tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9122514974659083342.post4637034578201749883..comments2024-02-02T22:30:20.736-05:00Comments on Chemical Facility Security News: How much is too much security?PJCoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03390039682578324978noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9122514974659083342.post-12566282736854384052007-08-06T14:09:00.000-04:002007-08-06T14:09:00.000-04:00Good discussion, and a helpful reply.There is actu...Good discussion, and a helpful reply.<br><br>There is actually a good a good deal of security measure already required for many chemical plants and oil storage facilities through existing regulations, with some impementation still in progress.<br><br>Security requirements at oil storage facilities actuall has been required by regulation since 1974 as a result of the threat from vandals/disgruntalled employees that have caused oil spills and substntial cleanup costs and fies for employers, as well as environmental harm (this requirement was increased by recent revisions to EPA's oil spill prevntion regulation).<br><br>American Chemistry Counsel members and followers are instituting an increased level of security care at chemical facilities. States have beefed up chemcial and oil storage faciilty security requirements. Examples can bee seen in NJ's TCPA and DPCC programs.<br><br>The DHS Top Screen approach is potentialyl a good one, if it provides some relief for "lower risk" situation facilties, but the first cut seems awfully broad brush.<br><br>Still, it frosts me that the mere threat of terrorism is casusing us to expend so much resources across the board, that profitability is being reduced and I am afraid that it is ultimately detracting from our international competitivenes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9122514974659083342.post-72851327802422637382007-08-06T15:24:00.000-04:002007-08-06T15:24:00.000-04:00While there may have been security requirements un...While there may have been security requirements under various laws (excepting NJ new requirements) there has been no enforcement. The local water pumping station has a fence and a sign, but nothing else to stop someone from taking the 150-lb cylinder of chlorine (as has happened twice this year in California and once in Texas). <br><br>The chemical plants that I have worked at had perimeter fences, but when trees fell on them and knocked them down it took months for them to be repaired. Unarmed guards at the gates had no way to stop anyone from entering the facility. When we upgraded security after 9-11 they put a drop down bar at the gate, but it was a breakaway bar so that it would not damage trucks or cars. They installed TV cameras, but relied on operators to monitor them.<br><br>I'm not blaming management, they knew engineering but had never been trained in security. In their minds people stopped for uniformed guards; they did.<br><br>We'll see what happens with the new security rules. It all depends on how well DHS trains the industry and how well they inforce their rules. Until someone actually attacks a chemical facility in the United States, no one is going to spend enough money to affect the bottom line.<br><br>Patrick Coyle<br>Chemical Facility Security NewsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com