WASHINGTON, June 17 (UPI) -- As the Department of Homeland Security drafts promised measures to secure chemical facilities against terrorist attack, it will face some tough questions regarding the economic impact on the industry and the feasibility of enforcing the laws.
In drafting legislation, the department must ensure that all chemical companies and facilities are subject to the same standards. If not, competition between companies will not be taking place on a "level playing field," said Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash., last week -- adding that the current absence of legislation created a handicap for those firms that took their security responsibilities seriously.
"Those (companies) that don't meet the same standards have an economic advantage," Dicks told a meeting of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity. "This is an issue that cries out for legislative action."
But implementing effective legislation to oversee all of America's chemical facilities will be a challenge. There are an estimated 15,000 plants that produce, use or store large quantities of potentially harmful chemicals. Kate McGoon, a spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council, which represents 132 leading companies in the chemistry business including Dow Corning Inc., Eli Lilly and Co., and Sunoco Co., told United Press International that her group has been calling for equal security standards legislation for three years.
"Some of the leaders in the field stepped up to the plate a long time ago," said McGoon. Member companies of the council have spent $2 billion since Sept. 11 to secure their 2,040 facilities. "We support federal legislation and it is a huge commitment to support federal legislation -- we just want to ensure that somebody has the ability to enforce the standards on everyone."
Appearing before separate House and Senate subcommittees on Homeland Security last week, Robert Stephan, assistant secretary for infrastructure protection at Homeland Security, said that 20 percent of "high risk" chemical operating facilities are not governed by "any kind of voluntary practice or voluntary security code."
Stephan said a "black hole" has formed in regards to the subject -- local and state governments cannot know if sites are properly secured because public discussion of security measures leaves the sites more open to attack.
To date, Stephan said the administration has worked voluntarily with chemical companies to train local law enforcement in the areas surrounding their facilities, conducted vulnerability assessments at 38 of the "highest consequence" facilities, worked with the Coast Guard to inspect all 238 facilities that fall within the port system and improved information sharing with the private sector.
Stephan would not comment about what specific federal regulatory requirements would entail -- only that requirements would be based on the risk posed by the chemicals within each facility.
"There are certainly many chemical facilities in the United States that pose relatively low risk, so the most scrutiny should be focused on those that, if attacked, could endanger the greatest number of lives and have the greatest economic impact," he said in his prepared testimony.
Stephan's refusal to comment on what kinds of regulatory requirements might be in the works sparked outrage from Rep. Ed Markey D-Mass. "The Bush Administration is all talk and no action," said Markey. "While claiming to abandon its own earlier policy of allowing the chemical industry to regulate itself, today's hearing shows the Bush Administration isn't willing to put its money where its mouth is and commit to any meaningful security upgrades."
A Homeland Security official speaking on condition of anonymity, said the comments of some lawmakers were more about drama than accuracy. "We have taken aggressive measures, we have taken all the voluntary measures we can take and that is why we're here today," said the official.
But they acknowledged that the voluntary approach had not worked as the department had hoped. "We recognize that under all the voluntary measures we have tried, our expertise says we need to continue down the road to a legislative path."
The secrecy of the methods taken to secure the facilities and the kinds of materials stored in them has been a source of controversy. Rep. Bill Pascrell D-NJ, whose state is home to many of the largest chemical facilities, told United Press International that the public has the right to know exactly what kinds of toxic materials they might be exposed to in the event of a terrorist attack.
"Much of this has been highly classified, but the public has the right to know and be reported to as to what in God's name is going on in the area where they live because most people don't know until another event like Sept. 11 happens and then they say, oh, we have a chemical plant here?" said Pascrell.
"They need to know what kind of chemicals are in there, how explosive they are, whether or not they are protected down and if they have security. People have a right to know this.
"I don't want to hear about classified," he concluded.
A succession of reports from watchdog bodies has highlighted the security risks posed by the lack of regulation of U.S. chemical facilities.
A report from the Environmental Protection Association released in 2003 said that as many as 1,000,000 people could be affected by an attack on the chemical facilities holding the most dangerous toxins and materials. Stephan downplayed those numbers, saying they do not take into account meteorological conditions. "The wind cannot blow at 360 degrees," he said.
Research by the Department of Homeland Security said that the most serious attack would affect no more than 50,000 people.
The assertion that nothing has been done to protect chemical facilities is not true, said Rep. Dan Lungren R-Calif., chairman of the subcommittee.
Lungren said the risk of chemical facilities being the target of a terrorist attack is no greater than that at shopping malls, restaurants, stadiums or anywhere else where people gather in large numbers. "Suggesting that nothing has been done misleads the public," said Lungren.
"The goal is to prioritize high risk targets and seek what is possible" in regards to regulation of chemical facilities, he said.
