Guest guest Posted March 13, 2002 Report Share Posted March 13, 2002 http://www.registerguard.com/news/20020312/2a.nat.toxicattack.0312.html March 12, 2002 Report outlines chemical plant danger By The Washington Post WASHINGTON - A previously undisclosed study by the Army Surgeon General concludes that as many as 2.4 million people could be killed or injured in a terrorist attack against a U.S. toxic chemical plant in a densely populated area. The medical hazard threat assessment, completed the month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, suggests that terrorist assaults on chemical industry complexes could result in twice as many casualties as previously assumed in other worst-case scenarios envisioned by the government. Even middle-range casualty estimates from a chemical weapons attack or explosion of a toxic chemical manufacturing plant are as high as 903,400 people, according to the analysis, a copy of which was obtained Monday by the Washington Post. Lyn Kukral, a spokesperson for the Army's Office of the Surgeon General, said the data was meant to be more illustrative than a precise casualty projection. However, officials used the casualty estimates during an internal government conference last fall to plan medical responses to a broad range of terrorist scenarios. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, lawmakers, federal officials and environmental groups have repeatedly warned the chemical industry that terror attacks could turn hazardous materials plants into weapons of mass destruction. Industry officials say they have instituted important safeguards, but critics say much more is needed. Monday, the Natural Resources Defense Council, a 400,000-member advocacy group, filed a lawsuit in federal court charging that the Justice Department has failed to submit a report to Congress on the vulnerability of U.S. chemical plants to terrorists attacks, as required by an amendment to the Clean Air Act. The Justice Department missed an August 2000 deadline for filing an interim report and Bush administration officials have notified Congress that they will not meet an Aug. 5 deadline for the final report because of inadequate funding. ``Chemical plants are an incredibly urgent priority for homeland security, but they are being ignored at the highest levels of government,'' said Rena Steinzor, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. A Justice Department spokesperson said Monday that officials have not seen the suit and were withholding comment. Reps. Dingell, D-Mich., and Pallone, D-N.J., senior members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, recently asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a detailed review of chemical plants' preparedness for acts of terrorism. According to an analysis last year by the Environmental Protection Agency, at least 123 U.S. plants each keep amounts of toxic chemicals that, if released, could form deadly vapor clouds that would endanger more than 1 million people. The Army Surgeon General's analysis, dated Oct. 29, showed that attacks on toxic chemical plants or chemical stockpiles could produce more than twice as many casualties. The study ranked the threat of attacks against chemical plants second only to the widespread use of biological weapons - such as the introduction of small pox virus or contamination of the country's water or food supply - which could generate as many as 4.18 million casualties. The study did not assess the potential casualties from a nuclear attack. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group and other environmental groups have called for legislation to require operators of chemical facilities to reduce the quantities of hazardous chemicals stored at their sites or switch to safer materials. The American Chemistry Council, an industry group, issued guidelines last fall suggesting ways to improve physical security at facilities and protect the transportation of hazardous materials. The council recently decided to require members to complete security studies and make necessary changes, using a framework developed by the Justice Department. Copyright © 2002 The Register-Guard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.