Chemicals of Interest - Department of Homeland Security

Chemicals of Interest - Department of Homeland Security

The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program identifies and regulates high-risk chemical facilities to ensure they have security measures in place to reduce the risks associated with these chemicals.  Keeping hazardous chemicals out of the hands of those who would misuse them is a responsibility the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Department of Homeland Security) shares with facility owners and operators, employees, and emergency responders.

As of July 28, 2023, Congress allowed the statutory authority for the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program (6 CFR Part 27) to expire. Therefore, CISA cannot enforce compliance with the CFATS regulations at this time.

The lapse of CFATS authorization means that CISA cannot require facilities to report their chemicals of interest or submit any information in CSAT, perform inspections, or provide CFATS compliance assistance, amongst other activities. CISA can no longer require facilities to implement their CFATS Site Security Plan or CFATS Alternative Security Program.

CISA encourages facilities to maintain security measures. CISA’s voluntary ChemLock resources are available on the ChemLock webpages.

If CFATS is reauthorized, CISA will follow up with facilities in the future. To reach us, please contact CFATS@hq.dhs.gov.

Additional Information

The Department developed Appendix A that includes a list of chemicals and their respective screening threshold quantities (STQ), which are categorized under three main security issues:

  • Release: Toxic, flammable, or explosive chemicals or materials that can be released at a facility.
  • Theft or Diversion: Chemicals or materials that, if stolen or diverted, can be converted into weapons using simple chemistry, equipment, or techniques.
  • Sabotage: Chemicals or materials that can be mixed with readily available materials.

If as an aggregate the Campus has any of these materials above their Screening Threshold Quantities (STQs), then we are subject to this regulation.  Thus, one more reason to keep your inventories up to date.

In developing the list, the Department looked to existing expert sources of information including other federal regulations related to chemicals. The other sources that the Department referenced in part are:

  • Chemicals covered under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Risk Management Program;
  • Chemicals included in the Chemical Weapons Convention;
  • Hazardous materials, such as gases that are poisonous by inhalation; and
  • Explosives regulated by the Department of Transportation.

This printer-friendly fact sheet lists the most commonly reported COI, their main security issues, and the risks they pose.

CFATS Most Commonly Regulated Chemicals of Interest Fact Sheet 

The Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) regulation applies to facilities across many industries that possess or plan to possess any of the DHS-regulated chemicals of interest (COI) at or above specific quantities and concentrations. These facilities historically had to report their holdings to DHS. As of July 28, 2023, Congress allowed the statutory authority for the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program (6 CFR Part 27) to expire. Therefore, CISA cannot enforce compliance with the CFATS regulations at this time.

Brewery

Colleges and Universities

Laboratory

Metallic 3D Printing

Pool and Water Parks

CFATS Lapse Impacts

Impacts to our nation’s chemical security, the 3,200 facilities previously designated as high-risk, and the communities surrounding these locations—including the 7,000 schools, colleges, and universities located within a mile of these chemical facilities—as a result of the lapse include:

  • CISA cannot inspect high-risk sites—on average, that's 160 inspections per month going unscheduled.
  • CISA cannot conduct terrorist vetting on personnel who have access to dangerous chemicals—that's 9,000 names each month going unvetted.
  • CISA cannot require the implementation of cyber and physical security measures or assess the risk to these facilities and the communities that surround them—on average, facilities improve their security posture by nearly 60% to comply with CFATS.
  • CISA cannot identify new facilities that possess high-risk chemicals—meaning the locations of dangerous chemicals are unknown to CISA and local first responders.
  • More than one third of inspections turn up security gaps—CISA can no longer address these gaps with facilities.
  • More than 90% of CFATS visits result in confirmed outreach with law enforcement and the local fire department—CISA can no longer confirm these important relationships and ensure critical information sharing and preparedness.

Bottom line: CISA cannot ensure that chemical facilities are mitigating the terrorist exploitation of chemical holdings. Without CFATS, our tools to lessen the risk of such an attack are now limited. With the expiration of CFATS authorities, we have lost vital safeguards that were created to protect Americans from incidents of chemical terrorism.