Senate Committees Consider Chemical Security

The Senate Homeland Security Committee considered the House passed chemical security bill, HR 2868, including new requirements for water and wastewater facilities at a markup on July 28. 

Committee members previously declined to take up HR 2868 because Obama Administration officials indicated they were preparing alternative legislation. With the summer recess almost here, the Homeland Security Committee decided to proceed with HR 2868 rather than continue waiting for the Administration proposal.  Instead of approving the House passed measure, the Committee approved a three year extension of the current DHS program by a vote of 13-0.  Water Agencies are not covered by this Department of Homeland Security administered program known as the Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Standards (CFATs).

During the markup, Senator Lieberman (I-CT), Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, indicated he will work to incorporate water facility standards and inherently safer technology requirements into the bill as it moves to the Senate floor. “Personally,” he said, “I think we should do more than just extend the chemical security program as is”.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee also considered security at water facilities at a hearing entitled “Protecting Americans Water Treatment Facilities” on July 28.  Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), a member of the EPW Committee, introduced the "Secure Water Facilities Act" (S. 3598) earlier this month.  His bill largely mirrors HR 2868 and maintains EPA as the lead agency in charge of security at drinking water and wastewater facilities.  

Both the House and Senate bill require “high risk” water utilities to evaluate “inherently safer technology” alternatives.  The IST reviews must be submitted to the appropriate state agency and states could then either approve a drinking water system's decision or choose to require the implementation of an IST.  The main difference in the two bills is in the definition of a “high risk” facility”. The Senate bill defines “high risk” more broadly than the House bill and could potentially cover all water utilities in urban areas.

Darius Sivin, legislative representative for the international union of the United Automobile Works, testified at the hearing and told committee members switching from chlorine gas to an alternative “costs no more than $1.50 per ratepayer per year”.  This message was reinforced by Paul Orum, a consultant for the Center for American Progress, whose testimony highlighted the cost savings for facilities switched from using chlorine gas to sodium hypochlorite.  Also testifying at the hearing was Carlos Perea, CEO of Miox corporation, a company that makes on-site generation equipment.

Benjamin Grumbles, the former EPA Administrator for Water, and current Director Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, provided the utility perspective at the hearing.  Mr. Grumbles recounted the City of Phoenix’s evaluation of inherently safer technology.  After a thorough review, the City chose to continue using chlorine gas because of the potential for the introduction of contaminants into the water supply.