Assignment #6

1. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 was established as a direct result of the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. The act aimed to a) prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, b) reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism, c) minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States, d) and carryout all functions of entities transferred to the Department, including by acting as a focal point regarding natural and manmade crises and emergency planning. On June 15, 2009 Representative Bennie G. Thompson introduced H.R. 2868 to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance security and protect against acts of terrorism against chemical facilities, to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to enhance the security of public water systems, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the security of wastewater treatment works.

This issue does stem from behavior that is fundamental to our lifestyle with a concentration on three distinct areas. First, this bill designates any chemical substance as a substance of concern and establishes a threshold quantity for each such substance and considers the potential extent of death, injury, and serious adverse effects that could result from a chemical facility terrorist incident. Second, this bill amends the Safe Drinking Water Act by expanding requirements for assessments by covered water systems of their vulnerability to intentional acts of sabotage. Lastly, this bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Clean Water Act by requiring owners or operators that have a treatment capacity of at least 2.5 million gallons of water per day to conduct and update a vulnerability assessment of its treatment works, develop, periodically update, and implement a site security plan and develop and revise an emergency response plan for the treatment works.

2. The bill is sponsored by Democratic Congressman Bennie G. Thompson (MS-2) and has eight co-sponsors. The bill was introduced on June 15, 2009 passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on November 6, 2009 by a vote 230-193. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate. On March 3, 2010 hearings were held in the Senate by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Stakeholders in this legislation include the American Water Works Associate (AWWA) who supports the bill with stipulations. The AWWA is urging members of Congress to support security legislation that applies to water utilities as long as it does not include authority to order the use of Inherently Safer Technology (IST) and provides adequate protection of sensitive information. The AWWA believes personnel who are not water system employees, their contractors, or government agents, should not have access to or be involved in the development of vulnerability assessments or site security plans.

Another stakeholder is National Grange, who is the nation's oldest national agricultural organization. National Grange opposes this bill and believes this legislation will still have detrimental ramifications to the nation’s security and economic stability. The National Grange strongly objects to the IST provisions of the legislation that would allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to mandate that businesses employ specific product substitutions and processes. The National Grange is also concerned that forced chemical substitutions could simply transfer risk to other points along the supply chain, failing to reduce risk at all. Some of the proposed changes are estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars per facility and National Grange fears that these facilities will be unable to bear the expense.

3. One area of uncertainty is an attempt for the bill to impose an unproven, "one size fits all" engineering philosophy known as IST on chemical facilities, drinking water systems and wastewater treatment facilities. IST is a chemical engineering philosophy that suggests through changes in manufacturing or storage processes, modifying chemical ingredients, or through purchasing or other business practices, facilities with chemicals can reduce the number, amount, or form of dangerous chemicals used.

Under this bill, the federal government would impose mandates to adopt unproven technologies and chemical substitutions, but some believe they lack the technical and personnel expertise to evaluate whether these alternatives are effective, productive, and safe across these sectors. Members may be especially concerned about the costs of such technologies to farms, small businesses, drinking water systems, and wastewater treatment facilities.

4. The resources slated to ensure compliance with the policy design for H.R. 2868 include authorizing an appropriation of $900 million over the 2011-2013 period for DHS to regulate the security of facilities across the United States where certain types of chemicals are present. In addition, the DHS would need funding of $283 million for fiscal year 2014 to continue to carry out those activities. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, implementing H.R. 2868 would cost about $1.1 billion over the 2011-2014 period. In addition, enacting the bill may affect revenues because there would be penalties against owners and operators of chemical facilities that fail to comply.

5. The government entity responsible for implementing the legislation is the DHS and more specifically the Secretary of Homeland Security. The Secretary is responsible for establishing standards, protocols, and procedures for security vulnerability assessments and site security plans to be required for covered chemical facilities. Some of the standards and protocols for owners and operators of chemical facilities include conducting an assessment of the vulnerability of the covered chemical facility, preparing and implementing a site security plan for that covered chemical facility, and identifying at least one supervisory and at least one non-supervisory employee of the covered chemical facility.