Year
2003
Abstract
Protection of US critical infrastructure and hazardous facilities against terrorist attacks should be one of the fundamental missions of the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Surprisingly, the Department's authority in this area is quite limited. Although the Homeland Security Act of 2002 creates a \"Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection,\" the actual infrastructure protection activities of this division appear to be confined to conducting analyses, including vulnerability assessments and development of a comprehensive national plan. The DHS has no authority to actually implement the plan, but can only make recommendations \"in coordination with other agencies of the Federal Government and in cooperation with State and local government agencies and authorities, the private sector, and other entities.\" While development of a risk-informed, comprehensive plan for infrastructure protection is essential for a national strategy that apportions Federal resources appropriately and consistently across all sectors, the fact that DHS will have no power to implement and enforce its plan is problematic. Agencies that now have regulatory authority for physical protection will continue to jealously guard their turf and are likely to remain resistant to DHS recommendations. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is a good example. It has remained defiant in the face of widespread calls following the 9/11 attacks to significantly upgrade security requirements at nuclear power plants, arguing that nuclear plants are much better protected today than other hazardous facilities, such as EPA-regulated chemical plants. The NRC opposed Congressional proposals to federalize nuclear plant security forces to standardize pay, benefits and training. The NRC has also refused to consider requiring measures to protect nuclear plants from 9/11-type airborne assaults, claiming that it is the responsibility of the Federal government, and not nuclear plant owners, to protect against \"enemies of the United States.\" These issues need to be evaluated in a government-wide review of how critical infrastructure should be protected in the post-9/11 era. DHS is the logical agency to conduct this review, but it must also be given the tools to overcome bureaucratic resistance. This paper discusses various mechanisms for a path forward that will genuinely increase public safety and security.