This morning the DHS Infrastructure Security Compliance
Division (the folks that run the CFATS program) published their September
CFATS Fact Sheet, providing updated information on the progress being made
on the completion of the Site Security Plan (SSP) approval process.
The table below summarizes the important numbers included in
the new Fact Sheet and compares it to the August
and July
Fact Sheet numbers (NOTE the August link is to my blog post because the August
Fact Sheet is no longer available on the ISCD web site. Both the July and June
Fact Sheets are):
July
|
August
|
September
|
|
Covered Facilities
|
3,229
|
3,223
|
3,197
|
Authorized SSP
|
3,121
|
3,139
|
3,178
|
Approved SSP
|
1,935
|
2,021
|
2,104
|
The relatively small increase in approved SSPs would seem to
indicate that we are not yet seeing the effect of facilities submitting SSPs
under the Expedited
Approval Process. Since the first EAP SSP could only have been submitted on
July 16th we are still well within the potential 100 day limit for
DHS to disapprove an EAP submitted on that date. I expect that we will start to
see an increase in numbers when the October Fact Sheet is published next month,
but we won’t see the gross effects until November or December. The EAP approval
process for facilities already in the CFATS program as of June 16th
will not be completed until near the end of February.
The other impressive statistic in the new Fact Sheet is that
we are now at about 99% on the facilities that have an authorized Site Security
Plan. This is the first stage of the SSP review process and reaching that 99%
point means that we are essentially at full compliance on submitting SSPs. The
program will probably never reach the 100% authorization rate as new chemical
facilities are being built and added to the program fairly frequently. There is
a time lag between the time that a facility is notified that it is a covered
facility and the time that it is required to submit an SSP.
Which, of course, leads us to one of my pet peeves; we see
another unexplained drop in the number of facilities covered by the CFATS program.
There are a number of legitimate reasons that a facility could be removed from
the program; they could have eliminated or reduced the use/storage/manufacture
of the DHS chemicals of interest (COI) that form the basis for entry into the
process; or the facility could have been closed. I actually know of a covered
facility that burnt to the ground (certainly no remaining security issues at
that site). What bothers me is that DHS has refused to publish numbers
reflecting the reasons that facilities have left the program.
The reason that I harp on this so much is that we need the
numbers to intelligently discuss how ISCD is handling the verification of the
changes. Without understanding why the facilities are leaving the program we
can’t even ask legitimate questions about the process.
Finally, there is one other area where DHS is not sharing
information about the CFATS process. We know that they started doing compliance
inspections well over a year ago. We know from the latest GAO
report on the CFATS program that ISCD had completed 83 such compliance
inspections early this year. What we don’t know is what they have done since
then. Given the problems that the GAO identified in the compliance inspection
process we can be sure that Congress is going to start asking questions about
this area. I don’t understand why ISCD hasn’t gotten in front of this problem
by starting to publish the numbers.
No comments:
Post a Comment