A bill aimed at shoring up security at chemical and water treatment facilities passed the U.S. House early this month, despite concerns of industry leaders. The chemical security bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency to gauge potential risks posed by chemical stores and suggest alternate chemicals or processes to ensure safety.

Although the bill, long-supported by environmental groups such as Greenpeace, is considered a compromise by those on both sides of the issue, industry leaders are concerned federal interference might lead to burdensome costs or inadequate products, according to an article in the Times-Picayune. An editorial in the New York Times, however, characterized the bill as “a carefully written compromise that is more than accommodating to the concerns of industry.”

“It focuses only on the highest-risk plants, and it would make them use safer chemicals or processes only when the Department of Homeland Security determines that they are feasible and cost-effective,” the editorial states.

Along with the use of those “inherently safer technologies,” detractors also opposed provisions that would allow citizens to file lawsuits against facilities that violate regulations and give states the power to establish tougher rules, according to an Associated Press report. Companies that use dangerous chemicals already do enough to regulate themselves, according to some lawmakers and professional organizations.

“I would suggest that those facilities are more secure than most federal buildings because there is so much at stake,” lawmaker Steve Scalise told the Picayune before the bill passed 230-193. “What this is about is radical environmentalists coming in and trying to impose new policies that [they] call inherently safer technology...what it means is that there are some people in the federal government who want to go in and tell manufacturing companies which products to use in their manufacturing facilities.”

Supporters, though, say the bill will not only prevent terrorists from targeting facilities that use dangerous chemicals and the nearby transportation infrastructure, but also keep communities safe during natural disasters and possibly limit harmful emissions.

“[The bill] will finally establish a comprehensive chemical security program to protect the millions of Americans who live and work in the danger zones around these facilities,” U.S. PIRG public health advocate Liz Hitchcock told the Associated Press. The bill, which could affect more than 6,000 facilities nationwide, was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on November 9, according to Library of Congress records.