Statement of Senator James M. Jeffords
Chemical Security Hearing
Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, Risk, and Waste Management
Committee on Environment and Public Works
November 14, 2001
I
would like to thank Senator Boxer for her diligent work on today's
hearing. I also would like to commend
Senator Corzine on his fastidious efforts to promote chemical site security.
In
the wake of September 11 and the ensuing war in Afghanistan, it behooves us to
think about the heightened threat of terrorist attacks on our soil. No one ever imagined using a commercial
airliner as a weapon of mass destruction.
No one ever thought that anthrax could seep out of a sealed envelope and
spread through the mail. No one ever
predicted that our very infrastructure, such as our water systems and
agricultural centers, would be vulnerable to terrorist threat. In fact, such speculation seemed unlikely,
almost ludicrous. Today is
different. Some say that the next level
of potential targets is major chemical and oil facilities. We can argue about whether that is the case
but it does not hurt to be prepared. We
must evaluate all potential domestic threats now, and respond accordingly.
Two
and a half weeks ago, 400 pounds of methyl bromide was stolen from a chemical
storage facility in Florida. The
thieves cut a hole in the fence unnoticed by security personnel. Last week, 1,000 gallons of ethylene diamine
were spilled at a Texas chemical facility.
The toxic gas incident sent 15 to the hospital and, although believed to
be an accident, the cause of the spill is under investigation. Also last week in Texas, a fire at a city
sewage plant caused a chlorine leak. Between 100 and 200 residents were
evacuated from their homes. The cause
of the fire has not been determined.
These stories are chilling under any circumstances. These days, they are particularly alarming.
It is
important to note that small rural states are just as much at risk of terrorist
threat as traditional chemical producing states. While my own state of Vermont is not a center for chemical
manufacturing, we do deal with large quantities of agricultural chemicals as
well as chlorine dioxide used to disinfect our water supply and wastewater
systems.
The
federal government has the legislative tools it needs to clean up, prepare for,
and manage the accidental risks of chemicals.
However, we lack a mechanism to eliminate and reduce criminal behavior
associated with chemicals. While I
appreciate the efforts of the chemical industry in issuing draft security
guidelines and educating its members, the federal government can and should do
more. The Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of Justice must work with our state and local
governments, as well as industry, to develop regulations addressing the most
serious threats. And we need to do so
immediately.
The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) were
invited to attend today's Hearing. Both
agencies declined to send a representative.
This concerns me. Last week, EPA
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman said that the chemical industry is
"doing as good a job as they can do right now, and [that] they're very
aware of where their vulnerabilities might be." I appreciate knowing that but have not heard from EPA directly
despite repeated briefing requests. As
chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, it is my
job to understand and oversee EPA's actions.
My goal is to work with EPA to mitigate potential threats; their role in
this extremely important and timely effort is critical.
Again,
I thank my colleagues for their efforts on behalf of chemical site security;
and I look forward to moving S.1602, the Chemical Safety Act, through the EPW
Committee. Statement of
Senator James M. Jeffords
Chemical Security Hearing
Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, Risk, and Waste Management
Committee on Environment and Public Works
November 14, 2001
I
would like to thank Senator Boxer for her diligent work on today's
hearing. I also would like to commend
Senator Corzine on his fastidious efforts to promote chemical site security.
In
the wake of September 11 and the ensuing war in Afghanistan, it behooves us to
think about the heightened threat of terrorist attacks on our soil. No one ever imagined using a commercial
airliner as a weapon of mass destruction.
No one ever thought that anthrax could seep out of a sealed envelope and
spread through the mail. No one ever
predicted that our very infrastructure, such as our water systems and
agricultural centers, would be vulnerable to terrorist threat. In fact, such speculation seemed unlikely,
almost ludicrous. Today is
different. Some say that the next level
of potential targets is major chemical and oil facilities. We can argue about whether that is the case
but it does not hurt to be prepared. We
must evaluate all potential domestic threats now, and respond accordingly.
Two
and a half weeks ago, 400 pounds of methyl bromide was stolen from a chemical
storage facility in Florida. The
thieves cut a hole in the fence unnoticed by security personnel. Last week, 1,000 gallons of ethylene diamine
were spilled at a Texas chemical facility.
The toxic gas incident sent 15 to the hospital and, although believed to
be an accident, the cause of the spill is under investigation. Also last week in Texas, a fire at a city
sewage plant caused a chlorine leak. Between 100 and 200 residents were evacuated
from their homes. The cause of the fire
has not been determined. These stories
are chilling under any circumstances.
These days, they are particularly alarming.
It is
important to note that small rural states are just as much at risk of terrorist
threat as traditional chemical producing states. While my own state of Vermont is not a center for chemical
manufacturing, we do deal with large quantities of agricultural chemicals as
well as chlorine dioxide used to disinfect our water supply and wastewater
systems.
The
federal government has the legislative tools it needs to clean up, prepare for,
and manage the accidental risks of chemicals.
However, we lack a mechanism to eliminate and reduce criminal behavior
associated with chemicals. While I
appreciate the efforts of the chemical industry in issuing draft security
guidelines and educating its members, the federal government can and should do
more. The Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of Justice must work with our state and local
governments, as well as industry, to develop regulations addressing the most
serious threats. And we need to do so
immediately.
The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) were
invited to attend today's Hearing. Both
agencies declined to send a representative.
This concerns me. Last week, EPA
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman said that the chemical industry is
"doing as good a job as they can do right now, and [that] they're very
aware of where their vulnerabilities might be." I appreciate knowing that but have not heard from EPA directly
despite repeated briefing requests. As
chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, it is my
job to understand and oversee EPA's actions.
My goal is to work with EPA to mitigate potential threats; their role in
this extremely important and timely effort is critical.
Again, I thank my colleagues for their efforts on behalf of chemical site security; and I look forward to moving S.1602, the Chemical Safety Act, through the EPW Committee.