ISCD Publishes 2 New Fact Sheets – 9-15-20

Today the CISA Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) published two the Fact Sheets on their Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) Knowledge Center. They also revised a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) and four responses to FAQs.

New Fact Sheets

ISCD published to new Fact Sheets as part of their outreach program. The two

• Protect Chemicals at Warehouse, Storage, and Distribution Facilities From Use in a Terrorist Attack

• CFATS: Top-Screens for Dynamic Business Operations

The warehouse fact sheet is part of the ISCD’s industry outreach program; providing information about the CFATS program and how warehousing facilities are affected by the program. This is very similar in concept and information to previously published industry outreach fact sheets. One small nit to pick with the information provided; the list of ‘common chemicals of interest (COI) includes ‘anhydrous ammonia’; probably more commonly found in warehouse operations would be ‘ammonia (concentration 20% or greater)’.

The dynamic business operations fact sheet is another look at a topic that was discussed here last week. The information provided in this new fact sheet is very similar to the information provided in the relatively new  CSAT Top Screen Submissions Tips page.

Revised FAQ – Ammonium Nitrate

While ISCD has been revising a number of FAQs over the last couple of months to make them more useful, every once-in-a-while they actually change one of the questions being asked, which generally requires a significant rewrite of the response. Such was the case today when FAQ #1228 was changed.

• Old question - How is the Screening Threshold Quantity (STQ) calculated for Ammonium Nitrate (AN)?

• New question - How is the screening threshold quantity (STQ) calculated for ammonium nitrate (AN) [with more than 0.2 percent combustible substance, including any organic substance calculated as carbon, to the exclusion of any other added substance]?

NOTE: The links provided for the FAQs in this post were copied from the CFATS Knowledge Center but may not work when followed from your machine. This is an artifact of that web site. If the links do not take you to the referenced FAQ you will have to use the ‘Advanced Search’ function on the page to link to the FAQ or download the ‘All FAQs’ document at the bottom of the ‘Advanced Search’ page.

The difference is important because there are two different listings for ‘ammonium nitrate’ in the list of DHS Chemicals of Interest (COI); ammonium nitrate, the explosive (where the ‘more than 0.2%... applies) and ammonium nitrate, the potential explosive precursor. The original FAQ did not really distinguish between the two and this made the Response a tad bit confusing. Instead of just taking the easy way out and just revising the response to address the precursor form of the AN, ISCD revised the question, expanded the answer and, in my opinion, just made the matters more confusing, but then again AN is confusing.

AN, the fertilizer is the ‘non-explosive’ form of the chemical. I know, Beirut and West, TX were big (big is a massive understatement in the case of Beirut) explosions of AN. Perhaps ISCD should skip the two listings (would take a rule change) for AN and treat both forms of the material as an explosive for security purposes. It would still have the release-explosive and theft/diversion security classifications and STQ’s, but it would clear up a lot of the confusion. And let’s face it; a smart terrorist could craft an attack on an ammonium nitrate fertilizer storage that would result in a massive explosion.

Revised FAQ Responses

ISCD revised the responses for the following FAQ’s:

FAQ #1272 Who is responsible for submitting a Top-Screen in situations where chemicals of interest are located on property that is leased by a tenant from a landlord?

FAQ #1405 How will I know if the agricultural extension has been lifted and what to do next?

FAQ #1456 Should release chemicals of interest (COI) presently in process or chemicals that are by-products be considered when calculating COI quantities toward the screening threshold quantity (STQ)?

FAQ #1541 How does a facility count the amount of a release-flammable mixture that is a fuel with a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) rating of 1, 2, 3, or 4 if it is stored in an aboveground tank farm (including farms that are part of pipeline systems)?

For the most part these changes were non-substantive changes made for clarification purposes; no changes in policy or procedure were included. The changes were:

#1272 Added a reference link and additional explanatory language (2^nd paragraph),

#1405 Changed URL to document link,

#1456 Removed reference to ‘total onsite quantity (TOQ)’, and

#1541 Added comments about the gasoline Top Screen extension (2^nd paragraph).

ISCD Publishes Updated and New Fact Sheets

Today the DHS Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) updated the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) Knowledge Center. The ‘Documentation’ section of the page now includes links to four new CFATS fact sheets for industries that are not normally considered chemical industries. They have also updated their two inspection fact sheets.

Industry Fact Sheets

The four new industry fact sheets are for:

• Pools and Water Parks;

• Wineries;

• Breweries; and

• Fisheries and Hatcheries.

Sharp eyed readers will note that three of these are included in the list of fact sheets that I mentioned in my earlier blog post about the CFATS Outreach Implementation Plan FY 2018. The last three fact sheets were reportedly released in 2017, but that I had not seen them published on the CFATS web site. The pools and water parks sheet was not mentioned in the earlier document. The lab factsheet that I had also mentioned earlier as not having been seen was not included in today’s link publication.

Much of the information provided in the four fact sheets is identical. Not surprisingly, the lists of ‘typical’ DHS chemicals of interest (COI) used by the facilities is slightly different in each case. Three of the factsheets (not the one for breweries) listed included brief comments about the agricultural exemption; mainly for fertilizers applied to land associated with the facility. The fisheries factsheet however, notes that fisheries and hatcheries are not included in that exception.

Inspection Fact Sheet Updates

The two new inspection updates deal with preparing for:

• Authorization Inspection; and

• Compliance Inspection

These are both complete re-writes of fact sheets written in 2014 and 2016 respectively. As with the previous versions, neither of these documents real information valuable for passing of the respective inspections, but they both provide valuable information that will be helpful in preparing for the conduct of the inspections.

One interesting piece of information is included in the compliance inspection fact sheet and it relates to the scheduling of those inspections. It notes that:

“ISCD compares eight factors (seven static and one dynamic) in an automated calculation to schedule CIs. Facilities with a higher score are prioritized. Static factors included in this calculation are a facility’s tier, number of planned measures [emphasis added], the time since the last inspection, and compliance history. The eighth factor changes based on new and emerging requirements.”

The issue of planned measures has been an issue since compliance inspections were started in the CFATS program. ISCD gave facilities credit for security measures that could not be implemented immediately for some reason; usually dealing with capital expenditure, long lead time equipment and the such. As long as the facility had budgeting in place and a firm schedule for completion documented, credit was given for those measures in the approval of the facility’s site security plan. During a large number of the initial compliance inspections chemical security inspectors found that facilities were not complying with their planned implementation schedules. While mitigation measures had to be in place for these planned measures to be approved by ISCD, facilities would not be fully secured until those planned measures were completed. ISCD is obviously taking these planned security measures very seriously.

To my disappointment the Expedited Approval Program appears to have been short changed in its mention in these two documents. It is briefly mentioned in a footnote in the authorization inspection document (mentioning that an authorization inspection is not required), but it is completely missed in the compliance inspection fact sheet. The consequences for a failed compliance inspection for EAP facilities is completely different from those for a facility that has gone through the standard site security plan approval process and should have been mentioned in the compliance inspection fact sheet.