DHS CFATS FAQ Page Update 01-08-10

Last week DHS updated/posted answers to eight questions on the CFATS Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) web page. The first four answers are updates to previously answered questions and the remaining four are answers to new questions. The eight questions are: 1143: My company is a spin-off of two separate corporations. As a result several of the new company's facilities are co-located. That is, the facilities either share a fenceline or are completely imbedded within a common facility. What will be required of us in regards to CFATS? Do both companies need to develop a Top Screen, SVA, and Site Security Plan? Is it possible for our imbedded plants to share the Top Screen, SVA, and Site Security Plan with the host company? If this is possible, what would be required by both companies to accomplish this and be compliant under 6 CFR Part 27? 1567: How does a facility count the amount of release flammable COI in a mixture with a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) rating of 1, 2 or 3 that is not a fuel? 1568: How does a facility count the amount of release-flammable mixture with a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) rating of 4 if it is stored in either below or above ground tank(s)? 1633: What is a proposed measure and why would a facility include one in the SSP? 1619: I recently received a new CSAT tiering letter for my facility and the facility has an elapsed Security Vulnerability Assessment (SVA) due date. What do I do? 1657: Does DHS have a list of specific security measures that are required at CFATS-covered high-risk facilities? 1658: What is required of an Alternate Security Program to be acceptable in lieu of an SSP? 1659: What are “planned” measures and why would a facility include them in the SSP? Flammable Mixtures Two of the questions that have updated answers deal with the subject of how to count chemicals of interest in flammable mixtures. There are significant differences between these new answers and the previous time they were answered back on September 3rd, 2008 and the new answers will almost certainly add to the confusion surrounding this topic; changes can be confusing even if they are correct. Question 1567 substantially changes the instructions from the old answer for counting flammable COI in a mixture where the mixture has a NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) rating of 1, 2, or 3. The old answer included the requirement that: “Mixtures with an NFPA flammability hazard rating of 1, 2 or 3 are calculated by multiplying the perentage of the COI times the total weight of the mixture to see if the amount of the COI is at or above the STQ.” There is no such requirement in 6 CFR 27.204(a)(2). The new answer removes that language and affirms that such mixtures are not counted in the Top Screen as long as the mixture is not a fuel. Question 1568 simplifies the previous answer to this question by just stating that: “A facility must count the entire weight of any release-flammable mixtures with an NFPA rating of 4 toward the STQ, regardless of whether the mixture is stored in below ground or above ground tanks.” To make it more ‘technically’ correct the wording should probably be: “…the entire weight of a mixture containing a release-flammable chemical of interest at a concentration equal to or greater than 1% with an NFPA….” Other Changed Answers In the answer to question 1143 DHS emphasizes that while it would typically be the party responsible for the security of the COI that would have to make the appropriate submissions, DHS acknowledges that special cases will certainly exist. They suggest that if there is any question about this specific issue that the parties should consult with the Help Desk (866-323-2957) for individual determinations. The other previously answered question provides DHS to address, in a small way, the issue of inherently safer technologies. The answer provides a new response that was not previously included in the list of items that a facility might want to include in the ‘proposed security measures’ sections of the SSP submission. The new response is: “Changes in processes, operations, or chemical uses a facility is considering or proposing.” This would allow DHS to advise facilities if their proposed IST measure would change their security situation. New Questions As is usual with these reviews, I suggest that everyone in the chemical security community that might be dealing with CFATS issues should read the answers that DHS provides for new questions. These four questions are no different. I don’t see any really new information in any of these answers. The answer to the ASP question does provide an interesting reference to an explanation of Alternative Security Plan in the preamble to the Interim Final Rule for 6 CFR Part 27. Since most people will not have seen the interim final rule this is a valuable reference.