The Senate is currently considering two chemical security bills that seem just about as diametrically opposed to each other as two bills could be. Sen. Jon Corzine’s (D-NJ) Chemical Security Act (S. 1602) is scheduled for mark-up this week. Corzine’s bill would require that facilities that pose hazards to their neighbors look for safer processes and adopt them where feasible. Under the act:

• The EPA and the Department of Justice would identify the highest-priority facilities;
• Those facilities would conduct vulnerability assessments and evaluate options both for improving site security and for reducing chemical hazards through safer materials or processes; and
• Facilities would implement the most effective options.

The Chemical Security Act functionally represents a next step beyond the Risk Management Plans currently collected from chemical facilities under the Clean Air Act. Corzine’s bill moves on from simply cataloging the risks to assessing potential methods of reducing the risk and making these facilities safer for workers and the communities around them. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require some 15,000 industrial facilities to prepare Risk Management Plans. These plans inform workers and nearby communities about the potential consequences of a major chemical release. By educating the community and the facility's managers, the plans are intended to reduce hazards, prevent pollution, save lives, and protect property. Since September 11th, the plans have taken on added importance as communities weigh the possibility that a release could be caused intentionally by terrorists. Unfortunately another bill in the Senate is calling for a step backwards concerning the RMPs and chemical plant safety. Sen. Kit Bond’s (R- MO) "Community Protection from Chemical Terrorism Act" (S.2579), would eliminate all public access to the RMPs. People who live or work near chemical facilities would be denied information about these risks in the name of fighting terrorism. At the same time, the federal government would do nothing to reduce the chemical hazards that make industrial facilities a target for terrorists in the first place. It would:

• Keep communities in the dark about the threat to their own health and safety;
• Do nothing to physically reduce chemical hazards or improve chemical site security; and
• Shirk federal responsibility.