Critical Infrastructure Vulnerability and Protection
A. After reading the required literature, comment on two of the following:
o Read Perl�s (2008) report and critique it. What specific action (if any) is recommended, for example.
o Read Cooperation in Homeland/Civil Security Matters. Pick a Country�s agreement proclamation with
the United States. Comment on sections regarding critical infrastructure.
o Read Secretary Napolitano�s Letter of Intent. Does it go far enough? What do you think would be the
next diplomatic step?
B. Comment on the most recent natural or manmade disaster, answering: When? Where? What? Why?
How?
Length: This Case Assignment should be at least 3 pages not counting the title page and references.
References: At least two references should be included from academic sources listed below. (e.g. peer-
reviewed journal articles). Required readings are included. Quoted material should not exceed 10% of the
total paper (since the focus of these assignments is critical thinking).
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE VULNERABILITY AND PROTECTION 2
Critical Infrastructure Vulnerability and Protection
Part A
Cooperation in homeland/civil security matters (2012). International Activities,
Department of Homeland Security
Canada’s agreement proclamation with the United States
In the article, critical infrastructure is defined as private and/or governmental sectors or
activities that are identified by each of the parties in its laws, policies or executive orders. The
Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America would facilitate
Cooperative Activity in the areas that they agree on regarding border security and protection of
critical infrastructure. There are several areas of cooperative activity between the parties, and
they include but not limited to the following: (i) interdependency analysis; (ii) vulnerability,
threat, and risk assessments; (iii) recovery and reconstitution of systems that have been
compromised or damaged. (iv) System protection and information assurance; (v) security best
practices, guidelines and standards; security of automated infrastructure control systems. (vi)
Training, education, and exchange of technical and scientific personnel, material and equipment
in science and technology areas such as research, development, testing, and evaluation. (vii)
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE VULNERABILITY AND PROTECTION 3
Research and development, testing as well as assessment for protection of critical infrastructure.
(viii) Emergency management such as emergency preparedness, emergency response, and
consequence management.
Perl, R. (2008). Protecting critical energy infrastructures against terrorist attacks: Threats,
challenges and opportunities for international co-operation.
In this article, Perl (2008) stresses the importance of energy security, and the security of
energy infrastructure. After reading the article by Perl (2008), the action that is recommended is
that governments should promote a proactive, cooperative and inclusive approach to ensuring the
security of energy infrastructure system. Governments should take a holistic approach and think
in terms of securing the whole energy supply chain, and not only the security of some physical
infrastructures. Perl (2008) also recommends that instead of focusing particularly on the threat of
terrorism, measures to enhance security need to be designed, fostered and treated as an
investment against security hazards on the whole.
Moreover, there is a need for regular and wide-ranging evaluations of threats and
susceptibilities to the energy infrastructure system. In this regard, governments should strengthen
analytical methods and capabilities on a harmonized basis. Many issues pertaining to
infrastructure protection need to be addressed, for instance electromagnetic threats and cyber
threats (Perl, 2008). Infrastructure situational awareness has to be improved as much as possible
and private operators and owners must be obliged to regularly report to government authorities
on the status of their infrastructures. Furthermore, government authorities can do more in sharing
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE VULNERABILITY AND PROTECTION 4
threat information with the private sector, and it is important to develop public-private
partnerships (PPPs) to this end. To make the most of the effectiveness of PPPs, various
stakeholders – private and public – have to be involved to talk about their priorities, needs, and
concerns; to share information; and to identify joint actions and compromise approaches (Perl,
2008).
Since not everything can be protected, Perl (2008) advices that resiliency, preparedness,
as well as recovery capacity are of major importance with regard to ensuring continuity of
service. There is also the need for enhancing and/or maintaining civil emergency planning and
disaster response capabilities in case of a successful terrorist attack. Perl (2008) also
recommends that governments should consider conservation to decrease the efforts that are
needed to bring the energy supplies back to normal levels and to backfill energy supplies or
compensate for decreases in supply in the event of a successful terrorist attack.
Part B: Most recent natural disaster – the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear tragedy occurred on March 11, 2011 in Japan. It
happened at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, and it showed to the world that nuclear
reactors are essentially dangerous (Apsley, 2012). They bring about considerable damage to the
environment, to national economies and to the health of populations. In addition, the heavy fiscal
cost of a meltdown in unavoidably borne by the general public rather than by the corporations
that designed, constructed and operated those nuclear facilities (Apsley, 2012).
Following the 9.0 magnitude Great East Japan Earthquake on 11/3/2011 at 2.46 pm on
Friday, a 15-meter tsunami disabled the cooling and power supply of 3 Fukushima Daiichi
reactors, thereby resulting in a nuclear accident. Each of the 3 cores largely melted within the
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE VULNERABILITY AND PROTECTION 5
initial 3 days. Owing to high radioactive releases for about 6 days, this nuclear accident was
rated 7 on the INES scale (Lochbaum & Lyman, 2014). A total of 4 reactors were abandoned
because of damage in the accident. After 2 weeks, the 3 reactors were stable with the addition of
water, and they were being cooled by July 2011 using recycled water from the new treatment
facility. Other than cooling, the fundamental continuing task entailed preventing the discharge of
radioactive materials, especially contaminated water that seeped out from the 3 reactors.
Although there have been no incidences of radiation sickness or deaths from the accident, more
than 100,000 persons were withdrawn from their homes. This evacuation prevented any sickness
or death from the nuclear accident (Lochbaum & Lyman, 2014).
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE VULNERABILITY AND PROTECTION 6
References
Apsley, J. W. (2012). Fukushima Meltdown & Modern Radiation: Protecting Ourselves and our
Future Generations. Columbus, OH: Temet Nosce Publications.
Lochbaum, D., & Lyman, E. (2014). Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster. Albany, NY:
Prentice Hall.
Perl, R. (2008). Protecting critical energy infrastructures against terrorist attacks: Threats,
challenges and opportunities for international co-operation.
