The Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded recently that, while some progress has been made on chemical security, hurdles and delays remain, including a lack of clear authority for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish requirements for chemical facilities. The GAO reported its findings in a report released Feb. 27 on the current status of chemical security at DHS. The GAO also found DHS resistant to involving the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a review of inherently safer technologies that might reduce risks posed by chemical plants.

In response to requests from Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), James Inhofe (R- OK) and Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT), the GAO reviewed:

• DHS actions to develop a strategy to protect the chemical industry;
• DHS actions to assist in the industry's security efforts and coordinate with EPA, industry security initiatives and challenges; and
• DHS authority and whether additional legislation is needed to ensure chemical plant security.

Overall the report closely mirrors a 2003 investigation into chemical security also conducted by the GAO that drew many of the same conclusions.

On the progress side, DHS has been developing a Chemical Sector-Specific Plan that will (1) categorize and prioritize the risks from various plants; (2) address security challenges; and (3) describe DHS's plan to improve security, including coordination with federal, state and local agencies and officials. The DHS review has identified approximately 3,400 high-priority facilities. Unfortunately, GAO found that the most recent version of the DHS document was drafted in July 2004 and DHS could provide no timeline for the plan's completion.

Apparently, because Congress has not passed chemical security legislation granting DHS authority over chemical facilities around security, the agency must rely on working with industry through voluntary programs. The GAO investigation concluded that existing laws provide DHS with only limited authority to address security concerns at U.S. chemical facilities and that new legislation from Congress would be necessary to grant the agency the authority necessary to require security improvements.

Specifically, the GAO recommends that:

• Congress grant DHS the authority to require chemical plant security,
• DHS complete the chemical sector-specific plan in a timely manner, and
• DHS work with EPA to study the security benefits of safer technologies.

While agreeing with the first two recommendations, DHS has expressed reservations about studying safer technologies, according to the GAO. Apparently, DHS does not believe that safer technologies would reduce risks from chemical facilities and would instead shift risks. DHS also expressed concerns over how interaction with EPA in such a study might be perceived by the chemical sector. GAO continues to see merit in such a study and retains the study as one of its main recommendations.

In Congress, Collins developed draft chemical security legislation with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) toward the end of 2005. While making progress on key issues, the draft legislation fails to require the review of inherently safer technologies or involvement by EPA as recommended by GAO. The Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, of which Collins is Chair and Lieberman is ranking member, was expected to mark up the legislation early in this session of Congress. The scandals involving former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX), former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, however, have shifted Congress' attention to lobbying reform. So chemical security has not yet been taken up by the committee this year. Apparently, Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Barak Obama (D-IL) are using the delay to craft more aggressive chemical security legislation, as an alternative to the Collins-Lieberman bill.