CSB vs Bayer CropScience – Round 2

According to news reports on WVGazette.com on Friday, the Chemical Safety Board and the Coast Guard have come to an accommodation on information that will be released at a public meeting on April 23. The CSB will conduct that meeting in Institute, WV to review the explosion at the Bayer CropScience plant just outside of that town last summer. Bayer had tried to stop disclosure of some information in such public venues because it was considered Security Sensitive Information (SSI) under the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA). The CSB had scheduled their normal public hearing last month to review the status of their current investigation into the explosion that killed two people at the site. There were concerns that the explosion could have damaged a nearby methyl isocyanate (MIC) tank that could have endangered the nearby community. The CSB had to cancel that planned meeting when Bayer claimed that some of the information that was going to be discussed was SSI and prohibited from public disclosure. The CSB took their information to the Coast Guard, the agency that is responsible for the administration of the MTSA and determining what information is actually SSI for covered facilities. The Institute, WV facility is considered a ‘maritime’ facility because it is located on a navigable water way and ships and receives chemicals via river barges. The Coast Guard announced Friday that any ‘outstanding issues’ had been resolved. An earlier blog by Ken Ward, Jr. on the same web site noted that Sen. Rockefeller (D, WV) had sent a letter to Admiral Thad W. Allen, commander of the Coast Guard, outlining his concerns about the CSB vs Bayer controversy. According to the blog Sen. Rockefeller’s letter objected to the perceived use of MTSA regulation to avoid public disclosure of important aspects about the safety and security of the facility. Now, Sen. Rockefeller’s letter almost certainly had no affect on the resolution of the ‘outstanding issues’ between CSB and the Coast Guard. After all Sen. Rockefeller is just a United States Senator representing the good citizens of Institute, W.V. Oh yes, he is also a Committee Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The fact that this committee has oversight responsibility for the Coast Guard would have had no effect on Admiral Allen. Congress still needs to resolve the issue of the conflict between the CSB’s mission to discuss lessons learned from serious chemical accidents and the DHS (the Coast Guard is a part of DHS) mission to protect SSI from disclosure to protect MTSA covered facilities from potential terrorist attack. Similar problems could arise if there were a serious incident at any of the almost 7,000 high-risk chemical facilities covered under CFATS and the Chemical-Terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI) rules that protect much of the information about the security of those facilities. A subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will meet the first day that Congress is due back from their Easter Recess to look at the relationship between the CSB and the potential release of SSI information. Perhaps that hearing should also look at the potential CVI issues at other facilities with a view to addressing the issues in the upcoming CFATS reauthorization legislation.