MILLIONS AT RISK—More than one million Americans live close enough to a chemical plant to suffer serious consequences in the event of an accident or attack.

Across the nation, thousands of industrial facilities use and store enough toxic chemical material to put large numbers of Americans at risk of serious injury or death in the event of an accident or disaster.

Despite industry claims of increased protections, federal studies confirm that security at most chemical facilities ranges from poor to non-existent. More than five years after September 11, chemical plants remain a major Achilles heel in homeland defense.

Unfortunately, efforts to quickly pass legislation have sacrificed legitimate security measures for political cover.

Dangejhigrtyu56745ous Neighbors
The risk is widespread—according to the U.S. EPA more than 100 facilities each put more than a million people at risk of injury or death in the event of an accident or terrorist attack.

Another 700 facilities place at least 100,000 at risk, and an additional 3,000 facilities place 10,000 or more at risk. Experts agree that chemical facilities present an attractive target for terrorists intent on causing massive damage.

Attacks at chemical facilities could threaten the health and safety of millions of Americans, disrupt the economy or damage critical infrastructure.

The Justice Department has repeatedly warned of terrorist threats at chemical facilities and concluded that the risk of an attempt in the foreseeable future to cause an industrial chemical release is both real and credible.
In 2002, the U.S. Army Surgeon General concluded that as many as 2.4 million people could be killed or injured in a terrorist attack against a chemical plant in a densely populated area. Since 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have consistently stated that exclusive reliance on voluntary security efforts by the chemical industry is not sufficient to assure protection of public health and safety.

With so much consensus on the issue, why haven’t our legislators made chemical plants safer?

Call For Real Solutions
The most effective method to secure chemical facilities is to replace dangerous chemicals and processes with safer alternatives when such alternatives are feasible and cost-effective.

Safer chemicals and processes can effectively reduce the consequences of a successful terrorist attack, and also protect workers and residents in the event of an accident.

The National Research Council asserts that “the most desirable solution to preventing chemical releases is to reduce or eliminate the hazard where possible, not to control it.” According to the Government Accountability Office, “implementing inherently safer technologies potentially could lessen the consequences of a terrorist attack by reducing the chemical risks present at facilities, thereby making facilities less attractive terrorist targets.”

The EPA estimates that four toxic chemicals used at chemical facilities account for 55 percent of the harm to surrounding communities. These substances are chlorine gas, anhydrous ammonia, hydrogen fluoride and sulfur dioxide. A recent report found that all four chemicals have readily available and proven safer alternatives that are cost effective.

With so many alternatives to dangerous chemicals, why haven’t our legislators made chemical plants safer?

Shareholders Concerned
In April, 7.8 percent of DuPont shareholders voted in favor of a shareholder resolution organized by U.S. PIRG and Green Century Funds asking DuPont to report on the potential for improving the safety of its chemical plants by reducing the use of extremely hazardous chemicals and taking other similar steps.

According to its EPA filings, DuPont operates 30 plants that put more than 10 million Americans at risk of death or injury in case of an accident or terrorist attack. These chemical plants use large quantities of some of the most toxic chemicals for human beings, chemicals such as hydrofluoric acid, chlorine, phosgene, and sulfur trioxide. Until the April shareholder vote, DuPont had never disclosed the existence of this danger to shareholders.

With increasing investor concern about dangerous chemicals, why haven’t corporations made chemical plants safer?

Why Congress Hasn’t Acted
For the last five years the chemical industry and their allies in Congress have successfully blocked chemical security legislation. This summer, both the Senate and House Homeland Security Committees unanimously approved comprehensive chemical security programs, marking the most significant legislative progress to date.

On June 15, the Senate Homeland Security Committee approved a chemical security bill authored by Sens. Collins (Maine) and Lieberman (Conn.). While the Senate bill is a good first step, it does not go far enough to ensure that workers and communities are adequately protected.

The bill establishes a structured security program, and preserves the authority of states to set their own chemical security requirements. Unfortunately, the bill does not reduce the threat and consequences of a terrorist attack at a chemical plant because it ignores the availability of innovative and safer technologies.

In July, the House Homeland Security Committee unanimously approved legislation that would dramatically improve chemical security. The House bill incorporates the general provisions in the Senate bill, but requires the most dangerous facilities to evaluate safer technologies and to implement these technologies when feasible. While the House bill does not preserve state authority to regulate chemical facilities as clearly as the Senate bill, the inclusion of safer technologies as potential security measures makes the House version much stronger than the Senate.

Faced with the real possibility of a chemical security program, the industry once again went to work to prevent further consideration of the House and Senate bills. Unfortunately, it appears these efforts paid off as chemical security legislation was obstructed during Congress’ “Security September” initiative.

“It’s ironic that during Security September, Congress failed to address unsecured chemical plants, arguably the most widespread and dangerous threats to Americans,” said U.S. PIRG Legislative Director Anna Aurilio. “The most effective way to make chemical plants safe is to reduce the use of extremely hazardous chemicals—Congress should pass the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 passed by the House Homeland Security Committee.”