Lots of Chemicals, Little Reaction

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/22/opinion/22halperin.html?th

 

September 22, 2004

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

 

Lots of Chemicals, Little Reaction

By RICK HIND and DAVID HALPERIN

 

Washington — While President Bush continues to make terrorism and

domestic security the centerpiece of his campaign, he has made little

mention of one of the most urgent threats to our safety: the risk that

terrorists could cause thousands, even millions, of deaths by

sabotaging one of the 15,000 industrial chemical plants across the

United States.

 

The dangers from chemical plant mishaps are clear. According to data

compiled by Greenpeace International, the 1984 accident at an Union

Carbide insecticide plant in Bhopal, India, has caused 20,000 deaths

and injuries to 200,000 people. A terrorist group could cause even

greater harm by entering a plant in the United States and setting off

an explosion that produces a deadly gas cloud.

 

The administration knows the dangers. Soon after the 9/11 attacks,

Senator Jon Corzine, Democrat of New Jersey, highlighted the issue

with legislation requiring chemical plants to enhance security and use

safer chemicals and technologies when feasible. (Such safer

substitutes are widely available.)

 

A study by the Army surgeon general, conducted soon after 9/11, found

that up to 2.4 million people could be killed or wounded by a

terrorist attack on a single chemical plant. In February 2003, the

government's National Infrastructure Protection Center warned that

chemical plants in the United States could be Qaeda targets.

Investigations by The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and the CBS program

" 60 Minutes " have highlighted lax or nonexistent security at chemical

plants, with gates unlocked or wide open and chemical tanks unguarded.

 

The Environmental Protection Agency under Christie Whitman did its

part to evaluate the threat, identifying 123 chemical facilities where

an accident or attack could threaten more than a million people, and

7,605 plants that threatened more than 1,000 people. The agency

determined that it could use the Clean Air Act to compel chemical

plants to increase security.

 

Following the Corzine approach, the agency also planned to promote the

use of less hazardous chemicals. But the Bush administration overruled

the initiative, and in December the president announced that chemical

security was now the province of the new Department of Homeland

Security, under Secretary Tom Ridge.

 

As The Wall Street Journal disclosed last month, Homeland Security

tried to reduce the threat of catastrophic attack with the stroke of a

pen. The department announced that the number of plants that

threatened more than 1,000 people was actually only 4,391, and the

number that endangered more than a million people was not 123 but two.

 

Mr. Ridge has set in motion plans to install security cameras at

chemical plants in seven states - but not in some high-threat states

like Florida, Ohio and Minnesota. Although the department visits

plants and offers advice, unlike the E.P.A., it doesn't have the power

to enforce security measures and relies instead on voluntary efforts

by the industry. Without enforceable requirements, chemical firms will

remain reluctant to put sufficient safeguards in place, for fear that

their competitors will scrimp on security and thus be able to undercut

them on price.

 

Industry groups have lobbied intensely against the Corzine

legislation. While reluctant to invest in plant safety, some of these

companies and their executives have found the resources to help pay

for the Republican campaign.

 

For the Bush administration, it seems, homeland security is critical

except when it conflicts with the wishes of supporters who own

chemical plants.

 

Rick Hind is legislative director of Greenpeace's toxics campaign.

David Halperin, a lawyer, has served on the staffs of the National

Security Council and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

 

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company