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.
