Today the DHS Infrastructure Security Compliance Division
(ISCD) published three revised frequently asked question (FAQ) responses on its
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) Knowledge Center. While many
recent changes have been made to add regulatory links, the three FAQ responses
published today had some significant word changes.
The three FAQ responses that were updated today were:
FAQ #1291
The basic change to this FAQ response was the addition of
links to the CFATS regulation and to the CFATS Advisory Opinion
web site where there is a link to Opinion
2016-02 that addresses the ‘A Commercial Grade’ (ACG) issue in some detail.
The greater detail found that opinion apparently provides a reasonable
justification to remove some of the explanatory wordage in the original FAQ
response.
FAQ #1383
The new FAQ #1383 response if very much shorter than the
original response. It removes the explanation of why ANFO is not treated as an
explosive by the CFATS program. While the new answer does specifically answer
the question posed, I think that the information provided in the earlier
version should have been retained for clarities sake. For the record, here is
the old response with the deleted language highlighted:
No. As stated in the preamble to the final Appendix A to the
Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards (CFATS), the only explosive
Chemicals of Interest (COI) listed in Appendix A (i.e., release explosives and
theft/diversion explosives) are those listed by the Department of
Transportation (DOT) as Class 1, Division 1 explosives. See 72 Fed. Reg. 65402-65403, [Link
Added] 65405 & n. 37
(Nov. 20, 2007). Although ANFO is an explosive, it is not listed by DOT as a
Division 1.1 explosive, and thus it is not covered by Appendix A.
However, a facility that manufactures ANFO and possesses any chemical of
interest (e.g. ammonium nitrate) in a quantity at or above the applicable STQ
would be required to submit a Top-Screen.
FAQ #1437
The response to FAQ 1437 is a complete re-write of the original
FAQ response; removing any mention of ACG which was never really pertinent to
the question. Unfortunately, the new language is a little bit confusing until
one actually looks at the Appendix
A table.
The new response states:
“As provided in 6 CFR §27.203(d), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2016-title6-vol1/pdf/CFR-2016-title6-vol1-sec27-203.pdf,
a facility shall count toward the STQ the total quantity of any placarded
amount of a sabotage/contamination chemical that the facility ships.”
The actual wording of §27.203(d) reads:
“A facility meets the STQ for a sabotage/contamination
chemical of interest if it ships the chemical and is required to placard the
shipment of that chemical pursuant to the provisions of subpart
F of 49 CFR part 172 [Link Added].”
The way the regulation reads, if a facility ships one
shipment of a sabotage/contamination chemical of interest that DOT required to
be placarded (either on the container or the vehicle carrying the material)
then the facility would have met the STQ requirements for that COI, regardless
of the size of the shipment. The FAQ response would seem to indicate that you
could have some number of placarded shipments of a sabotage/contamination COI,
but not yet reach the COI level.
Looking at the COI table in Appendix A, however, quickly
clears up the matter. The STQ for all sabotage/contamination COI is listed as ‘APC’
or ‘a placarded amount’; confirming that a single placarded shipment of the COI
would meet the STQ for that sabotage/contamination COI.
No comments:
Post a Comment