|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Lawmakers Differ on Chemical Plant Security
U.S. lawmakers, chemical industry representatives and environmental groups continue to clash over legislative strategies for protecting plants filled with toxic materials from being used by terrorists as impromptu weapons, The Christian Science Monitor reported today (see GSN, March 21). Democrats, moderate Republicans, environmentalists and select security experts have argued that the Homeland Security Department should receive authority to compel plants to make specific security improvements. Republicans and industry have said companies should be allowed to make their own changes — such as using safer chemicals or posting armed guards at plants — with final approval given to Homeland Security. There is as yet no legislation addressing chemical plant security. The industry in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks argued it could make sufficient changes without regulation; the American Chemistry Council says its 133 member companies have made $3 billion in security improvements in the last five years. However, media, environmentalists and the Government Accountability Office have found that security vulnerabilities persist, some at plants in heavily populated areas. “It’s unacceptable we don’t have a piece of legislation on such a significant critical infrastructure that, if attacked, could have potentially catastrophic consequences,” said Frank Cilluffo, director of the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute. The American Chemistry Council has come to support security legislation, the Monitor reported. “It would be risk-based, performance oriented, and it would not include (inherently safer technologies),” said ACC spokesman Scott Jensen. That means the plants would not be required to switch to less dangerous chemicals even in cases where it is financially and technologically feasible. The House Homeland Security Committee this summer passed legislation giving Homeland Security power to require use of safer chemicals when possible at high-risk plants. Companies could appeal such a decision. Rather than scheduling a vote on that bill, GOP leaders in the House are giving Homeland Security in its appropriations legislation the authority to require vulnerability assessments and security plans at chemical plants. “Nothing in this section authorizes the secretary directly or indirectly to require any particular security measure,” the appropriations bill states. “The industry didn’t like what passed in committee, and now they’re using the appropriations process to craft a drastically weak, completely industry-friendly version and present it as a fait accompli,” said Andy Igrejas of the National Environmental Trust. “A congressman can oppose it, but to do so, he or she’d have to vote against Homeland Security appropriations just six weeks before an election.” Countered ACC spokesman Jensen: “We’re not against IST. The chemical industry developed and created it. However, what we are against is banning chemicals under the guise of security. We think the legislation should work toward securing those chemicals, rather than banning them” (Alexandra Marks, Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 15).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
