Chemical Security and QHSR

As I promised yesterday, I am working on identifying those portions of the QHSR Dialogue that might be of specific interest to the chemical facility security community. I am ready with my first pass on that identification. I have gone back and looked through each of the ‘ideas’ discussed under the Counterterrorism heading. I have broken them out into a couple of my own categories. The Current Ideas in Counterterrorism First there are the ‘ideas’ that reflect directly on issues of interest to the chemical facility security community. As of noon (EDT) today I found three. Two of these three issues I have contributed my own comments to the discussion, but I have rated all three. Those issues are “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use: CBRN or Non-CBRN” “Railroad Infrastructure” “Federalize Railroad Police” Next there were the ‘ideas’ that I thought were interesting enough in their own light that I wanted to participate in the discussion even though they did not reflect directly on chemical security issues. I certainly did not agree with all of the ideas, but find that their discussions were well thought out and reasonable. They certainly deserved my evaluation and comments. I found four such issues. They were: “Airport Security - General Aviation” “Prevention of EMP over CONUS “ “QHSR process is unwieldy” “Stopping the Spread of Violent Extremism Demands The Fortification of Our Anti-Torture Laws” Now this is only seven of the 43 ideas posted to the Counterterrorism section on noon today. There were some interesting ideas and opinions expressed. There were some that were not so interesting. And there were more than a few that seemed downright strange. I’ll not try to spoil that review and selection for you. Counterterrorism Goal #2 With Counterterrorism Goal #2 dealing with preventing terrorists from using chemical, biological and radiological weapons, I was more than a little surprised to see no one addressing this field. Obviously, with my background I could not let that stand, so I submitted a new idea; Controlling Access to Chemical Agents at Water Treatment Plants. Since this builds on something that I have been discussing here in the blog for a number of weeks now I guess this should be no surprise. The difference is that I am not analyzing a piece of legislation, here I making a personal recommendation for how I would like to see DHS and Congress proceed. I invite readers of this blog to join in the discussion of this issue. Disappointed in Readers With five full days of QHSR Dialogue #2 now behind us, I am disappointed not to have seen more contributions by readers of this blog. To date I have only been able to identify one reader’s contribution, and unfortunately that was not a chemical security related issue. If I have missed your participation, please let me know. I’ll be more than happy to provide links to the comments of any of my readers. I don’t care if your participation was in the formulation of a new ‘idea’ or to comment upon someone else’s idea. Point me at your post and I’ll provide a link so that other members of our community can add to the participation.

Congress Returns on Tuesday

The summer congressional recess ends next Tuesday afternoon. No doubt there are a large number of controversial items on the agenda when they get back to work, but I’ll try to concentrate on just those of potential interest to the Chemical Security Community. DHS Budget Bill Both the House and the Senate passed slightly different version of the Administration’s DHS budget bill well before the summer recess. All that remains now is for the Conference Committee to get together and iron out the differences between the two versions. The Senate named their members of the Conference when they passed the bill back on July 9th, the House has yet to name their Conferees. There really should be no problem to work out the differences and get the final bill passed and signed. Both houses agreed to the provision extending the CFATS authorization for one year so that will almost certainly be in the final bill. CFATS Extension Bill HR 2868, the House bill that would extend CFATS coverage and make it permanent still needs to be considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Judiciary Committee before September 30th (that date could of course be extended). The Energy and Environment Subcommittee has a hearing scheduled on HR 2868 and its companion bill HR 3258 for 9-11. Green Peace and a number of other environmental groups have been making a concerted publicity push in local and regional newspaper throughout the break to get this bill passed. They have been using their standard argument of eliminating dangerous chemicals at specific plants as the basis for those local pushes. While the articles have all been written by local activists, they have pretty much used the same general template. SOCMA and the ACC have both pushed back at each of these pushes by the pro-IST activist with letters to the editors of these papers countering the arguments and pointing out the progress made to date in protecting these local facilities from terrorist attack. Again these letters were signed by local chemical industry executives, but they also used a common template to formulate their replies. Interestingly they all pointed out that the Administration supported a one-year extension of the current CFATS regulation to avoid proceeding too quickly on the IST issue. In my mind it is still an open question if these bills will come to floor votes this year or not. There is a much higher probability of making it to the floor of the House than the Senate since nobody in that body is currently banging the chemical security drum the way that Chairmen Thompson and Waxman are. There is still a possibility that this will pass before the Congress closes up for the year, but it will depend on how large and bloody the fight gets on the health care and global warming issues. Cyber Security Issues There are a number of cyber security bills that might yet get considered in committee. The strongest possibility to date is the Senate bill S 773 that is supported by both Rockefeller (D, WV) and Snow (R,ME). That has faced some criticism for its ‘control of the Internet’ issue, but rumors are going around that there is a new, less threatening version being circulated in the halls of the Senate. There isn’t really much in there about control system issues. Chairman Thompson’s bill in the House (HR 2195) does address control systems issues, but only in the electrical power industry. We’ll probably see hearings on both bills later this year, but not much more. Hearings Next Week Congress is still out of town so it is not unusual that most committees have not yet update their web sites (the House Homeland Security site is still officially in August), but there are two chemically related hearings that have been posted for next week. First, the previously mentioned Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing on Friday at 10:00 a.m. on HR 3258 and HR 2868 is now post, but without any details about who will be there. The other newly posted hearing will be before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Thursday at 10:00 a.m.. It will look at Hazardous Material Safety and the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA). No details available yet on that hearing either.

QHSR Dialogue Extended

I’ve done two 8-hour blocks of instruction for Georgia QuickStart in the last two days and have not felt like doing any writing when I got home, especially since it’s an hour drive each way to the training center. That’s why I am personally very happy to see that the end of the Second Dialogue of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review has been extended until Wednesday, September 9th. They certainly did not do this specifically for me, but it will allow me some additional chances to make some comments in and on the Dialogue. According to an email I received from Graves Spindler from the DHS Office of Strategic Plans, this extension is being done because of “increased participation and the Labor Day Holiday Weekend”. It seems like DHS is getting even more hits on the Dialogue site than they did for the first Dialogue. Even more important they are getting more active participation, more ratings on the goals/objectives and more discussion of the ideas. If you haven’t yet had a chance to leave a comment on the Dialogue site, take advantage of the long weekend to stop by the Dialogue site and look over what some other people have been suggesting the Department do to achieve its goals. Then take part, put in your two cents worth by joining one of the existing discussions or adding your own unique ideas. To help make sure that other members of the chemical security community look at your ideas, drop me an email (pjcoyle@aol.com) with the link to your ‘idea’ or comment and I’ll publicize it on the blog. I’ll also be posting links to my comments. Check back with the blog periodically over the weekend (or watch for notices on Twitter) to keep up with the links. Maybe we can get some active chemical security discussions going on the site.

HR 3258 Analysis – EPA Enforcement

This is another in a continuing series of blog postings about the recently introduced HR 3258, the Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009. This bill is designed to be a companion bill to HR 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, extending chemical facility security rules to water treatment facilities. Previous postings in this series include: HR 3258 Section-by-Section Analysis HR 3258 Analysis – Political Background HR 3258 Analysis – 50 Enforcement Agencies HR 3258 Analysis – Substance of Concern HR 3258 Analysis – Vulnerability Assessments HR 3258 Analysis – IST Assessments HR 3258 Analysis – VA-SSP Review HR 3258 Analysis – Protected Information HR 3258 Analysis – Employee Participation HR 3258 Analysis – Emergency Response Plans HR 3258 Analysis – Risk Based Tiers The Administrator of the US EPA is given responsibility and authority for the assessment of civil penalties for violations of “any requirement of this section, including by not implementing all or part of its site security plan by such date as the Administrator requires” {§1433(o)(1)}. The Administrator may assess civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day. Enforcement Actions When it has been determined that a violation exists, the Administrator will consult with State authorities (except for Wyoming and Washington, DC) and take into account the “the severity of the violation or deficiency and the record of the covered water system in carrying out the requirements of this section” {§1433(o)(2)} before deciding how to proceed. The options would include:

Assessing a civil penalty and requiring compliance within a specified time, or Commencing a civil action in US District Court for ‘appropriate relief’ including injunctive relief.

IST Exemption This section includes a specific exemption form these enforcement actions for activities required under the provisions of §1433(g), commonly referred to as the IST provisions. For systems located anywhere but Wyoming and Washington, DC “the Administrator may not issue an order or commence a civil action under this section for any deficiency in the content or implementation of the portion of the system’s site security plan relating to methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act” {§1433(o)(3)}. This is a conditional prohibition. If the facility is late in submitting its IST assessment or has failed to implement IST measures as required by the State authorities, the Administrator may take actions under this section after notifying the State authority and giving the facility 30 days to come into compliance. These exemptions were discussed in more detail in the posting discussing IST assessment issues

Reader Comment – 08-31-09 – QHSR Dialogue

Reader Laurie Thomas, a maritime security professional, has posted a comment to yesterday’s blog about the start of the second stage of the QHSR Dialogue. Readers might remember that Laurie was not too thrilled with the first Dialogue; well her opinion has not changed too awfully much. While some of her earlier comments have been partially addressed in this version, Laurie has some additional critical observations that are worth reading and discussing. Inadequate Instructions Laurie writes that: “Maybe it's just me, but I find it distressing that the agency that is in charge of the internal security of my country produces a paragraph of directions that needs to be read three times before comprehension can occur.” I think that Laurie is referring to the instructions for conducting the ratings of the goals and objectives within those goals. The instructions were less than clear and I found it easier to play with the colored slides on the diagrams to figure out what was going on. Now I have spent a great deal of time in my professional life writing instructions for complex chemical operations. One of the things that I learned early on was that easy to understand instructions are anything but easy to write. Laurie points out another thing that I learned the hard way, beta-testing certainly helps make instructions clearer. One interesting thing is that Laurie took advantage of the discussion tool available on the site to provide detailed comments about the problems that she identified. The discussion of her ‘idea’ has proved to have some popularity with at least 10 participants rating her idea and a total of 7 comments having been posted to date. While this discussion is not directly related to the goals and objectives ideas, it is important to DHS and the web site ‘owners’ the National Academy of Public Administration. I learned yesterday that DHS and NAPA took similar comments made in the earlier dialogue to heart when they were making changes to the system used in the current Dilogue. So Laurie, take heart your comments will be heard. In the ongoing discussion Laurie notes that this topic is not really about Counterterrorism, but that there is no heading to place a discussion about the site itself. While this is true, there is a way to address site problems to NAPA. At the bottom of every page is a ‘Contact’ link. This will take one to a page where site complaints and comments can be filed. Control of Content Laurie also notes that “the comment function seems to be open to any kind of interchange between dialogue participants, including off-topic statements like ‘Get off my planet’.” The Dialogue was designed to allow for free flowing discussion of ideas. Unfortunately this may result in off-subject, off-color or just plain inappropriate remarks. Users of this site do need to remember that this is a public discussion and a certain amount of decorum is necessary for a real exchange of ideas to take place. NAPA does note that this is a moderated web site and they do reserve the right to remove inappropriate comments from the system. Their five deadly sins, according to their Moderation Policy page are:

“Threats or incitements to violence “Use of obscenity “Duplicative or substantially duplicative postings by the same person or entity “Postings seeking employment or containing advertisements for a commercial product or service “Information posted in violation of law, including libel, condoning or encouraging illegal activity, revealing classified information, or infringing on a copyright or trademark”

Specific complaints about inappropriate remarks or complaints about having remarks improperly removed from the site may be addressed by clicking on the ‘Contact’ link on the bottom of any page. Do Not Be Discouraged I would like to remind everyone concerned that this is a new and unique social networking tool being developed by a semi-governmental agency (NAPA). It does take a lot of work to make such a tool readily useable. While there are many problems with the site, I am very well pleased with the progress that has been made to date and I think NAPA is to be thanked for their efforts. More importantly though, everyone needs to remember that the goal of this site is to seek public participation in a very unusual process. We have a unique chance to help to influence in some small way the course of DHS over the next four years. To fail to avail ourselves of that chance because of a less than perfectly designed tool seems to be more than a little short sighted. I urge Laurie and all readers of this blog to take the time to contribute from your store of knowledge and experience to this Dialogue. It may take time that is in short supply, but the government has a great need for our insight. This small contribution will help to make this world a better place.

CSB to Hold Imperial Sugar Public Meeting

While this may not be strictly speaking chemical security news, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) announced today that they would be holding a public meeting in Savannah, GA on 9-24-09 to discuss the results of their investigation into the Imperial Sugar Refinery explosion of February 2008. That sugar dust explosion took the lives of 14 workers (eight on scene, six in the burn wards of local hospitals) and injured an additional 36. The CSB had previously warned of the dangers of dust explosions and had urged OSHA to take a proactive role in preventing them. It will be interesting to see if OSHA continues to ignore the industrial safety recommendations of the CSB.

QHSR Bloggers Round Table – 8-31-09

Yesterday afternoon I took part in a Bloggers Round Table with DHS Deputy Assistant Secretary Alan Cohn discussing the QHSR Dialogue that re-started yesterday. This round table was part of the Department’s public outreach program trying to encourage public participation in the Dialogue. QHSR Dialogue Background Secretary Cohn started out the conversation with a review of the first Dialogue that took part in early August. In that Dialogue the QHSR Study Groups provided some draft goals for the Department and the public was asked to rate and comment upon those goals. During the registration process the visitors self-identified themselves as to their background. The largest group identified was ‘General Public’ followed closely by ‘Federal Government’. While Cohn did not give us the exact numbers (which I have been hoping to see on their web site) it does seem that the Department has at least partially achieved its goal of gaining public participation in the QHSR process. According to Cohn there were over 8200 ‘unique visitors’ to the QHSR Dialogue site during the first week. It did not look like most of those visitors were active participants. In a quick review of the voting on the Counterterrorism and Domestic Security ideas showed a maximum of 13 ‘votes’ for any one of the ideas. Combine that with the fact that there was only a total of about 200 ‘ideas’ submitted to the site and you see that while there was wide spread participation, the depth of that participation was lacking. Goals for 2nd Dialogue Secretary Cohn addressed this situation by noting that the Department was trying to get even wider and significantly more participative public involvement in the 2nd Dialogue this week. As I noted in yesterday’s blog this Dialogue involves rating the goals and objectives that were winnowed from the first Dialogue. The Department is also actively looking for ‘ideas’ on how the Department and the country can achieve those goals. This goals and objectives in this Dialogue definitely show the effects of comments received during the first iteration. Goals were re-worded to be clearer and more explicit. According to Cohn the Department made a specific attempt to tighten up the ‘lexicon’ used in the various sections so that the same words and phrases mean the same thing across the site. My least favorite weasel-worded phrase ‘man made hazards’ was removed completely. There was one area where the lexicon was deliberately not ‘tightened-up’ was with the term ‘resiliency’. DHS would like to see a discussion of what resiliency means to the various communities served by the Department. Since it is such a popular political term it is one that does need to discussed. Improving the Tool Secretary Cohn told us that the Department was actively reading what is being written in the blogosphere about the Dialogue. One of the reasons for this is that they are looking for the feedback that bloggers and their readers have provided to improve the site. One of the problems identified in this blog (the inability to cut and paste comments from word processing programs) has been specifically addressed in the latest version of the web site. DHS has also provided a direct feed back mechanism, so that complaints, comments and suggestions can be sent directly to the Department by clicking on the ‘Comments’ link on the bottom of each page. This takes one to a form that can be filled out by commenter. It will probably not result in changes to this week’s Dialogue (changes do take time after all), but there is still a third Dialogue to come and DHS intends to use this type tool in future QHSR’s. DHS Shill While not wanting to sound like part of the DHS PR department, I certainly recommend that anyone with an interest in any of the extended activities of the Department log onto the Dialogue web site and participate in both rating the goals/objectives listed and participate in the various discussions. It is not often that an individual or private company gets a chance, however small, in helping a cabinet level Department of the Federal Government set it’s goals and objectives for the next four years. If you don’t participate in the current QHSR it will be four years before you get your next chance. Readers of this blog, in particular, need to participate. The Department is in the process of putting together and implementing a number of chemical security programs across the wide scope of the Department’s enforcement authority. Take advantage of this opportunity to discuss how you would like to see the Department operate in these areas. I certainly have/will.