Improving Security

Although the Department of Homeland Security has taken steps to shield the chemical sector from terrorist attacks, the Government Accountability Office finds that much more needs to be done.

DHS has tagged 3,400 chemical facilities that, if attacked, would pose great harm to human life and health. Yet, GAO notes in a recent report, current laws give DHS only limited authority to regulate security at those plants. DHS has had to rely on industry's voluntary efforts, and GAO says, "The extent to which companies are addressing security is unclear."

GAO suggests that Congress consider legislation giving DHS the mantle to require industry to address security at its facilities. "We agree with GAO that DHS should have the authority over security of the nation's critical infrastructure, including the chemical sector," says Chris VandenHeuvel, American Chemistry Council spokesman.

VandenHeuvel says ACC supports rapid passage of "tough legislation that focuses solely on security, not on issues that divert attention from antiterrorism, such as unhelpful provisions that would let government bureaucrats interfere with company production processes."

He is alluding to inherently safer technologies (IST) that GAO says can potentially "lessen the consequences of a terrorist attack by reducing the chemical risks present at facilities." GAO suggests that DHS and EPA study IST's security benefits. But Nicholas A. Ashford, professor of technology policy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, points out that 12 years ago EPA "sponsored research at MIT on the advantages of using IST, which it unfortunately ignored."

Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, however, released a statement calling IST "a concept that environmental special interests have been promoting. It is not a solution for improving security, and DHS opposes its use as such."

But, asks Greenpeace spokesman Rick Hind, "if IST could prevent both a terrorist attack and a Bhopal-type accident, who would oppose it?"