CUSTOMS SERVICE, EPA SEEK BETTER COOPERATION ON CHEMICAL
IMPORTS
_______________________________________________
Date: November 30, 2001 -
U.S. Customs Service officials have approached EPA's
international enforcement office for aid in identifying illegal shipments of
toxic and explosive chemicals in an effort to secure the nation's borders
against terrorists' attempts to bring chemical weapons and explosives into the
country, EPA sources say.
But agency sources say it is unclear what help EPA can
provide. One source notes that while the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
provides EPA, as well as the Customs Service, with broad authority to set import
notification requirements, the agency has never focused on chemicals used in the
manufacture of weapons. The source speculates that Customs “came to us because
they think we're the only ones who know about chemicals,” and says that while
the agency may have little information in the short term, EPA data on chemical
manufacturers and imports could provide the basis for better transborder
tracking in the future.
While agency sources say it is good that EPA and Customs
appear to be working more closely on chemical issues in the wake of Sept. 11,
the issue highlights a longstanding lack of adequate Customs and EPA inspection
personnel controlling transborder chemical shipments. “We just don't have enough
manpower to control the borders,” one source says.
Sources say Customs earlier this month provided EPA with a
list of chemicals the service has identified as being potentially attractive to
terrorists, and has asked the agency for help in tracking shipments and
identifying the substances at the border.
According to one source, the Customs' chemical list focuses
primarily on substances that can be used to make nuclear and chemical weapons,
as well as traditional chemicals used in the manufacturing of explosives. The
source explains that Customs officials hope EPA can provide them with any
information they have on the movement of these chemicals across the nation's
borders, as well as how the service can better track their movement in the
future.
EPA sources say the agency has also shared its list of
chemicals that are potentially of concern with Customs, the FBI and other
federal enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Current and former EPA officials say the Customs request
highlights a longstanding lack of controls on chemical shipments into and out of
the U.S. One EPA source charges that “our borders are basically out of control,”
noting that “we've seen this with people getting in [illegally], and its even
more so with chemicals.”
For instance, EPA and Customs officials several years ago
were at loggerheads over Customs' plan to allow expedited shipments of hazardous
waste under the upcoming Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). Under
special provisions of FTAA, participating nations can export certain items using
an expedited customs review process (Inside EPA, Oct. 29, 1999, p1).
Because of the way wastes are classified by Customs, they would have qualified
for the expedited review system despite EPA objections that this could lead to
shipments of waste to developing nations in Latin America that lack adequate
treatment and disposal systems.
Michael Penders, a former EPA enforcement official and
one-time chairman of the G-8 Nations' Law Enforcement Project on Environmental
Crime, says that much of the problem centers on data sharing and a lack of
adequately trained personnel. Penders explains that the G-8 panel he chaired in
1999 urged member nations to create a better system for tracking hazardous and
toxic chemicals and integrating customs and environmental data. Without such a
system, the panel found, customs officials have almost no accurate way of
knowing which types of chemicals are being illegally shipped and handled.
Penders notes that “we had a number of successes” in the U.S.
when EPA and Canada conducted a joint pilot project to test integrating the
system, enabling both nations to use their data to identify illegal shipments of
ozone-damaging chlorofluorocarbons. But Penders said that without a political
crisis to spur development of a truly integrated data system, the G-8 proposal
largely fell by the wayside.
Similarly, Penders points to a lack of trained Customs
inspectors who can adequately identify whether shipped chemicals are in fact
what they are being declared as. “In some areas . . . [Customs] had some true
experts in hazardous substances and chemicals, but they were the exception to
the rule,” Penders says. A lack of adequate inspectors makes it exceedingly
difficult for customs officials to determine whether a chemical shipment is
accurately labeled.
Penders and EPA sources say that given heightened concerns
with security and potential terrorist attacks, greater attention must be placed
on how EPA and Customs track and inspect chemical shipments. Specifically, most
sources agree that EPA and Customs should begin to work on a more coordinated
system for tracking chemicals, possibly along the lines of the G-8
recommendation. Similarly, all sources stress that if the nation is to
adequately control illegal chemical shipments and create an effective deterrent
to terrorists' attempts to smuggle chemical weapons and explosives into the
country, the number of Customs' inspectors must be beefed up significantly.
A Customs spokesperson says that while Congress earlier this
month authorized the service to triple the number of inspectors along the border
with Canada, the Treasury Department's fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill did
not include funds for hiring new agents and that inspector staffing levels will
remain static until new funds are made available.
Source: Inside EPA via InsideEPA.com
Date: November 30, 2001
Issue: Vol. 22, No. 48
© Inside Washington Publishers
|
