This new initiative demonstrates a process and tools for managing the security vulnerability of sites that produce and handle chemicals, petroleum products, pharmaceuticals, and related materials such as fertilizers and water treatment chemicals. Includes: enterprise screening; site screening; protection analysis; security vulnerability assessment; action planning and tracking.

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 risks may be increasing with potentially severe consequences for human health and the environment. Available evidence indicates that many chemical facilities may lack adequate safeguards.

This practical text serves as a guide to elaborating and determining the principles, assumptions, strengths, limitations and areas of application for multiple-plant chemical safety and security management. It offers guidelines, procedures, frameworks and technology for actually setting up a safety and security culture in a cluster of chemical companies, thus allowing forward planning. The presentation is conceptually rather than mathematically oriented so as to maximize its utilization within the chemical industry.

Over 40 papers and posters that share the latest practices in emergency planning related to fixed chemical, pharmaceutical, LNG, and petroleum facilities, storage facilities, transportation, and security.

The Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) regulates chemical facilities for security purposes. The 111th Congress extended this authority through March 4, 2011, and debated the scope and details of reauthorization. Some Members of Congress supported an extension of the existing authority. Other Members called for revision and more extensive codification of chemical facility security regulatory provisions. There are questions regarding the current law's effectiveness in reducing chemical facility risk and the sufficiency of federal funding for chemical facility security. Contents of this report: Introduction; Overview of Statute and Regulation; Implementation; Policy Issues; Policy Options; Congressional Action. Tables. This is a print on demand report.

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 risks may be increasing with potentially severe consequences for human health and the environment. Available evidence indicates that many chemical facilities may lack adequate safeguards. Two federal environmental laws enacted in 1986 and 1990 require chemical facility planning to protect the general public from accidental releases of hazardous chemicals. However, neither law explicitly addresses terrorism. After 9/11, Congress enacted legislation that requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to analyze vulnerabilities and to 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, security plans, and incident response plans for some chemical facilities that supply drinking water or are located in ports. Many other chemical facilities remain unregulated.