I did see this reported on Fox yesterday which was a more in depth story. I will see if there is anything else available that we are allowed to post here. I see the Dallas Morning News and Atlanta Constitution both subscription sites have articles on this.
Vulnerable to Attack: Federal action needed on chemical plants
10:10 PM CDT on Saturday, June 11, 2005
Third in an occasional series of editorials on homeland security
Some chilling scenarios: A terrorist attack on a chemical plant releases deadly clouds of chlorine, sulfur dioxide or ammonia over heavily populated Los Angeles, New York or Houston. Stolen butane and hydrogen are used to detonate a chemical fireball in Dallas or Chicago.
It could happen. Chemical plants are a frighteningly vulnerable link in the nation's homeland security defenses. At least 123 chemical facilities are so close to major population centers that a terrorist attack on any of them would threaten more than one million people.
Yet security at many plants is inadequate. For example, enterprising reporters have walked undetected to tanks containing deadly chemicals.
And it's not just journalists who have discovered such frightening problems. Richard Falkenrath, former White House deputy homeland security adviser, recently told Congress that many of the 15,000 facilities that produce, use or store large amounts of hazardous chemicals are as vulnerable as they were before 9-11. With intelligence reports warning of al-Qaeda's interest in chemical terrorism, the industry's voluntary approach to plant security isn't making America safer fast enough. Congress wisely realizes that all of this evidence means action on its part is in order. Thus, homeland security committees in both the House and Senate are holding inquiries and are poised to embrace tougher security requirements.
Others, such as Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, who chairs the influential House Energy and Commerce committee and is likely to be a leading voice in this discussion, urge caution in rushing too quickly into federal legislation that would impose unaffordable mandates on private industry. We share some of Mr. Barton's concerns. However, we're betting that there's a lot of room for improvement in dangerously lax security without imposing prohibitively expensive federal requirements.
Congress, Homeland Security and state officials must do a better job to prioritize the vulnerable chemical targets and direct resources to safeguard them. Mr. Barton has a responsibility to his constituents and to Americans everywhere to step up the nation's protection against chemical terrorism. The threat is real, as is Congress' opportunity to show leadership.Read previous editorials on the 9-11 Commission
and airport security.
http://bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dallasnews.com%2Fsharedcontent%2Fregistration%2Fregister.jsp%3Ffw%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.dallasnews.com%2Fsharedcontent%2Fdws%2Fdn%2Fopinion%2Feditorials%2Fstories%2F061205dnedichemical.136adf702.html