As I noted last week, Sen. Lautenberg (D,NJ) introduced S814, the Protecting Communities from Chemical Explosions Act of 2013 [ Links added 08:02 CDT, 5-3-13]. This bill
would amend the §550 authorization language for CFATS (6
USC 121 Note; Okay I’ll admit to an inconsistency here, but a ‘note’ in
this section of 6 USC is difficult to isolate since there are so many of them
and they are not readily identifiable. In this case the CFATS authorization ‘note’
is the first one after the ‘Effective Date of the 2009 Amendment’ section on
page 20.) by making it unlawful to “intentionally fail to file a Chemical
Security Assessment Tool Top-Screen” {§550(d)(3)(A)}.
Civil Penalaties
Actually the bill first extends the civil penalties
currently listed in §550(d) for a violation of “an order issued under this
section” to the failure to file a Top Screen in the Chemical Security
Assessment Tool by a facility that holds “holds a quantity of a chemical of
interest that is at or above the screening threshold quantity established under
the interim final regulations” {§550(d)(2)}.
This continues the existing use of civil penalties to
require compliance with the CFATS regulations, but it does apply the use of the
other existing penalty under §550(g) of allowing the Secretary discretionary authority
to “issue an order for the facility to cease operation, until the owner or
operator complies”.
Criminal Penalties
As I noted above the new §550(d)(3)(a) establishes a
criminal enforcement basis for the CFATS regulations, or at least the Top
Screen enforcement. §550(d)(3)(B) goes on to provide for the criminal penalties
associated with that enforcement; up to six years in prison and/or an
unspecified fine under 18 USC. This would make an intentional failure to file a
required Top Screen a felony.
Current Top Screen
Enforcement
The current CFATS regulations already provide an enforcement
mechanism for the Secretary to apply to facilities that do not submit Top
Screens. Section 27.200(b) of 6 CFR allows the Secretary to specifically order
an individual facility or class of facilities to submit Top Screens. If a
facility fails to comply with such an order then §27.200(c) allows the
Secretary to assess the standard $25,000 per day civil penalty authorized by
the current §550(d) and/or issue an order to cease operations.
This procedure allows the Department (or more accurately the
Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) of DHS) to cooperatively
contact facilities that may not be aware of, or fully understand, their CFATS
Top Screen obligations to gain voluntary compliance and then provides for
escalating enforcement actions to require compliance.
Grandstanding
All one has to do is to look at the title of this bill, “Protecting
Communities from Chemical Explosions Act of 2013”, to realize that this bill is
nothing more than political grandstanding, attempting to gain political
leverage by capitalizing on the recent chemical tragedy in West, Tx. The bill
would do nothing directly or indirectly to prevent chemical explosions or
provide any protection against chemical explosions.
At this point there is nothing in the public record that
indicates that the owner of West Fertilizer intentionally failed to submit a
Top Screen for his facility. The record only shows a failure to submit that
information. It may have been caused by a small town business man not being
aware of this requirement or a misunderstanding of the application of the
requirement to his business.
I have personally run into at least one chemical
manufacturing facility owner that was not aware of the existence of the CFATS
regulations nor the fact that he was intending to handle a chemical that would
have required the submission of a Top Screen. Let’s face it; very few people
actually read the Federal Register, and many people do not have lawyers/consultants
on retainer to review the changing federal regulatory environment.
Existing Alternative
Suggesting new federal requirements to address a problem
that has not yet had its root cause identified is premature at best. There is,
however, a simple but potentially effective action that Secretary Napolitano
could take almost immediately that would ease some of the concern about similar
facilities not being appropriately covered under CFATS. She could cause to be
issued a notice in the Federal Register requiring all commercial fertilizer
distributors that have not already done so to complete a Top Screen submission
within the next 60 days. I am sure that the Fertilizer
Institute would be more than happy to help get the word out through its
associated suppliers about such a notice.
1 comment:
Hello. Thanx for writing on these issues.
If I understand correctly it seems that DHS has had less than 200 facilities comply with CFATS Top-Screen.
Do you have an opinion on how DHS will get the others to comply and then how they will determine if the final security plan is actually effective and not 'lip-service'?
Post a Comment