Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - NACWA in the News
CHEMICALS: DHS Official Vows to Close 'Gap' in Water Security
E&E Publishing Story Tools
Ben Geman, E&E Daily senior reporter
A high-level Department of Homeland Security official yesterday told a House panel the agency is reviewing ways to boost anti-terror safeguards at water facilities that store dangerous amounts of chlorine.
Legislation enacted last year required DHS to implement chemical security rules, but Congress exempted drinking water and wastewater treatment sites from the standards. The agency issued its rules in April and is determining which sites must comply.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff "recognizes that the exemption has caused a gap in regulatory authority," said Robert Stephan, the assistant secretary for infrastructure protection, adding that the issue is under review.
But Stephan, in a hearing before a House Homeland Security Committee panel and a short interview after, did not provide details about how the agency would like the issue addressed. He told E&E Daily the matter is the subject of "intense discussions."
"We are going to partner with Congress to find the right answer," he said, sidestepping a question on whether DHS favors mandatory security standards for the water sector. "We need to close the gap," he said. "There are different ways to do it."
Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who questioned Stephan about the issue, said during
the hearing that he was skeptical of DHS's willingness to tackle the issue.
"If the secretary does want this law to change, does want this power, we are
ready, willing and able to do it," he said during the hearing in the
Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection.
Markey also favors requiring sites that store chemicals to use "inherently
safer" substitutes when possible -- a step Stephan said is not currently under
DHS consideration.
The panel held the hearing to check in on DHS's progress in implementing the
chemical security rules. Potential terror attacks using chlorine have gained
increasing scrutiny following use of chorine as a weapon by insurgents in Iraq.
The Boston Globe yesterday reported that the Chlorine Institute -- a chlorine industry group -- warned its members that three 150-pound cylinders of the chemical had been stolen from a California treatment facility in February and April. A spokesman for the group confirmed the thefts.
The Globe account also discussed DHS's concern about the regulatory "gap" with water facilities, and arguments for and against bringing water plants under chemical security regulations.
The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, yesterday urged lawmakers to require security regulation of water facilities as part of broader chemical security legislation. The current chemical security program -- a compromise measure included in last year's DHS spending bill -- sunsets in October 2009.
"In this legislation, besides making chemical security regulation permanent, Congress should close a gaping hole that exists now and broaden DHS's authority, in concert with the EPA, to regulate drinking water and water treatment facilities, which are now exempted," said Philip Crowley, who heads the homeland security program at the Center for American Progress.
The group issued a report earlier this year noting that a substantial number of wastewater and drinking water plants have begun moving away from use of chlorine. However, CAP and several environmental groups say that leaves many, many more that pose major risks.
According to CAP, 1,700 drinking water plants and 1,150 wastewater facilities report extremely hazardous substances, primarily chlorine gas, under EPA's Risk Management Planning program Markey, along with Greenpeace and other groups, says Congress should include requirements to use "inherently safer technologies" when feasible. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies said it would oppose inclusion of their facilities under the DHS chemical security program and try to block efforts that would require use of different chemicals. The group represents wastewater treatment plant operators.
Spokeswoman Susan Bruninga said in an interview that water plant security should remain under EPA oversight. She also noted that plants use chemicals like chlorine to treat water to EPA standards, and that any switching to alternative chemicals should be paid for by the government.
"These are all things that involve a lot of investment," she said. Bruninga added that some plants -- such as the Blue Plains wastewater plant in Washington, D.C. -- have on their own decided to switch to alternative disinfectants.
Legislation enacted in 2002 required water utilities to assess their vulnerabilities and craft emergency response plans, although it did not require any specific security upgrades.
An official with a group representing drinking water plants similarly noted they already work on security and emergency planning through multiple programs under EPA, including the vulnerability assessment program and the EPA Clean Air Act risk management program.
Tom Curtis, the deputy executive director of the American Water Works
Association, said there is a risk of creating "conflicting and inconsistent
requirements."
"We think the current requirements for utilities ... are pretty robust," he
said.
He also noted that decisions about which disinfectants to use should be made locally to address specific conditions like water chemistry and temperature.