Laurence W. Zensinger Vice president, homeland security Dewberry H ardening critical infrastructure against terrorist attack may be one of the most challenging responsibilities of the homeland security mission.This year, we can expect policymakers and private infrastructure owners to ratchet up debate on how to best approach this massive task. America is an open and technologically complex society with an almost unlimited number of potential targets and points of vulnerability. Examples of these that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has identified include more than 168,000 public water systems, 300,000 oil and gas production facilities, and 100 nuclear power plants. A White House assessment counted 2,800 electrical plants, 590,000 highway bridges, 66,000 chemical plants, 2 million miles of pipelines, and 1,800 federal reservoirs. Making the task of hardening these and other facilities all the more difficult is the fact that the better a particular facility or system is protected, the more likely it is that attacks will be diverted to more vulnerable targets. Moreover, hardening infrastructure to reduce the effects of an attack is only one of the goals of the DHS’ strategic plan.The oth- ers include raising public awareness of the threats, vulnerabilities, and potential impact of attacks; sharing intelligence among agen- cies to prevent attacks; and strengthening the nation’s ability to respond to, and quickly recover from, an attack. Not surprisingly, these goals compete intensely for resources. Significantly, the congressional 9- 11 Commission report included little reference to critical infra- structure protection. In part, this is because emergency manage- ment has historically focused on disaster preparedness and response rather than on preven- tion — the reason being that nat- ural disasters are largely unavoid- able. As a result, the complex agenda for hardening the nation’s infrastructure against attack is still in its early stages. Response to attack has been focus of funding In the last three years, the DHS and its predecessor agencies have spent more than $12.5 bil- lion to strengthen state and local governments’ response to attacks. Most of this funding has gone to first responders such as police and fire departments. The current DHS budget includes an additional $3.6 billion for simi- lar purposes. Infrastructure protection has received far less attention, but there are signs that feder- al spending in this area may increase. The current DHS budget includes the agency’s first infrastructure protection grants — $200 million for specific facilities such as nuclear plants, dams, highways, railroads, or tunnels. However, these grants will only fund some high-visibility pilot projects, rather than con- stituting a comprehensive program. In addition, the DHS has worked for near- ly a year on its National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), the purpose of which is to help prioritize spending on infrastructure hardening. The plan will establish the framework and processes by which 17 infrastructure sectors will com- pete for resources with each other and with other homeland security objectives. In addition, the NIPP will set the stage for addressing government’s role in dealing with the private sector, which owns 85 per- cent of the nation’s critical infrastructure. It will likely spark discussion about encourag- ing infrastructure protection initiatives in the private sector, through public funding, tax law changes, or regulatory changes. Three key measures needed in national plan To be a useful and credible guide to strate- gic decision-making for infrastructure pro- tection, any national infrastructure protec- tion plan must successfully address three basic issues: First, it must be able to identify targets that, if attacked, would result in the largest loss of DEPARTMENTS VIEWPOINT Protecting infrastructure against attack U.S. homeland security department beginning to address complex task 62 • BE Magazine • Volume 2, Issue 1 Protecting critical infrastructure has so far received only modest federal attention, but there are signs that spending in this area may increase. ▲ The complex agenda for hardening the nation’s infrastructure is still in its early stages.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Laurence W. ZensingerVice president, homeland securityDewberry
H ardening critical infrastructureagainst terrorist attack may be one ofthe most challenging responsibilities
of the homeland security mission.This year,we can expect policymakers and privateinfrastructure owners to ratchet up debateon how to best approach this massive task.
America is an open and technologicallycomplex society with an almost unlimitednumber of potential targets and points ofvulnerability. Examples of these that the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security(DHS) has identified include more than168,000 public water systems, 300,000 oiland gas production facilities, and 100nuclear power plants. A White Houseassessment counted 2,800 electrical plants,590,000 highway bridges, 66,000 chemicalplants, 2 million miles of pipelines, and1,800 federal reservoirs.
Making the task of hardening these andother facilities all the more difficult is the factthat the better a particular facility or system isprotected, the more likely it is that attacks willbe diverted to more vulnerable targets.
Moreover, hardening infrastructure toreduce the effects of an attack is only one ofthe goals of the DHS’ strategic plan.The oth-ers include raising public awareness of thethreats, vulnerabilities, and potential impactof attacks; sharing intelligence among agen-cies to prevent attacks; and strengthening the
nation’s ability to respond to, andquickly recover from, an attack.
Not surprisingly, these goalscompete intensely for resources.Significantly, the congressional 9-11 Commission report includedlittle reference to critical infra-structure protection. In part, thisis because emergency manage-ment has historically focused ondisaster preparedness andresponse rather than on preven-tion — the reason being that nat-ural disasters are largely unavoid-able. As a result, the complexagenda for hardening the nation’sinfrastructure against attack isstill in its early stages.
Response to attack hasbeen focus of funding
In the last three years, the DHSand its predecessor agencieshave spent more than $12.5 bil-lion to strengthen state and localgovernments’ response toattacks. Most of this funding hasgone to first responders such as police andfire departments. The current DHS budgetincludes an additional $3.6 billion for simi-lar purposes.
Infrastructure protection has received farless attention, but there are signs that feder-al spending in this area may increase. Thecurrent DHS budget includes the agency’sfirst infrastructure protection grants — $200million for specific facilities such as nuclearplants, dams, highways, railroads, or tunnels.However, these grants will only fund somehigh-visibility pilot projects, rather than con-stituting a comprehensive program.
In addition, the DHS has worked for near-ly a year on its National InfrastructureProtection Plan (NIPP), the purpose ofwhich is to help prioritize spending oninfrastructure hardening. The plan willestablish the framework and processes bywhich 17 infrastructure sectors will com-
pete for resources with each other and withother homeland security objectives.
In addition, the NIPP will set the stage foraddressing government’s role in dealingwith the private sector, which owns 85 per-cent of the nation’s critical infrastructure. Itwill likely spark discussion about encourag-ing infrastructure protection initiatives inthe private sector, through public funding,tax law changes, or regulatory changes.
Three key measuresneeded in national plan
To be a useful and credible guide to strate-gic decision-making for infrastructure pro-tection, any national infrastructure protec-tion plan must successfully address threebasic issues:
First, it must be able to identify targets that,if attacked, would result in the largest loss of
DEPARTMENTSVIEWPOINT
Protecting infrastructure against attackU.S. homeland security department beginning to address complex task
62 • BE Magazine • Volume 2, Issue 1
Protecting critical infrastructure has so far
received only modest federalattention, but there are
signs that spending in this area may increase.
s The complex agenda for hardening the nation’s infrastructureis still in its early stages.
life or the gravest economic or social impact.From this perspective, not all facilities needprotection to the same level — regardless oflosses that owners of a particular systemwould suffer in an attack. Setting risk-basedpriorities may prove contentious, but withlimited resources for protecting such vastinfrastructure, it’s a practical necessity.
Second, it must advance our understandingof the complex interdependencies amonginfrastructure systems. For instance, 2003’selectrical outages in the U.S. Northeast inter-rupted water supplies and cellular communi-cations in cases where power backups fellshort. Learning more about such interdepen-dencies will help us prevent catastrophic cas-cading effects, build in redundancy, andreduce restoration and recovery time.
Finally, the plan must build on the workthat has been done in the name of mitigatingnatural hazards. For instance, the AmericanLifelines Alliance (ALA) has worked withFEMA and the National Institute of BuildingSciences on guidelines to assess the vulnera-bility of systems such as electric power, oiland gas, and water and wastewater, and hasdeveloped approaches to protect these sys-tems from a variety of hazards.
Infrastructure owners may be more con-cerned about natural or accidental hazards,yet the steps they take against these threatscan also protect against terrorist strikes. Forexample, putting transmission lines under-
ground protects against wind, ice, and treedamage — and sabotage as well. Likewise,building fire resistance into tunnels lowersthe risk of accidental fires, while at the sametime making the tunnels less attractive targetsfor attack.The ALA brings together public andprivate infrastructure owners experienced inhazard mitigation,offering a forum for the dis-
cussion of infrastructure hardening.
Many questions remain about how tobest protect critical infrastructure. But thefirst steps must include identifying the sec-tors and facilities that are not only at high-est risk, but also present the most seriousconsequences if attacked, and allocatingresources to these top-priority targets. n
DEPARTMENTSVIEWPOINT
Coming in the next BE MagazineHighlights from the next issue of BE Magazine:
More information on BE Conference 2005
Profiles of outstanding projects from the BE Awards of Excellence
Landscape architect turned Peace Corps volunteer uses MicroStation to help build communities in Albania
How knowledge management helps Fluor compete globally
Survey of U.K. CAD managers suggests ways to work better
Highlights of an interview with Greg Bentley by Tom Sawyer, Engineering News-Record associate editor, information technology
Engineers Without Borders links professionals and students to aid developing nations
New study data demonstrating return on investment from Bentley ProjectWise
Volume 2, Issue 1 • BE Magazine • 63
About Laurence W. ZensingerLaurence W. Zensinger is vice president
and director of homeland security for
Dewberry, an architecture and engineer-
ing firm based in Fairfax, Va. He is a
former homeland security and emer-
gency management senior executive for
the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security’s Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
Zensinger most recently served as
deputy director of FEMA’s Recovery
Division, which provides disaster relief
nationwide, including services and
funding for infrastructure restoration.
Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, he helped direct major recov-
ery issues including debris operations,
environmental testing and cleanup,
economic impact analysis, and the cre-
ation of a $4.5 billion funding package
to rebuild lower Manhattan’s mass
transit infrastructure.
Laurence W. Zensinger
Submitting articles for Viewpoints
BE Magazine welcomes your thoughts and
perspectives on any topic concerning architec-
ture, engineering, construction, related tech-
nologies, or infrastructure in general.
The Viewpoints section is a place for your
own commentaries or points of view. Company
or professional news items will be considered for
our news sections. Opinion pieces of 150 words
or less will be considered for our Letters section.
Please do not send us completed articles.
Instead, send a brief proposal outlining the arti-
cle you would like to submit.
All submissions may be edited for length and
clarity, and BE Magazine reserves the right to
reject any submission. Please include contact
information.
Send submissions to [email protected].
Related Documents
