A U.S. House committee hearing on Wednesday focused on how to strengthen a federal program that protects high-risk chemical facilities from terrorist attacks.
“High-risk chemical facilities hold large stores of industrial chemicals that pose a safety and security risk to the American people if they are released or detonated,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said during opening remarks at the hearing by the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change. He cited a recent report that found more than one-third of Americans live in areas around chemical facilities that would make them vulnerable during an attack.
Lawmakers are working to improve the Department of Homeland Security’s Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, which Pallone said provides critical national security protections by requiring chemical facilities to assess and address their vulnerabilities.
Lawmakers specifically discussed legislation that would reauthorize the CFATS program, the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2019, H.R. 3256, which was introduced in June by U.S. Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA).
The CFATS program was set to expire from its 2014 multiyear extension at the beginning of 2019, but Congress acted to extend the program until April 2020. H.R. 3256 would extend the program until 2025.
Since its creation in 2006, the CFATS program has aimed to engage public- and private-sector stakeholders to identify facilities that utilize and/or store the highest-risk chemicals in cases of terrorist attack or exploitation. The program also ensures those facilities have the proper security measures in place to reduce the risk of the hazardous chemicals being used by bad actors against the American public.
“CFATS organically promotes risk-based decision making,” David Wulf, associate director for chemical security at DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), told the panel. “Our inspectors, as well as many of our headquarter’s expert staff, work directly with facilities as they think through how to address the 18 risk-based performance standards that cover an array of different risk reduction measures: those designed to deter, detect, delay a terrorist attack, measures focused on cybersecurity, those focused on internal threats and background checks or on response and training.”
Wulf reported that there are roughly 30,000 facilities that handle the threshold amount of hazardous chemicals that have submitted top screen reports to the CFATS program. Approximately 10 percent of the total facilities are categorized into four tiers as the highest risk facilities that are regulated by the program. He hopes that through the continuation of the program and subsequent increases in workforce development and program strengthening, that the main focus remains on attack prevention for the high-risk facilities but also to allow for voluntary involvement from the remaining 90 percent of facilities that have submitted top screen reports to the program.
During his testimony, Wulf highlighted the importance of maintaining long-term stability for the CFATS program and the facilities that the program regulates. When asked if he was pleased with the five-year extension, Wulf said that he would “love to see a zero put behind it.”
“Enacting a multiyear CFATS authorization as Congress did in 2014, has facilitated important improvements in the CFATS program, as well as incentivized facilities to engage with the department on facility security,” Wulf said. “Facilities unsure of the return on capital investment were assured that security standards established by CFATS would not change and made critical investments to improve security. DHS/CISA would like to look to a long-term policy solution for protecting and security chemical facilities.”
Two provisions of H.R. 3256 state that exemptions should be made for certain chemical facilities that share information more with state and local emergency planning officials, Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and other applicable agencies.
Wulf said in his testimony that highly trained CFATS inspectors do currently engage on a community level with emergency planning committees, but that sharing CFATS requirements, measures, and overall information with too many individuals and agencies can undermine the protected aspect of the program’s goals.
U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) made a similar remark in his inquiries, stating that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports environmental issues, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration handles workplace hazards and that DHS was specifically established to protect against terrorist acts.
However, in the hearing’s second panel, that point was rebutted by Michele L. Roberts, national co-coordinator of the Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, who criticized the lack of improvements to the EPA’s Risk Management Program that can be addressed and encouraged through the CFATS program.
“Frankly, the entire CFATS program is secretive and confusing. Even experienced advocates are sometimes unsure about aspects of CFATS. Because it’s impossible to know for sure what facilities are even required to participate in CFATS, it’s impossible for community members or advocates to fully understand the level of danger, planning, preparedness (or lack thereof) in their neighborhoods,” Roberts said in her opening statement.
“The emergence of new technologies and cybersecurity threats, coupled with this administration’s attacks on the other foundational policies and programs that protect workers and communities from catastrophic events at hazardous facilities, means that a really strong and important CFATS bill and program are more important now than ever,” Roberts said.
An additional concern brought up by several lawmakers, including Committee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-NY), was the effect that climate change and extreme weather events have on the high-risk chemical facilities and how CFATS manages those threats.
“Chemical fires, explosions, and releases can have serious consequences regardless of whether an incident was an accident, a natural disaster, or an act of terrorism,” Tonko said.
While Wulf stressed the terrorism security aspect of CFATS, he also explained that many of the 18 risk-based performance standards presented by CFATS also protect against extreme weather events.
“CFATS is appropriately focused on the security of high-risk chemical facilities including provisions to ensure that security systems are appropriately redundant,” Wulf said, such as by having back-up power for closed-circuit TV cameras and other security systems in place in the event of severe weather.