Download Locations:
Summary:
Facilities handling large amounts of potentially hazardous chemicals (i.e., chemical facilities) might be of interest to terrorists, either as targets for direct attacks meant to release chemicals into the community or as a source of chemicals for use elsewhere. Because few terrorist attacks have been attempted against chemical facilities in the United States, the risk of death and injury in the near future is estimated to be low, relative to the likelihood of accidents at such facilities or attacks on other targets using conventional weapons. For any individual facility, the risk is very small, but risks may be increasing with potentially severe consequences for human health and the environment. Available evidence indicates that many chemical facilities may lack adequate safeguards. Two federal environmental laws enacted in 1986 and 1990 require chemical facility planning to protect the general public from accidental releases of hazardous chemicals. However, neither law explicitly addresses terrorism. After 9/11, Congress enacted legislation that requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to analyze vulnerabilities and to suggest security enhancements for "critical infrastructure." The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-188) and the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA, P.L. 107-295) require vulnerability assessments, security plans, and incident response plans for some chemical facilities that supply drinking water or are located in ports. Many other chemical facilities remain unregulated. Congress has many legislative options. For example, it might rely on existing efforts in the public and private sectors to improve chemical site security over time. Additional information about the potential risks and benefits of enhancing security could be collected to permit better targeting of existing programs. Alternatively, Congress could expand existing environmental planning requirements for chemical facilities to require consideration of terrorism. DHS could be directed to oversee security enhancement at potentially dangerous facilities. Or, Congress might enact legislation to reduce risks, either by "hardening" defenses against terrorists, for example by increasing security patrols, or by requiring industries to consider use of safer chemicals, procedures, or processes. Restricting terrorists' access to information might be a least-cost approach to reducing risks, but it would also limit public access to information about risks to which they might be exposed, and reduce accountability of facility owners. Policy makers face three key issues: how to balance the risks and benefits of public disclosure; how to weigh the relative importance of diverse risks; and whom to hold responsible for achieving results. In the 108th Congress, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported a bill (S. 994) that would have required vulnerability assessments and security plans for designated facilities. A competing proposal (S. 157), in addition to vulnerability assessments and security plans, would have required risk reduction through use of "inherently safer" technologies, if practicable. Whether similar proposals will be introduced into the 109th Congress is unclear, in part because committee jurisdiction over this issue may change in either the House or the Senate. This report will be updated as warranted by congressional activity.
