The Terrorist Attack On Sept. 11, 2001, Forced A Radical Change In Security At The Chemical Plant Operated By Honeywell Specialty Materials Along The Mississippi River In Geismar, La. Because An Attack On Any Chemical Plant Has The Potential To Hurt Thousands Of People, These Facilities Make Juicy Targets For Terrorists. Consequently, The U.S. Department Of Homeland Security Has Urged Them To Tighten Their Security To Guard Against Much More Than The Conventional Problems Of Theft And Accidents.

“Before 9/11, security meant keeping valuable tools from walking out of the plant,” says Bill Lessig, Geismar’s plant manager. “Now it has shifted to thinking about threats from external sources—to ensure business continuity, to minimize the impact of an attack, and to make sure the surrounding community is safe.” Today’s industrial security apparatus, therefore, must be aggressive about keeping unauthorized people out, and work with governmental security agencies to mount rapid and effective responses to any incident that might occur.

Adhering to this higher standard for security posed a significant challenge at Geismar. Although the developed portion of the Honeywell facility covers only 240 acres, the facility actually spans 1,900 acres. And one of its five operating units is the world’s largest site for producing hydrofluoric acid, a raw material for refrigerants and other products. The other four units produce a variety of chemicals, such as non-ozone depleting refrigerants and blowing agents.

To take advantage of its location along the heavily traveled, critical Mississippi waterway, the plant also contains a dock that can accommodate ocean-going ships that have capacities as large as 25,000 tons. The resulting traffic puts the plant under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. So the security plan must comply with the Coast Guard’s regulations.

Complicating the task is the fact that Honeywell plays host to four other chemical companies on the site. Like Honeywell, these companies bought pieces of some property owned originally by Allied Chemical decades ago. Since then, they have contracted Honeywell as host to provide services, such as water, storage facilities, a medical station, some security services and use of the dock. Consequently, Honeywell must secure its facilities, yet provide the appropriate access to its 275 employees, the 400 employees of the other four companies, and the 80 to 100 contractors that Honeywell has working on-site. All and all, it must control the comings and goings of about 1,000 people a day.

Responding in real time

To prevent the tighter security from encumbering these people from doing their jobs, the plant spent about $3 million on a holistic solution to the problem. It brought in specialists from Honeywell’s security and controls business to develop tighter physical and cyber layers of security, and then integrate them with the building automation and process control systems. The specialists updated video monitoring equipment, improved fencing and lighting, and added sophisticated beyond-the-perimeter surveillance equipment.

At the heart of this integration project is Honeywell’s Experion Process Knowledge System for process control, and its Enterprise Buildings Integrator for security and heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. Because Honeywell designed both sets of software to run on the same distributed-server architecture, they fit together seamlessly and pass information to each other in real time. Moreover, the standard interfaces that Honeywell uses wherever possible allowed Geismar to use the surveillance cameras that it had already, thereby reducing the number of new ones that it had to buy.

“The computer systems are separate, but the software is totally integrated through the network,” notes Lessig. “From a control room, you can see what’s going on with the security system. Conversely, people in the security command center can see what’s going on in the process.” He points out, however, that the system is flexible enough for management to program the kind and amount of information shared.

Lessig reports that, for him, the biggest benefit from this integration is faster response to an intruder, accident or other incident. He says that the faster response limits the risk from each exposure. If someone were to actuate one of the motion detectors around the plant, for example, only security would have known that in the past. A guard would have to take the time to investigate and decide whether to inform process control. Now that motion detection data are sent directly to the control room, the people there can take any necessary safety precautions more quickly.

Conversely, an alarm sounds in both the security office and the process control room whenever process problems develop. The computer monitor tells the security ...