Witnesses and lawmakers alike have agreed that federal legislation to secure chemical facilities is necessary. But there are still glaring differences of opinion among lawmakers and industry representatives that could stall progress in the final months of this year's Congress.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, chemical facilities across the nation set up voluntary methods of security. Lawmakers and industry representatives warn that those methods are not enough; approximately 20 percent of chemical facilities have been found to not be applying significant security measures.

Last week's bombings in London brought a sense of urgency to the committee, which met earlier this week as well as previously specifically to discuss chemical plant security.

"The events in London sent a very loud and painful warning that we need to be alert and ready to close the vulnerabilities in our society," said Lieberman during a committee session thi week. "Chemical plants are among the most vulnerable in ours."

In June, Robert Stephan, assistant secretary of Department of Homeland Security, said his department was looking at different ideas for legislative or regulatory standards. DHS was not available for comment about the status of the proposals, but UPI has learned from a source in the House Homeland Security Committee that DHS will most likely come out with proposed regulations rather than actual legislation.

Testifying on behalf of the American Chemistry Council, a body that represents 130 of America's leading chemical companies, Martin Durbin, managing director of security and operations, said there needs to be federal regulations across the board based on threat and risk. If not, companies that do not spend money on security efforts will have a major economic advantage over their competitors that do.

The ACC has spent more than $2 billion since the 2001 terror attacks on the United States on security enhancements.

"We brought about swift and decisive action in October and November of 2001," said Durbin, who called on all chemical facilities to take similar steps.

While all the witnesses agreed that federal legislation was needed, questions still arise as to how much governmental oversight would be enacted and how much money it would cost goverment and private industry. The issue of inherently safer technologies -- a proposal to decrease the toxicity of the chemicals stored and used in chemical facilities -- is also a hot source of debate.

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said that though the threat of terrorism is very real, the United States cannot afford to protect against every threat equally. "I am reminded right now of the Soviet Union and the Cold War and how the Russians bankrupted themselves worrying what the United States or anyone else might do to them."

Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association said he supports the idea of federally mandated legislation.

There were also distinct differences in opinion between the two sector groups that testified before the committee on the issue of inherently safer technology. Matthew Barmasse, environmental health safety and quality director for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, said he fears government officials telling scientists how to do their jobs. "Chemists spend a tremendous amount of time developing the processes they use," said Barmasse. "Regulators coming in and telling them to use a different process with different chemicals will be outside the realm of their expertise."

Lieberman insisted that the issue is of immediate importance and remained confident that legislation would be passed at least by the end of Congress.

"Not many subjects get three hearings in three months -- we consider chemical facility protection an urgent matter," he said. "Our chemical facilities could turn into potential weapons of mass destruction that could kill thousands and there should be no disagreement about making our chemical facilities safer than they are today."

All rights reserved. Copyright 2004 by United Press International. Sections of the information displayed on this page (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by United Press International. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of by United Press International.

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express