For instance, even the mandated government inspection of high-risk facilities lags far behind schedule. When security concerns are uncovered, most companies are allowed to make voluntary improvements rather than meet specific requirements. So it's no surprise that repeated post-9/11 studies have cited chemical plants, along with ports, as still vulnerable to attack.
Federal officials need a stronger hand to order security upgrades. As part of that, they should have new authority to require that the highest-risk plants switch to safer chemicals and processes if it's feasible and not cost-prohibitive.
House-approved legislation that would do that awaits a Senate airing this week, and Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D., N.J.) earlier this month introduced companion legislation. Another Lautenberg bill would extend similar security measures to water-treatment facilities, an industry where some operators have switched away from dangerous chemicals.
The battle lines are being drawn over switching plants over to safer processes, which industry lobbyists have tried to portray as unworkable. As one trade group contended, "There is no recognized, objective way to tell which process might be better."
But Lautenberg's reasonable proposal - backed by 90 environmental, health, and labor groups including the chemical workers' union - would provide industry with ample flexibility. Switching to safer technologies would have to be feasible, without forcing any plant to close.
Given the number of high-risk plants in this industry-rich, tristate region, Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.) should sign on as a cosponsor of Lautenberg's bill.
With the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks little more than a year away, it's time to enact aggressive measures aimed at ramping up security at the chemical plants that pose the greatest risk to the most people.
