Last Friday
I
asked why CBS News was quoting Sen. Grassley (R,IA) about the problems at
ISCD. Today a
press
release on the Senator’s web site may have answered the question; it looks
like former DHS Assistant Secretary Keil may have come to Grassley when it was
clear that none of the oversight Committees were going to take a serious look at
the ISCD problems.
Last week Grassley
sent
a letter to Secretary Napolitano. The letter asks the first set of detailed
questions about specific problems in ISCD. Unfortunately, the questions that he
asks are about relatively minor problems in the administration of the CFATS
program and don’t get to the basis of the real problems at ISCD.
Locality Pay
I’m relatively sure that the Keil, or someone like him, is
the unnamed whistle blower in the letter. Only a late comer to the program,
with little actual knowledge of the operation of ISCD, would raise the issue of
locality pay as a means to insinuate that the chemical facility security
inspectors were trying to cheat the government. Field offices were set up, but
it was clear that inspectors would be spending little time in them so there was
initially no requirement that the inspectors move to the city where their
office was located.
Due to a misunderstanding of the rules by ISCD management,
inspectors were given locality pay based upon the location of their office
instead of their home. According to multiple sources the Department’s
recoupment of those improper payments was one of the reasons that the inspector
corps sought union representation.
This was a management issue, but it doesn’t appear that it
was due to any special malfeasance. In retrospect it seems clear that the
management team was inadequately trained on the rules under which their
employees would be operating. That couldn’t be because the people were being
pulled into NPPD from all over the Department. Or spending so much time putting
a new program together in a short time period with little guidance from
Congress that they didn’t have time to learn the admin rules.
HAZMAT Suits
Grassley asks a series of questions pointing out the gross
waste of taxpayer funds spent on HAZMAT suits for the CFATS inspection force.
To a chemical professional like myself it is pretty clear that CFATS inspectors
would probably never have any use for such equipment. Unfortunately, no one
assigned to the ISCD management team had any experience with chemical
manufacturing facilities.
Now anyone that has watched anything about chemical plants
on TV knows that HAZMAT suits are an integral part of protecting employees at
such plants; hazardous chemicals leaking at such facilities being such a common
occurrence. Who would expect a government agency to provide any less protection
of their employees? Okay, it was stupid, but their hearts were in the right
place.
What Questions Should Have Been Asked
Because Grassley is totally unfamiliar with the CFATS
program he has to rely on a whistleblower who knows even less about the program.
Someone who actually knew something about the program would have asked a
completely different set of problems.
Why hasn’t anyone in industry been able to submit an
acceptable site security plan (SSP)? There isn’t any clear, unambiguous guidance
from ISCD about what constitutes an adequate SSP.
Why hasn’t ISCD been able to tell facilities what is needed
to correct their inadequate plans? Because Congress specifically prohibited them
from providing such guidance.
Why hasn’t ISCD redone the questions and instructions for
the on-line SSP submission tool? Because they don’t understand why the chemical
community doesn’t provide the ‘necessary information’.
Has anyone independently verified that the reasons for
declining the approval of any chemical facility SSP are in accordance with
currently accepted security practices? Probably not.
Is there anyone in ISCD who is trained to review control
system security procedures? Not hardly.
Is there anyone in ISCD with experience in emergency response
planning? Probably not.
Why hasn’t ISCD gotten an approved TSDB vetting program set
up yet? I don’t have any idea.
Grandstanding Senator
Oh well, we couldn’t get anyone with a background in CFATS
to be concerned about the problems in the program, so I guess we’ll just have
to deal with Sen. Grassley. Unfortunately, he’s getting his information from
someone with an apparent ax to grind with Under Secretary Beers and Deputy
Assistant Secretary Armstrong rather than from someone who actually has dealt
with the CFATS program.
This is why this should be handled by the two Homeland
Security Committees. They have staffs that are at least conversant with the
CFATS program. Their staffs could ask the pertinent questions of the people
involved in the program and learn that while the whistleblower may have some pieces
of information, that those minor problems have nothing to do with the real
problems being experienced by this important program.
We need much more than silly questions by a
grandstanding Senator. Grandstanding? I bet he doesn’t make public the reply he
has requested from the Secretary. It would make him look silly.
Posts
