Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
In this episode of the Hydrocarbon Engineering Podcast, we explore the growing security concerns surrounding unauthorised drone operations near critical infrastructure.
We’re joined by Matthew Fuller, Senior Policy Analyst, Regulatory Affairs, at American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), to discuss the US Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) proposed rule for implementing Section 2209 of the FAA Reauthorization, Safety, and Security Act of 2016. This would create a framework for addressing unauthorised unmanned aircraft systems operating near fixed-site critical infrastructure.
We consider the importance of the proposed regulations, the risks drones pose to refinery and petrochemical facilities, and the need for a balanced, risk-based approach that protects security while supporting legitimate drone use and innovation.
This episode of the Hydrocarbon Engineering Podcast is sponsored by Sherwin-Williams Protective & Marine.
Sherwin-Williams Protective & Marine delivers world-class industry subject matter expertise, unparalleled technical and specification service, and unmatched regional commercial team support to customers around the globe, including in the energy market. The company’s broad portfolio of high-performance coatings and systems – including protective liquid and powder coatings, as well as fire protection coatings – excel at combating corrosion and help customers achieve smarter, time-tested asset protection. For more information, visit protective.sherwin.com.
Creators and Guests
What is Hydrocarbon Engineering Podcast?
The Hydrocarbon Engineering podcast: a podcast series for professionals in the downstream refining, petrochemical and gas processing industries.
Hello and welcome back to the Hydrocarbon Engineering Podcast. Today we're going to be stepping into the world of unmanned aircraft systems or drones as they are better known and more specifically we're going to be looking into the details of a proposal in The US put forward by the federal aviation administration or FAA to restrict unauthorized drone operations around critical infrastructure. Now to help unpick this proposal and offer his expertise on the topic, we're delighted to be joined by Matthew Fuller, Senior Policy Analyst for Regulatory Affairs at American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers or AFPM. So let s dive in and get Matt's thoughts.
Advert:This episode the Hydrocarbon Engineering Podcast is sponsored by Sherwin Williams Protective and Marine. Sherwin Williams Protective and Marine delivers world class industry subject matter expertise, unparalleled technical and specification service, and unmatched regional commercial team support to customers around the globe, including in the energy market. The company's broad portfolio of high performance coatings and systems, including protected liquid and powder coatings as well as fire protection coatings, excel at combating corrosion and help customers achieve smarter, time tested asset protection. For more information, visit protective.sherwin.com.
Callum O'Reilly:Hi, Matt. Thanks so much for joining us. Now before we jump into today's topic, can you tell our listeners a little bit about AFPM and your role within the organization? Yeah. Absolutely.
Callum O'Reilly:And then thank
Matthew Fuller:you so much for having me on today. My name is Matt Fuller. I'm a senior policy analyst at AFPM, and my position is in regulatory affairs where I cover environmental issues, safety issues. And the reason I'm here today is that I cover a lot of security issues. But I'd say a larger amount of my time goes into drone and drone security policy.
Matthew Fuller:I lead those issues at AFPM, and I also lead our drone working group, and I lead the counter drone issue within our security committee. So a little bit about AFPM. It stands for American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers. We're the leading US trade association that represents America's petroleum refiners, petrochemical manufacturers, and then many midstream companies involved in transporting feedstock and products. And what we like to say is that we create the building blocks for modern life.
Matthew Fuller:Trade associations, we represent our members before congress. We have good communication with federal government, state governments, and then public. So, again, thanks for having me on today.
Callum O'Reilly:Oh, it's a pleasure, Matt, and I'm glad that we've got a drone expert on to talk about today's topic because we're here to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration's proposed rule for implementing Section two thousand two nine of the FAA Extension Safety and Security Act of 2016 and creating a framework for addressing unauthorized unmanned aircraft systems or drones as they're also known operating near fixed site critical infrastructure. So Matt for listeners who may not have been following this closely can you walk us through what the FAA is proposing under Section two thousand two nine, and what problem the agency is trying to solve?
Matthew Fuller:Yeah, definitely. So it is a pretty crazy issue, but I'll start with the issue we're trying to solve before getting into the details of section twenty two zero nine. To put it simply, there are no widespread federal protections for our nation's critical infrastructure against drones. Any person with an off the shelf drone, think a toy drone, a DJI drone, more advanced drones, they can pilot their drones over a refinery, chemical plant, a pipeline, any other critical infrastructure, with some exceptions, with no consequence, and then there's no protections for our facilities. That's at the federal level.
Matthew Fuller:And as a result, 25 states have stepped in since then and enacted their own legislation with differing standards. So the core of the issue really is that we have our pilots. They have specialized training. They go through thorough programs, but most pilots don't. And that's the issue when conducting operations over critical infrastructure.
Matthew Fuller:And this vulnerability was noticed by congress ten years ago, like you said in your question, ten years ago. They enacted a piece of legislation called section twenty two zero nine with the intention to protect critical infrastructure. And that bill mandated that FAA create an application process to protect fixed site critical infrastructure through an airspace restriction application process. Now let's fast forward to today. FAA finally released that section twenty two zero nine proposed rule, which is basically the first step in a rule making process before it gets finalized.
Matthew Fuller:And they really flesh out that framework on how they wanna restrict fixed site critical infrastructure from the careless, the clueless, and the criminal UAS operators through the application process. And that's really a high level review of what it is and the issue that it's trying to solve.
Callum O'Reilly:It's amazing to think that this has been going on for ten years, Matt. And the AFPM has expressed support for the FAA's proposal to restrict unauthorized drone operations around critical infrastructure. So why do you believe this rule is so needed?
Matthew Fuller:Yeah, it definitely is needed, and we supported this FAA framework dating back ten years ago when it was getting enacted through Congress. We actually played a pretty significant part in talking to stakeholders, talking to FAA, and really relaying the issue to get twenty two zero nine passed. When this proposal was announced earlier this year, we made a public announcement saying we're so happy that FAA finally put it out and we're ready for writing our comments. But the real reason this rule is needed is we got the because the airspace is really opening up to unmanned aircraft systems. Just last year, the FAA estimated that there's approximately 1,550,000 recreational drones in the airspace with about just under half a million at the active commercial drones.
Matthew Fuller:So a lot of drones in the National Airspace System. By 2030, they project that the flights would grow to 1,620,000 aircrafts and then the commercial fleets to grow a bit more. So this just demonstrates a massive scale and the impact of UAS operations across The United States. And I was listening to another one of your podcasts you had before with Ilta. I think you guys talked about it's called part one zero eight, beyond visual line of sight operations.
Matthew Fuller:This enables bigger drones, autonomous drones to fly within our airspace autonomously. So we're expecting more drone flights from that over our around and potentially over our facilities, but this time with could be with payloads. So think packages, hazardous materials, agricultural sprays. It really expands what can be done commercially, but then also expands what that threat could be over our site. And we've talked to our members about this.
Matthew Fuller:We surveyed our members in a wide industry coalition of UAS growth, and they think that threat is increased. And they a a stark 93% responded that they anticipate the threat to increase. And then when we talk about what they're already seeing with flyovers, 77% responded that they've seen direct flyovers within the past year. 20% has said they've seen 20. And then a third said that they've seen an increase throughout the past year, so it's growing.
Matthew Fuller:And what this really just dictates is that there needs to be a balance between commercial drone usage and drone security. We talked about part one zero eight beyond visual line of sight, and now we're talking about section twenty two zero nine. Those have been paired through the rule making process, and there's a reason for that. It's because you need this balance. I'm happy to talk more about this, but that's essentially what is needed with 2,209.
Callum O'Reilly:That's really interesting, Matt. And yeah, my conversation, my previous conversation on drones, we discussed a lot about the possible benefits and how it's revolutionising the industry, and some people do see drones primarily as innovative tools. So why are refiners and petrochemical manufacturers particularly concerned about?
Matthew Fuller:Yeah. So there there is a 100% that concern there about careless, clueless, malicious drone use, but we also do support drone operations around our site. We have the AFPM Drone Workgroup full of the drone pilots and fleet managers that are the boots on the ground, and and we promote these. We're not against drone usage at all. We're concerned, we want that balance, but we're not against drone usage.
Matthew Fuller:They're an innovative tool. If for the listeners and you that have been following drones recently and technical technological advancements, it's been crazy seeing how much growth there has been. Thermal and LIDAR imaging, you can use that to detect anomalies in equipment. Think wear and tear, leak detection and repair with your lidar. We use drones for emergency response, incident of a fire or spill response.
Matthew Fuller:Drones can be there instantly and keep our personnel safe. Drone in a box technology for instant deployment. You have long range pipeline inspections and emission testing. It's really incredible what drones can be doing, and and autonomy is really driving that even further. That's all great, but it's fantastic capabilities, but you can also use that against critical infrastructure as well, and it does pose a threat.
Matthew Fuller:Now when I talked about the careless and clueless, refineries are some of the most complex industrial facilities in the world. Modern petroleum refineries is not a single process. It's integrated network of processing units, utility systems, storage facilities. And it's just these aren't things that the average pilot would really understand. Flying over one of these operations could be very reckless, very much a threat.
Matthew Fuller:And within our airspace, there are a lot of factors that even a experienced pilot wouldn't be able to account for. Volatile organic compounds or VOCs, if there's a system blowdown, if there's excessive heat in that airspace that can cause an intentional crash. And one big aspect that we've been talking about a lot recently is electronic and radio interference. We have a lot of complex electronic systems at our site, and that can affect every single drone flyover, whether it be recreational, commercial. Any legitimate drone operation can fail, and that's what we're concerned about for the Carousel and Clueless.
Matthew Fuller:Now we get into the criminal, and that's the one we see in the news, the big scary stories and headlines that you see overseas. Recently, a drone attack on a German airport, and that was involved with, I believe, the Ukraine and Russian conflict, but we're seeing in the news what's out there. They can use drones maliciously just like we see overseas, but also domestically. And we see not just physical threats of crashing and whatnot, but also cyber threats and cyberbeams. So yeah, it's something that we're very concerned about as owner operators.
Callum O'Reilly:So AFPM has called for a risk based approach to implementing these restrictions. What does that mean in practice?
Matthew Fuller:That was actually part of our public comment that we submitted to FAA as part of the 2209 rulemaking process. So to give a little background on why we suggested a risk based approach, the proposed rule separates critical infrastructure into 16 different sectors, and that's through the National Security Memorandum 22. So that separates it into a decent amount of sectors. We fall under the energy and chemical sectors. And within each sector, FAA proposes different clear cut criteria to be eligible to apply.
Matthew Fuller:So you can't get an airspace restriction unless you fall under this criteria. Now when we looked at refineries, when we went into the the weeds of the rulemaking, they had a criteria that you cannot apply for airspace restrictions unless you have unless you produce a 100,000 barrels per day of refined product. Now what that means in reality is that there's about a 124 refineries in The United States right now. Only half of the refineries produce that sort of threshold consistently. So FAA cut in half the eligible refineries for airspace restrictions right off the bat right off the bat within this rulemaking.
Matthew Fuller:We saw a similar concept in chemical. So what we suggested after talking to membership and really analyzing it is suggesting this risk based approach. And that is instead of looking at a arbitrary quantitative threshold, let's look at each individual site and each individual threat profile of site, existing current security regulations that they're already covered by, and then owner operator experiences that would ultimately look at the larger national impacts of drone interference. So we're saying it's a site by site basis, and FAA really needs to consider the consequences of how much a drone can disrupt an operation and how that interconnects with all critical infrastructure, utilities, transportation, emergency services, national defense, whenever they're they're putting forward the application process and who qualifies for it.
Callum O'Reilly:So how can regulators enable security around critical infrastructure without creating unnecessary burdens for facility operators or legitimate drone users?
Matthew Fuller:Yeah. And those are two different parties definitely when you're looking at FAA's application process. And then for both, I would just say the the real answer is just streamline, streamline, and streamline. For FAA and facility operators, we can look at existing regulations that are already out there. We have MITSA, we call it the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and that looks at seaports and facilities near waterways, then they have to go through their own security regulations.
Matthew Fuller:And there's TSA security directives that have similar aspects to it. The regulations are already out there that are determining what facilities need security protection. And instead of having this one off side regulation where they make their own considerations of what needs UAFRs or facility airspace restrictions, it's already out there. So that's one way to look at streamlining. Another another idea would be prioritizing certain infrastructure that already has had those UAFRs or airspace restrictions.
Matthew Fuller:This is through what they call 14 CFR nine ninety seven, and that was a sponsorship program where federal agencies could already sponsor refineries, nuclear sites, chemical sites, and say, hey. We're gonna cover these sites, protect them from the drone threat. You know, we got this. So those can be carried over into the application framework and just ultimately help FAA decide what we can look at before we add in these other criteria. And that would again create a balance too for legitimate drone users.
Matthew Fuller:What FAA does in the proposed rule making is separate the flight restrictions into two different categories. You have the standard flight restriction and then the special flight restriction. The standard is what they expect to go across all critical infrastructure or at least a wide aspect of the applicants, and that would allow certain piloted licensed drones to fly over the sites with a proper notification approval process. So then the special UAFR, that gets into really critical sites where a disruption could cause a national security altercation or whatever. And that's what we really want refineries and pet chem sites to fall under, but correctly designating these two will help legitimate drone users and commercial drone users find that balance and see what sites they can, you know, potentially fly over, which are really restricted, and accelerate the commercial drone economy while protecting our critical infrastructure.
Matthew Fuller:And when it comes to streamlining and putting out these security regulations for airspace, it's really about less so about restricting the airspace operations, but enabling safe commercial operations and growth while having these guardrails that secure our nation's critical assets.
Callum O'Reilly:So, Matt, AFPM has emphasized the importance of coordination between industry and government. So what does an effective public private partnership look like when it comes to addressing emerging drone related security risks?
Matthew Fuller:That's a really good question because it's something that we're gonna have to have as long as drones are in the airspace and pose a a potential threat to critical infrastructure. And it really starts it's it's really a top to bottom situation, starting at the top with Congress and the federal agencies, effective communication there would look like engagement in education from trade associations like AFPM, companies that are dealing with those specific issues themselves, And just through passing legislation that would help our facilities, rule makings, and guidance that comes out, just listening to what the industry and the boots on the ground personnel have to say whenever they're drafting these new rules that can protect our sites and, again, create that balance to enable commercial drones. One thing that AFPM is doing that I believe is a real good tool here is we engage in a coalition with other energy and chemical sectors that really widens the view and gets a holistic industry approach. And getting FAA and Homeland Security and other groups sitting at the table whenever we're discussing these rules and what we've heard from our members, that's a crucial aspect of coordination between industry and government.
Matthew Fuller:Now when you go down a little bit more chain, you get into drone incident reporting. We need to make sure that there's a good system in place there. So whenever facilities are recording drone incursions, that gets to the right right agencies and the right law enforcement that they can do something about that and use that data when they're creating these regulations and guidance. One regulation, rule making that came out recently that I'd like to discuss in this question, it's called the Safer Skies Act interim final rule. That was legislation that passed in the last NDAA or National Defense Authorization.
Matthew Fuller:That enables law enforcement to actually come to our sites and detect the airspace for criminal drones and mitigate. So think drone takeover, drone takedown. This is a big rule making because before it was just at federal agencies having the authority to mitigate and have drone takedown authority. Now this actually goes to state and local law enforcement where they do have these partnerships with our facilities, critical infrastructure, and they're able to come over here and not just detect, but also shoot down the drones or just take it over in the safest way possible if there is that drone threat. And, you know, it ties into section twenty two zero nine as well.
Matthew Fuller:It's really important to have those conversations and coordination at the ground level with law enforcement.
Callum O'Reilly:So if FAA get this rule right, what would success look like five years from now? What would a comprehensive counter unmanned aerial system environment for critical infrastructure look like, Matt?
Matthew Fuller:Yeah. And that's a good question too, because, you know, drones and and counter drone technology, they've been advancing so fast. It's been a a constant cat and mouse game of one one technology advances, the other has to keep up. It's gonna be difficult, I'm gonna say, for government and lawmakers to keep up with that. But when we're looking at twenty two zero nine specifically, if that rulemaking is done correctly and it's implemented, I would say that selfishly, all of the AFPM sites that see these risks would have that special drone restriction coverage.
Matthew Fuller:All the at risk facilities such as refineries, pet chem sites, and then just all the other 16 secondtors of critical infrastructure. If they do have that at risk foundation, then those requests and applications will go in. FAA will designate them as UAFRs, and then they will receive either a standard or special coverage depending on the risk assessments. As a part of those twenty two zero nine facilities, they're gonna have drone detection systems. So that means there's gonna be more airspace awareness.
Matthew Fuller:I'd say a successful outlook would be that all critical infrastructure, if they have drone threats, drone risks, that they'll have a real good outlook on what their airspace looks like through these drone detection systems. And then that way they're able to identify what are what drones are authorized and what are criminally trespassing. So airspace awareness, we need that to go up. In five years too, that's actually in the rulemaking itself. The UAFRs that are granted by FAA, they're gonna need to be renewed.
Matthew Fuller:So any sort of technological advancements, any sort of changes in the site locations, the critical infrastructure, those will get altered a little bit just so it more definitively fits what is needed in an airspace restriction. So what would a comprehensive counter drone environment look like at about five years for critical infrastructure? That's also a great question because QAS or counter drone security, it's really a basket. It's really a stack of multiple actions and initiatives built into one. You need to have an education system like what FAA and DHS and and the government was doing for FIFA 2026 in The United States.
Matthew Fuller:They put out tons of materials saying, hey. This is a no drone zone. Leave your drone at home. Enjoy enjoy the game without it. We need information like that out there to the public so that they know when these sites are designated as twenty two zero nine UAFRs that you cannot fly over them without proper authorization and notification.
Matthew Fuller:And then it's on us as well to have that education aspect. We need to put up no drone zone signs just so they know it's not to even try if it's a restricted airspace. And then you need that legal framework too within that basket. And that's what we've been talking about today with section twenty two zero nine. You need to have that legal geofence that creates the wall between authorized flight and unauthorized flight.
Matthew Fuller:And finally, and I think what's most important in the future outlook is that we need to have detection and mitigation capabilities on our site. Right now, detection and mitigation capabilities, that rests solely with the federal law enforcement agencies, and then recently with the Safer Skies Act, state and local law enforcement agencies. Having those partnerships are super valuable, and having that is essential to that CUAS basket. But we're looking at what, you know, I would like to see in five years as AFPM. I would like to see mitigation authorities get expanded to critical infrastructure.
Matthew Fuller:Right? Because right now, when you're looking at the time between detecting a drone and it potentially causing harm, it's a very short time frame. So having our own standalone mitigation authorities or drone takeover, drone drone takedown in the safest face safest way possible, that's essential to really complete this holistic c u a s basket of protecting our critical infrastructure. So it just gets to our operators, our members, they want autonomy in protecting their site. We're still gonna have our amazing partnerships with the federal agencies, the state and local law enforcement, but we wanna be able to protect our site on our own in case there is that imminent threat.
Matthew Fuller:And I think we're making good steps to get there. AFPAM is very active on the hill and with the agencies in promoting why we need these mitigation authorities. But overall, I'm hopeful. I think in five years, we will have that holistic approach. Education's gonna be out there.
Matthew Fuller:Twenty two zero nine looks great, and it would be great to have those mitigation authorities as well for our owner operators.
Callum O'Reilly:Really interesting stuff. Matt, thanks so much for joining us and for sharing your expertise on the important issue of drone security around critical infrastructure. Now this is obviously a fast moving and evolving area and it's been fascinating to hear about the steps that are being taken to ensure the right balance between security, safety and ultimately innovation in the area as well. So Matt, really grateful for your time today, thank you.
Matthew Fuller:Yeah thanks for having me on.
Callum O'Reilly:My thanks again to AFPM's Matt Fuller for joining us. Now while it's clear that the growing use of drones presents significant opportunities it also raises serious security considerations for critical infrastructure. Getting the balance right between enabling innovation and protecting refinery and petrochemical facilities will clearly require close collaboration between industry regulators and government. Thanks for listening to the Hydrocarbon Engineering Podcast. We hope you enjoyed the episode and we'll see you again next
Advert:Protective and Marine. Sherwin Williams Protective and Marine delivers world class industry subject matter expertise, unparalleled technical and specification service, and unmatched regional commercial team support to customers around the globe, including in the energy market. The company's broad portfolio of high performance coatings and systems, including protected liquid and powder coatings as well as fire protection coatings, excel at combating corrosion and help customers achieve smarter, time tested asset protection. For more information, visit protective.sherwin.com.