Private industry has a responsibility to shore up their security procedures. The chemical industry, probably one of the most critical manufacturing businesses, is a prime example that all involved need to be accountable to development and implementation of security procedures. It would be relatively easy for anyone to enter chemical plants and appropriate chemicals for a terrorist attack. Nearly one-fifth of the nation’s 15,000 chemical facilities are situated in areas where a toxic release or attack on the facility could affect 50,000 people.
DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff spoke last week to the chemical industry on GWU campus whereby he stated that the industry needed to take responsibility and move forward (Transcript). The government would not set standards that would permit the industry to develop their own. Chertoff stated, “There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, and we’re going to let chemical operators figure out the right way, as long as the cat gets skinned.? At the present time, according to Chertoff, there are no credible threats relevant to the chemical industry.
Congress is currently reviewing legislation that would empower the chemical industry to shut down plants that fail to create, improve, and submit plans regarding their security plans. At the present time, chemical plants voluntarily secure their own facility. Over $1.5 million has been spent on average per plant to bolster security, but some companies have done nothing.
There were many criticisms to the Bush administration’s proposal because it points to self-policing the industry. The Administration’s proposal “will ensure the entire chemical sector?a critical part of our national infrastructure?is adequately protected,” said American Chemical Council President Jack Gerard .
“It’s a lot like putting a ‘Beware of dog’ sign out in the yard but not actually buying a guard dog,” said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA). He was critical, stating that the federal proposal should state minimum protections against different kinds or levels of terrorist attacks and advocating the use of outside auditors.
With these type of issues, air and water security comes into play, and environmentalists were critical that requirements to the chemical industry would not include chemical substitutes with substances that would be less dangerous if accidentally or maliciously released. Former White House Advisor Richard Clarke, in speaking to an ASIS International Terrorism Conference that TRC attended, emphasized the need to replace the use of chlorine gas?a chemical weapon used in WWI?with a less volatile substitute. Naturally, any substitution would also require immense expenditures by chemical companies to retrofit equipment, processes, and storage materials. National Environmental Trust Spokesman Andy Igrejas stated that the omission ignores the one security measure “that would fully protect the public.” Chertoff responded that safer substitutes would lead to ?mission creep??shifting the security focus to environmental concerns. State governments also expressed concerns that the federal government would ?trump? the local or state administrations or mandates. However, Republican and Democratic lawmakers were pleased that DHS appeared ready to begin regulating the industry. “The clearly stated intent of terrorists to cause maximum harm to the American people and to our economy makes these measures necessary,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).
Issues as these are excellent examples of the necessary partnering between the private sector and the federal government. Communication must be kept open and procedures in place to protect the public, commerce, and the environment.