National Infrastructure Protection Plan Research Articles

Implementation of a COVID-19 Closed/Open POD Partnership: A Creative Professional Practice Exemplar for Occupational and Environmental Health Nurses.

For more than 15 years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all community agencies and workplace environments create structured communication and collaborative plans for emergency or disaster events (2008). This recommendation is aligned with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (2022) National Infrastructure Protection Plan. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic ultimately demonstrated the importance of having organized plans and processes in place for the effective and rapid dispensing of medical countermeasures (MCMs) to the general populace. Occupational and environmental health nurses (OHNs) can utilize examples of successful MCM dispensing programs and adjust details to fit individual organizational needs. This report examines a closed point of dispensing (Closed POD) mass vaccination program as a guide for designing successful workplace partnerships. Closed PODs are public or private sites that have set up a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with local health authorities to dispense MCMs to their populations during a public health emergency. The desired outcome of a closed POD agreement is the facilitation of employee health and safety, as well as enabling workplace continuity of operations. OHNs will play a pivotal role in any future disaster or emergency event. Because OHNs understand the critical need for anticipatory planning, they are in a prime position to drive the creation and implementation of a closed POD partnership between their workplace and their local health department.

REVIEW OF CYBERSECURITY STRATEGIES IN PROTECTING NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE USA

This review analyses cybersecurity methods in the USA, focusing on protecting national infrastructure, with lessons and implications for global cybersecurity practices. In an era dominated by digital interconnectedness, the protection of national infrastructure from cyber threats is of paramount importance. This paper provides a comprehensive review of cybersecurity strategies employed by the United States to safeguard critical national infrastructure. As the nation's reliance on technology continues to grow, so does the complexity and sophistication of cyber threats. The paper examines key frameworks, policies, and initiatives implemented by the USA to fortify its critical infrastructure against cyber-attacks. It outlines the current threat landscape, the evolving nature of cyber threats and the potential consequences of successful attacks on critical sectors such as energy, transportation, and finance. It also analyzes the strategic approaches adopted by the USA, including the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework, and collaborative efforts between the public and private sectors. The paper explores the role of government agencies, regulatory bodies, and private enterprises in implementing and enforcing cybersecurity measures. It assesses the effectiveness of information sharing initiatives, public-private partnerships, and international collaborations in enhancing the resilience of national infrastructure against cyber threats. Furthermore, the review addresses emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT) in the context of cybersecurity. It evaluates how these technologies are leveraged to detect, prevent, and respond to cyber threats in real-time, considering both their benefits and potential risks. Ethical considerations, privacy concerns, and challenges associated with the implementation of robust cybersecurity strategies are also discussed. The paper concludes with insights into the evolving nature of cyber threats and recommendations for continuous improvement in national cybersecurity strategies, emphasizing the need for agility, adaptability, and collaboration to stay ahead of an ever-changing threat landscape. This study contributes to the broader understanding of cybersecurity practices, offering insights that are not only relevant to the USA but also applicable to other nations facing similar challenges in safeguarding their critical infrastructure in an increasingly interconnected and digital world.
 Keywords: Cybersecurity, Strategies, Protecting, National Infrastructure, USA, NIST, Artificial Intelligence.

Exploratory Study on the US NIPP Establishment Process for Strengthening National Critical Infrastructure Protection System in Korea

This study aims to strengthen and improve the evaluation system for national critical infrastructure protection by considering the importance of such infrastructure and the key feature of interdependency. This research analyzed the changing trends of the national critical infrastructure protection plan in the United States (NIPP-2006, NIPP-2009, NIPP-2013) to derive implications and propose a plan for developing the evaluation system for national infra protection. As a result of the analysis, the problems of Korean NIPP are as follows; First, the national goal of protecting national critical infrastructure is unclear. Second, understanding of the interdependence and independence of the national critical infrastructure is relatively weak due to the lack of national infra protection goals. Third, it is a matter of utilizing the evaluation results of the National Critical Infrastructure Protection Plan. Therefore, it is judged that it is time to consider changing the fundamental approach to the national critical infrastructure protection system and resetting the direction of the protection plan.

Rational Hydrogen Society Review: From the Perspective of the National Infrastructure PROTECTION Plan(NIPP) in Korea

Purpose: In line with the global transition to a hydrogen society, Korea is accelerating the vitalization of the hydrogen economy through relevant plans and strategies. In order to revitalize the hydrogen economy, it is necessary to add hydrogen-related matters to the National Infrastructure Protection Plan(NIPP) and to pro-mote continuous stability for the national-level hydrogen infrastructure. This study aims to present direction from a long-term perspective for the addition of NIPP to hydrogen infrastructure. Method: This study reviews and recognizes the importance of efficient construction strategies for hydrogen society. As an example, we analyze the case of Japan, which established a basic plan for hydrogen society be-fore Korea. The factors for realizing the plan were analyzed by categorizing the contents into flexibility, adap-tability, and reliability. Results: We were able to find some implications through the case study. First, It is important to seek inter-national cooperation for hydrogen supply and to respond flexibly to ensure that the plan is not disrupted in order to realize a hydrogen society and to secure safety. Second, it is necessary to regularly revise and imple-ment the roadmap over time so that the plan can adapt well to time. Thirdly, In order to reinforce the credibili-ty of the plan, a risk communication plan to enhance Local Acceptance should be devised. Conclusion: Korea cannot achieve empirical results simply by reducing carbon emissions and building an eco-friendly hydrogen society. It is important to discover demand and monitor hydrogen-related infrastructure integrally with potential stakeholders. In addition, social acceptance, including the central government, local governments, and private businesses, is essential to improve the public s awareness and understanding of hy-drogen society and to strategically rearrange hydrogen infrastructure. The establishment of the NIPP with the addition of hydrogen social infrastructure will contribute to raising national interest and increasing public con-fidence in hydrogen safety.

Improvement Proposals for the Guidelines for the National Infrastructure Protection Plan

To maintain a minimum functional continuity of the national infrastructure, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety provides detailed guidelines for the establishment of a national infrastructure protection plan for each management agency. Subsequently, the management agencies must establish an institutional plan to protect the national infrastructure, to maintain the continuity of functions such as core functions and facilities in case of a disaster, and to secure the safety of people and minimize damage. However, the proposed standards for the guidelines for the National Infrastructure Protection Plan are based on common issues related to the protection of the national infrastructure system that fail to provide the correct guidelines, which reflect the characteristics of each sector. In addition, as the risk assessment procedures such as risk and impact analysis are conceptually presented, an evaluation based on the characteristics of the facilities is insufficient; in some agencies, it is performed perfunctorily. Therefore, this study analyzes the present state of the National Infrastructure Protection Plans, demonstrates the common problems, and suggests ways to improve the vulnerable parts of the guidelines for the National Infrastructure Protection Plan using case studies of advanced foreign countries. Keywords: National Infrastructure System, National Infrastructure Protection Plans, Guidelines for National Infrastructure Protection Plan, Risk Assessment

The critical infrastructure protection. Legislation

The content outline: in accordance with law, the Polish critical infrastructure constitutes 11 sectors, vital for national security and public safety persistence. Two of the sectors (energy sector and transportation systems sector), are elements of the European Critical Infrastructure, and due to Poland’s EU and NATO membership, are subject to particular protection. The paper describes general principles of Polish critical infrastructure safety law acts and critical infrastructure sectors. Later in this paper, 4 alert states (THREATCON), and their impact on the critical infrastructure safety and protection were presented. The purpose and the program content of the National Critical Infrastructure Protection Programme and the National Infrastructure Protection Plan were described.

Towards comparable cross-sector risk analyses: A re-examination of the Risk Analysis and Management for Critical Asset Protection (RAMCAP) methodology

Concerns about the American drinking water infrastructure prompted the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to revisit the Risk Analysis and Management for Critical Asset Protection (RAMCAP) methodology. The Drinking Water Resilience Project undertaken by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security sought to evaluate RAMCAP for prioritizing risk to water utilities and the lifeline infrastructures in the wastewater, energy, transportation and communications sectors. Developed shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, RAMCAP employs 41 reference scenarios to uniformly assess component values for consequence, threat and vulnerability in the standard risk formulation. Released as part of the 2006 National Infrastructure Protection Plan Risk Management Framework, RAMCAP today serves as the American Water Works Association J100-10 Standard for Risk and Resilience Management of Water and Wastewater Systems. The RAMCAP analysis was conducted in three successive tasks, Task 1: threat analysis; Task 2: performance analysis; and Task 3: requirements analysis. This paper presents the results of Task 3, which found the basic RAMCAP design sound, but the implementation details too broad to provide consistent results across infrastructure assets and sectors. Moreover, RAMCAP does not account for mobile assets, making it problematic for use in the transportation sector. In order to substantively address these problems, a prototype Lifeline Infrastructure Risk Analysis (LIRA) methodology was developed. LIRA employs the same basic design as RAMCAP, but has significant differences. In particular, LIRA is a top-down risk analysis methodology that analyzes system functionality for fixed and mobile assets. The central design concept reduces variability in the results by clearly specifying calculations and providing default values based on historical data. The LIRA risk results are not only more stable, but they are also applicable at the local, regional and national levels. This paper describes LIRA and compares it with RAMCAP, demonstrating that the new LIRA methodology is an appealing alternative for assessing risk across infrastructure assets and sectors. The methods and results described in the paper have key implications for critical infrastructure risk methodologies that are based on consequences, threats and vulnerabilities.

6 - WITHDRAWN: National Infrastructure Protection Plan and Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources

Elsevier has been notified of a possible issue involving this title. To resolve these concerns as completely as possible, the title has been removed from print and electronic distribution.

News & Products

News & Products

Informing Food Protection Education: A Project to Define and Classify Resources for a Cross-Disciplinary Expert Community.

In the wake of the September 2001 attacks, the U.S. government founded the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with responsibility to develop a National Infrastructure Protection Plan for securing critical infrastructures and key resources. DHS established interdisciplinary networks of academic expertise administered through Centers of Excellence across the country, each addressing a different aspect of homeland defense. The National Center for Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD), created in 200: organized over 150 experts around five theme groups: Agent Behavior, Event Modeling, Systems Strategies, Risk Communication, and Educational Programs. The fifth theme group, Educational Programs, was the focus of a special library project to assist experts in delivering "high-quality education and training programs to develop a cadre of professionals equipped to deal with future threats to the food system." An initial database provided National Center for Food Protection and Defense experts with a listing of educational resources and their uniform resource locators (URLs). In 2009, NCFPD formed a team of librarians and subject experts to finalize the framework for a working collection of food protection educational resources. The framework consisted of 1) a scope of work for the database, 2) descriptive metadata elements and classification decisions, and 3) a vetting instrument to maintain the utility and currency of selected information. This paper describes the work performed by the database team to create criteria for inclusion and classification of resources consistent with NCFPD end-users' evolving needs. A content validity method is described that was used to gauge whether the team's conceptual definition of the domain of information was congruent with that of the expert community being served. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Methodologies and applications for critical infrastructure protection: State-of-the-art

This work provides an update of the state-of-the-art on energy security relating to critical infrastructure protection. For this purpose, this survey is based upon the conceptual view of OECD countries, and specifically in accordance with EU Directive 114/08/EC on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures, and on the 2009 US National Infrastructure Protection Plan. The review discusses the different definitions of energy security, critical infrastructure and key resources, and shows some of the experie`nces in countries considered as international reference on the subject, including some information-sharing issues. In addition, the paper carries out a complete review of current methodologies, software applications and modelling techniques around critical infrastructure protection in accordance with their functionality in a risk management framework. The study of threats and vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure systems shows two important trends in methodologies and modelling. A first trend relates to the identification of methods, techniques, tools and diagrams to describe the current state of infrastructure. The other trend accomplishes a dynamic behaviour of the infrastructure systems by means of simulation techniques including systems dynamics, Monte Carlo simulation, multi-agent systems, etc.

Regional critical infrastructure assessment: Kansas City

The National Infrastructure Protection Plan defines 18 critical infrastructure and key resources sectors assigned to nine various sector-specific agencies charged with the protection of that component of infrastructure (2009). This breakdown by the NIPP scratches the surface in terms of illustrating the high level of vulnerability existing in our country; however, there is still a lot of work needed to understand how these sectors interact with each other and more specifically at the regional level. The analysis in this paper begins with the selection of a region and investigation of sectors of infrastructure seemingly critical to that area. Narrowing the focus of assessing criticality to a single region, this paper applies a methodology to quantify the most critical aspect of a region's infrastructure. Lastly, the components investigated are arranged in a nodal diagram using organisational risk analyser software for analysis of their interdependencies.

An Evolving Culture of Security and Preparedness in the Water Sector

This article presents the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and other recent natural disasters as testimony that the United States needs to invest in response, recovery, and resiliency in order to reach a balance between traditional security and preparedness. The ultimate goal is to establish an all‐hazards approach to risk management that is integrated into the culture of an organization. The article provides examples of successful implementation of the goals and objectives of the Water Sector Specific Plan (Water SSP; DHS, 2006) which is based on the all‐hazards risk management framework established in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP; DHS & USEPA, 2007). The article describes how the water sector has demonstrated leadership by being the first to establish metrics for assessing security and preparedness relative to the goals and objectives outlined in the Water SSP. The article discusses the following topics: the intrastate mutual aid and assistance initiative called WARN (Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network); the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) that provides a system for public‐private collaboration on critical homeland security issues; the partnership between AWWA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) National Homeland Security Research Center to investigate advances in hydraulic modeling; AWWA's Guide to Evaluating and Selecting Disinfection in a Security‐Conscious Environment that evaluates the attributes of each disinfection method (effectiveness, water quality, reliability, safety, security) and provides tools to help utilities select the method that best suits a system's operating conditions, site constraints, and other unique circumstances; and, AWWA business continuity planning seminars, along with the efforts of the AWWA Standards Council to prepare standards on security operations and management, and emergency preparedness.

Decentralized risk management for strategic preparedness of critical infrastructure through decomposition of the inoperability input–output model

Recent disasters and terrorist attacks have increased the demand on the US government in assuring the safety and reliability of the nation’s critical infrastructure. The response of the US Department of Homeland security, as set forth by the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) is to decentralize much of the risk assessment and strategic decision-making processes to the owners and operators of the critical infrastructure. Although, this decentralization method has many advantages, it may provide a solution that is inferior to a comprehensive centralized approach. This manuscript develops a multi-objective strategic preparedness problem that is constrained by distinctive model features of an interdependent, regional socio-economic system. The model is a generalization of the nation’s critical infrastructure protection problem that focuses on commodity transaction between economic sectors. The strategic preparedness problem is solved by various decomposition methods, to illustrate the complexity of a decentralized risk management process of a system that is pregnant with interdependencies. The Inoperability Input–Output Model is core to the preparedness problem of this manuscript, and provides a rich database and modeling paradigm to support the study of regional interdependent economies. Derived from a Nobel Prize-winning W. Leontief economic model, and built on Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data, the IIM is a quick, inexpensive, holistic method for estimating economic impacts and sector interdependencies. The IIM is useful as a part of a larger multi-objective decision model used in this paper to analyze the process of decentralized strategic preparedness. This paper develops a general ability to quantify system trade-offs between objectives of preparedness decisions, by embedding the IIM into a multi-objective risk management model for strategic preparedness. Through decomposition of the multi-objective strategic preparedness model constructed around the IIM, we analytically calculate the trade-offs between preparedness costs and economic resilience of regions from existing regional economic data, and provide insights into the decentralized risk management process.

FUSING INCIDENT MANAGEMENT/RESPONSE WITH INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION/SECURITY … … THE “3 R+” CONCEPT

ABSTRACT The terrorist attacks of 9/11 brought an urgent, necessary call to protect the safety and security of the nations Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources (CI/KR). Most of these efforts have been to deter/prevent a terrorist attack through vulnerability assessment and increased physical security (e.g. “gates, guns and guards”). Just as the federal government was getting on solid ground with increased homeland security against the terrorist threat, the devastation of the 2005 Hurricanes Katrina and Rita brought to light the need for a true “All Hazards” approach to response. Added to this is the growing awareness that environmental incidents could significantly impact regional stability, and even threaten national security. Simply stated: “Yesterday'S major oil spill could be tomorrow'S national security incident.” The November 2007 allision (and resulting serious oil spill) of the tank ship COSCO BUSAN with the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, provided a glimpse into these concerns and brought increased attention back upon this long standing marine safety mission. Ironically the 2006 “Safe Seas” exercise tested almost the very scenario of the COSCO BUSAN one year ago to the day of the spill. “Safe Seas” and other major drills (like “TOPOFF,” etc.) are tremendous tools for government and private sector stakeholders to enhance preparedness to response and test existing security and infrastructure protection systems. Given the above, traditional Oil Spill Response (OSR) is now part of a broader, more complicated systems-approach to domestic Incident Management (IM). The United States Coast Guard'S Marine Environmental Protection (MEP) mission has required the unique military I regulatory service to forge a collaborative relationship with the oil and gas industry - or “sector” (as defined in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan NIPP). This government-to-industry partnership was born out of decades of marine safety prevention/response efforts most visible following the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). Many involved in the field of emergency management; as well as their security counterparts recognize it is difficult to understand both IM and IP, despite the myriad of new and developing federal plans and doctrine as we pass the half way point of the first decade in the Post 9/11 “new normalcy.” Due to dynamic and synergistic partnership between the U.S. Coast Guard and the American Petroleum Institute (API) a coordination and communication opportunity was identified that resulted in a concept of simplifying the landscape via a” 3 R+” concept. The focus areas of this paper are:To bring increased clarity to the current and emerging state of interoperability between the government and the private industry sector.Provide a simplified “Big Picture” view of what private sector professionals (middle to upper management in the emergency response/safety & health fields) need to know regarding the framework of the national system for our critical infrastructure and first line response, using the oil & gas sector as an example; Note: Although the target audience for this papen/presentation are private sector professionals, primarily in the response and security fields, the plans highlighted and information outlined could apply to those working IM or IP in any industry or government sector.

Protecting critical infrastructure: implementing integration and expanding education

The tenuous network of interconnected data that supports our nation's critical infrastructure has been built up, computer by computer, over only the last few decades. From punch cards to the supercomputers constructed by pioneers in today's fields, computers have been controlling our nation's critical sectors nearly every step of the way. As designers of today's critical systems gravitate slowly towards systems that require less human oversight than ever before, the vulnerability of the networks that control our electricity systems, water supply, and banking services also continues to increase. In recent control system security reviews, the Departments of Energy and Homeland Security (DHS) hired experts from Idaho National Labs who found that not only do "all of the evaluated systems suffer from high-impact security vulnerabilities that could be exploited by a low-skill-level attacker," but "in currently deployed systems, enhanced security controls cannot easily be implemented while still assuring basic system functionality" (Turner). While the federal government has attempted on several occasions to outline its strategy to implement cybersecurity policies, its defining statement on the issue is in the form of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). Even then, these government documents mean little if neither government nor private agencies implement them in their respective fields.

Regulatory Actions and Security Activities

This article lists regulatory actions published in the past 18 months regarding the Final Second Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR2); the Final Groundwater Rule (GWR); Contaminant Candidate List (CCL); Protection of Critical Infrastructure Information; Lead and Copper Rule; Final National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP); Triazine Cumulative Risk Assessment; Aldicarb Risk Assessment; Chloroacetanilides Cumulative Risk Assessment; Considerations for Developing Alternative Health Risk Assessment Approaches for Addressing Multiple Chemicals, Exposures, and Effects; Revision of Existing National‐Level Affordability Methodology and Methodology to Identify Variance Technologies; Copper Risk Assessments and Risk Reduction Options; Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin; Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR); and, Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule (D/DBPR). The article also lists the anticipated schedule of significant regulatory actions and security activities.

A Vision and Direction for Water Sector Security and Preparedness Initiatives

This article describes the development of a strategic plan for integrating existing and future water sector security efforts under a single all‐hazards risk management framework, embodied in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). The plan, finalized by the Department of Homeland Security (DHA) in 2006, establishes the processes for combining consequence, vulnerability, and threat information to produce a comprehensive, systematic, and rational assessment of national or sector‐specific risk that drives activities for protecting critical infrastructure sectors and key resources (CI/KR). During the past year, the Water Sector Coordinating Council (WSCC) has worked in collaboration with the DHS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Government Coordinating Council (GCC) on the development of the Water Sector Specific Plan (Water SSP). The GCC includes federal and state governmental agencies with oversight of water sector CI/KR. At the core of the Water SPP is a vision statement, the Security Vision, and a series of goals and objectives that will help drive development and implementation of protective programs for the water sector based on the NIPP risk management framework and other supporting HSPD initiatives. This article discusses four goals that include: sustain protection of public health and the environment; recognize and reduce risks in the water sector; maintain a resilient infrastructure; and, increase communication, outreach, and public confidence.