least

100,000 people at risk from chemical releases. Numerous studies reveal

substantial security gaps at many of these facilities. [1]

 

Three years ago, Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) introduced legislation to

create federal standards to reduce security risks at chemical

facilities; promote cost-effective, safe technologies at high-priority

chemical plants; and require government oversight to ensure compliance

with the new regulations. The Corzine bill also works within the

framework set out by President Bush's Homeland Security plan, calling

for the Department of Homeland Security to work with the EPA in

developing a strategy to reduce the vulnerability of chemical and

hazardous materials stores. [2]

 

After heated bipartisan negotiations and major revisions, the Corzine

bill won unanimous support in the Senate Environment and Public Works

(EPW) Committee in July 2002.

 

However, shortly after he voted for the bill in committee, Senator

James Inhofe (R-OK) joined the American Chemistry Council, American

Petroleum Institute and others in opposition to it. The following

year, Inhofe (chair of the EPW Committee) introduced his own chemical

security bill, which was substituted for the Corzine bill in a close

party-line vote.

 

" Senator Inhofe's legislation is currently unenforceable. The Senate

needs to ensure the American public that chemical security legislation

will create change at chemical facilities. Enforcing the use of safer

chemicals is the commonsense way to get this done, " Megan Purvis,

environmental health advocate for the U.S. Public Interest Research

Group (U.S. PIRG) told BushGreenwatch.

 

Inhofe's bill contains no plans for developing safer technologies. It

contains loopholes that allow the chemical industry's voluntary

security programs to win government endorsement and substitute for new

regulations; fails to require government verification of compliance

with security regulations; and leaves out the EPA as a partner in

writing and enforcing those regulations.

 

Inhofe's bill could reach the Senate floor anytime before the October

8th recess. Senators offering a chemical security bill, based on the

Corzine proposal are expected to challenge Inhofe's proposal.

 

###

 

TAKE ACTION

Go to U.S. PIRG's website to write your senator.

 

###

 

SOURCES:

[1] Senator Corzine's website.

[2] Ibid.

 

BushGreenwatch | 1320 18th Street NW 5th Floor

Washington, DC 20036 | (202) 463-6670

Web site comments: info

Copyright 2003 Environmental Media Services