Office of Infrastructure Protection

National Protection and Programs Directorate

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528

CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM STANDARDS

ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

EAST COAST WEBINAR LISTENING SESSION HELD ON

SEPTEMBER 26, 2014

CONTENTS:

Agenda

Transcript
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (CFATS ANPRM)

September 26, 2014 Public Listening Session Webinar

Hosted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Agenda

10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. Welcome and Overview

Kate Finnerty, Facilitator

Scott Breor, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Infrastructure Protection

Amy Graydon, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Infrastructure Protection

10:15 a.m. – 10:20 a.m. Ground Rules for Public Listening Session

Kate Finnerty, Facilitator

10:20 a.m. – 11:20 a.m. Commencement of Public Listening Session

11:20 a.m. – 11:50 a.m. Open Session (if time allows)

11:50 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Closing Remarks and Adjournment

Persons may also submit written comments to U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, 

Office of Infrastructure Protection, Infrastructure Security Compliance Division, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0610, Arlington, VA 20528-0610 

or through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

For more information on the CFATS ANPRM, please visit https://www.dhs.gov/CFATS-Rulemaking.
1

1 CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM STANDARDS

2 ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

3 EAST COAST WEBINAR LISTENING SESSION

4 

5 

6 Moderator: Kate Finnerty

7 Panelist Members: Amy Graydon and Scott Breor

8 Friday, September 26, 2014

9 Commencing at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time

10 

11 4601 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 900

12 Arlington, Virginia 22203

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 Reported by: LaQuicia Thomas

19 Bay Area Court Reporting, Inc.

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 
2

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 MS. FINNERTY: Good morning everyone and

3 welcome to the listening session for the Chemical

4 Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Advance Notice of

5 Proposed Rulemaking, or CFATS ANPRM, that was issued

6 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on

7 August 18, 2014.

8 We are glad that you are able to join us this

9 morning. This is the sixth listening session in a

10 series that will be held across the country,

11 including six in-person and two via webinar.

12 My name is Kate Finnerty with Energetics

13 Incorporated. DHS, who is leading the proposed

14 rulemaking, has arranged for me to moderate today's

15 listening session.

16 Before we get started, I would like to make a

17 couple of announcements. First, I would like to

18 respectfully request that all participants exercise

19 standard webinar and phone etiquette, including

20 placing your phone on mute, refraining from using

21 the hold button and being mindful of any background

22 noise when you are selected to speak.

23 After the opening remarks and prior to opening

24 the public listening session, we will review the

25 functions of the webinar screen that you are seeing.
3

1 Please note that the functions of this screen are

2 not intended for comments or questions related to

3 the CFATS ANPRM.

4 The comments provided during this session are

5 being transcribed for note-taking purposes. A

6 transcript of each listening session will be posted

7 on a docket in the Federal Register at a later date.

8 Audio of this session will not be retained.

9 The purpose of today's session is to gather

10 public comments, data or views on how the current

11 CFATS regulation, 6 C.F.R., Part 27, which was

12 issued in 2007, might be modified. Issuing the

13 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking enables the

14 Department to provide stakeholders with an

15 opportunity to provide comments and suggestions for

16 identifying ways to make the program more effective

17 in achieving its regulatory objectives.

18 As for our agenda this morning, we are going to

19 begin with welcoming remarks, which will include a

20 brief overview of the status of the CFATS program,

21 and the remainder of the session will be dedicated

22 to hearing from you, the stakeholders. During

23 closing remarks, we will include instructions on how

24 to obtain additional information about the listening

25 sessions.
4

1 At this time, I would like to introduce

2 Mr. Scott Breor, Deputy Director of the DHS

3 Infrastructure Security Compliance Division, to

4 provide welcome remarks.

5 Mr. Breor.

6 MR. BREOR: Thanks, Kate. And let me reiterate

7 to what Kate has spoken to. Thank you for taking

8 the time out of your busy schedules to join us this

9 morning. Your input is greatly beneficial to us,

10 and we truly want to make this program more

11 effective.

12 We've done a lot, we believe, over the last

13 seven years, but we know that there are definitely

14 some areas that we can improve and we need your help

15 to get to that point.

16 Just for some background, as you recall, in

17 2007 in the DHS Appropriations Act, Section 550,

18 Congress had authorized the Department to regulate

19 security at high-risk chemical facilities. To

20 implement this, the department developed the

21 Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, that we

22 all embrace as CFATS, 6 C.F.R., Part 27, to

23 implement that authority.

24 Today we cover approximately 3,900 facilities

25 across all 50 states. Of those facilities,
5

1 approximately 2,100 SSPs have been authorized. And

2 we have approved over 1,100, and we're closing in on

3 1,200.

4 As you know, potential regulation under CFATS

5 is not based on facility type. It starts with the

6 quantity of chemical of interest, COI, that the

7 facility possesses. So under the CFATS program,

8 when we think chemical facility, we regulate many

9 various types, including chemical manufacturers,

10 warehouses and distributors, chemical repackaging,

11 oil and gas, hospitals, and colleges and

12 universities and many others.

13 In Section 550, Congress did exempt several

14 types of facilities from regulation. These include

15 facilities regulated under the Maritime

16 Transportation Security Act, MTSA, facilities

17 subject to regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory

18 Commission, facilities owned or operated by the

19 Departments of Defense or Energy and public water

20 systems and water treatment works regulated under

21 certain water quality laws administered by EPA.

22 Up until this point, we have been working to

23 strengthen the CFATS program internally at DHS.

24 Over the past two years, significant progress has

25 been made, and we've been able to make that progress
6

1 primarily based on improving the SSP review process,

2 seriously taking a look at all of the various steps

3 through that process and looking for efficiencies in

4 putting resources where we identify backlogs in

5 areas that needed improvement.

6 We have also, over the last couple of years,

7 made a strong effort with industry on development

8 of Alternative Security Program templates. We

9 worked with experts to evaluate and validate and

10 recommend ways to improve our tiering methodology.

11 Recently we just stood up an expert working group to

12 help us as we implement the recommendations provided

13 to us by the peer review panel that we received in

14 October of 2013.

15 We've also introduced initiatives such as

16 streamlining inspections where we work with owners

17 and operators to do a lot of the inspection work

18 prior to actually arriving on site. And then

19 arriving on site with a proper number of inspectors

20 to try to minimize the time on site to not only make

21 our efforts more efficient where we can, then do

22 multiple facilities per week with the same

23 inspection team, but also minimize the burden on a

24 facility.

25 And we've also been trying to capitalize on
7

1 what we refer to as the corporate approach for

2 companies with multiple facilities. There's

3 approximately 60 corporates that have seven or more

4 facilities that make up a quarter of the facilities

5 that we regulate. So working with them, making it

6 more efficient for them and capitalizing on what

7 those same type security practices are from facility

8 to facility makes our inspections more efficient.

9 ISCD is also exploring with industry the

10 possibility of creating segment-specific Alternative

11 Security Programs. We have met with various

12 industry associations such as the National

13 Association of Chemical Distributors, on this topic.

14 And as a matter of fact, I just got their latest

15 draft this morning which we will be taking a look

16 at. So that has been a great help in improving the

17 program.

18 We are also pleased to see the efforts being

19 made towards permanent authorization for CFATS. The

20 Department supports a permanent authorization for

21 CFATS and is committed to working with Congress and

22 other security partners to establish a permanent

23 authority for the program. DHS firmly believes that

24 the permanent authorization will provide industry

25 with the necessary stability to move forward in
8

1 effectively implementing CFATS and will send a clear

2 message to facilities that may be seeking to avoid

3 their obligation to report dangerous chemicals that

4 the CFATS program is here to stay and that CFATS

5 will not be going away.

6 H.R. 4007, the CFATS Authorization and

7 Accountability Act of 2014 was passed in the House

8 in July. The bill would permanently authorize the

9 CFATS program and authorizes the appropriations for

10 three fiscal years. The Senate Committee on

11 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs passed

12 the Senate version. One amendment was added to H.R.

13 4007, and they also amended the authorized

14 appropriations for four years. So we are grateful

15 for that, and we look forward to the bill

16 proceeding.

17 But as you think about CFATS, you must think

18 about the larger context of regulatory and voluntary

19 programs. So we ask that as you take a look at our

20 program and you're providing comments -- and we not

21 only are grateful for you providing comments today,

22 but we also ask you to provide comments to the

23 Federal Register -- please look at it in the larger

24 context.

25 Over the last year, we have been doing a lot of
9

1 work with EPA, OSHA, and other federal partners and

2 also industry and state and local and community

3 interest groups to work on Executive Order 13650.

4 And back in June, a document was released, "Actions

5 to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security - A

6 Shared Commitment." I ask all of you to please

7 review that document. Improving chemical facility

8 safety and security is definitely going to take the

9 work of all of us. CFATS definitely has a role in

10 that, but it needs to be viewed in a larger context

11 of all the programs and efforts that are out there.

12 And, as we work to improve CFATS, we need to be

13 mindful of those other programs and efforts to make

14 the program work better as a whole in that universe.

15 The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that

16 was released did highlight several topic areas, but

17 it clearly is what we refer to as that "clean dry

18 erase board." We want to improve this program. We

19 have all learned over the last seven years. And we

20 want to seek your input to take it to the next

21 level.

22 We did identify certain aspects in the ANPRM.

23 We did ask to take -- comments on the general

24 regulatory approach. Right now, if a chemical has a

25 COI and it's above the screening threshold quantity,
10

1 they submit a Top-Screen. As it goes through the

2 process, they eventually -- Site Security Plan is

3 authorized. Then we do an Authorization Inspection.

4 And then we're finally to the compliance side.

5 Maybe that can be done in a more efficient manner.

6 If you have ideas, suggestions, please let us know.

7 We also asked for comment on the treatment of

8 nontraditional chemical facilities. I didn't

9 mention earlier, but some of our chemical facilities

10 are prisons. You know, does a prison need to

11 complete a Site Security Plan? Can we have various

12 tools and methods in our regulatory approach, or

13 does everything need to be the completion of a Site

14 Security Plan? A comment on that would be greatly

15 beneficial.

16 Clarification of terminology. We learned that

17 in our work on the Executive Order -- and, we also

18 know that in our regulatory framework --that there are

19 words that we use that are also used by EPA and

20 others that are used in a different manner, and we

21 ask for comment on that to make sure that we address

22 all of those.

23 The Risk-Based Performance Standards.

24 Presently we have 18. We have heard over the years

25 that there's overlap. So in that overlap, whether,
11

1 you know, the perimeter security, what you put in

2 play there could also be utilized with the respect

3 to the assets security. Is there a better way to

4 present and frame the Risk-Based Performance

5 Standard?

6 Appendix A are a list of chemicals-of-interest.

7 Should other chemicals be added; should

8 some of the chemicals be removed; are the screening

9 threshold quantities right? Appreciate comment on

10 that.

11 And, also, we ask about consideration for small

12 businesses. We do have facilities where the owner

13 and operator is one. We have been able to work with

14 that individual, but we -- you know, from one to

15 thousands, our program covers the gamut. Again,

16 comment in that area.

17 And of course, as I mentioned with respect to

18 the work on the Executive Order, the alignment with

19 other regulatory programs.

20 So, you know, clearly that really paints a --

21 or gives you a broad area, and we're asking for any

22 thought that you might have to help us with this

23 program.

24 And as I mentioned earlier, we appreciate your

25 comments today. If you are not speaking today but
12

1 just listening, that's fine. Hopefully, as you

2 listen, that will generate ideas and recommendations

3 that you can then submit to us. And we ask that you

4 submit those comments to the Federal eRulemaking

5 Portal, which is www.regulations.gov or you can mail

6 it to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,

7 National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office

8 of Infrastructure Protection, Infrastructure

9 Security Compliance Division at 245 Murray Lane.

10 And I believe that this will be given to you in a

11 webinar, excellent, so I'm not going to read further

12 on that.

13 So, again, thank you for taking the time to be

14 here today. We look forward to hearing your

15 comments and suggestions on how DHS can mature the

16 CFATS program. And with that, I will pass it back

17 to Kate.

18 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, Mr. Breor.

19 I would also like to introduce our second

20 panelist for this morning's webinar, Ms. Amy

21 Graydon, Branch Chief with the DHS Infrastructure

22 Security Compliance Division.

23 MS. GRAYDON: Good morning.

24 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you for joining us.

25 The remainder of this session today is set
13

1 aside to hear from you, the stakeholders. First, I

2 would like to outline the format and ground rules

3 for today's session. This is a listening session

4 with the purpose to hear a diverse set of opinions

5 from across the broad spectrum of stakeholders who

6 have an interest in improving and streamlining the

7 CFATS rule. As such, we are not seeking a

8 discussion or consensus today on any of the topics.

9 All presenters are asked to keep their comments

10 directly related to the topics described in Part 4

11 of the ANPRM as listed by Mr. Breor. I will also

12 note that specific suggestions and supporting data

13 are the most helpful comments.

14 All presenters are also asked to keep their

15 comments limited to five minutes, including any

16 introduction to your remarks. The panel may ask

17 clarifying questions after your presentation.

18 We hope to have time to hear from everyone who

19 would like to speak today, but if we cannot get to

20 you, you are encouraged to provide comments in

21 writing via one of the two mechanisms that are

22 listed in the Federal Register notice and were

23 listed by Mr. Breor. And, again, we will put those

24 on the screen as we go throughout the webinar today.

25 Currently on the screen you can see the
14

1 regulations.gov address.

2 Also any materials related to your presentation

3 today that you would like to formally submit should

4 be submitted via one of these options. The deadline

5 to submit comments is October 17, 2014, which is 60

6 calendar days after publication of the ANPRM in the

7 Federal Register.

8 The remainder of our webinar will include two

9 parts, time permitting. In the first part, I will

10 call upon each person who signed up in advance to

11 present today. I will ask the operator to open your

12 line when it is your turn to speak for your

13 allocated five minutes. If time allows, I will then

14 open the floor to anyone else who would like to

15 speak on the topics also with a five-minute maximum.

16 At this time, I would like to introduce one of

17 our webinar team members, Ms. Victoria Frena, to

18 briefly introduce the functions of the webinar

19 screen.

20 Ms. Frena.

21 MS. FRENA: Good morning. The CFATS ANPRM is

22 posted in the file sharing box in the lower left

23 corner should you wish to download a copy. Click on

24 the PDF and press save to my computer. If you need

25 technical assistance, please e-mail gia@hq.dhs.gov.
15

1 When presenting, your time warnings will appear

2 on the presentation warning box, which will be

3 maximized during the presentations. There is also a

4 timer on the left-hand side which will be timing

5 your presentation during your allocated five

6 minutes. If you wish to speak during our open

7 session, please press *1 or start a chat with

8 the host to add your name to the list. You can

9 start a chat with the host by clicking the upper

10 right-hand button in the chat pod on your left-hand

11 side. A drop-down will appear. Hover over "start a

12 chat with" and then select the host option. Please

13 include your name. Thank you.

14 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, Ms. Frena.

15 I will now open the public listening session.

16 I will first proceed with those who signed up in

17 advance to present.

18 If Mr. Benjamin Hall is on the line, please

19 dial *1 to indicate your line is ready to open

20 with the operator.

21 (Pause.)

22 MS. FINNERTY: I'll move on to the next person

23 on the list.

24 Karen Messana, if you are on the line, please

25 dial *1.
16

1 THE OPERATOR: Mr. Hall, you may proceed.

2 MR. HALL: Okay. So I don't have any comments

3 at this point in time. So I'll, you know, open the

4 floor to the next commenter.

5 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, sir.

6 Operator, you may close that line.

7 Has Karen Messana joined us yet? If so, please

8 dial *1.

9 If Mr. Stephen Morin has joined us, please dial

10 *1.

11 If Mr. Matthew O'Callaghan has joined us,

12 please dial *1.

13 (Pause.)

14 MS. FINNERTY: We have three names in the queue

15 right now. If Karen Messana, Stephen Morin or

16 Matthew O'Callaghan are on the line, please dial

17 *1 to queue up with the operator.

18 If Ms. Kathryn Phin is on the line, please dial

19 *1.

20 And if Lawrence Zacarese is on the line, please

21 dial *1.

22 (Pause.)

23 MS. FINNERTY: We are currently in the public

24 listening session, and we are anticipating comments

25 from those who signed up in advance to provide
17

1 public comments. If I call your name, please dial

2 *1 to queue up with the operator. Karen

3 Messana, Stephen Morin, Matthew O'Callaghan, Kathryn

4 Phin, Lawrence Zacarese. Please dial *1 to

5 queue up with the operator.

6 Operator, do we have any of those names dialing

7 *1 at this point?

8 THE OPERATOR: No, ma'am. We do not.

9 MS. FINNERTY: Okay. Thank you very much.

10 I will now open the public listening session

11 for any additional comments. We will return to

12 those who signed up in advance as they are able to

13 join us this morning.

14 So, again, we're opening the floor for

15 additional comments related to the CFATS Advance

16 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. And if you are

17 having trouble signing in, please use 877-917-8926.

18 And we have an access code on the screen there,

19 3179655.

20 We are asking that all comments be limited to

21 five minutes and that all comments -- all comments

22 do come through our phone line. You have a maximum

23 of five minutes to provide public comments. If you

24 are interested in providing public comments, please

25 dial *1 at this time and you'll queue up with
18

1 the operator.

2 (Pause.)

3 THE OPERATOR: We have a comment, if you would

4 like to hear it, from Cynthia Hilton.

5 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you.

6 MS. HILTON: Hey, can you hear me?

7 MS. FINNERTY: Yes, we can.

8 MR. BREOR: Yes, we can. Good morning.

9 MS. HILTON: Okay. Good morning. I

10 appreciate, you know, that you're making this

11 opportunity available and that we shouldn't, you

12 know, waste your valuable time, so maybe I'll be

13 wasting it, but we will be providing comments. So

14 don't think that the lack of, you know,

15 participation means that people are not interested.

16 Everybody I know is very interested, and I think you

17 will be getting a lot of written comments.

18 But I just want to pick up on your comment,

19 Scott, about these nontraditional, for lack of a

20 better word, kind of populations that you are

21 seeing, and you mentioned prisons and rhetorically

22 asked whether or not, you know, they would need to

23 submit something. I would like to just suggest a

24 similar argument could be made for our industry. We

25 have been regulated for a long time by ATF, have
19

1 standards and it seems a little bit strange to us

2 that individuals who work there who access those

3 sites, you know, can possess high explosives but

4 somehow they may or may not be able to possess

5 precursor chemicals. So, I'm just going to say that,

6 just as a heads up, we will be addressing that issue

7 in our comments.

8 Also, hopefully, this is relevant maybe hopefully

9 to this whole issue, but earlier this week there was

10 a teleconference, which involved Secretary Johnson

11 and trying to talk about, you know, current risks

12 that are out there. And one of the commenters

13 brought up a concern about exploding targets. I

14 don't know if you were listening in on that, but I

15 just want to clear the record because the Secretary

16 said, well, that's for ATF, but exploding may be in

17 the term of this, the colloquial term, but these

18 things are really aluminum powder and ammonium

19 nitrate and separately they're not an explosive. So

20 really these things are -- it's clearly in your

21 sandbox. So I would just encourage you to also look

22 at the risks that are presented by that.

23 And by the way, at that same session, I tried

24 to ask a question. I realize in retrospect that it

25 probably was the wrong way it was phrased. I was
20

1 trying to bring up CFATS by congratulating or

2 thanking the Secretary for his support for

3 legislation to give authorization to this program,

4 and I was trying to get around to some of the

5 Risk-Based Performance Standards that might be out

6 of date. And so another thing we'll be commenting

7 on is Risk-Based Performance Standard 13, which

8 appears to be based on the color-coded tiering that

9 we had which we don't have anymore.

10 So why don't I just stop there. I don't know

11 if you want to comment at all, but those are just

12 some thoughts for the day. Thank you.

13 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, Ms. Hilton.

14 Do we have questions from the panel?

15 MR. BREOR: No. I'll just say, Cynthia, thanks

16 for your comments. And on the nontraditional,

17 greatly look forward to what your input is on that.

18 You know, as you know, that was also a big effort

19 with the work on the Executive Order was to fully

20 understand what the regulatory fabric was and where

21 there were gaps and where we did have areas that

22 possibly did overlay on one another. So, we'll look

23 forward to that.

24 We did -- when the Homeland Security Advisory

25 System went away -- we did update that within our
21

1 program. The SSP is updated, everything in the CSAT

2 tool and there's also a fact sheet. So, we are in

3 line with the current process that the Department

4 uses for RBPS 13. But, you know, 13 and many of the

5 other RBPSs, you know, if there's better ways of

6 assessing those security areas or if there's, you

7 know, ways that some of them can be merged, you

8 know, we definitely want to hear input on that.

9 And I hear you on the exploding targets. You

10 know, that is a concern of ours along with cold

11 packs and other items like that, so thank you.

12 MS. HILTON: Scott, I don't know if I'm still

13 -- if you can hear me --

14 MS. FINNERTY: Yes.

15 MS. HILTON: -- but I really appreciate your

16 comments.

17 And then can I just ask, because this is like a

18 totally dumb question, if you've updated -- because

19 I've -- you know, some of us are at a disadvantage

20 because we -- we're not the inputter into the system

21 and, you know, you --

22 MR. BREOR: Right, right.

23 MS. HILTON: -- the way it's currently set up.

24 So many, many people out there who feel impacts are

25 -- or can't really understand, you know, what is
22

1 there and what the tools are and that kind of thing.

2 So I do apologize if I have dated information, but

3 you will recall the risk-based guidance that you put

4 out in -- I can't remember what year, a couple of

5 years ago.

6 MR. BREOR: Yeah.

7 MS. HILTON: Is there -- I -- frankly before

8 even, you know, keying up, you know me, you know, I

9 would have tried to see if there was something more

10 current. I couldn't find it. Could you direct me

11 to, you know, more up-to-date guidance on the

12 risk-based standards?

13 MR. BREOR: Yeah. I'll follow up with you

14 separately, Cynthia. On that document itself, that

15 document has not been revised, but I could send you

16 current information that would pertain to that.

17 MS. HILTON: Okay.

18 MR. BREOR: We've been trying to, you know,

19 maximize the use of FAQs to keep everybody current

20 on revisions and perspectives of that document.

21 MS. HILTON: Okay. Appreciate it. Sorry

22 everybody. Thank you.

23 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, Ms. Hilton.

24 Operator, you may close the line now.

25 We are currently in the open session for the
23

1 public listening session for the Chemical Facility

2 Anti-Terrorism Standards Advance Notice of Proposed

3 Rulemaking. If you are interested in providing

4 public comments today, please press *1 to queue

5 up with the operator.

6 THE OPERATOR: And we do have a comment from

7 Mr. George Loder.

8 MR. LODER: Yes. Good morning.

9 MS. FINNERTY: Good morning.

10 MR. LODER: A couple of comments from the

11 industry side that I work in. I have a couple

12 plants that are covered as the chemicals of

13 interest. In all cases, those chemicals of interest

14 are contained in a mixture of which it would take

15 some pretty significant laboratory scientific effort

16 to extract the materials to create the risk that

17 support being covered by the standard. One case is

18 aluminum paste that contains an aluminum powder.

19 And I'm curious about any effort to look at this

20 from a risk-based approach versus strictly

21 identifying chemicals of interest based on a cast

22 number.

23 MR. BREOR: So you're asking the chemicals

24 identified in Appendix A, the 322 chemicals, they're

25 -- you know, when Appendix A was originally put
24

1 together, a lot was leveraged, of course, EPA RMP

2 and also on -- for the work with respect to theft

3 diversion type chemicals, work that DOJ had done,

4 also work that EPA had done, DoD had done. It was

5 really an interagency effort. It's been seven

6 years.

7 Your input -- and we've heard input like yours

8 from others with respect to some of the chemicals

9 identified on Appendix A and also how we have

10 mixtures framed within the regulation itself. We

11 need that input. You know, we want to update and

12 revise Appendix A. We want to take a look at the

13 screening threshold quantities on the chemicals that

14 are there. We also believe that possibly there's

15 chemicals that can be removed, but then we also

16 recognize that there's chemicals that probably

17 should be added.

18 So your input is critical to this, especially

19 on that situation. And the more you can provide to

20 us, the better because at the end of the day, we're

21 going to have to support whatever direction we go

22 with the proper analysis.

23 MS. FINNERTY: Mr. Loder, do you have

24 additional public comments at this time?

25 MR. LODER: One additional one and that's
25

1 related to ammonium nitrate. I see that the OSHA

2 Process Safety Management standard, the EPA

3 Risk-Management Program have both -- as well as this

4 proposed change specifically listed ammonium nitrate

5 as an additionally regulated material. And I know

6 there's been also some discussion about the ATF

7 having interest in regulating it as well. And I

8 guess my comment would be to leave that to ATF to

9 regulate.

10 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, sir.

11 Do we have additional questions from the panel?

12 MR. BREOR: No. I'll just say again, you know,

13 provide feedback to OSHA and EPA on their RFIs.

14 That's why they have those out and they're asking

15 that question in that perspective. And, you know,

16 we are doing the same within the CFATS. You know,

17 as you know, ammonium nitrate is currently part of

18 our Appendix A, and that is something that we will

19 also be looking at in this review of the work on the

20 ANPRM.

21 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, Mr. Loder.

22 Operator, you may close the line and open any

23 next line that's available.

24 THE OPERATOR: The next comment is from

25 Ms. Maureen Kotlas.
26

1 MS. KOTLAS: Thank you. Can hear you hear me

2 okay?

3 MS. FINNERTY: Yes, ma'am.

4 MS. KOTLAS: Thank you. My name is Maureen

5 Kotlas. I'm the Environmental Health and Safety

6 Director at a research university, and I'd like to

7 just mention a couple of comments related to some of

8 the challenges that we face in the university and

9 college sector on complying with CFATS.

10 When CFATS was first enacted years ago, the

11 college and university sector did speak with the

12 Department of Homeland Security, and we appreciated

13 the considerations that were given to us on some of

14 the challenges that were just really impossible to

15 overcome in how we managed our chemicals on our

16 campuses. And while that helped to some degree,

17 there are still a lot of challenges.

18 I'm also affiliated with a national campus

19 safety association who's been involved in these

20 discussions. And I'm aware that that association

21 will be submitting written comments, but I think

22 it's important to mention that the challenges we

23 face can be very diverse depending on the type of

24 college and university and the size of the college

25 and university and whether they are regulated at the
27

1 federal or state or even sometimes local level for

2 chemical safety and security, and so it's very hard

3 in a written comment to be able to encompass all of

4 the concerns.

5 So one of the things that I took interest in, in

6 the introduction, was this idea that you mentioned

7 about the segment-specific Alternative Security

8 Program or plan. And, again, that's a challenge to

9 develop something that would work for everyone. But

10 I think frankly the challenges we have are, one,

11 trying to secure facilities that have very small

12 quantities of hazardous substances that are

13 distributed and used in small quantities among

14 various research groups and laboratories, and those

15 inventories are constantly in flux, they're

16 constantly being used in experiments, as you can

17 imagine, and trying to build security around a

18 facility where the chemical may not even be there

19 the next day is one of the challenges.

20 We, of course, also in our missions educate

21 students, and the students, both undergraduate and

22 graduate level students, work in our laboratories.

23 And to have performance standards requiring

24 background checks and personnel surety can be

25 impossible and sometimes actually illegal for us to
28

1 have to control that at that level.

2 So I guess my comment here would be we're very

3 interested -- I know my colleagues and I feel very

4 strongly that we understand the need for chemical

5 security and safety in today's world, but we are

6 struggling as a sector and very concerned that if

7 there's changes to CFATS that might add more

8 chemicals or change anything that would require more

9 of our sector to be regulated, that it's going to

10 change the face of the university and college world.

11 And so if there's a way for us to have more direct

12 communication with DHS aside from just written

13 comments, I think that would be welcomed and

14 certainly needed. And I thank you for giving me the

15 time to comment.

16 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, ma'am.

17 Questions or comments from the panel?

18 MR. BREOR: I'll say thanks, Maureen, because,

19 you know, Amy and I, you know, we know that this is

20 an area, this is a sector that since we've stood up

21 Infrastructure Security Compliance Division, we

22 have been, not as far as struggling with but an area

23 that we know that more work needs to be done in, and

24 not just within the university sector, but you raised

25 a good point with respect to the temporal aspect of
29

1 our program. Not only the university sector, but other

2 sectors are also wrestling with that situation where

3 you have the COI for a limited time period on site.

4 Even though you might have it on site multiple times

5 in a year, how do you actually do that within our

6 program?

7 So, we look forward to your comments, and I'm sure

8 there will be contact information provided with

9 those comments so that we can reach out to you and

10 continue this dialogue.

11 MS. FINNERTY: Ms. Kotlas, do you have

12 additional public comments at this time?

13 MS. KOTLAS: No, I don't. Just thank you very

14 much for those comments. I appreciate it.

15 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, ma'am.

16 Operator, you may close the line and open the

17 next.

18 THE OPERATOR: The next comment is from

19 Mr. Fred Kershner.

20 MR. KERSHNER: Yes. Good morning. I

21 appreciate the opportunity to speak. I work within

22 the chemical industry.

23 I have two quick comments, the first being the

24 CSAT SSP process. I, and I'm sure other colleagues,

25 but I obviously can only speak for myself, would
30

1 recommend reducing the length and the complexity of

2 the online process as well as eliminating the vast

3 redundancies between the various RBPS sections

4 within the online process and overall just improving

5 the user friendliness of the program. The length of

6 time that it takes to navigate through the SSP and

7 the amount of work that it takes to ensure that

8 there's consistency among the many redundant

9 questions results in I think a lot of unwarranted

10 time and a lot of heartache and headache among those

11 of us who have to try to defend the process.

12 My second comment is that it would be very

13 helpful for DHS to provide guidance on dealing with

14 protections of confidential information, CVI, that

15 is otherwise or may otherwise be publicly available

16 through existing regulations, not the least of which

17 would be RMP and EPCRA and SARA. It makes it very

18 difficult for us to try to walk the fine line

19 between what we must say to community and the media

20 and neighbors regarding our processes, our

21 chemicals, et cetera, and emergency response aspects

22 and what we're not permitted to say as part of the

23 DHS CVI requirements. Thank you for the

24 opportunity.

25 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, sir.
31

1 Do we have comments or questions from the

2 panel?

3 MR. BREOR: Fred, definitely hear you on the

4 CSAT SSP. You know, we've tried to make

5 improvements over the last year. Back in 2012, we

6 went around the Nation and conducted listening

7 sessions to hear what people would like to see with

8 respect to improvements, and we've been trying to

9 work those in, you know, set up in a prioritized

10 manner. We've been in recently -- you know,

11 hopefully what we have been able to put into place

12 in the most recent months, you know, it seems small,

13 but, you know, those little things have been

14 impactful to facilities, you know, basic things like

15 page number and the pre-population of data and also

16 as you go through the Site Security Plan, now you

17 can go directly to the RBPS instead of having to

18 cycle and acknowledge each one. That seems minor,

19 but I know that's just a small step, you know, in

20 front of a larger step that we need to take with

21 respect to that.

22 We also -- you know, it's fascinating, you

23 know, to go through the Site Security Plan, which at

24 the end of the day, you know, you could have

25 hundreds of pages; whereas if you use Alternative
32

1 Security Program templates that's out there, you

2 know, it could be as minimal as 30 pages.

3 So, we think more work needs to be done to

4 tighten up the Site Security Plan. And as we go

5 through the process of addressing the areas that the

6 expert Peer Review Panel identified, you know, we

7 want to, as we change the tiering methodology,

8 ensure that the questions in the Top-Screen and SVA

9 are only to those data points necessarily -- that

10 are necessary to do tiering and that there's not

11 questions in there that aren't being utilized by the

12 program. And we think we can also help reduce the

13 questions on the front end in CSAT.

14 Guidance on CVI, that was a major discussion

15 during the work on the Executive Order. More will

16 be forthcoming on that. But we know that there's a

17 fine line between the information that we share and

18 also knowing that with those chemicals, that there's

19 also the security concern. So thank you for your

20 comments on that.

21 MS. FINNERTY: Mr. Kershner, do you have

22 additional public comments at this time?

23 MR. KERSHNER: No, I don't. Thank you very

24 much.

25 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, sir.
33

1 Operator, you may close that line and open the

2 next.

3 THE OPERATOR: Thank you. The next question or

4 comment is from Mr. Chris Granberg.

5 MR. GRANBERG: Hi. Good morning. I actually

6 have a question more than a comment, but it is

7 related to your request for comments on the

8 Risk-Based Performance Standards, and I appreciate

9 any clarity you can provide.

10 Back in February, DHS used an ICR to solicit

11 comment on its implementation of the personnel

12 surety program requirements. And I was wondering if

13 the Department had made a decision regarding whether

14 it would seek to incorporate those PSP requirements

15 in a future rulemaking like an ANPRM or whether it

16 intends to issue final PSP guidance through a notice

17 of approval on the ICR. And if it's the latter

18 through an ICR, is there a timeline for issuing a

19 notice of approval? Thank you.

20 MR. BREOR: Presently, the ICR on personnel

21 surety with respect to the Terrorist Screening

22 Database check, that is with OMB. So, a timeline

23 with OMB, you know, don't know. It's under review.

24 MR. GRANBERG: Okay.

25 MR. BREOR: You know, in that ICR, you know, we
34

1 did limit to rolling out the program to Tier 1 and

2 Tier 2. So right now, our idea is to, you know, sort

3 of crawl, walk, run. So to move beyond Tier 1 and

4 Tier 2 and, you know, for 3s and 4s, that would

5 require an additional ICR overtone. Right now we

6 just have the one ICR for Tier 1 and Tier 2

7 facilities only.

8 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you.

9 Mr. Granberg, do you have additional public

10 comments related to the CFATS ANPRM?

11 MR. GRANBERG: No, ma'am. Thank you very much.

12 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, sir.

13 Operator, you may close the line.

14 Again, we are in open session for the CFATS

15 ANPRM listening session. As a reminder, DHS is

16 interested in comments on the topics described in

17 Part 4 of the ANPRM as listed by Mr. Breor earlier

18 today. For those of you that are just now joining

19 us, those include the general -- the rules general

20 regulatory approach, treatment of nontraditional

21 chemical facilities, clarification of terminology,

22 the Risk-Based Performance Standards, the chemicals

23 of interest list in Appendix A, considerations for

24 small businesses, and alignment with other regulatory

25 programs.
35

1 Operator, you may open the next line.

2 THE OPERATOR: Thank you. And we have another

3 comment from Ms. Cynthia Hilton.

4 MS. FINNERTY: Ms. Hilton, you may proceed.

5 Ms. Hilton, your phone may be on mute. You may

6 proceed.

7 MS. HILTON: I am so sorry everyone.

8 Scott, hi, I'm back. Earlier I thought I heard

9 a comment about ammonium nitrate, and I appreciate

10 the fact that you're not seeking consensus on

11 anything. So I'm going to help you achieve that

12 goal.

13 As you know, ammonium nitrate is extremely

14 important to our industry, and we have -- our

15 position has consistently been that explosives

16 are -- should be regulated by ATF and precursor

17 chemicals should be regulated by you. You do

18 regulate -- or you have authority to regulate

19 ammonium nitrate, and we are not trying to upset

20 that apple cart. We think that if precursors start

21 to be handed off to ATF where do you draw that line?

22 there are many, many chemicals that you regulate

23 that would be an explosive precursor that if you're

24 going to hand off AN, you'd hand off a whole bunch

25 of other stuff. So, in as much as right now ATF does
36

1 not have, you know, security regulations that apply

2 to AN, we would, you know, believe that this is your

3 mission and we that want to work with you to get it

4 right. But, that's our position. Thank you for

5 allowing me to say that.

6 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you.

7 Do we have questions or comments from the

8 panel?

9 MR. BREOR: No. Thanks, Cynthia. Appreciate

10 that. Yeah, I just didn't want to go down all the

11 various divisions and perspectives of AN. So I hear

12 you.

13 MS. HILTON: I understand that and we're not

14 seeking consensus, but it was important to get a

15 non-consensus view on the record.

16 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, Ms. Hilton. Do you

17 have additional public comments related to the ANPRM

18 at this time?

19 MS. HILTON: No. Thank you.

20 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you.

21 Operator, you may close the line and open the

22 next.

23 Okay. Hearing no additional speakers in the queue, I

24 would like to run down our list of those who have

25 registered in advance to speak to see if any of you
37

1 have been able to join us since the top of the hour.

2 If you hear your name, please dial *1 to line up

3 in the queue with the operator. Karen Messana,

4 Stephen Morin, Matthew O'Callaghan, Kathryn Phin,

5 Lawrence Zacarese. Again, if you heard your name

6 and would like to submit public comments today,

7 please dial *1.

8 We will remain in open session until

9 approximately 11:50 Eastern time. In that time, if

10 you would like to submit public comments, please

11 dial *1. I will mute the phones to reduce

12 background noise and will announce when an

13 additional speaker has arrived. Thank you.

14 (Pause.)

15 MS. FINNERTY: Good morning. This is the

16 public listening session webinar for the Chemical

17 Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Advance Notice of

18 Proposed Rulemaking, or CFATS ANPRM. We are

19 currently in open session until 11:50 a.m. Eastern.

20 If you are interested in providing public

21 comments today, please press *1 to queue up with

22 the operator. Thank you.

23 (Pause.)

24 MS. FINNERTY: For those that signed up in

25 advance for the CFATS ANPRM public listening
38

1 session, if you hear your name, please dial *1

2 to queue up with the operator. Karen Messana,

3 Stephen Morin, Matthew O'Callaghan, Kathryn Phin,

4 Lawrence Zacarese. Thank you. Please dial *1

5 to queue up with the operator.

6 (Pause.)

7 MS. FINNERTY: Operator, you may open lines of

8 any of those that have indicated that they're

9 interested in providing public comments.

10 THE OPERATOR: There is no one in the queue at

11 this time.

12 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, ma'am.

13 (Pause.)

14 MS. FINNERTY: Just a reminder, if anybody is

15 interested in providing public comments to the CFATS

16 ANPRM listening session webinar, the line is

17 available for five-minute public comments. Please

18 dial *1 to line up in the queue with the

19 operator. Thank you.

20 (Pause.)

21 MS. FINNERTY: Good morning and thank you again

22 for joining us for the listening session webinar for

23 the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards

24 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This now

25 concludes the public listening session portion of
39

1 our webinar.

2 I would now like to turn to Mr. Scott Breor,

3 Deputy Director of DHS ISCD for closing comments.

4 MR. BREOR: Thanks, Kate. Again, I want to

5 thank everyone for taking the time today to

6 participate. If you read the report that was

7 submitted to the President back in June, I think one

8 thing we got right in that report and that's the

9 identification that it's a shared commitment. We

10 definitely want to work to improve this program, but

11 we're going to need your help in doing so. So I ask

12 you please provide us comments to the Federal

13 Register, and we definitely want to utilize

14 everyone's input to make CFATS stronger.

15 So, again, thank you for taking your time

16 today, and I look forward to continuing a dialogue

17 as we move forward in the rulemaking process.

18 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, Mr. Breor.

19 Again, thank you all for participating in

20 today's listening session for the CFATS ANPRM.

21 Please visit the docket in the Federal Register to

22 view listening session notes and to submit

23 additional comments. Please visit the CFATS

24 regulation website which is listed on your screen to

25 view the remaining schedule of listening sessions.
40

1 We are now adjourned.

2 (Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the

3 webinar listening session concluded.)

4 

5 * * * * *

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 
41

1 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE, to wit:

2 I, LAQUICIA THOMAS, Court Reporter and Notary

3 Public in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia at Large,

4 and whose commission expires February 28, 2018, do

5 certify that the foregoing is a true, correct, and full

6 transcript of the proceedings.

7 I further certify that I am neither related to or

8 associated with any counsel or party to the proceedings;

9 nor otherwise interested in the event thereof.

10 

11 

12 

13 ________________________________

14 LaQuicia Thomas

15 Notary Public

16 Commonwealth of Virginia at Large

17 Notary No. 7363169

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25