Chemical Facility Security (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (51 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised Dec. 15, 2006 |
| Report Number |
RL31530 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Linda-Jo Schierow, Resources, Science and Industry Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Revised Oct. 11, 2006 (51 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised Oct. 3, 2006 (51 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised Aug. 2, 2006 (50 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised May 22, 2006 (47 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised March 24, 2006 (46 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised Jan. 12, 2006 (46 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised July 29, 2005 (47 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised Feb. 14, 2005 (50 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised Oct. 22, 2004 (43 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised Jan. 20, 2004 (43 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Jan. 23, 2003 (35 pages, $24.95)
add
|
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 the risks may be increasingâwith potentially severe consequences for human health and the environment. Available evidence indicates that many chemical facilities may lack adequate safeguards.
After 9/11, Congress enacted legislation that requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to analyze vulnerabilities and 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 and emergency response plans for some chemical facilities that supply drinking water or are located in ports, as well as security plans for chemical facilities in ports. Many other chemical facilities, including wastewater treatment facilities, remain unregulated.
Congress could choose to rely on existing efforts in the public and private sectors to improve chemical site security over time. Alternatively, Congress could direct DHS 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 potential risks and reduce accountability of facility owners. For more on this topic, see CRS Report RL33043, Legislative Approaches to Chemical Facility Security, by Dana A. Shea.
The 109th Congress enacted chemical security legislation as Section 550 of the DHS appropriations legislation, P.L. 109-295. The law provides authority to DHS for three years to regulate high-risk chemical facilities other than drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities and facilities in ports. The enacted provisions also are found in H.R. 6348. These provisions combine certain elements of H.R. 5695, as reported by the House Homeland Security Committee, and S. 2145, as reported by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. For example, the enacted law directs DHS to establish risk-based security performance standards for facilities, and requires facility owners or operators to prepare vulnerability assessments and facility security plans. The new law also authorizes DHS to inspect facilities and to close down any that are repeatedly noncompliant. However, the law did not address the most controversial issues: whether state laws are preempted and whether facilities should be required to consider use of inherently safer technology.
