In the closing days of the 112th Congress Rep.
Richardson (D,CA) introduced HR 6711, the Keeping our Communities Safe by
Strengthening Safety Standards for Chemical Facilities Act. This is a very
short, and apparently non-controversial bill that would make a brief amendment
to the §550 (PL
109–295) authorization for the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards
(CFATS) program.
The Language
The bill would add a single sentence ‘provided further’ to §550(a):
“That in assigning a chemical facility
to a risk tier pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall consider the
proximity of the facility to population centers, schools, and other facilities
at risk of creating a secondary explosion.”
Now DHS will not tell us, for security reasons, exactly what
it takes into consideration when it designates a facility a high-risk chemical
facility and assigns it to a tier level. It would seem obvious though that it
would include “proximity of the facility to population centers, [and] schools”.
What may not currently be addressed by DHS is the proximity of “other
facilities at risk of creating a secondary explosion”.
The Problem
The problem that ISCD could have with this is the difficulty
of identifying facilities with a ‘risk of creating a secondary explosion’. If
adjacent (or nearby) facilities are part of the CFATS program this would not be
an issue; an ISCD database check could identify the potential problem. If the
adjacent facility did not have DHS chemicals of interest (COI) on hand (above
the screening threshold quantity - STQ) then the facility might not be in DHS
databases and certainly not in the facility database at ISCD.
There is also the problem of defining ‘risk of creating a
secondary explosion’. Direct flame impingement on a non-flammable gas cylinder
can cause a catastrophic failure of the cylinder that news folks are wont to
call an ‘explosion’; would that be covered? Is a single barbeque propane
cylinder at a nearby house a ‘risk for creating a secondary explosion’; it will
certainly explode in a fire? How about a box of ammunition on a shelf in an
adjacent store; the shells will certainly explode in a fire?
Moving Forward
With only two possible days (today and tomorrow) left in the
112th Congress it is extremely unlikely that this bill will see any
floor action (it is not currently on
today’s list for floor consideration). If it had appeared earlier it might
have actually been able to pass.
I suppose that we are likely to see Ms. Richardson introduce
this bill again in the 113th Congress, probably later this month.
Depending on what other CFATS bills get introduced this could actually make it
into law.
No comments:
Post a Comment