ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
In a bid to persuade congress to enact chemical security legislation that would require facilities using or storing hazardous chemicals to switch to less hazardous materials or processes, the Center for American Progress (CAP) has released a report spotlighting nearly 300 facilities across the U.S. that have successfully made the transition. Most of the changes have occurred since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The 284 facilities surveyed, mainly drinking-water or wastewater treatment plants, switched to so-called inherently safer technologies (IST) or changed locations because of concerns about terrorism and the need for improved security. By switching, these facilities spared about 38 million people living in surrounding communities the possibility of a catastrophic toxic release from an accident or terrorist attack, according to the "Preventing Toxic Terrorism" report.
At an April 25 briefing, Reece Rushing, CAP's associate director for regulatory policy, said more than 14,000 chemical plants, water treatment plants, and other industrial facilities "still haven't converted" to IST. Of these facilities, 450 would each "put more than 100,000 people at risk," he said.
About a third of the facilities that switched "anticipated cost savings and decreased regulatory burdens," said the report's author, chemical safety consultant Paul Orem. "The report shows that it is possible to improve both safety and security."
Orem polled 1,800 facilities, but only 284 responded. Only a handful of the respondents are part of the chemical industry. He characterized the sample as strong but not comprehensive.
A chemical security bill cosponsored by Sens. Susan M. Collins (R-Maine) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), S. 2145, does not require facilities to adopt IST. Another bill, S. 2486, cosponsored by Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and others, mandates that high-risk facilities adopt IST, if practical. It also allows states to adopt stronger protections than federal law requires, a provision which the Bush Administration opposes.
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on X