InfoGram

InfoGram September 25, 2003

NOTE:This InfoGram will be distributed weekly to provide members of the emergency services sector with news and information concerning the protection of their critical information systems. It has been prepared by NATEK Incorporated for the US Fire Administration. For further information please contact the U.S. Fire Administration's Critical Infrastructure Protection Information Center at (301) 447-1325 or email at email at usfacipc@dhs.gov.

Assessing the Risks

This is the fifth in a series of six brief articles that review the critical infrastructure protection (CIP) process as it applies to emergency first responders. The first ("A CIP Review"), the second ("Identifying Critical Infrastructures"), the third ("Determining the Threats"), and fourth ("Analyzing the Vulnerabilities") articles can be seen in the 28 August, 4 September, 11 September, and 18 September InfoGrams respectively.

Knowing the organizational critical infrastructures is the first step of the CIP process. The second step involves determining the "all-hazards" threats against each of these critical infrastructures. Analyzing the vulnerabilities of those critical infrastructures that are credibly threatened is the third step. When the practitioner establishes that that one or more threatened critical infrastructures are vulnerable to deliberate, natural or accidental attacks, then he/she proceeds to assessing the risks-the fourth step of the CIP process. Specifically, this involves ascertaining the potential risks of the degradation or loss of a threatened and vulnerable critical infrastructure.

The risks analysis begins with an examination of the negative effects of the degradation or loss of a critical infrastructure on a department's response-ability and mission assurance. Following this action is an evaluation of the cost of countermeasures in terms of available resources (e.g. personnel, time, money, materials). The probable negative effects caused by doing nothing to prevent the degradation or loss of a critical infrastructure are then weighed against the cost of doing something with protective measures.

Decision makers should conclude that risk is unacceptable if the impact of the degradation or loss of a critical infrastructure (i.e., doing nothing) will be catastrophic. The CIP process must continue to the final step for the expeditious implementation of countermeasures when risk is unacceptable. The CIPIC maintains that the failure to properly assess the risks can result in the inefficient application of scarce resources and a subsequent reduction in operational effectiveness.

A thorough explanation of CIP and the five-step process can be seen in the CIP Process Job Aid available as a Microsoft Word Document (81kb) to read and download at: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/fire-service/cipc/cipc-jobaid.shtm.

Emergency Responses in American Ports

ABC News recently reported about the existing vulnerabilities in American ports. This report reminded us of the many complexities that challenge emergency responders in a maritime environment. It also reinforced the necessity for first responders to be thoroughly prepared to contend with these adversities in a manner that protects their critical infrastructures-the personnel, physical assets, and communication systems essential for survivability, continuity of operations, and mission success. It is a bitter reality that firefighters and emergency medical technicians who are unfamiliar with the distinct hazards posed by maritime operations are much more likely to be injured or killed.

Although the Coast Guard is the lead agency for port security and safety, it lacks the assets and legal mandate to fight fires and deal with the potential destruction caused by natural and man-made disasters. The Coast Guard remains in a supporting federal position and expects local fire/EMS departments to suppress ship and terminal fires as well as mitigate incidents involving hazardous materials. Therefore, it is crucial that emergency departments at or adjacent to U.S. seaports prepare their personnel to respond to all hazards in order to ensure their safety and success in addition to preserving the vital links to international trade and commerce.

Recognizing that modest investments now in specialized planning, training, and equipment will be extremely cost-effective when compared to projected personnel losses and collateral damage from a maritime response, the CIPIC suggests the following:

• Thoroughly coordinated and comprehensive emergency response plans.
• Specific training for dockside or shipboard emergencies.
• Command structures and communications to manage incidents.
• Actions to ensure terminal or shipboard fires are safe to extinguish.
• Procedures to determine that these fires do not include WMD.
• Acquisition of unique equipment to support operational effectiveness.

More Lessons Learned

The Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business, San Jose' State University, just released its report entitled: "Saving City Lifelines: Lessons Learned in the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks." This case study examines how the New York City (NYC) transit systems responded to the events of 11 September, and how the Office of Emergency Management worked to coordinate response and recovery operations. The scope of the report was limited to the evaluation of transit response. Nevertheless, the CIPIC believes the contents may have value to the emergency managers and first responders of any municipality.

The research team conducted many interviews with NYC transit authorities and public officials, poured over plans made before the attack and reports completed after, and studied all publicly available literature. The systems that were impacted directly or indirectly and the responding emergency agencies are addressed with regard to prior preparations, the immediate events on 11 September, and subsequent alarms.

Upon reviewing this case study, the reader will likely conclude that much of the response reflected existing emergency planning, exercises, and training such as crisis management simulations, full-scale exercises, and regular practice drills. The lessons learned during the course of the investigation are divided into three categories: command and control, planning, and training and exercises. These lessons are concisely summarized in the Executive Summary at pages 4 and 5 of the report, which can be seen and downloaded at the following link: http://www.transweb.sjsu.edu/publications/Sept11.pdf.

Influenza and Malaria

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Julie L. Gerberding, recommended the much wider use of the influenza vaccine, during a news conference this week. Part of the CDC campaign this year is to urge that people who have contact with the chronically ill (e.g., EMTs, paramedics, hospital staff) get vaccinated even if they themselves are not at high risk. "This is a very transmissible disease, and by protecting yourself you also protect people in your home who are vulnerable to getting influenza from you," Gerberding said. "People have failed to appreciate how important and serious a disease influenza really is."

This winter's version of the vaccine will be available on time and in sufficient quantity for everyone who needs it or is expected to want it, CDC officials said. Some people may qualify for a new form of the influenza vaccine, which is sprayed into the nose rather than injected.

Malaria, the ancient mosquito-borne disease that was rolled back by medical advances in the mid-20th century, is making a deadly comeback. Strains of the disease are becoming increasingly resistant to treatment, infecting and killing more people than ever before, and sickening as many as 900 million last year, according to estimates by the U.S. Agency for International Development. By some estimates, between 1 and 2 million of those victims died. The vast majority of the deaths were in Africa. However, the disease is endemic in countries of Asia and Latin America.

A major cause of malaria's alarming resurgence is the parasite's increasing resistance to the drugs used to treat and prevent the disease, including chloroquine, the cheapest and most effective anti-malarial since the 1950s. Unfortunately, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), the number of alternatives are limited. The WHO supports the use of multi-drug combinations based on artemisinin. Some governments and donors have been hesitant to promote the treatment widely because of a lack of funds. Artemisinin is ten times more expensive that chloroquine.