Week Six – Critical Infrastructure (Private Sector)

Discussion Question:  For this week’s assigned reading, you were to select one of the 16 sector specific plans associates with a critical infrastructure sector of your choosing.  For this week’s forum report, tell us which critical infrastructure plan you read and explain the vital role the private sector plays carrying out the objectives of this document.

Instructions: Fully utilize the materials that have been provided to you in order to support your response. Your initial post should be at least 350 words. Please respond to at least two other students.

 

Lesson

 

Week Six – Critical Infrastructure (Private Sector)

In previous lessons, we have examined how the nation’s 16 critical infrastructure sectors come to bear upon risk at the national and local levels of government.  Since the private sector owns and/or operates the vast majority of this infrastructure, no discussion of risk to our nation or to our communities is complete without bringing this tremendous asset into consideration. The private sector plays a tremendous part related to risk, as it can be a contributor to it, as well as an aid in lessening its impact.  In addition, the manner in which the private sector withstands and recovers from disaster events is a significant determining factor in the resiliency of our local communities, and of our nation as a whole. This week, we look at the integral role that the private sector plays in the determination of risk. We will do this in light of the six strategic challenges that have been noted previously, and within the parameters of the nation’s 16 critical infrastructure sectors.

So what defines or makes up the private sector? According to DHS, it includes “businesses, industries, private schools and universities” that are essential components of our communities, and are expected to carry out a wide range of critical roles (DHS, 2014, p. 91). As mentioned previously, the lion’s share of the nation’s infrastructure is owned or ran by the private sector; and therefore, it is responsible for the immediate security of its facilities, associated property, and for employee safety. In most cases, there is a working relationship that has been established between the private and public sectors; and this can be seen at both the local national levels. This partnership has always existed to one degree or another, oftentimes carried out in a very casual, unstructured manner. Yet, with the introduction of the National Preparedness System in late 2011, the formulation and operation of these relationships has become more structured. Yet, as highlighted in the 2013 National Infrastructure Protection Plan, benefits must be provided to all partners if the relationship is to be an effective one. The value proposition as it relates to government is quite clear, in that coordinating with infrastructure stakeholders has a direct impact upon preserving public safety and ensuring national security. Therefore, it is up to government at all levels to recognize the commercial interest that exists within the private sector, as well as encouraging industry to be an active participant in the overall national interest through a variety of engagement efforts (DHS, 2013).

Let us look at a local level example of this partnership and how it factors into risk at a specific geographic level. In this scenario, we will assume the existence of a chemical plant that is situated in an industrial area of a county. This chemical plant is a major employer for the area in which it resides. The plant manufactures chlorine, which is an essential chemical building block and is used in the manufacturing of hundreds of everyday items from garden hoses to seat belts to prescription eyewear. So the usefulness of this product makes the plant a direct contributor to the well-being of several of the 16 critical infrastructure sectors. At the local level, the chlorine plant is viewed as both a hazard and recovery element. However, in its raw form, it is an extremely hazardous material.

The county itself in this scenario is unremarkable. It is not prone to abnormally high occurrences disaster events, and it carries no great symbolic or other assets or factors that might make it standout as a potential target for terrorist activity. In the county’s threat and hazard analysis conducted in accordance with the Department of Homeland Security’s Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Guide, Comprehensive Preparedness Guide, the plant itself is classified as a medium to high level risk to the county.  Fortunately, no significant incident has ever occurred at the plant.  However, the lack of warning should an incident occur, as well as the serious consequences in terms of life, property, environment, etc. within the county should an incident occur drive the risk factor up considerably.

Ideally, partnership actions between the plant’s private sector representatives and county government officials through various agencies and departments would keep the risk rating at a manageable level. The plant’s owners bear responsibility for the physical security of the facility, and for the plant’s operational integrity. In short, as a privately owned facility, the owners are responsible for ensuring the facility’s ability to prevent disaster occurrences when possible, and to respond and recover from them in an effective manner if and when they do occur. This said, the plant is a county ‘resident’ and enjoys the protection of county law enforcement and fire and response services, as do all other county residents. Examples of prudent partnership activities between plant and county might include collaborative planning activities, the formulation of cooperative agreements supported, joint education and training exercises involving plant employees and county responders, full disclosure to county agencies of the dangers of an accidental release of hazardous airborne materials, company funding of specialized responder equipment needed by local responders, as well as certain tax and other economic incentives provided to this plant and its owners. These are just a few of the countless ways in which these stakeholders can work together in order to achieve goals that benefit all concerned.

As a major employer for the county, the plant will also figure into the county’s recovery efforts and into the determination of the consequence portion of the risk formula for any disaster event striking the county.  If the plant is forced to close or reduce operations because of a critical incident that occurred, the overall local economy suffers. The county’s ability to restore services to the plant would also factor into the consequences portion of the overall risk assessment. Where gaps exist between what has determined to be an ideal recovery time and that which currently exists, desired capabilities and improvements are noted. Then, a defined, coordinated “plan of action” can be developed and instituted, ideally by both partners in this relationship.

As would be expected, risk and responsibility from the perspective of the private owner of the plant will differ from that of the county. Here, the financial cost to the company should a disaster take place at the facility will be a major consideration. The need to maintain brand resiliency merits consideration, as will the need to reduce possible litigation actions. In most cases, the owner’s interests in bringing the plant up to normal operations following a disaster event will correspond nicely with the recovery needs of the county; but there are times in which a conflict could occur.  The company owning the plant will place its own financial interest above that of the community’s, and if the company’s interests dictates that the plant close following a disaster event, then the plant will close.

At the national level, the tremendous involvement of the private sector in our nation’s critical infrastructure is obvious. The federal government is committed to the protection of that infrastructure as it relates to the six strategic challenges previously noted, but needs private sector assistance to provide that protection.  Federal regulation accounts for some of this joint protection. For example, the healthcare and nuclear industries are heavily regulated and include required disaster related planning and related measures that private companies must implement within their facilities. Fiduciary concerns related to loss of income and possibilities of litigation can account for other forms of private sector cooperation. Adherence to required or voluntary national standards established by federal agencies or to voluntary standards established by non-profit trade organizations can provide companies with a significant degree of litigation related protection as well.

In conclusion, in a democratic and capitalist society, profit itself provides a large degree of private sector motivation in partnership activities with government. For example, government entities at all levels and private corporations (and universities) have entered into a number of business relationships for companies to develop and provide protection and counter measures to hostile cyber actions by foreign governments, terrorists, and criminal organizations. Managing cyber related risk directly corresponds to each of the six strategic challenges and to nearly all of the critical infrastructure sectors. Perhaps the greatest point that needs to be kept in mind regarding the public/private sector partnership is that it is largely driven by the perception of risk and innovation. Private organizations will develop possible responses to all six strategic challenges based upon contracts and agreements provided by government, upon their sense of innovation as they strive to seek possibilities not yet seen by their government counterparts, and upon their own financial need for security and resiliency against probable threats and hazards that seek to interrupt normal daily operations.

References

Department of Homeland Security (2013).  National infrastructure protection plan (NIPP), partnering for critical infrastructure security and resilience. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Department of Homeland Security (2014). 2014 Quadrennial homeland security review. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.