Locking Up the Chemicals

The Department of Homeland Security has looked at the many chemical facilities using its chemical security regulations, and it has determined that more than 7000 sites must ramp up its security measures.

The facilities include chemical plants, hospitals, colleges and universities, oil and natural gas production and storage sites, and food and agricultural processing and distribution centers, Stephan said.

The names of the sites will not be released to the public.

The department compiled the list after reviewing information submitted by 32,000 facilities nationwide. It considered factors such as proximity to population centers, the volatility of chemicals on site and how the chemicals are stored and handled.
------------
Stephan said the agency is trying to address three threats posed by chemical facilities: the possibility of hazardous materials leaks, fires and explosions; the possibility that materials could be stolen and used elsewhere; and possibly dangerous contamination of chemicals.

Critics of the process said the government should require industry to move to fewer hazardous chemicals. They also say the department is relying on information provided by industry, instead of independently gathering information.

Stephan acknowledged that the information came from the facilities, but said there are "significant penalties" for providing false or incomplete information.

One critic said Friday that the chemical security law is flawed because it does not include nuclear plants, which are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or water treatment facilities.

I'm not so worried about nuclear facilities, and I don't see industries going to alternative chemicals that are less hazardous. Largely, they don't have  a choice if they want to stay in business. I am actually glad that DHS isn't trying to be inspectors in this process either. Bad enough that DHS is forcing this exercise without any indication of domestic threats and without any past history of these sites being hit by outsiders for chemicals. Better security is always good to discourage vandals and thieves, but unless we see evidence of actual terrorist activities (actionable intelligence, if you will), we ought to take this slow.

Comments

[Jack]

I think I know one of the sites... the Eastman Chemical plastics, etc production site in Kingsport, TN. Just across the Holston river from downtown, HWY 93 goes right by the eastern boundary of the site, there is a LOX and other industrial gases facility at its SE corner. Thats where the rail switch yard is too, with all those fat chemical tank cars.

As a former infantry officer, I shudder every time I drive by. What a terrorist cell could do with a 81mm or 120 mm mortar and 10 or 15 shells; or a 2 man Med AT weapon like a Milan with 10 or so rounds.
Hell, what one person could do with an M-2 50 cal and a couple of belts of AP and Incendiary rounds.

Can you say raging inferno? with attendant toxic cloud?

At a minimum, they would need to close/reroute HWY 93 by the plant, but never will due to the cost to do so. Until the plant blows up, of course.

Jack
USARMY AD 75-80

[Thomas Dixon Jr.]

They are trying to ban rail transport into cities for the above reason.

There is no "cost recovery" for the regulated community, of course. They'll just relocate production facilities offshore.

[Kate]

For someone with a vested interest in homeland security I was extremely surprised by your comment, "Bad enough that DHS is forcing this exercise without any indication of domestic threats and without any past history of these sites being hit by outsiders for chemicals."

The 9/11 Commission Report sited a "lack of imagination" by US officials as one of the key reasons the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were successful.

Although there haven't been any domestic threats yet, there has been documented use of experiments with chemical weapons in Iraq. So, while it might seem irrelevant or unnecessary now, securing chemical facilities before an attack would be both an imaginative and preventative security measure.

[J.]

Kate - I'd have to link you to the DHS regs on what they consider a "chemical facility", what they consider reportable quantities for a very long list of chemicals, and how they want to oversee the program and penalize non-conformists. Yes, security at major chemical facilities is important, but this is overkill. Ought to be a state responsibility with EPA guidance on conducting risk assessments. If there are terrorists looking to blow up chemical facilities, the better course of action is to GET THE TERRORISTS. Attack the source, not the tactic.