Time for Chemical Plant Security, NY Times, 12/27/2005

[Coastie for Truth]

It is hard to believe, but more than four years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress has still not acted to make chemical plants, one of the nation's greatest terrorist vulnerabilities, safer. Last week, Senators Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, unveiled a bipartisan chemical plant security bill. We hope that parts of the bill will be improved as it works its way through Congress, though even in its current form the bill would be a significant step.

If terrorists attacked a chemical plant, the death toll could be enormous. A single breached chlorine tank could, according to the Department of Homeland Security, lead to 17,500 deaths, 10,000 severe injuries and 100,000 hospitalizations. Many chemical plants have shockingly little security to defend against such attacks.

After 9/11, there were immediate calls for the government to impose new security requirements on these plants. But the chemical industry, which contributes heavily to political campaigns, has used its influence in Washington to block these efforts. Senator Collins, the chairwoman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, has held hearings on chemical plant security, and has now come up with this bill with both Republican and Democratic sponsors.

The bill requires chemical plants to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security and emergency response plans. The Department of Homeland Security would be required to develop performance standards for chemical plant security. In extreme cases, plants that do not meet the standards could be shut down.

An issue to watch on "chemical plant - and oil refinery - and oil terminal - and bulk cargo/container security" is PRE-EMPTION. Until recently, it appeared that the bill might include "pre-emption language." This would block states from coming up with their own chemical security rules.

Pre-emption would have made the bill worse than no bill at all. New Jersey has just imposed its own chemical plant security rules, and other states may follow. These states should be free to protect their citizens more vigorously than the federal government does, if they choose.

The other side of the "pre-emption" coin. I was a Coast Guard HazMat Officer in New Orleans -- and our standards were one heck of a lot tougher then Louisiana's - and Orleans Parish's and St. Bernard Parish's. I let my "four bagger" fight that battle.

[Quakerfriend]

1. Well, it is about time.

I have always felt that the Office of Homeland Security was more of a front than anything. And, the aftermath of Katrina sort of said it all.

[Coastie for Truth]

3. Those of us in the NGO voluntary responder community agree.

[bpilgrim]

2. don't forget all the nuke plants, too

terrorist don't need any special plans to build or sneak one in, there all over the US...


One hundred and four nuclear power plants in thirty-one states provide 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States.

source...
http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_fall03/us_plants.shtml

peace

[LARED]

4. Nuke plants are really not the concern some people

might think they are

The security is quite high at nuke plants. It is not that simple to get into one, and if you did, unless you manage to sneak out spent radioactive material, (something very difficult to do) there is not much you can do to a nuke plant to endanger the community.

Also something people should know is that the dangers from chemical plants are significantly over stated by the government. I'm not trying to minimize the dangers, but people should have accurate information. The reason for this is that nearly all chemical release figures are based on methods designed to model an absolute (read, not realistic) worst case scenario. A scenario where every layer of protection fails, no one responds, A tank does not just leak, it crack open like an egg. Wind and atmospheric conditions are just right to cause maximum damage. The wind is blowing in the absolute worse direction. etc, etc

In other words it is virtually impossible for all the conditions to exist to get the plume models they mandate chemical companies use. This of course does not mitigate the dangers of a release in an attack, but the real threat is much smaller than the numbers you seen thrown around by the media.

Oversight by the government is required, but whether the feds, do it or the states, make little different as most chemical companies are already well ahead of the curve in improving security.

[bpilgrim]

5. Nuclear plant security breaches alleged

BY MINDY B. HAGEN : The Herald-Sun
[e-mail]
Dec 13, 2005 : 8:05 pm ET

DURHAM -- A Durham-based nuclear watchdog group called on local and federal authorities Tuesday to investigate alleged security "vulnerabilities" at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, maintaining that a whistle-blower at the plant has come forward with evidence of recent security breaches.

more...
http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-678719.html

there are plenty more where that came from & don't forget whos drivin da bus ;->

peace

[LARED]

6. I appreciate that not all nuke facilities

are going to be as secure as they should be.

But as a general rule most are doing a pretty good job. And as I said outside of stealing radioactive materials there is little one can to endanger the community once they get inside.
It's not like they make a power plant into a nuclear bomb.