Ads are not an endorsement by the blog author.

Chemical Facility Security News

Public Journal
 Back to Journal Archives | Subscribe to Alerts Alerts Subscribe to Alerts | Feeds
< Updates of CSAT R
Monday, May 12, 2008
Updates of CSAT T >
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
May 2008
DHS FAQ Page Update – 5-30-08
Chemical Incident Review – 5-31-08
Ballistic Attacks on Hazmat Shipping
Ballistic Protection for Railcars
Commercial Comments
HR 5577 Status Update – 5-29-08
Ethanol Producers as Chemical Facilities
Comments on Rail Security and Safety Rules – 5-23-08
Security Equipment Review 5-28-08
Another DHS FAQ Update for 5-23-08
Reader Question 5-24-08
Industrial Chemicals as Weapons of Mass Destruction
Canadians Notice Farm Bill Chemical Security Grants
Chemical Terrorism Insurance?
Public Law 110-234
Another DHS FAQ update – 5-23-08
Farm Bill Passes Over Bush Veto – Maybe
DHS FAQ Update – 5-22-08
Teaching Chemical Facility Security
DHS FAQ Page Update – 5-20-08
Hazmat Rail Routes and the Mayo Clinic
Reader Questions 5-20-08
Possible Chemical Attack Averted
Infrastructure Protection Activities Grants Awarded
Ammonia Safety Information
Comments on Rail Security and Safety Rules – 5-16-08
National Hazardous Materials Fusion Center
To Stop an Attack, Spot the Surveillance
HR2419 Update 05-14-08
IST In New Jersey
Updates of CSAT Top Screen Manuals
Blog Comment 5-12-08
Updates of CSAT Registration Manuals
Comments on Rail Security and Safety Rules – 5-9-08
Security Guard Background Checks
Potential DHS PHISHING Alert
Update of CSAT Web Page and Manuals
Reverse 911 System Exercise
The cost of replacing Chlorine
Cloned Vehicles
Vacation
Alternative to HR 5577
Reader Comments – 05-02-08
Chemical Security Legislation Influenced by Lobbyists
Chemical Sector Security Summit Registration Available
Bizarre Anhydrous Ammonia Release
Inherently Safer Technology Implementation under HR 5577
« May 2008 Archive
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Subject: Blog Comment 5-12-08
Time: 3:19:00 PM EDT
Author:  pjcoyle



I ran into a comment about last week’s blog on security guards (see: "Security Guard Background Checks") on CrimCheck.com. The comment by Ryan Sherman was that: "It is the contract company’s responsibility to get their guards screened." Actually, that was the whole point of the original article and my blog; there is little or no regulation of unarmed guards in many jurisdictions. That and the fact that the chemical facility management will be responsible to DHS for those checks, not the guard companies.

This is the problem that DHS and chemical facility management are going to run into when they start to work the personal surety issues associated with securing high-risk chemical facilities from potential terrorist attack. The lack of federal regulations governing security guards will make it difficult to establish acceptable guidelines under CFATS for what must be done for these security guards.

In fact, the same problems exist, under current rules, for the background checks for facility personnel with unaccompanied access to sensitive areas of the facility. The CFATS regulations do not spell out what kind of background checks must be done. Neither do they spell out what findings on such a check will prohibit an employee or security guard from working at a high-risk chemical facility.



Written by pjcoyle Blog about this entry
This entry has 0 comments: (Add your own)