Signers of the letter included industry groups such as the American Chemistry Council, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers , the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Edison Electric Institute. The groups stated that they have been working with various agencies "to ensure our nation is prepared to defend against terrorist attacks to our facilities." The letter also asserted that Corzine’s bill would “splinter security responsibility away from the Department of Homeland Security and grant [the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)] extensive new authority that may be detrimental to advancing our nation's critical infrastructure security.”
Under Corzine’s plan facilities must conduct vulnerability assessments, identify any potential hazards, and prepare a plan to address those hazards, including using fewer chemicals or less toxic chemicals and storing smaller amounts of toxic substances. The plans would be due one year after implementation of the regulations and would be reviewed by EPA and the Homeland Security Office.
Additionally, it was reported in a BNA article that EPA, which has opposed the bill, plans to issue a proposed rule of security regulations for chemical plants "within two weeks." EPA is reported saying it could implement regulations faster by going through the rulemaking process. However, critics have noted that since EPA has wavered for a year since the September 11th attacks over whether or not the agency has the authority to require vulnerability assessments it is unlikely that it will maintain an aggressive timeline without a clear mandate from Congress.