Chemical security bill flawed, but still a major step

Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.

E-mail this story to a friend

A bill sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins and being debated in the Senate now would close a gaping and dangerous hole in this nation's security. It's the Chemical Anti-Terrorism Act and it aims to mandate federally approved protection plans for our nation's highly vulnerable chemical facilities.

Here's the problem: Without adequate security, this country's chemical facilities -- including paper mills and oil depots in Maine -- can become, in terrorists' hands, weapons of mass destruction. A chlorine release from just one large tank, according to the Department of Homeland Security, could result in 17,500 deaths, 10,000 serious injuries and 100,000 hospitalizations.

The level of security at many chemical plants is astonishingly low. The bill would require plant staff to assess the facility's vulnerability and then devise security and response plans, which must be submitted to the federal government for approval. States could also enact stronger requirements than the federal government for such plans. There are provisions for sanctions if plans are not adequate, or are not followed.

The bill isn't perfect. Since it was introduced late last year, the powerful chemical industry lobby has watered it down from a stronger version that required industrial facilities to make the switch to less dangerous chemicals and safer technology if possible. The public's right to know whether a chemical facility is in compliance with its federal safety requirements has been gutted, and the public's ability to take legal action against chemical companies in non-compliance has been weakened.

Due to hard work by Collins and Sen. Joseph Lieberman D-Conn., the bill's co-sponsor, further attempts to weaken the bill were defeated. But the chemical industry and their allies in the Bush administration have not given up yet and the bill has been placed "on hold" by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., whose attitude about environmental legislation is so conservative he once dubbed the Environmental Protection Agency the "Gestapo Bureaucracy."

This bill should not be held hostage to either political rhetoric or the interests of an industry that has resisted regulation on this front for far too long. It is not environmental legislation, unless you consider the public's right to be safe from chemical poisoning an environmental issue. It's a flawed but still much-needed first-step toward addressing the considerable risk posed by vulnerable chemical facilities in our midst. Collins should continue to stand firm on the need for the bill's passage and the House should follow up with similarly pioneering legislation.