House committee legislation that addresses petrochemical and oil refining security fails to reflect that much has already been done to strengthen security at the facilities, according to information from the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA). NPRA and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) disagreed with some of the decisions the committee took.
"After making great strides in the subcommittee, the full House Committee on Homeland Security stumbled during an important leg of the race by adding provisions today that could harm efforts to pass comprehensive, performance-oriented chemical security legislation this year," said Jack Gerard, ACC president, in a statement.
The action was approved on a voice vote by the House Homeland Security Committee July 28 and includes amendments requiring facilities to implement what are sometimes incorrectly described as inherently safer technologies, as well as a provision that allows states to adopt security measures that may differ from and actually conflict with federal regulations, NPRA said in its statement.
"The committee-approved bill seems to go in the opposite direction," said Bob Slaughter, NPRA president. "The committee adopted several amendments which give the Department of Homeland Security, state, and federal agencies, and even environmental activists the opportunity to dictate to owners and operators what chemical processes and technologies they should employ. We strongly believe that effective measures to improve facility security should continue and promote the strong existing public-private partnership rather than establishing a potentially adversarial relationship that could retard efforts to maintain and expand facility security.
“In addition, the committee-approved bill explicitly allows states and local governments to require security measures that conflict with the federal program. NPRA believes that allowing individual states to impose competing regulatory requirements risks creating a confusing patchwork of regulations that will also impede facility security protection efforts."
ACC's Gerard said the committee's action was "several steps backwards" because the legislation included language that puts government in a position to mandate changes to the chemical industry's processes and products. "Our members, who have invested nearly $3 billion in security enhancements since 9/11, have a proven record when it comes to innovating ways to improve safety and security. But, leading experts have testified that mandating innovation is not possible and cannot be considered a silver bullet solution to improving chemical security.
"“In addition, we still believe chemical security is a national concern and should be addressed accordingly to avoid a patchwork of inconsistent state requirements."
Despite the associations' concerns, they emphasized their support of legislation that provides for uniform national security standards for the industry and their intention to continue to work with Congress to meet those goals.