WASHINGTON -- A major lobbying battle has heated up over legislation that would establish new security standards for facilities across the country that store or process chemicals, pitting some of the nation's largest business groups against environmental and labor organizations (see GSN, March 10, 2008).
Nearly 30 industry groups sent House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and ranking member Joe Barton (R-Texas) a strongly worded letter Monday opposing certain provisions in a chemical security bill making its way through Congress.
An Energy and Commerce subcommittee plans a hearing Thursday on the bill, which would reauthorize and expand authorities Congress gave the Homeland Security Department in 2006 to regulate security at chemical facilities.
The industry groups, which include the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, oppose provisions that could require chemical plants to use safer technologies; would allow facilities to be sued by citizens; and would allow states to adopt their own security standards.
The groups argue that requiring facilities to use "inherently safer technologies" could be costly, disruptive and overly burdensome.
"In addition, an IST mandate, if enacted, could lead to disruption in our nation's food supply," wrote the groups, which also included the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Farm Bureau Federation. "In the agriculture industry, such a directive could jeopardize the availability of lower cost sources of plant nutrient products or certain agricultural pesticides used by farmers."
Not to be outdone, a coalition of about 50 environmental, labor and public interest organizations are being equally vocal in lobbying for the bill.
"I think [the business groups] are mostly interested in either gutting or slowing down the bill or killing the bill, and everything else is an excuse to support that," said Rick Hind, legislative director for Greenpeace.
The environmental-labor coalition, which includes Greenpeace, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the Service Employees International Union, wrote lawmakers and President Barack Obama this month.
"The price of failure could be staggering. According to a 2008 Congressional Research Service review of [EPA] data, 100 U.S. chemical plants each put 1 million or more people at risk," wrote the coalition, which also includes the United Food and Chemical Workers and the United Steelworkers.
"In 2004, the Homeland Security Council projected that an attack on a chemical facility would kill 17,500 people, seriously injure 10,000 more people and send an additional 100,000 people to the hospital," the coalition added. "The good news is that most of these hazards are preventable."
Hind noted that the bill includes a provision, backed by business groups and Republicans, that would allow chemical facilities to challenge the Homeland Security Department in court if they are required to use inherently safer technologies.
He said it is hypocritical for business groups to oppose lawsuits by citizens but support the ability of chemical companies to sue the department. Hind also disputed the notion that citizens would file frivolous lawsuits.
"No one would support doing frivolous lawsuits because it gives everyone a bad name," he said. "And really, you're talking about somebody doing this on their own nickel."
Republicans and Democrats are likely to butt heads at Thursday's hearing, just as they did when the House Homeland Security Committee considered the bill.
The Homeland Security Department's authority to regulate chemical facilities will expire Sunday. But the department expects Congress to extend the authority for a month through a continuing resolution to keep the federal government operating, a department official said.