America’s chemicalfacilities may not beas secure as youthink…
Just How Safe Are Our Chemical Facilities?By Cliff MontgomeryA Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, Chemical Facility Security, was updated and released on August 2006. It covers one of the most important, yet least discussed, issues in post-9/11 America: the lack of oversight for facilities which produce potentially dangerous chemicals.What exactly is this problem, and how can America best protect itself? We quote from the CRS report below:“The potential harm to public health and the environment from a large release of hazardous chemicals has long concerned the U.S. Congress. The sudden, accidental release in December 1984 of methyl isocyanate in an industrial incident at the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, and the attendant loss of thousands of lives and widespread injuries spurred legislative proposals to reduce the risk of chemical accidents in the United States.”For example, federal environmental laws were enacted in 1986 and 1990 to mitigate and reduce the risk of accidental releases of hazardous chemicals from manufacturing facilities, processing plants, and storage tanks. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 was passed to protect the public and environment in the event of an accident during transportation of chemicals. Other federal laws coordinate preparedness planning and response to significant chemical spills (e.g., the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act).”The threat of terrorism manifested on September 11, 2001, prompted renewed congressional attention to the potential risks to public health and the environment posed by facilities handling large quantities of hazardous chemicals. Congress addressed chemical facility security when it enacted legislation establishing the Department of land Security (DHS).”The law requires analysis of vulnerabilities and suggestions for security enhancements for ‘critical infrastructure‘. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 and the Maritime Transportation Security Act require vulnerability assessments, security plans, and incident response plans for some chemical facilities which supply drinking water or are located in ports.”Many other chemical facilities remain unregulated with respect to terrorism. Thus, the 109th Congress is continuing to discuss the risks and consequences of potential terrorist attacks on chemical facilities and possible actions the federal government might take to prevent or reduce them. This report…summarizes issues relevant to…reducing risks to the general public of exposure to hazardous chemicals as a result of terrorist acts at U.S. facilities where chemicals are produced, processed, stored, or used.”Facilities handling large amounts of potentially hazardous chemicals (i.e., chemical facilities) might be of interest to terrorists, either as targets for direct attacks meant to release chemicals into the community or as a source of chemicals for use elsewhere.”Because few terrorist attacks have been attempted against chemical facilities in the United States, the risk of death and injury in the near future is estimated to be low, relative to the likelihood of accidents at such facilities or attacks on other targets using conventional weapons.”For any individual facility, the risk is very small, but the risks may be increasing–with potentially severe consequences for human health and the environment. Available evidence indicates that many chemical facilities may lack adequate safeguards.”After 9/11, Congress enacted legislation that requires the Department of land Security (DHS) to analyze vulnerabilities and suggest security enhancements for ‘critical infrastructure’.The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 and the Maritime Transportation Security Act require vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans for some chemical facilities that supply drinking water or are located in ports, as well as security plans for chemical facilities in ports.”Many other chemical facilities, including wastewater treatment facilities, remain unregulated.”Congress might choose to rely on existing efforts in the public and private sectors to improve chemical site security over time. Alternatively, Congress could expand existing environmental planning requirements for chemical facilities to require consideration of terrorism. DHS could be directed to oversee security enhancement at potentially dangerous facilities. Or, Congress might enact legislation to reduce risks, either by “hardening” defenses against terrorists (for example byincreasing security patrols) or by requiring industries to consider use of safer chemicals, procedures, or processes.”Restricting terrorists’ access to information might be a least-cost approach to reducing risks, but it would also limit public access to information about potential risks and reduce accountability of facility owners. […] Other bills aim to enhance security for a specific category of facility or chemical.”This report will be updated as warranted by congressional activity.”
