Homeland Security Science & Technology at the University of the District of Columbia

Friday, May 15, 2015

DHS implements new deportation scheme to replace Secure Communities

Published 15 May 2015

After months of working to improve Secure Communities, the Obama administration recently announced the Priority Enforcement Program, under which jails will be asked to notify ICE agents when a deportable immigrant will be released — so agents can be waiting — instead of holding him or her in jail until ICE agents arrive. This new approach is a response to criticism of Secure Communities from local law enforcement units that said the program strained local budgets as jails became overbooked with nonviolent criminals.

Last November, DHS chief Jeh Johnson halted Secure Communities, a federal program meant to focus deportation efforts on immigrants who broke laws after they entered the United States. The program began under the George W. Bush administration to coordinate enforcement of federal immigration laws with local communities. The FBI collects the fingerprints of individuals arrested by local and state police, to identify fugitives or individuals wanted in other jurisdictions. With Secure Communities, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials reviewed the fingerprints against immigration databases to see whether arrested individuals are deportable. Johnson referred to Secure Communities last year saying “its very name has become a symbol for general hostility toward the enforcement of our immigration laws.”
A Baltimore Sun analysis found that more than 40 percent of the immigrants deported from Maryland under Secure Communities had no prior criminal record. This led then-Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley to restrict the state’s cooperation with ICE on immigration detainers- requests that local jails hold illegal immigrants until ICE agents can pick them up. Around 250 jurisdictions now have limited cooperation with ICE’s requests. This has made it difficult for ICE agents to implement Secure Communities. “That was getting to be a bigger and bigger problem in terms of our ability to get at the criminals,” Johnson said last month, saying he was in the midst of a “road show” to sell mayors and governors on the new approach.
“The new enforcement program takes two to dance,” Johnson said.
After months of working to improve Secure Communities, the Obama administration recently announced the Priority Enforcement Program, under which jails will be asked to notify ICE agents when a deportable immigrant will be released — so agents can be waiting — instead of holding him or her in jail until ICE agents arrive. This new approach is a response to criticism of Secure Communities from local law enforcement units that said the program strained local budgets as jails became overbooked with nonviolent criminals.
DHS officials are touring the country to convince local law enforcement agencies to participate in the new program, but they are already facing backlash. “They presented it as a kinder and gentler way for ICE collaborate with local police,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, who met last week with ICE Director Sarah Saldana and Alejandro Mayorkas, deputy DHS secretary. “I told them it’s not kinder or gentler enough.”
Chris Newman, Legal Director for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, told the Sun that the root of the problem is that ICE continues to “mine the criminal justice system” to meet deportation targets. As ICE tries to meet those goals, Newman said, the agency will likely deport people convicted of less-serious offenses because many of the most serious criminals are serving long jail terms.
Since last October, local authorities have received 58,500 detainer requests from ICE. Most of the people targeted in those requests have not been convicted of serious crimes or aggravated felonies; according to ICE figures, only 16,384 of them have serious convictions, nearly 14,000 have been convicted only of misdemeanors, and more than 20,746 do not meet ICE’s definition of priority deportation. An agency spokeswoman has said some of the people who have not been convicted of serious crimes, have been accused of them. This, nevertheless, contradicts ICE’s assurance to communities that it aims to target only undocumented immigrants with serious criminal records.

New oil trains safety rules short on preparedness, training regs: Critics

Published 15 May 2015

New federal safety measures for oil trains announced earlier this month are being criticized by emergency responders who say the measures fail to address the issue of preparedness.The new rules, which go into effect next year, do not require railroads to notify state officials of Bakken crude oil shipments, and fire departments seeking that information will have to contact the railroads directly. Firefighter groups say 65 percent of fire departments involved in responding to hazardous materials incidents still have no formal training in that area.

New federal safety measures for oil trains announced earlier this month are being criticized by emergency responders who say the measures fail to address the issue of preparedness. Under an emergency order the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued last May, railroads are required to report large shipments of Bakken crude oil to state emergency response commissions, which then disseminated that information to local fire departments. The new rules, which go into effect next year, do not require railroads to notify state officials of Bakken crude oil shipments, and fire departments seeking that information will have to contact the railroads directly.
“These new rules fall short of requiring rail operators to provide the information fire departments need to respond effectively when the call arrives,” said Harold Schaitberger, general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF).
“We need to be prepared for it, and we’re willing to be prepared for it,” said Elizabeth Harman, the IAFF contact for Grants Administration and HazMat/WMD Training Division. She added that firefighters need more training on responding to hazardous materials incidents, but the new rules fail to address that issue. “The training that’s needed has been developed,” she said. “This is the first step that needs to be funded and expanded for all first responders.”
McClatchy D.C. reports that the number of oil trains transporting crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken region to East Coast refineries has increased in recent years. The rail industry and federal government have funded new training for emergency responders as a result of the increased risk. According to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the rail industry trains 2,000 firefighters a year in communities across the country. Since last year, the industry has also sent hundreds of firefighters to an advanced firefighting academy in Pueblo, Colorado, designed for responding to oil train fires.
Firefighter groups have praised the rail industry’s efforts, but 65 percent of fire departments involved in responding to hazardous materials incidents still have no formal training in that area, according to a 2010 survey by the National Fire Protection Association.
DOT spokeswoman Susan Lagana said last Friday that the department was reviewing feedback from emergency responders. She also said the new rules would expand the amount of information available to first responders and noted that for now, last year’s emergency order remains in place.
Ed Greenberg, a spokesman for AAR, said the industry is developing a mobile application called AskRail that would give emergency responders immediate access to information about a train’s cargo. “Freight railroads have ongoing dialogue with first responders, residents and local civic officials on rail operations and emergency planning,” he said.
Last month, fire chiefs in Washington state met with representatives from BNSF regarding receiving more information about routing information, worst-case derailment scenarios, response planning, and insurance coverage. “I think both sides learned a little bit about the other group’s point of view,” said Wayne Senter, the executive director of the Washington Fire Chiefs. “I was pretty positive by the end of the meeting the information we asked for in our letter was either available or will soon be available either directly or indirectly.”

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Why is oil and gas activity causing earthquakes? And can we reduce the risk?

By Matthew Hornbach

Published 13 May 2015

If you’ve been following the news lately, chances are you’ve heard about — or even felt — earthquakes in the central United States. During the past five years, there has been an unprecedented increase in earthquakes in the North American mid-continent, a region previously considered one of the most stable on Earth.
According to a recent report by the Oklahoma Geological Survey, Oklahoma alone has seen seismicity rates increase 600 times compared to historic levels.
The state has gone from experiencing fewer than two magnitude-three earthquakes per year to greater than two per day, the report found. Similarly, my home state of Texas has experienced a near 10-fold increase in magnitude-three earthquakes or greater in the past five years.
The recent uptick in earthquakes in Texas, Oklahoma and several other central U.S. states raises an obvious question: What is causing all of this seismicity?
Earthquake causes
Several factors can promote the occurrence of earthquakes. There are natural changes caused by the shifting of Earth’s plates, the advance and retreat of glaciers, the addition or removal of surface water or ground water, and the injection or removal of fluids due to industrial activity.
Studies including two reports issued in April, indicate that human activities, including activities related to oil and gas extraction, are beginning to play a significant role in triggering earthquakes in the central United States.
Extracting oil and gas from shale rock involves cracking, or fracturing, a layer of underground rock with a high-pressure mix of water, sand, and chemicals. As the oil and gas are released, those injection fluids and briny water also come up. That wastewater is later disposed of in what are called injection wells, or sometimes disposal wells.
It is important to note that it is not the fracking process itself that usually causes these earthquakes; it is the rapid injection of fluid during wastewater disposal that sometimes pumps hundreds of millions of gallons of brine deep into the earth each year.
Hundreds of studies
So do injection wells cause earthquakes?
A recent peer-reviewed scientific study I co-authored concludes human-activities, specifically water production and wastewater injection, represent the most likely cause of earthquakes in the Azle/Reno, Texas region, where significant gas production and wastewater injection began five years ago.
But this is not a fundamentally new discovery. For nearly a century, industry and academic researchers have recognized that human activities can and do sometimes trigger earthquakes.
Indeed, entire books — including many standard texts used in advanced petroleum geology, geomechanics, and petroleum engineering classes — are dedicated to understanding fault reactivation, rock mechanics, and the ways humans can facilitate these processes for the betterment of humanity.
Additionally, multiple studies and reports, including hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies – and independent studies conducted by the National Research Council of the United States National Academy of Science and Engineering — confirm that the injection or removal of fluids can and indeed do trigger earthquakes.
What is unique and exciting about our Azle/Reno study is the unprecedented support and cooperation of the energy industry, which in many instances provided mission-critical data, technical support, and constructive scientific reviews to allow scientists to better assess, model, and understand earthquakes in the Azle/Reno area and across Texas.
In our instance, industry researchers went far beyond state regulatory requirements by providing insight into the location and orientation of regional faults, injection reservoir pressures, and subsurface flow.
The Azle/Reno study highlights how cooperation, transparency, and mutual respect between, industry, academia, and regulators can improve our understanding of seismicity, and help mitigate risk for all parties working, living, and conducting business in Texas.
Can this risk be mitigated?
Human-triggered earthquakes often involve the rapid removal or injection of large volumes of liquids from the surface, or subsurface.
As our study, and many studies — including those conducted by industry — suggest, the key to understanding and mitigating earthquake hazards in Texas and elsewhere is high-quality data, especially data that monitor and assess subsurface pressures, fluid injection volumes, fluid extraction volumes, and regional seismicity with time.
A recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report indicates the seismic hazard in some areas of Texas is now comparable to areas of Oklahoma and California due in part to wastewater injection.
That said, it is equally important to note that thousands of injection wells exist across Texas (and other states) that have no associated felt seismicity. Indeed, at this time, only a tiny minority of injection wells in Texas have been plausibly linked to earthquakes.
Although the rate of seismicity in Texas has clearly accelerated in the past five years, it is still very low across much of the state. This is also generally true for Arkansas, Ohio, Colorado, and Kansas, where links have been suggested between disposal wells and earthquakes.
In short, now is not a time to panic, but a time to take stock of the resources available to make well-informed science-based decisions that allow states to understand, prepare, and mitigate risk associated with earthquake hazards.
Indeed, scientists are actively researching how to better understand and ultimately reduce human-triggered earthquakes.
There have been studies to develop a general hazard model for injection wells as well as specific strategies on how to reduce risk during and prior to the injection process. These strategies generally include the early detection and location of potentially weak faults, choosing appropriate injection reservoirs that minimize the risk of increasing underground pressure, and adjusting wastewater injection practices to reduce or minimize seismicity.
Scientists can also collect more detailed brine production and injection data, underground pressure data, and regional seismic data to better predict how subsurface pressures and associated seismicity might evolve with time. These techniques are already being implementing at known induced seismicity sites with success.
History dictates that the advent of new technology often leads to new and unforeseen challenges. The printing press, the automobile, and splitting the atom have provided incalculable benefits to humanity but also incredible responsibility.
What is recognized as the Texas-led “Shale Revolution,” arguably one of the most significant innovations of the modern era, is no different.
Our society is blessed with some of the finest scientists and engineers in all of industry and academia. Working together, with support from regulatory agencies, we believe the same scientific prowess, ingenuity, and entrepreneurial spirit that advanced the hydrocarbon industry in the United States this past decade can also help address the new challenges and responsibilities emerging.
Matthew Hornbach is Associate Professor of Geophysics at Southern Methodist University. This story is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution/No derivatives.

LA to require seismic standards for new cellphone towers

Published 13 May 2015

Last Friday Los Angeles became the first U.S. city to approve seismic standards for new cellphone towers, part of an effort to reduce communications vulnerabilities in case a large earthquake should strike. The Los Angeles plan requires new freestanding cellphone towers to be built to the same seismic standards as public safety facilities. Cellphone towers are currently built only strong enough not to collapse during a major earthquake. There are not required to be strong enough to continue working.

Last Friday Los Angeles became the first U.S. city to approve seismic standards for new cellphone towers, part of an effort to reduce communications vulnerabilities in case a large earthquake should strike. The last major earthquake in Los Angeles was the 1994 Northridge quake, before cellphones and WiFi ruled the communications landscape.
According to U.S. Geological Survey seismologist Lucy Jones, who advises Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti on seismic matters, the 2008 magnitude 7.9 earthquake in the Chinese province of Sichuan, offers insight on how current cellphone signals will hold in the aftermath of a large quake because Sichuan used similar building standards for cellphone towers as the United States. In the Sichuan case, more than 2,000 cellphone towers were disabled, leaving communications gaps that lasted weeks.
The Los Angeles plan requires new freestanding cellphone towers to be built to the same seismic standards as public safety facilities. Cellphone towers are currently built only strong enough not to collapse during a major earthquake. There are not required to be strong enough to continue working. “This is about earthquake functionality. It’s about getting us back on our feet,” said Jones. “This is really sort of a first time that, looking forward, we said the government’s role goes beyond just saving lives, and has a role in making sure that our economy is up and functioning after a disaster,” she added.
Public safety officials became aware of the communications vulnerabilities of cellphone towers during the magnitude 5.5 Chino Hills earthquake in 2008, when some mobile providers reported up to an 800 percent increase in calls, overwhelming the networks.
The Los Angeles Times notes that the new seismic standards will not require a retrofit of existing cellphone towers, as that would be just as expensive as building new ones. Building cellphone towers that meet new seismic standards will increase construction costs by up to 20 percent. The standards will not apply to new towers attached to buildings, which currently make up about 60 percent of cellphone transmitters in Los Angeles. The new standards will not guarantee that cellphone towers will be in operation under widespread power failure. Many cellphone towers have a battery supply that lasts as little as four hours. City leaders considered requiring larger backup batteries for cellphone towers but the options would have faced opposition from network providers. Cellphone transmitters require air conditioning to work properly, and adding backup generators to supply cooling would be costly. “We’re not trying to solve all the problems,” Jones said. “We are trying to reduce the problems … so that we reduce the chances we’re going to damage the economy.”
Network providers, who worked with the mayor’s office on the standards, have welcomed them. “The issue of network resiliency as a whole is a monumentally important one for the company,” said Alexandra Krasov, spokeswoman for AT&T. The company has already developed portable, makeshift cell towers that can be sent to locations that need additional coverage support. The towers are used for major concerts and sporting events.
The cellphone tower law is one of many major earthquake safety improvements Los Angeles officials are exploring. Garcetti has proposed an agreement with network providers to share network and wireless Internet access with customers of other networks during an emergency.

U.S. chemical plants vulnerable to terrorist attacks, putting millions of Americans at risk

Published 13 May 2015

The chemical sector is a vital part of the U.S. economy, representing almost 2 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and is the nation’s greatest exporter. The prominence and importance of the chemical industry as well as the proximity of its facilities to densely populated areas make it a particularly vulnerable target for terrorist attacks, hence the DHS interest and safety rules. The slow implementation of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) as part of homeland security and anti-terrorism measures is leaving chemical plants vulnerable and putting at risk the safety of American citizens, according to research.

The slow implementation of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) in the United States as part of homeland security and anti-terrorism measures is leaving chemical plants vulnerable and putting at risk the safety of American citizens, according to research published in the International Journal of Critical Infrastructures.
Maria Rooijakkers and Abdul-Akeem Sadiq of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, at Indiana University-Purdue University, in Indianapolis, explain that post-9/11 efforts to safeguard the chemical sector gave the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the authority to regulate the safety and security of U.S. chemical facilities. In April 2007 DHS added an interim final rule, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), but the latest information suggests that very few chemical facilities have completed the necessary implementations.
Inderscience Publishers notes that the team suggests that the chemical industry and DHS must now work more closely together before it is too late to ensure the safety and security of the U.S. population. They also add that communities should not wait for CFATS to be implemented before developing their own preparedness and response plans in anticipation of possible chemical disasters in the future, whether caused by terrorism or accident.
The chemical sector is a vital part of the U.S. economy, the team says, based on 2009 data it represents almost 2 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and is the nation’s greatest exporter. The industry also contributes materials to a vast array of other industries from automotive and aeronautics to agriculture and healthcare. The chemical industry employs almost one million people directly and sustains an additional 5.5 million jobs in other sectors. Moreover, it is officially considered to be part of the U.S. critical infrastructure as stated in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) of 2009 being essential to sustenance of the economy and government itself.
The prominence and importance of the chemical industry as well as the proximity of its facilities to densely populated areas make it a particularly vulnerable target for terrorist attacks, hence the DHS interest and rules. Indeed, four of the fifteen National Planning Scenarios are related to chemical attacks, the team points out. Of the 3,468 chemical facilities given their final tier designations under CFATS in 2007, however, a mere forty had had their plans approved by 2013, and the pace of adoption and implement is yet to pick up.
— Read more in Maria Rooijakkers, Abdul-Akeem Sadiq, “Critical infrastructure, terrorism, and the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards: the need for collaboration,” International Journal of Critical Infrastructures 11, no. 2 (2015): 167-82 (DOI: 10.1504/IJCIS.2015.068615)

FEMA considering overhauling the National Flood Insurance Program

Published 13 May 2015

Federal legislators and officials with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are trying to overhaul the National Flood Insurance Program which relies on eighty-three companies to sell policies, collection premiums, and calculate damages after disasters. The move comes just as FEMA is in talks to settle almost 1,800 lawsuits filed by homeowners claiming they were underpaid on flood insurance claims after Superstorm Sandy.
In addition, reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have accused the flood insurance program of exerting little oversight over the companies it contracts, while paying them large fees and bonuses. Federal lawmakers also claim that some Sandy-affected homeowners and businesses were denied claims by private insurers who were overly focused on reducing the number of payouts instead of ensuring storm victims received fair settlements.
FEMA, which insures via the national flood program, roughly 5.2 million homes and businesses nationwide, is getting ready to reopen claims for about 142,000 policyholders flooded during Sandy.
Newsday reports thatFEMA has asked Democratic New York senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, along with Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey) for recommendations on overhauling the flood insurance program. The lawmakers have yet to propose an alternative to the current system, saying they want to ensure Sandy victims are properly paid before focusing on long-term reforms.
Insurance industry professionals say it would be devastating to terminate the flood insurance program’s partnerships with private companies. The consequences for consumers would be fewer options, said Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute.
The flood insurance program was launched in 1968 after private insurers increased their coverage prices due to newer risk assessments, leaving most homeowners unable to afford them. The federal government then offered policies at subsidized rates and instead of hiring insurance staff, outsourced the work to the private sector. By 1977, the federal government concluded that the 132 companies managing flood policies were overcharging the government and underpaying homeowners.
The program’s director, J. Robert Hunter, cut ties with the companies and issued a contract to bid winner Electronic Data Systems, to manage every flood insurance policy covered by the federal government. The arrangement, however, was temporary. A federal audit found that Electronic Data Systems “neglected fundamental accounting responsibilities” and issued reports that contained errors. In 1983, the flood program launched into its current form.
Interviewed this week by Newsday, Hunter said the move to a single company saved the flood program millions of dollars and it made it easier for government oversight. It is time to rethink the program’s current system, said Hunter, now the director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America.

The FBI violated its own rules in surveillance of anti-Keystone XL pipeline activists

Published 13 May 2015

More than eighty pages of internal FBI documents dated from November 2012 to June 2014, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that the FBI breached its own investigation rules when it spied on protesters opposing the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Agents in the FBI’s Houston field office failed to get approval before they cultivated informants and opened files on pipeline protesters — a violation of guidelines designed to prevent the agency from becoming excessively involved in sensitive political issues.

More than eighty pages of internal FBI documents dated from November 2012 to June 2014, obtained by the Guardian and Earth Island Journal after a request under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that the FBI breached its own investigation rules when it spied on protesters opposing the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. The rules, detailed in the agency’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, dictate that special care should be taken over sensitive investigations such as those targeting elected officials, journalists, and political organizations. FBI work on “sensitive investigative matters” requires prior approval of the chief division counsel (CDC) and the special agent in charge (SAC), both of whom are supposed to consider the severity of the threat and the consequences of “adverse impact on civil liberties and public confidence” should the investigation be made public.
Agents in the FBI’s Houston field office failed to get approval before they cultivated informants and opened files on pipeline protesters — a violation of guidelines designed to prevent the agency from becoming excessively involved in sensitive political issues.
The Keystone XL pipeline was devised to transport tar sands oil from Canada to the Texas Gulf coast. Three phases of the project are in operation, and the fourth is awaiting approval from the Obama administration.
Environmental groups have spent years opposing the pipeline; some have held nonviolent civil disobedience protests, which have been monitored by federal law enforcement agencies. One FBI memo describes the rationale for investigating protest groups in the Houston area by touting the economic advantages of the pipeline while labeling its opponents “environmental extremists.” “Many of these extremists believe the debates over pollution, protection of wildlife, safety, and property rights have been overshadowed by the promise of jobs and cheaper oil prices,” the FBI document reads. “The Keystone pipeline, as part of the oil and natural gas industry, is vital to the security and economy of the United States.”
The FBI investigation, which included at least one informant, targeted Tar Sands Blockade, a direct action group that was at the time protesting in southern Texas. Ron Seifert, an organizer with the group said dozens of campaigners were arrested in Texas for protest-related activity, but not one of them was accused of violent crime or property destruction. The group focused its campaigns in the Houston neighborhood of Manchester, where the Valero Energy Corporation has a large refinery capable of processing heavy crude oil.
The FBI acknowledged that it did not obtain proper approval before opening its investigation on pipeline protesters, but the investigation continued for eleven months. “While the FBI approval levels required by internal policy were not initially obtained, once discovered, corrective action was taken, non-compliance was remedied, and the oversight was properly reported through the FBI’s internal oversight mechanism,” according to an agency statement. The FBI also noted that the investigation was warranted because it had to “take the initiative to secure and protect activities and entities which may be targeted for terrorism or espionage.”
FBI documents suggest that the Houston investigation was one branch of a wider set of investigations into pipeline protesters around the country. Mike German, a former FBI agent and now a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice in New York, said the FBI opened its investigation on protesters under a category known as an “assessment.” Assessments were introduced as part of an expansion of FBI powers after 9/11 to allow agents to open investigations into individuals or groups, even if they have no reason to believe a crime has been committed. TheGuardian notes that the Houston branch opened its investigation on pipeline protesters in early 2013, several months after a high-level strategy meeting between the agency and TransCanada, the company building the pipeline. “It is clearly troubling that these documents suggest the FBI interprets its national security mandate as protecting private industry from political criticism,” German said.

ANNOUNCEMENT

The Criminal Justice Program and the Institute for Public Safety are pleased to announce the Scientific Leadership Awards program at the University of the District of Columbia. The scholarships are funded through a grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Scientific Leadership Awards Program, offering undergraduate students generous support for up to four years to pursue their undergraduate degree and gain research experience in homeland security science and technology related areas.