Chemical Plan Security

[The Lord of the Keys]

A Couple of weeks ago one of our Senators gave a speech discussing the vulnerability of chemical plants to terrorism. Our client sprung into action and for the next week we spent most of our patrol time near the chemical production areas of our site. Of course the concern wasn't to deter terrorists instead we were told to watch out for reporters who might what to test us because of the speech.

[Mr. Security]

Typical.

[ACP01]

If it wasn't so goofy it would be hilarious.

[timorourkecps]

Think of it as practice

If you can catch an investigative reporter, you maybe able to spot a terrorist in the middle of collecting target intelligence. Besides I’m surprised countersurveillance was not in place already?

Step 1. Proactive Counterintelligence/OPSEC
•Surveillance/Reconnaissance Detection
•Information Security/OPSEC
•Pre-Employment Screening & Employee Monitoring
•Suspicious Activity Investigation
•Strategic Threat Monitoring

[The Lord of the Keys]

We are supposed to be watching for any kind of suspicious activity, but considering all of our other duties we don't always have the resources. The client would rather have us watching the employees cars then the plants chemicals.

[ACP01]

We are supposed to be watching for any kind of suspicious activity, but considering all of our other duties we don't always have the resources. The client would rather have us watching the employees cars then the plants chemicals.

Sounds like they are more concerned with what is a probability instead of a possibility. Employees cars ARE more apt to be broken into than chemicals stolen or the place attacked.

However this shouldn't take you away from the main goal which is overall site security. Sure you can watch the cars too as a strange vehicle might tell of strange things.

This is and will be a problem until clients and the employees get it in their head that a chemical release is much worse than a stolen radio.

[N. A. Corbier]

If you can catch an investigative reporter, you maybe able to spot a terrorist in the middle of collecting target intelligence. Besides I’m surprised countersurveillance was not in place already?

Step 1. Proactive Counterintelligence/OPSEC
•Surveillance/Reconnaissance Detection
•Information Security/OPSEC
•Pre-Employment Screening & Employee Monitoring
•Suspicious Activity Investigation
•Strategic Threat Monitoring

Tim has a good point. It doesn't matter who they are or why they're there, they're a trespasser on an infrastructure site and should be dealt with accordingly.

Trespasser: "I'm an investigative reporter."
Police Officer: "Oh? What media outlet?"
Trespasser: "as-Sahab. Allah Akbar!"
Police Officer: "ohshi--"

[Bill Warnock]

Tim has a good point. It doesn't matter who they are or why they're there, they're a trespasser on an infrastructure site and should be dealt with accordingly.

Trespasser: "I'm an investigative reporter."
Police Officer: "Oh? What media outlet?"
Trespasser: "as-Sahab. Allah Akbar!"
Police Officer: "ohshi--"

Nathan:
You know what really bothers me about this lack of security. The bad folks don't have to bring have to bring a chemical mix or explosives to the place; they are already there. They just have to start the chain and in some places that is not a hard thing to do.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[kingsman]

I know of a chemical plant that uses a lot of ethelyne oxide(Fuel air explosive), a very explosive chemical, in the production at the site. The railroad tanker car filled with it is parked at a siding at the intersection of 2 roads outside the plants fence within 10 feet of the road.

Now if the military uses 100 lbs of it as the primary explosive in a bomb that can do massive devestation , what would 60,000 lbs of it be able to do even without the technical capability to disperse it in a military manner?

Knowledge is what leads to the ability to destroy something. Thank god I am not a terrorist.

[Mr. Security]

I know of a chemical plant that uses a lot of ethelyne oxide(Fuel air explosive), a very explosive chemical, in the production at the site. The railroad tanker car filled with it is parked at a siding at the intersection of 2 roads outside the plants fence within 10 feet of the road.

Now if the military uses 100 lbs of it as the primary explosive in a bomb that can do massive devestation , what would 60,000 lbs of it be able to do even without the technical capability to disperse it in a military manner?

Knowledge is what leads to the ability to destroy something. Thank god I am not a terrorist.

And if it blew, all you would hear from politicians and others is: "We are going to get to the bottom of this and make sure it never happens again, blah, blah, blah......."

[N. A. Corbier]

Make a big fire, if that. Its like gasoline. You can't set gasoline (the liquid) on fire, but you can set it on fire when its a vapor.

FAEs work by releasing a highly compressed gas so that when the explosive charge detonates, it makes the cloud explode much like a grain explosion.

[Rooney]

Stuff like this doesn't surprise me at all. I would like to know what the people in the media think when they run stories about vulnerabilities. I understand that people have a right to know. Thus the media. But, when is it time to say enough is enough? How do you go about that and still be a democratic society and not be a socialist? People have a right to know what thier government is up to. Thus a Republic. But where is the line?

If you ask me the NY Times and Washington Post have crossed it a few times. But, so has Fox, ABC, NBC, CBC, BBC, etc.........

Truth is hard and reality is harder. We have to deal with situations as they arise and as our training has taught us. There's always time for second guessing afterwards. But, never during.

[Eric]

If you have gasoline, you have vapor, but it does just burn off, I had a match get away from me a couple of years ago and was able to witness first hand.

CNN etc. following the troops around and "reporting" on "events" bothers me, why not issue targets with the vests.....

Stuff like this doesn't surprise me at all. I would like to know what the people in the media think when they run stories about vulnerabilities. I understand that people have a right to know. Thus the media. But, when is it time to say enough is enough? How do you go about that and still be a democratic society and not be a socialist? People have a right to know what thier government is up to. Thus a Republic. But where is the line?

If you ask me the NY Times and Washington Post have crossed it a few times. But, so has Fox, ABC, NBC, CBC, BBC, etc.........

Truth is hard and reality is harder. We have to deal with situations as they arise and as our training has taught us. There's always time for second guessing afterwards. But, never during.

[Mr. Security]

Stuff like this doesn't surprise me at all. I would like to know what the people in the media think when they run stories about vulnerabilities. I understand that people have a right to know. Thus the media. But, when is it time to say enough is enough? How do you go about that and still be a democratic society and not be a socialist? People have a right to know what thier government is up to. Thus a Republic. But where is the line?

If you ask me the NY Times and Washington Post have crossed it a few times. But, so has Fox, ABC, NBC, CBC, BBC, etc.........

Truth is hard and reality is harder. We have to deal with situations as they arise and as our training has taught us. There's always time for second guessing afterwards. But, never during.

Remember too that you may not be getting all the facts. News organizations have a way of editing the facts so that the report is slanted a certain way. They are human too and will allow their own biases to present a story so that it inflames/whips-up the public into frenzy over a matter before all the facts are known.