One year after 9/11 the focus of antiterrorism protection is turning to facilities that handle large amounts of dangerous chemicals.

Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, testifying recently about terrorist targets, says chemical facilities "are clearly in their sights." What's disturbing, he says, is the "security deficiencies at dozens and dozens of those [facilities]."

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says there are 123 chemical facilities where a release could threaten more than one million people, and more than 750 others where a release could threaten more than 100,000 people. "There are no federal standards in place to require chemical plants to assess their vulnerabilities and take steps to reduce them," says Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) whose bill (S1602) imposing mandatory security measures on the industry is moving through Congress.

The voluntary security measures the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) have adopted are already tightening security, spokespersons counter. They express concern about the cost and feasibility of some mandatory government requirements in the works that could cause delays in the domestic supply chain, add costs, and possibly reduce safety.

The Council, whose membership represents 1,000 facilities subject to the Corzine bill, says that the bill "threatens to delay or stop efforts" underway voluntarily because companies would want to wait for regulations to be issued before investing in further security measures. Corzine subsequently introduced an amendment allowing companies that have security codes to submit them prior to issuance of regulations for approval by the EPA.

James L. Kolstad, president and COO of NACD, says the effects of security measures are "definitely a priority issue for us." About 100 NACD facilities are potential targets of S1602. Distributor concerns, he says, include the costs related to controlling access to facilities, which "have increased the cost of doing business—no doubt about it." So far, he says, the costs have been absorbed in sellers' margins. But NACD fears that requirements for "inherently safer technology" might be interpreted to mean substitution of chemicals and that "a facility operator could be jailed" for being the victim of a terrorist act, Kolstad explains.

Distributor facilities won't be the only ones affected by heightened security, he adds. With tightened security, he says, distributors will have "a greater sensitivity to the qualification of customers to handle product."

Randy Speight, distribution team leader for ACC, says the Council has not yet surveyed its members about the effects of heightened security on the transportation cycle. Closer inspection of documentation, and additional procedures for shipments into plant facilities will probably mean delays in certain segments of the supply chain, Speight explains.

In addition to Congress' focus on chemical plant security, the EPA and Homeland Security Office, along with other agencies, have been considering surveying some 15,000 facilities in the nation already subject to EPA's requirements for Risk Management Plans for security against terrorist-caused releases.

Corzine's bill, which was unanimously voted out of the Environment and Public Works Committee would require "high priority" facilities to:

• Conduct vulnerability/hazard assessments,
• Develop prevention, preparedness and response plans that incorporate the assessment results, and include actions to reduce vulnerabilities,
• Improve security by using "inherently safer technology", and
• Become subject to possible EPA and Justice Department compliance orders and possible criminal penalties.

The criteria for "high priority" facilities include proximity to population centers and proximity to other critical infrastructure.