|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Senate Mulls Chemical Plant Security Standards
Chemical industry watchdogs told the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee yesterday that additional security is needed at chemical plants to lessen the effects of a terrorist attack, the Courier Post reported today (see GSN, July 6). Representatives of leading chemical companies told the committee that Congress needs to set consistent security standards across the industry, but said the standards should not differentiate between the types of chemicals at the plant. The senators, who in the past have had difficulty agreeing to chemical security codes, seemed optimistic that chemical plant legislation would pass this year. “While the industry has made substantial investment (in plant security) … more obviously needs to be done,” said Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). Senator Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) called chemical plants “pre-positioned weapons of mass destruction” that need federal protection. “We have a voluntary patchwork of security with respect to our chemical plants that is without question, in my view, one of the single most vulnerable elements of our infrastructure and is a clear and present danger,” he said. Since the terrorist attacks in London last week, momentum has grown for minimum federal security standards at chemical plants. Last month, the Bush administration expressed support for standards, according to the Post. A chemical industry group says more than $2 billion has been spent on security at chemical plants since 2001, but smaller plants have yet to implement improved security measures. “Our member companies are committed to taking all reasonable actions to enhance the security of their operations and products against those who would do us harm,” said Martin Durbin, managing director of security and operations for the American Chemistry Council. “But our nation will not be safe until all chemical facilities that need to be protected have taken steps equivalent to those taken by our members.” Critics have contended that industry spending increases have not translated into improved security. “A strategy of guards, gates and guns is simply inadequate and bound to fail,” said Carol Andress, an economic development specialist with Environmental Defense. “The problem is significant, pervasive and unaddressed.” Andress suggested a reduction in toxic chemicals at plants or the development of safer substances to use in facility processes (Ledyard King, Courier Post, July 14).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
