GOVERNMENT & POLICY TANKS OR TARGETS U.S. is said to be "rich" in unsecured chemical storage and transportation facilities.
SENATE PANEL BACKS PLANT SECURITY BILL Counterterrorism, chemical accident experts urge senators to pass mandatory plant security bill JEFF JOHNSON, C&EN WASHINGTON
S
UPPORT FOR FEDERAL, MANDA-
tory chemical plant security legis lation to counter the threat of a terrorist attack was unanimously voiced by security and accident prevention officials speaking at a hearing be fore the Senate Homeland Security & Gov ernmental Affairs Committee on April 27 The four panel members laid out a grim picture of the potential terrorist threat to some 15,000 facilities that store and use large quantities of dangerous chemicals. They also warned of a lack of security for chemical railroad tank cars and a national failure to adequately prepare for and re spond to a terrorist attack using industri al chemicals as a weapon. In the case of transportation of haz-
Falkenrath
Fly η η
ardous chemicals, the federal government has authority to require mandatory secu rity standards but has not done so, the speakers said. For the chemical industry, a law is needed to move beyond voluntary ac32
C & E N / MAY 9, 2005
tions that the speakers found inadequate. The hearing was the first before this committee, which has jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It is expected to be one of a series of hear ings on chemical plant security, committee Chairman Susan M. Collins (R-Maine) said. The hearings' goal, Collins said in an open ing statement, is to determine whether the risk of a terrorist attack warrants legislation and what that legislation should be. As the hearing drew to a close several hours later, however, Collins said she was "convinced that chemical security has not received the attention it deserves, considering the vul nerabilities involved. I am inclined to be lieve, based on testimony today that we do need strong federal legislation in this area,
Merritt but we also need legislation that doesn't put an unreasonable burden on the chem ical industry" Balancing public safety and the burden to industry in away that satisfies the chem-
ical industry, Congress, the Bush Admin istration, and a host of public interest groups may not be easy For nearly four years, the Senate Envi ronment & Public Works Committee dis cussed chemical plant security and even tually cleared legislation that required terrorist vulnerability assessments but left them to be done by chemical companies. The legislative approach mirrored a secu rity program run by the American Chem istry Council for its member companies. ACC's program turns compliance and oversight over to company-selected thirdparty auditors. The results are secret. THE ENVIRONMENT & Public Works Committee was deeply split over the need for independent oversight of the adequa cy of the company-prepared security plans as well as whether "inherently safer design" criteria and reduction of toxic chemicals should be encouraged by law. No agree ment on language was reached, and com mittee ChairmanJames M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) did not bring a bill to the Senate floor (C&EN, Oct. 27,2003, page 29). Now Collins' committee, which has ju risdiction over DHS, is in charge, rather than Inhofe's, which oversees the Envi ronmental Protection Agency. The shift makes it much more likely that legislation will reach the Senate floor. Beginning the hearing was New Jersey Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D), who said a "worst case" release of toxic chemicals at any of 11 New Jersey plants would threaten more than a million people in the highly popu lated and industrialized state. Corzine pointed to apocalyptic federal studies showing that a chemical release from an accident or attack at any of 123 chemical facilities in 24 states would threaten more than 1 million people and that, in 39 states, there was at least one fa cility where a chemical release could harm more than 100,000 people. Corzine introduced chemical security legislation within a month of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. His bill was op posed by the chemical industry, the Bush Administration, and most Republicans on Inhofe's committee, primarily because of requirements that companies attempt to adopt inherently safer processes or reduce their use of toxic chemicals. Corzine has toned down this provision and said such "alternative production ap proaches" should not be mandated but WWW.CEN-0NLINE.ORG
should be examined and achieved where possible. Hearing panelists were universal in their criticism of the tardiness of federal security requirements for chemical companies. "We are a nation at war," said Stephen E. Flynn, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and retired U.S. Coast Guard commander. America, he said, is "target rich. We have 15,000 weapons of mass destruction littered around the U.S. "We have no idea how well-guarded they are or if they are guarded at all," he added. Al Qaeda has no need to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the U.S., he said, because there already exists a "vast menu of pre-positioned weapons" in highly populated areas next to critical infrastructures. "How this could be so off the list of priorities for more than three years since 9/11 is simply extraordinary," Flynn added. He believes that Al Qaeda or another terrorist organization will carry out a major attack in the U.S. within five years, and at the top of his list of likely targets are chemical plants.
Office director of natural resources and environment. He told the committee that two years ago, GAO urged DHS to develop a national chemical sector security strategy, but DHS had yet to do so. Also distressing was a "troubling" lack of preparation among emergency responders around the nation, said Carolyn W. Merritt, chairman of the Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board. Merritt presented a list of accidents investigated by the safety board that found local emergency planners unprepared and poorly equipped to respond to a lethal chemical release, no matter the cause. Residents, she said, were unsure what to do when ordered to evacuate or to shelter in place; in some cases, emergency responders were even unaware of which plants were handling dangerous chemicals in large quantities. "The chemical board's investigations," she said, "at a minimum, point to the need
The chemical sector "flies off the page" when compared to other potential terrorist targets.
THAT VIEW was underscored by Richard A. Falkenrath, visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former White House and DHS security adviser. He said, "No significant reduction in the inherent vulnerability of the most dangerous chemical plants has occurred since the 2001 terrorist attacks." In part, he blamed himself along with other Administration officials for the lack of results. Falkenrath particularly cited the threat from large quantities ofindustrial chemicals that pose a toxic inhalation hazard—chlorine, phosgene, ammonia, methyl bromide, and hydrochloric and other acids—stored and used around the country These common industrial chemicals, he warned, are extraordinarily dangerous, and several are identical to weapons used in W}rld War I. "I am aware of no other category of potential terrorist targets that present as great a danger as toxic-inhalation-hazard industrial chemicals," Falkenrath said. The chemical sector "flies off the page" when compared to other potential terrorist targets, he said, because of its lack of security and the potential to cause mass casualties. The need for national chemical industry security was also stressed by John B. Stephenson, Government Accountability
for a comprehensive national review of emergency preparedness." Among security recommendations, speakers called first for a highly detailed inventory of every chemical facility and conveyance in the country Then the inventory should be ranked in a tiered system with different security standards based on risk. Certification and third-party verification that mandatory security actions were taken would be required, as well as enforcement penalties when necessary Inherently safer design opportunities should be encouraged by offering companies a chance to move to less onerous tiers by eliminating or reducing storage and use of lethal chemicals, Falkenrath said. Like others at the hearing, Falkenrath applauded voluntary programs like ACC's but said they were insufficient because of their limited scope. Panelists also urged that any approach have rigorous oversight of industry compliance to ensure that safety standards are uniform among companies in the highly fragmented chemical sector. Future hearings are expected to offer the views of D H S and chemical companies, several senators said. •
Boulder Scientific Company Innovative Specialty Chemical Solutions
30 Years Experience in the Manufacture and Use of Air Sensitive Organometallics
I^MgBr
^
O-Mg-0 H =
k
MgCI
Increase Your Capacity by Outsourcing Organometallic Compounds & Reactions Bulk, Kilo and R&D quantities
available
BSC can Supply the Reagent and/or Perform the Reaction
Boulder Scientific Company Box 548 Mead, CO 80542 www.bouldersci.com Voice 970-535-4494 · Fax 970-535-4584 Request more at AdlnfoNow.org
WWW.CEN-0NLINE.ORG
C & E N / MAY 9. 2005
33
