News

Nearly two years after the terror of 9/11 made "homeland security" a household term, the chemical industry is edging toward getting its collective counterterrorism house in order.

Especially at the largest corporations, executives say, armed guards now patrol perimeters, motion detectors and cameras watch for intruders, and barbed wire circles the deadliest storage tanks -- where a rupture could lead to the release of toxins that could kill, injure or displace millions of Americans.

But other companies -- even major manufacturers -- concede they lag behind Bayer, Dow and others that began planning counterterrorism strategies before Sept. 11, 2001. An unprecedented national Chemical Security Summit in Philadelphia wrapped up Thursday, with federal counterterrorism experts and corporate executives insisting that, while much has been done to improve security, more must be done, quickly, to protect citizens from terrorists seeking to turn chemical tanks into the "poor man's atomic bomb."

"You've heard about sarin and other chemical weapons in the news. But it's far easier to attack a rail car full of toxic industrial chemicals than it is to compromise the security of a military base and obtain these materials," said FBI Special Agent Troy Morgan, a weapons-of-mass-destruction specialist who spoke at the summit.

Corporate and government leaders worry that terrorist cells could unleash toxins on a major American city -- a disaster that could rival the Bhopal, India, industrial accident that killed more than 20,000 in 1984.

The chief culprits stalling faster reforms, executives and federal counterterrorism experts agree, are a corporate culture that embraces slow, incremental changes rather than sweeping innovations, and an economic downturn that's left little cash for security.

"It's hard to get business people to spend money on security," said former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore, a Republican who chairs the federal Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction. "It doesn't seem that the immediate chances of you being attacked are very good. But an attack against this industry is very probable."

Another problem: Chemical companies depend on one another. One manufacturer relies on rivals to supply the compounds essential to make its products. Sometimes, the largest companies need chemicals from largely undefended small-batch manufacturers, where a strike to a rail line, tank or transfer station could shutter key industry components.

"The chemical industry is highly integrated," said Lawrence Stanton, a top security chief at BASF Corp. in New Jersey. "One guy's plant goes down, then another and then another. We're that interrelated."

So one company that takes security very seriously must work to upgrade protection throughout the "value chain" of its suppliers, customers and even competitors, sometimes with little leverage.

An investigation last year by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review found security so lax at more than 60 facilities in Baltimore, Chicago, Houston and western Pennsylvania that a reporter could easily reach tanks storing catastrophic amounts of toxins or explosives. Some of the firms infiltrated by the Trib were small-batch producers or warehouses, but others were among the world's largest manufacturers, including Clorox, KIK, U.S. Steel and Goodyear.

Neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency nor the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has issued binding regulations on the industry, nor has Congress passed legislation designed to set benchmarks.

"It needs a legislative impetus," said U.S. Sen. Jon Corzine, a New Jersey Democrat who has reintroduced his Chemical Security Act, which aims to reform chemical site security nationwide. "Without federal requirements, I don't think much will be done about security and safety in this industry. The chemical industry suffers from low profit margins, and they're really getting socked by high natural gas prices, and that's also kept them from investing more in security.

"That said, I think it's particularly outrageous that some companies still haven't stepped up security since 9/11. There has been limited addressing of the problem, and I worry that the only way some people will take this issue seriously is when a plant is hit by terrorists. It shouldn't come to that."

In the meantime, Corzine said, other industries have moved farther, faster:

= Water purification plants: Federal legislation passed last year mandated security plans for the nation's water treatment facilities. With more than $4.6 billion earmarked for the effort, and EPA regulations forcing changes, counterterrorism experts say the nation's water supply has never been safer.

= Ports, oceangoing ship lines and barges on inland waterways: Federal regulations, new laws and cooperation among agencies and private industry led to reforms in the way hazardous materials are shipped and stored, especially on waterways. Background checks, stronger searches and stiffer penalties by U.S. Customs agents, as well as federal grants to port facilities, should lead to better protection against terrorist attacks.

= Truck lines: Federal agents now audit security plans written by trucking companies. Mandatory immigration and criminal background checks target potentially destructive drivers. Special training is required for drivers hauling loads that could be terrorist targets, such as chlorine gas shipments. At some companies, like Schneider National Bulk Carriers in Pittsburgh, cargo is monitored constantly by satellites; locks thwart terrorists trying to uncouple hazardous material shipments; and armed guards secure locations nationwide. If terrorists hijack one tanker loaded with deadly chemicals, Schneider is willing to shut down its entire fleet of 15,000 trucks until it is found.

"A lot of people had been doing things the same way for many years, and they were reluctant to make changes," said Joe Kizaur, Schneider's safety and security director. "A lot of folks said, 'It can't happen to me.'

"Yes, it can happen to you. It's not always easy to do, asking them to spend money, because it doesn't seem financially imperative to do so. But you can't wait for something to happen before you spend money. It's more like an insurance policy."

• Most Read
• Most E-mailed
• Latest News