Trade associations have responded to the proposed Act with testimony at the Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, Risk, and Waste Management.

API provided a statement for the record on S.1602, the Chemical Security Act of 2001. API opposes S.1602. On their statement they concluded that "It will have an adverse impact on the petroleum industry and on the American economy. It will misdirect critical resources that should be applied to real security-risk reduction activities and it would not improve the safety or the security of our nation's energy supply or the welfare of our citizens. 

"The primary reason for this objection is that 'The bill covers all petroleum facilities in the U.S. Oil and gas production facilities, pipelines, refineries, bulk terminals and storage facilities, service stations and all other installations that produce, refine, process, transport, store or handle petroleum, crude oil or chemicals will be covered by this bill.'  They go on to say that 'This overly broad bill adds yet another unnecessary and overlapping layer of regulations on the energy infrastructure at a time when our industry is operating at full capacity to address short and long term adequacy of fuel supplies for this nation.'" 

The above quotes and those in the Part 5 have been extracted the "Written Statement Of The American Petroleum Institute Before The Senate Environment And Public Works Committee Subcommittee On Superfund, Toxics, Risk & Waste Management Hearing On S.1602", November 15, 2001

Go to the next section of this Feature:  Part 5: API Opinion

AcuSafe is a presentation of AcuTech Consulting, ©2002, All Rights Reserved