News of the historic chemical security bill, just approved by the House of Representatives, has been heating up and spreading far and wide. Check out this editorial in the New York Times.

More than eight years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the House of Representatives has passed a bill to shore up security at this country’s chemical plants. The requirements are reasonable, vital and long overdue. If terrorists were to attack a chemical plant near an American city or large town, they could unleash a toxic cloud that could endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands.

Environmental groups, most notably Greenpeace, and organized labor have been pushing Congress to enact tough chemical plant security legislation, but the chemical industry — concerned about the cost — has long resisted.

The House bill is a carefully written compromise that is more than accommodating to the concerns of industry. It focuses only on the highest-risk plants, and it would make them use safer chemicals or processes only when the Department of Homeland Security determines that they are feasible and cost-effective.

Read more...

While we're excited the bill was approved by the House, now we have to stay focused on the Senate. Soon, they will take up chemical security legislation. We want the Senate legislation to be strong, too.

 

 

Take action! Tell your Senator it's time to introduce strong chemical security legislation in the Senate.

--Michelle

Eight years after the September 11th attacks, the House of Representatives today approved the “Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009,” (H.R. 2868) by a vote of 230 to 193. This is the first time either house of Congress has approved permanent and comprehensive chemical security legislation. 

“Although it’s a compromise, this bill represents a historic first step toward protecting the 100 million Americans living in the shadow of high-risk chemical plants,” said Rick Hind, legislative director of Greenpeace.  “It’s now time for the Senate to recognize the urgency of this issue and embrace common sense solutions that eliminate these risks once and for all,” said Hind.

Earlier this week, Clorox announced plans to convert all of their U.S. facilities from ultra-hazardous chlorine gas to liquid bleach to “strengthen our operations and add another layer of security,” according to their CEO Don Knauss. Clorox also indicated that these changes “won’t affect the size of the company’s workforce." 

Since 9/11 more than 200 chemical facilities have converted to safer chemical processes, eliminating poison gas risks to more than 30 million Americans. Yet 300 other chemical plants together put 110 million Americans at risk.

 “For the first time since the September 11th attacks Congress and the administration are in agreement on how to protect the millions of Americans at risk from chemical plants,” said Hind.

In addition, water utility groups and a coalition of more than 50 organizations are urging Congress to enact this legislation. They include: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the United Auto Workers, Steelworkers, Teamsters, Fire Fighters, Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Environmental Defense Fund and Greenpeace. 

The House passed bill (H.R. 2868) will:

• Conditionally require the highest risk plants to use safer chemical processes where feasible and cost-effective and requires the remaining high risk plants to “assess” safer chemical processes;
• Eliminate the current law's exemption of thousands of chemical facilities, such as waste water and drinking water plants and port facilities;
• Involve plant employees in the development of security plans and provides protections for whistleblowers and limit background check abuses;
• Preserve state’s authority to establish stronger security standards;
• Provide funding for conversion of plants, including drinking water facilities and wastewater facilities, and
• Allow citizen suits to enforce government implementation of the law. 

Greenpeace received word this morning that Clorox will be switching production methods at all of its factories to eliminate the use of chlorine gas. This will eliminate the risk of injury or death to 13 million Americans in the case of an accident or attack on one of these plants. This announcement also provides Congress with another good reason to pass comprehensive chemical security legislation being taken up in the House on Wednesday of this week.

“By leading the way in eliminating the potential consequences of a catastrophic terrorist attack or accident, Clorox’s announcement also provides Congress with compelling new evidence to enact chemical plant security legislation,” said Rick Hind, Greenpeace legislative director. 

Take action and tell Congress to put safety first, too. 

I gave my Macbook a hug last night after reading on Apple's website that it has cleared the last hurdle in eliminating toxic PVC plastic. Apple is now the first PC maker to completely eliminate hazardous brominated flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride plastic in its new iMac and Macbook.

Removing PVC from PC power cords was the last step in Apple’s industry leading position on toxics elimination. Apple was first with PCs virtually free of BFRs and PVC (except for the power cord) in March this year. While HP recently produced their first BFR/PVC free (except power cord) model, Apple has again moved further ahead of the competition.

While removing the last use of PVC might not sound like a big deal, it means Apple’s new products will be safer and easier to recycle and cause less pollution at the end of life. There were significant technical and safety certification barriers to finding PVC alternatives, but Apple has now proved it's now possible and has completed the phase out, while reducing product price and boosting profits.

Apple’s PVC free power cords are only available in certain markets currently but should be available more widely when safety certification is obtained.

This lays down the gauntlet to other major PC makers such as Dell, HP, Lenovo and Acer to catch up with Apple again, and we’ll be keeping up our pressure on them to match Apple’s lead.

A bit of history

Back in 2006 we launched our Green my Apple campaign because we knew Apple had the potential to lead the industry towards greener, less toxic products. Huge numbers of Apple fans also called for a Greener Apple and the new iMac and MacBook are the final steps on the road Apple started down with Steve Jobs May 2007. This news marks an active few weeks for Apple’s environment team. Apple deserves credit for these positive moves but also big credit to all those Apple fans who helped make environment a top priority for Apple.

On October 21st, the House Energy and Commerce Committee chaired by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Subcommittee Chair Edward Markey (D-MA) approved comprehensive chemical plant security legislation (H.R. 2868 & H.R. 3258) in a 29-18 vote. The Committee rejected all 15 Republican amendments designed to cripple or delay both bills. The legislation is expected to go to the House floor later this fall. This is the first time this legislation has been approved by the two authorizing committees. On June 23rd the Homeland Security Committee also approved a weaker version of H.R. 2868.

“A compromise acceptable to leading industry lobbyists wasn’t enough for Committee  republicans. If they had had their way, chemical plants that pose catastrophic risks to densely populated areas would continue to put millions at risk for years to come,” said Rick Hind, Legislative Director of Greenpeace. In fact, the American Chemistry Council, in a letter to Chairman Waxman just before the committee markup, proclaimed HR 2868 "the appropriate vehicle for ensuring a permanant CFATS program."

More than 200 chemical facilities have converted to safer chemical processes since 9/11  eliminating poison gas risks to 38 million Americans. Hundreds of other plants together put more than 100 million Americans at risk. A blue-green coalition of more than 50 organizations has been urging Congress to enact legislation to eliminate these risks. They include: the  United Auto Workers, Steelworkers, Teamsters, Fire Fighters, Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility, U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Greenpeace. The Department of Homeland Security and the EPA testified in favor of this legislation at an October 1st hearing held by the Subcommittee.

*The final version of the Energy and Commerce Committee bills (H.R. 2868 & H.R. 3258) would:

• Conditionally require the highest risk plants to use safer cost-effective chemical processes where feasible and require the remaining high risk plants to “assess” safer processes;
• Eliminate the current law's exemption of thousands of chemical plants, such as waste water and drinking water facilities;
• Involve plant employees in the development of security plans and provide protections for whistleblowers;
• Preserve state’s authority to establish stronger security standards, and
• Provide up to $225 (H.R. 2868) and $375 (H.R. 3258) million respectively toward the implementation of safer chemical processes over a three-year period.*

 “Although this bill is a compromise, it is a giant step forward for communities at risk. We look forward to working with the House leadership in moving this bill to the House floor this fall,” said Hind.

Among the compromises, the legislation narrows the number of high-risk chemical facilities to approximately 107 that may be required to eliminate catastrophic risks with safer chemical processes. It also allows chemical plants a second appeals process to challenge agency decisions and exempts them from citizen enforcement suits. Instead, the bill contains a petition process giving citizens the right to initiate a government investigation into potential violations by a chemical facility. The legislation also does not ensure that residents living downwind of high-risk chemical plants will be informed if nearby facilities are in compliance with security regulations or even part of the program.

In June, the House Homeland Security Committee approved a different version of H.R. 2868, which included four major loopholes not contained in the Energy and Commerce bills.

--Mae

On October 14th, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment chaired by Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) approved comprehensive chemical plant security legislation (H.R. 2868 & H.R. 3258) in an 18 to10 party-line vote. The Subcommittee rejected 13 Republicans amendments aimed at crippling the legislation that will be taken up by the full Energy and Commerce Committee this week. This is the first time this legislation has moved through the Homeland Security Committee.  

“Given a choice between protecting millions of Americans at risk and doing nothing, Subcommittee Republicans not only chose nothing, they proposed doing nothing for three more years,” said Rick Hind, Legislative Director of Greenpeace.  “The compromises contained in each bill weren’t enough for subcommittee Republicans. They also tried to gut provisions in both bills that would eliminate catastrophic risks in densely populated areas,” said Hind.

The compromise legislation narrows the number of high-risk chemical facilities to approximately 107 that are required to eliminate catastrophic risks with safer chemical processes. It also allows chemical plants a second appeals process to challenge agency decisions and exempts them from direct citizen enforcement.  Instead, the bill contains a petition process affording citizens the ability to initiate a government investigation into potential violations by a chemical facility.  The compromise legislation also does not ensure that residents living downwind of high-risk chemical plants will be informed if nearby facilities are subject to or in compliance with security regulations.

 “This bill clearly represents a compromise on some major issues. We look forward to working with the Energy and Commerce Committee this week to improve the bill further,” said Hind.

More than 200 chemical facilities have converted to safer chemical processes since 9/11 eliminating poison gas risks to 38 million Americans. Hundreds of other chemical plants together put more than 100 million Americans at risk. A blue-green coalition of more than 50 organizations have been urging Congress to enact legislation to eliminate these risks. They include: the United Auto Workers, Steelworkers, Teamsters, Fire Fighters, Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility, U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Greenpeace. The Department of Homeland Security and the EPA testified in favor of this legislation at an October 1st hearing held by the Subcommittee.

In June, the House Homeland Security Committee approved a different version of H.R. 2868, which included four major loopholes not contained in the Energy & Commerce bills.

The Energy & Environment Subcommittee version of H.R. 2868 and H.R. 3258 would also:
- Eliminate the current law's exemption of thousands of chemical plants, such as waste water and drinking water facilities;
- Involve plant employees in the development of security plans and provides protections for whistleblowers;
- Preserve state’s authority to establish stronger security standards, and
- provide up to $225 (H.R. 2868) and $375 (H.R. 3258) million respectively toward the implementation of safer chemical processes over a three-year period.

Today the Obama Administration, represented by DHS Undersecretary Rand Beers and EPA Assistant Administrator for Water, Peter Silva testified in support of assessments of safer more secure chemicals for all 6,000 regulated chemical facilities, and conditional implementation of safer more secure chemicals at the highest tiered facilities (approximately 800). Full Copies of their testimony (and all witnesses from the second panel) can be found here:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1755:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-hr-3258-the-drinking-water-system-security-act-of-2009-and-hr-2868-the-chemical-facility-anti-terrorism-act-of-2009&catid=130:subcommittee-on-energy-and-the-environment&Itemid=71

Excerpts of Beers and Silva identical statements on safer more secure technologies included:

"*The Administration supports consistency of IST approaches for facilities regardless of sector.

"* The Administration believes that all high-risk chemical facilities, Tiers 1-4, should assess IST methods and report the assessment in the facilities’ site security plans. Further, the appropriate regulatory entity should have the authority to require facilities posing the highest degree of risk (Tiers 1 and 2) to implement IST method(s) if such methods enhance overall security, are feasible, and, in the case of water sector facilities, consider public health and environmental requirements.

“* For Tier 3 and 4 facilities, the appropriate regulatory entity should review the IST assessment contained in the site security plan. The entity should be authorized to provide recommendations on implementing IST, but it would not require facilities to implement the IST methods."

The hearing also made clear that the neither bill (H.R. 2868 & H.R. 3258) creates a command and control structure.  Instead it establishes conditions and incentives:
1) safer chemical processes must be feasible
2) safer chemical processes must not impose onerous costs on a facility
3) safer chemical processes must not shift risks to any other facility
4) safer chemical processes must reduce risks
5) safer chemical processes are proposed by the facility itself
6) only the highest risk facilities are required to implement safer
chemical processes
7) there is funding in both bills to assist with implementation costs

If you haven't already seen the 2008-2009 Annual Report for Greenpeace, please explore it! After months of working on it, picking the highlights from 2008 and trying to pick out a few photos from the amazing ones we have,  like this one:

The Annual Report is done! I couldn't be happier! 

As a Senator and as a candidate, President Obama championed legislation to eliminate the consequences of a catastrophic terrorist attack or accident at chemical plants across the US. The bills he sponsored, supported and voted for in the U.S. Senate and championed in his campaign for President are exactly what is needed to address these vulnerabilities.  

However, the Obama Administration has yet to support the chemical security legislation now pending in Congress.

As we observe the eighth anniversary of 9/11 we cannot think of a better time for President Obama to clarify the administration’s support for this legislation, H.R. 2868 & H.R. 3258 as introduced.

In the coming weeks, the House Energy and Commerce Committee plans to take up these bills. The ultimate test of their success is whether they will require security measures that protect neighboring communities in the event of an attack on a chemical plant.

With time running out, a coalition of environmental, labor, health, and environmental justice groups (including Greenpeace) has sent a letter to President Obama calling on him to show leadership on an issue vitally important to the safety and security of communities across America. To Read the letter for yourself, click here.