The Homeland Security section of the omnibus spending bill extends the DHS Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) – as well as the exemption for water and wastewater systems – through the entire 2012 fiscal year, buying Congress more time to work out a deal on a long-term extension of the program.
As Congress returned to Washington after Thanksgiving it briefly appeared that a long-term CFATS extension might receive a vote in the House of Representatives before the end of the year. A statement released by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) stated that H.R. 908, a bill backed by GOP committee members to extend CFATS in its current form through 2018, could receive a full House vote “in the coming weeks.” Congress, however, focused on other business, and the bill was not considered as the clock ran out on 2011.
Despite the lack of a floor vote on H.R. 908 this year, the bill could see action early in 2012. As approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee, the bill would maintain the current exemption of drinking water and wastewater facilities from CFATS, and chemical facilities would not be required to consider or implement any so-called “inherently safer technology.” It is likely that these aspects will draw criticism and proposed amendments from Democrats during floor debate, but the minority party is unlikely to attract enough support to change these parts of the bill.
On the Senate side, a mid-December push by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to quickly move her similar CFATS extension bill (S. 473) through the upper chamber was not successful, either. The Collins bill would maintain the water and wastewater CFATS exemption as well, but would also establish a voluntary technical assistance program through which chemical facility owners could work with DHS to address facility vulnerabilities.
No action on water sector-specific chemical security legislation is expected until after Congress settles on a long-term CFATS reauthorization bill. House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans have previously suggested that an eventual drinking water security bill might require an update of existing vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans, but no specific language has been circulated.