|     |     |  About Us   |   Archives   |   Contact Us |


Archive for the ‘WMD, Chemical & Biological’ Category

« Older Entries

If the Cargo is not Screened, It Does Not Fly

Friday, July 30th, 2010

By Adam Salerno

Businesses Reengineering the Supply Chain for 100 Percent Screening

When Congress passed the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, the law mandated 100 Percent Screening of cargo onboard passenger aircraft “commensurate with checked baggage.”  The deadline for that mandate is this weekend, August 1, 2010.  The law seeks to ensure that all 20 million lbs. of cargo is screened in advance of flights for explosive detection prior to transport.  As Douglas Brittin, the Director of Cargo Security at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) says, “On August 1, if the cargo is not screened, it does not fly”.

In today’s economy, a vibrant supply chain can ensure that companies have instant access to overnight delivery to nearly 85 percent of the world’s population.  While a changing world dictates new necessities to secure the supply chain, the need for expedited trade is an important priority that must be maintained.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recognizes this fact, which is why we support a multi layered risk based approach to security which maximizes effectiveness and minimizes impact on businesses.

As with any unfunded mandate, the private sector was tasked with financing this effort and working with TSA to ensure this goal is accomplished. The cost has been dramatic.  Most air carriers estimate their costs to be in the tens of millions of dollars range. That figure does not include delays or increasing lead time in the supply chain. To add complexity to the issue, the mandate also included all incoming cargo from around the globe be screened. In short, the law forced companies to completely reengineer their supply chain.

To push the mandate out of the confines of the airport, TSA developed the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP).  CCSP allows other trusted shippers in the supply chain to participate in the screening process, by securing their facilities, and the chain of custody from manufacturing to the belly of the aircraft.  This too proved extremely costly for industry, but something that businesses in all modes of transportation have stepped up for.

Once the domestic deadline is hit, the focus will shift to international inbound flights. TSA needs to step forward at this point and begin to recognize foreign screening methods.  Again, because of the nature of the unfunded mandate, it is clear that TSA has not had the resources to pursue this goal yet.  However, programs like the German Aviation Security Program or the newly released European Union Framework 300, Rule 185 are comprehensive programs that mirror the basic fundamentals of the TSA program domestically.  Working with the international community to ensure that our programs are mutually accepted is essential to ensure that businesses are not duplicating an already burdensome process.

It has been a long and costly road for industry, but with the August 1, 2010 deadline just days away, many are feeling cautiously optimistic that the deadline will be met. Thanks to the ingenuity of the freight forwarders, the airlines, and participants in CCSP, because without their time, effort, and serious investment, a dramatic halt of trade would have become reality. Their investment in security ensured that commerce will continue to move forward at the speed businesses rely on in the air environment.

Adam Salerno is a Senior Manager in the National Security and Emergency Preparedness Department at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He also manages the Chamber’s Global Supply Chain Security Working Group.

This piece was originally posted on The ChamberPost, the blog for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, International, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, Supply Chain Security, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

Politics vs. Security – A Tale of Two Committees

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

Two Senate committees, three chemical security bills and one issue to rule them all – the role of so-called Inherently Safer Technologies (ISTs) in America’s approach to safeguarding communities from acts of terrorism.  With DHS’ Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) set to expire in October, lawmakers in the Senate are taking steps to keep it alive. What form the program ultimately takes will depend on whether legislators choose to focus on politics or national security.

Here’s where members agree:
1. CFATS, at least in its general form, needs to be maintained
2. The exclusion of drinking water and wastewater systems from CFATS (or a CFATS-like regime) presents a “security gap” due to their use of hazardous chemicals, such as gaseous chlorine

Here’s where members disagree:
1. Whether the existing CFATS program should be made permanent
2. Whether CFATS should be expanded to include other provisions, such as a requirement that certain facilities assess and/or implement IST

Due to jurisdictional issues in the Senate, the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC) can only address provisions relating to chemical facilities. The Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee can only address provisions relating to drinking water and wastewater systems.

Both committees held proceedings on chemical security this week. Here’s how things panned out:

  • HSGAC’s Ranking Member, Susan Collins (R-ME), chose to scrap her own bill (S. 2996, the Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security Act of 2010) in order to report out an amended version of H.R. 2868, the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 – which would now extend CFATS for three-years and excludes IST provisions. It passed 13-0 with bipartisan support.
  • EPW used Senator Frank Lautenberg’s (D-NJ) bill (S. 3598, the Secure Water Facilities Act) as a backdrop for its hearing.  S. 3598, which includes a strong IST component, does not have bipartisan support.  The hearing was used to extol the virtues of providing the government with IST mandate authority.

HSGAC, which spent most of its time addressing how factors such as risk, vulnerabilities, and consequence impact chemical security, passed a Republican-drafted amendment with unanimous support and moved us closer to establishing a permanent CFATS program. EPW used a hearing as a platform to play politics.

You tell me who got it right.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

Bill Would Nix Deadline for Scanning Cargo at Foreign Ports

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

Bill Would Nix Deadline for Scanning Cargo at Foreign Ports – CQ Homeland Security

A new bipartisan bill would eliminate the congressional mandate for the Department of Homeland Security to scan all U.S.-bound cargo in foreign ports for radiation by 2012.

The bill is one of two measures introduced this week that would reauthorize the 2006 law known as the SAFE Port Act (PL 109-347), which aims to improve maritime and cargo security through layered defenses. One of those layers has involved pushing the scanning and X-ray imaging of cargo away from U.S. ports to the points of departure overseas. Technological and logistical challenges, however, along with difficulties securing the cooperation of foreign governments, have slowed the process. Last week, Customs and Border Protection head Alan D. Bersin called for an alternative approach.

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ranking Republican Susan Collins of Maine and Patty Murray, D-Wash., responded to that call when they introduced their reauthorization bill, saying they want to drop the 2012 scanning deadline. The senators said the X-ray scanning technology that CBP has deployed, the reliability of which the agency has called into question, is not perfected. Their bill, as yet unnumbered, would eliminate the 100 percent requirement until Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano certifies that such security measures are effective.

Posted in Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, International, Maritime & Seaport Security, Science & Technology, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

U.S. nuclear safety agency unveils new data, physical security controls

Monday, July 12th, 2010

U.S. nuclear safety agency unveils new data, physical security controls – Homeland Security Newswire

The agency that oversees the U.S.’s nuclear weapons stockpile announced last week the rollout of new information and physical security controls aimed at balancing efficiency and safety. Officials said, though, that the implementation of cybersecurity improvements is about a year behind the progress the agency has made on physical protection.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) adopted on 2 July new policies on information and physical security that replace existing rules. The changes were prompted by a yearlong review of the agency’s security posture.

Completion of the overhaul is not expected for several years. During the past decade, NNSA has suffered a series of high-profile data breaches.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Management & Administration, Private and Physical Security, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

The Value of Aspen

Friday, July 9th, 2010

As we continue to swelter in the ongoing summer heat wave, it is easy for me to reminisce about my recent visit to Aspen, Colo. Tucked amongst the Rockies with its clean air, fervent green and majestic views, a town known primarily for its skiing with the rich and famous was home to what was, simply put, the best conference program I have ever attended.

The first annual Aspen Security Forum put forward a program that I can only describe as pleasant, informational waterboarding. By the time each of the presenters and panelists were done, my hand was dead from writing so much and my head hurt from being given the firehouse treatment of a candor and content  overload.

With a venerable “who’s who” of notable names in the national security arena attending the two and a half day program, attendees had the opportunity to hear first-hand from the men and women who have served or continue to serve in some of the most demanding positions in the world. It was literally very hard to turn around and not see a face that you did not recognize from some recent event or news program, sharing insights on our country’s national and homeland security challenges.

While the presented content was outstanding, the best part about the entire program was that the overwhelming majority of notable speakers and presenters made themselves available to engage with the attendees. All too often, speakers rush in, deliver their canned pitch, say thanks to the crowd and are whisked away by their aides to get back to the office, leaving actual human contact an afterthought. To have the many distinguished speakers stick around and engage in that lost art-form of “CONVERSATION” was an absolute pleasure.

Hosted by Clark Ervin and the Aspen Institute, this was the first time they had put on a program with this particular focus. You can call it beginner’s luck if you want, but they put together a top notch effort that literally became a “must attend” for anyone who is interested in national and homeland security issues. Fortunately, for those who weren’t able to attend the program, it was taped for later broadcast by C-Span, hopefully sometime this summer. I have to tell you, there is a significant portion of C-Span’s programming that can cure insomnia, but when they broadcast the presenters and panels from the Aspen Security Forum, it will be as NBC used to call it, “Must See TV!”

To understand why I write that, here’s a rundown of some sessions (with video hyperlinks):

Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

When your opening speaker travels all the way from Kabul to Tel Aviv to Aspen to take part in the program, it’s a pretty good indicator that the organizers are up to something big. That was especially true with Adm. Mullen. Coming off a week where Gen. McChrystal was taken out by a large Rolling Stone and replaced by Gen. Petraeus, and then traveling to Afghanistan and Israel to assuage any fears and concerns they may have about the big changes, Mullen made news by essentially not making news. While his comments about the state of the nation’s counter insurgency policy dovetailed those of the White House’s, the plainspoken manner in which they were delivered conveyed the gravity of the situation our military forces are faced with in Afghanistan. His comments about Iran’s nuclear ambitions – “They’ve given us no reason to trust them” – also spoke volumes about what few measures the Administration has left at its disposal in dealing with them.

Aviation Security Panel

There is probably no other facet of the post-9/11 world that Americans gripe about more than dealing with aviation security, but as the CEO of the Air Transport Association (ATA), Jim May, said, “What’s your alternative?” Joined by Erroll Southers of USC’s CREATE Program (and the first Obama Administration nominee to lead TSA) and Christopher Bidwell of the Airport Council International, this panel laid on the table the very real threats and frustrations that accompany this portion of the security environment. One of the most interesting things discussed was the use of full-body imaging devices by airports to screen passengers. While recognizing the civil rights and privacy concerns that people have about them, Jim May of ATA shared that he thought they should be mandatory. When it came to addressing the Government Accountability Office’s recently issued criticisms of TSA’s Behavioral Detection efforts, May and the other panelists pointed out that this program was part of many layers of security, and there was no one-size-fits-all solution or silver bullet that would reduce the aviation risks faced today.

Fran Townsend, former Homeland Security Advisor to President Bush

There are many things that have been written and said about Fran Townsend, the former Homeland Security Advisor to President Bush (43), but the word “shy” is not one that would be used to describe her. The only thing that could possibly surpass the candor of her public comments when she was working as a government employee was her candor in being a former government employee. With no holds barred, Townsend explained that, “We have a reason to expect we can connect the dots this time” given all of the post 9/11 work that has been done.

In a more than hour-long conversation with Walter Isaccson, the CEO of the Aspen Institute, and the Security Forum audience, Townsend pounded on the fact that much still needs to be done to improve information sharing amongst intelligence and law enforcement agencies across the board. Her declaration that there still needed to be a senior level official or “Cabinet Agency,” but “not a czar,” to “pound these government agencies into submission to do information sharing.” Her proposal that an NGO, public-private partnership, rather than a solely government-led approach to address the growing cyber security risks, was also interesting.

Bill Bratton, former Chief, Los Angeles Police Department

Dubbed by many media outlets as “America’s Top Cop” for having led the police departments of Boston, New York City and Los Angeles, I think Bill Bratton surprised everyone at the program when he explained how the terror attacks in Mumbai, India caused him to change the entire structure of the LAPD. His interview with CNN’s Jeanne Meserve detailed how 60 days after those attacks, he was able to transform his police department with new training, exercises and more. The relatively simply trained Mumbai terrorists were not interested in holding hostages; in fact, they were using so-called negotiations to buy time to kill more people. This showed Bratton that he had to change how his department was positioned to respond to a similar event, should it occur in Los Angeles.

Michael Leiter, Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center

For a man that much of Washington thought would have his head handed to him following the failed information sharing efforts surrounding the failed Christmas Day attack, Michael Leiter, the Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC), displayed all of the skill and confidence that make him one of a few Bush Administration appointees to successfully transition into the Obama Administration. His description of his job, his work with the President to report on the range of threats to the country and how he thinks information sharing needs to work made this particular presentation one of the most revealing and compelling of the entire program.  Interviewed by Michael Isikoff, a former Newsweek reporter and now Chief Investigative Correspondent for NBC News, ended up producing some great back and forth between the two men that was as revealing as it was humorous. This session again explained more about Leiter’s job and the mission of the NCTC than any government report or Congressional hearing to date.

Border Security Panel

Despite the countless GAO and IG reports and the many hearings before the U.S. House and Senate, there was no better overview of America’s border security than a panel made up of:

  • Bob Mocny, Director of DHS’ US VISIT Program;
  • Mark Borkowski, Director of CBP’s Secure Border Initiative (SBI); and
  • Steve Oswald, Vice President of Boeing.

These three gentlemen described what worked, what didn’t, what could be better and what the future may look like on programs that have regularly been making news for years. In presenting the details of these newsworthy programs, they did so with none of the drama or hysterics that are so often associated with the Congressional hearings that have exhaustively covered the respective programs. What each of them said frankly offered more substantive insight than any of the previous Congressional hearings have produced to date. That was an observation made not just by the conference attendees but also by the first-tier media, congressional staff and others who have observed each of these respective programs closely. Truth be told, if you want to know what is really happening with US VISIT and the Secure Border Initiative (minus the belligerent questions and political posturing), spending 90 minutes watching this panel when it is aired on C-Span will be time well spent.

Attending News Media

As I mentioned, the conference was a literal “who’s who” of notable current and former national and homeland security leaders, and the same could be said for the attending members of the media.  With CNN’s Jeanne Meserve, Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, the Washington Post’s Spencer Hsu, Newsweek’s/NBC News’ Michael Isikoff, and more, it seemed as if there was a representative from every major news outlet, print and broadcast media in attendance. While many of them were there to serve as session/panel moderators for the various parts of the program, the entire forum was a reservoir of information for them on today’s security concerns and a background on the actions of the past. It was also a treasure trove for journalists in developing future sources for national and homeland security news stories.

Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security

After consecutive 12-hour days of literally (albeit pleasantly) waterboarding attendees with tons of substantive content, it’s hard to figure out how to end a program such as that in Aspen, but they picked a great closer in former DHS Secretary Chertoff. Whether it was the fact that he’s been out of office for almost a year and half and doesn’t have to worry about a 2 AM phone call from National Operations Center about someone doing something vile to the homeland, Chertoff’s candor and demeanor crystallized for everyone the seriousness of the threats we face while also assuring we should continue to go about our regular lives. As one of the very few “senior statesmen” on homeland issues that we have in this country, his conversation with Fox News’ Catherine Herridge conveyed the balance that we need to have when planning for and operating against the range of risks we face.

A wondering disappointment

I can say without doubt that I loved every moment at the Aspen Institute, but I can’t sign off without discussing the one disappointment that I and many others had in the presentation by DHS Deputy Secretary, Jane Holl Lute. Whether it was her discomfort at the conversational interview format led by CNN’s Jeanne Meserve, her fear in the week after the McChrystal debacle, not wanting to say anything to cause problems for herself or the Administration, or the fact that maybe she was having a bad day, her presentation left the overwhelming majority of attendees scratching their heads in wonder as to the real story at the Department.

All of the questions that were asked by Meserve were fair and nothing was out of the ordinary, but Lute’s responses were defensive, sometimes evasive and could have been dramatically better.  Time and time again in her hour long session there were questions to which she could have responded with hard and fast examples of the Department’s accomplishments. Instead, she offered simplistic, almost apple-pie like anecdotal responses that left the audience wondering why she wouldn’t answer the most basic of questions.

When she stated, “the [U.S.] border has never been more secure,” and offered no facts to prove that statement, portions of the audience looked around at one another in shock while others openly chortled at the declaration.

When it came time for Q&A with the audience, the tenor of her responses seemed to be even more defensive. When Michael Isikoff asked her about her statement on the border’s security and her metrics to prove that it had never been more secure, Lute seemed to bristle at the question. She firmly retorted, “The Secretary has been very clear on what those metrics are,” and effectively cut him off.

Lute’s response referred to the speech Secretary Napolitano delivered at CSIS the week before, when she declared, “the U.S. border has never been more secure…but there is more work to be done” and that “no one is satisfied with the status quo.”

In that speech, Secretary Napolitano detailed a series of metrics to back up her statement, but none of those were shared by Lute with Isikoff or the observing audience. In speaking with Isikoff and some of the other attendees after her remarks, none of them were aware of the CSIS speech and the metrics behind the powerful declaration. To the credit of the Department, Bob Mocny and Mark Borkowski did an exceptional job during their joint appearance on the Border Security panel explaining why DHS leadership is stating things have improved on the border.

It is certainly a debatable point to make a declaration like the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary have made in recent forums about border security. When you back it up with information and facts, it provides some measure of credibility and fosters informed debate. When you state it and don’t want to defend it with facts, it leaves people wondering why you would state something like that and not be able to prove it. After her appearance in Aspen, a lot of people were left wondering about the Deputy Secretary, and after viewing her session either on-line or on C-Span, I expect there will be a lot more.

Final thoughts

All of our time is valuable, and God knows we don’t have enough of it, but if you can set your DVRs to record the Aspen Security Forum or go to the Aspen Institute webpage and download panels for your Ipod/MP3 player – DO IT. Think of each of the respective sessions as graduate level courses shared by esteemed faculty who have the real life scar tissue and experiences to tell you what happened and what we can all do better.  If you do, I’m confident you will walk away from each session with a lot more knowledge and a bit of a mild headache too. That’s what pleasant informational waterboarding will do to you, but I have to say, it is much more enjoyable amongst the mountains and beautiful vistas of Aspen.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, Private and Physical Security, Science & Technology, Supply Chain Security, Terror Finance, Terror Strategic Analysis, Transportation Security, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

Unnecessary “Jurisdictional Turf Battles” Threaten to Derail WMD Bill

Friday, June 25th, 2010

Earlier this week, the House Homeland Security Committee marked up the WMD Prevention and Preparedness Act of 2010 in an effort to implement recommendations from the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism (the so-called Graham-Talent WMD Commission). There were a number of good stories about the Committee action, but the one that caught my eye was from Martin Matishak at Global Security Newswire.

Despite the clearly recognized threat of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, congressional leadership still had not recognized that its failure to defragment congressional oversight of homeland security matters is contributing to our lack of preparedness for when this attack occurs. Shame on them if they don’t pay attention to the warnings from Representatives Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) and Peter King (R-NY) at the time of the WMD bill markup. According to Matishak’s article:

Both Pascrell and King argued for quick passage of the bill.

“My concern is that … this legislation could be stuck in the same jurisdictional turf battles we have been fighting” since Congress created the Homeland Security Department and the legislative panels to oversee that agency in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Pascrell said before the vote.

“If we simply shelve this legislation because of jurisdictional turf battles then we prove the idea that we are no safer today than we were on Sept. 10, 2001,” he said.

The measure has already been referred to five other House panels, according to King. They include: Energy and Commerce, Agriculture, Transportation and Infrastructure, Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

“It’s just a glaring example of how the issue of homeland security is being bogged down in congressional bureaucracy,” the New York lawmaker said.

What I am afraid of, however, is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team in the House cannot be “shamed” into doing the right thing. One of the first public actions she took as Speaker was to push the implementation of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission – all but ONE, that is; the one that consolidated congressional oversight of homeland security issues. The House leadership has ignored the issue for far too long. Now we have another congressionally created Commission that has pointed out serious risks – and there is a probability that Congress will still do nothing about it.

If the United States suffers a WMD terrorist attack while Congress fiddles with “jurisdictional turf battles,” as Representative Pascrell warned, one would hope there is the same level of scrutiny over congressional malfeasance, as is the case with the BP Deepwater Horizon debacle. In that case, the message will no longer be, “Congress, Heal Thyself.” It will be “Congress, Blame Thyself.”

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

Watch Your Mouth – Words can be the Real WMDs

Friday, June 18th, 2010

As every person knows, words have consequences. They can raise someone up or tear them down. Depending on how they are used, words can change the meaning and significance of events. They can also ruin someone’s career, and the past days and weeks have given us example after example of just that.

In each of these instances, prominent people have essentially opened their respective mouths and inserted their feet with such speed that everyone around them is in a collective gasp of shock, saying, “What did you say?”

Important points can be instantly invalidated when the wrong words are used at the wrong moment, regardless of what the speaker intended with their comment. Each of the above mentioned cases proves that without a doubt, but it’s not just prominent people who say the wrong thing at the wrong time. For all the countless (and recent) examples of famous people saying something improper in front of live microphone (e.g., Vice President Biden’s F-bomb); a television camera (e.g., CA GOP candidate Carly Fiona opining on Sen. Boxer’s haircut) or some other public venue (e.g., NV GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle), everyone one of us has some episode in our lives that we would love to take back, when we opened our own mouths and promptly inserted both feet.

All of those examples and events certainly provide moments of public (or private) laughter and fodder for late-night comedians, but when the wrong words are used in moments of stress and crisis (e.g., Gulf oil spill, Afghanistan conflict), their consequences are graver.

Accomplished careers can be vaporized in an instant. With a perpetual 24-7 news cycle and social media replaying the gaffe forever more, the wrong words become in effect an epitaph that will forever haunt an individual (e.g. “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job,” “As of now, I am in control here in the White House,” and “Let them eat cake“).

None of this is fair but neither is life. It is a fact of life that in times of crisis, words can cause more harm to a situation than the event that originated the crisis. Making it worse is almost never the intent of the person who opens their mouth, but when operating in any highly toxic environment where crisis and stress are the unfortunate operative norm, what you say does matter in ways like never before.

That’s a fact that no one can be or should be cavalier about either. Everyone can fall victim to this situation, but words have consequences. They always have, and that’s why they can be the ultimate weapons of mass (and self) destruction.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological | Comments

Better, Faster Biodetection Around the Corner, Official Says

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

Better, Faster Biodetection Around the Corner, Official Says – CQ Homeland Security

Federal researchers are developing a revolutionary new method of biodetection that they say could identify nasty germs in a matter of hours, not weeks or months, and possibly save thousands of lives during a biological outbreak or attack.

Sandia National Laboratories’ Rapid Threat Organism Recognition project combines advances in gene sequencing and the lab’s expertise in microfluidics to create a small, rapid, fully automated detectors that scientists say could be used to characterize unusual pathogens — even those never seen before, said Duane Lindner, deputy director for chemical and biological programs at the lab.

Today, the United States’ ability to respond to outbreaks is not keeping pace with developing biological threats, said Lindner, speaking to an audience at the National Nuclear Security Administration’s annual research and development symposium last week. Health and security officials rely on environmental detection systems, such as the Department of Homeland Security’s BioWatch program, to monitor major cities for outbreaks. But those detection systems are geared toward identifying traditional pathogens, Lindner said.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Science & Technology, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

House Homeland Panel Takes Up WMD Bill This Week

Monday, June 14th, 2010

House Homeland Panel Takes Up WMD Bill This Week – CQ Homeland Security

A House Homeland Security subcommittee is expected to cruise through a markup of legislation aimed at improving the United States’ ability to prevent and respond to weapons-of-mass-destruction attacks.

During a press conference last week, sponsor Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J., said the bill (HR 5498) followed the recommendations of the congressionally created Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism. That commission has said terrorists would attempt a WMD attack — most likely with a biological agent — somewhere in the world in the next three years.

Bipartisan backers of the bill say it will fill significant national security gaps.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

DOE removes from its Web site a guide on nuclear plant air attacks

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

DOE removes from its Web site a guide on nuclear plant air attacks – Homeland Security Newswire

A document on federal Web sites since June 2008 that served as a virtual how-to manual for attacking a nuclear plant with an airplane has been removed from the sites at the request of Three Mile Island Alert, a mid-state watchdog group.

Scott Portzline, an unpaid security consultant to TMI Alert, said that while researching sabotage and terrorism targeting nuclear plants in March, he found a document available for download on the Department of Energy Web site titled “Evaluation of Air Craft Crash Hazards Analyses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

The document showed the areas that a plane could hit at a reactor with maximum effect, and it cited buildings or targets that a plane could strike and cause radioactive release, Portzline said.

Energy Department officials said the report was posted by mistake as part of an effort to make the public aware of the department’s scientific work.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Law Enforcement, Private and Physical Security, Science & Technology, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

Prompt Global Strike A Step in the Right Direction

Monday, April 26th, 2010

The determination to proceed with the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) weapon system by the Obama Administration, as reported by the New York Times, raises interesting questions about the long-term future of nuclear weapons. PGS is effectively a tactical nuclear weapon without the messy nuclear after-effects. The system definitely has its advocates and detractors, its good points and bad. However, in a world the President is determined to make nuclear free, it is a step in the right direction.

The New York Times made much of the argument by the Russians that the system would increase the risk of a nuclear confrontation because they would not know if a launch were nuclear. That’s a grand theory, but it belies the concept of global thermo-nuclear war (remember that one?)

Unless a launch were strategic in nature, with sufficient missiles launched as to deny the enemy the ability to react because they had lost all their weapons and command and control, then the question is moot. Conventional weapons that have a similar effect as nuclear weapons can be used for the same purpose, but they have to be used in the same manner. The Russians, Chinese or whomever would have to see the same attack profile of hundreds of rockets in order to see the need to retaliate, and whether the pre-emptive strike was nuclear or not, the intended world-ending effect would be the same.

The PGS is simply an acquisition decision based on effect, as all acquisitions should be.  In this case, the highest level of command has decided that in all but the very worst situations, nuclear fallout is unacceptable, and the deployment and weapons effect of PGS are very desirable; ergo a non-nuclear weapon system that behaves like a nuclear weapon. PGS increases the options available to the president without crossing the nuclear hurdle.

This positive news assumes that PGS really will mimic the effects of a nuclear strike. If not, then will the weapon system just be an overlap for Cruise and other conventional weapon systems? If so, it begins to look and feel like a lot of money spent for little capability improvement; however, the intention is good. One could of course postulate that if the President is truly serious about removing nuclear weapons from the equation, then shouldn’t the technology for PGS be shared with the other nuclear-equipped nations?

As ever with weapons procurement on this scale, the technology is not yet there, and who knows what other benefits may be found in the development stage. PGS, like all systems, has its challenges, and its use will have its issues as well. The determination to have the effect on the target area be measured in seconds rather than decades, however, is an important step forward, one that, if nothing else, reduces the risk of accidents associated with the current nuclear weapons arsenal.

Posted in International, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, Science & Technology, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

U.S. Must ‘Internationalize’ Biosecurity, Experts Say

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

U.S. Must ‘Internationalize’ Biosecurity, Experts Say – CQ Homeland Security

The only way to protect the United States from a biological attack is to institute prevention and response measures globally, a panel of experts told congressional staff members on Friday.

“If you think we can protect America by insulating America from biological attack, it’s nonsense, it can’t be done,” said Barry Kellman, president of the International Security and Biopolicy Institute at DePaul University College of Law. “We shouldn’t even be thinking that way.”

Managing the risk of a biological attack is a perpetual challenge in today’s world, said Kellman, who spoke at the second in a series of Center for a New American Security discussions on biological threats. Although U.S. policies provide real security benefits domestically, the programs need to be tweaked, expanded and exported, he said.

“Internationalize prevention policies,” Kellman said. “We need to think about what we are doing domestically that is effective and how we can take this and deal with what is inherently a global threat.”

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, International, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

Under Obama’s Lamppost

Thursday, April 15th, 2010

Here is what is wrong with the Nuclear Security Summit. It reminds me of the old joke about the drunk looking for his keys under a lamppost when he actually lost them around the corner, but he looked under the lamppost because “the light was better.”

Who after all could object to a conference on combating nuclear terrorism? Pretty much nobody. But nuclear terrorism…smuggling a bomb in a suitcase or shipping container is among the least likely scenarios, except in Tom Clancy novels.

If a terrorist has only one nuclear weapon, it is highly unlikely that they would mail it to their target. Plus, a nuclear weapon delivered as a low air burst is many times more destructive than one detonated on the ground. So, if you had a bomb with the intent to commit terrorism, wouldn’t you want to get the best bang for your buck and kill as many as you could?

That’s not to say the threat of nuclear terrorism should be dismissed. But it is not clear why you have to assemble the world’s leaders to deal with the obvious or manufacture some agreements to create the illusion of getting something done. Bush managed to put together the Proliferation Security Initiative with a hand-holding session.

If it seems like I am arguing the whole thing was for show…to suggest that the President’s road to zero is going somewhere rather than no where…well yes, that is where I think it is going.

In fact, I would argue the president’s nuclear strategy is going to lead to more nuclear confrontation and proliferation. Cutting missile defense, solidifying Russia’s position as a prominent nuclear power, refusing to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal and issuing a befuddling new nuclear declaratory policy are all steps that will invite more nuclear aggression.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, International, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

Chemical Security Inspections: A Houston-Style Flare-Up Providing a Moment of Lucidity?

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010

By Chris Krebs
Vice President at Dutko Worldwide

Over the weekend, the Houston Chronicle added some fuel to the smoldering chemical security legislation fire with an article by Monica Hatcher, where she claims that “almost a decade after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the Department of Homeland Security has inspected just 12 of the 6,000 facilities that require special security measures.”

She soon followed up with another article citing House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee Chairwoman Sheila Jackson Lee’s call to hold hearings to determine the cause of the inspection delays. In short order, chemical security all-star blogger PJ Coyle rolled out a comprehensive post addressing the inspection issues associated with the regulatory program.

Before moving into a discussion of the articles’ fallout, I want to briefly address the nature in which Ms. Hatcher characterizes DHS’s engagement with the Chemical Sector.  While it is technically true that only 12 facilities have been inspected for compliance with the DHS Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) regulatory program since September 11, 2001, the Department’s chemical security activities pre-date Congress’s 2006 legislative mandate. As a matter of background, estimates within the 2003 National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets indicated there were over 66,000 chemical plants in the United States. Assuming 6,000 are covered by CFATS, what of the 60,000 other plants that don’t fall within the CFATS regulatory regime?

Well, to answer that question, here’s a quick snapshot (drawn from 2007 testimony by then-Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection Bob Stephan) of DHS voluntary programs, many of which include “boots on the ground” facility visits, designed to enhance security and protection capabilities around our nation’s chemical facilities:

  • Targeted over $42 million in Buffer Zone Protection Program grant funding around more than 400 chemical facilities across the United States, assisting local law enforcement in enhancing critical infrastructure protection across the country.
  • Conducted six regional Chemical Sector Comprehensive Reviews (CR), a structured, collaborative government and private sector analysis of high value critical infrastructure and key resources facilities. (Detroit, Lower Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Northern New Jersey, and the Lower Delaware River).
  • Targeted another $25 million in grant funding to enhance state and local jurisdictions’ ability to protect and secure identified chemical facilities associated with the Chemical Sector CR.
  • Provided security awareness practices and counter-IED awareness training to chemical sector representatives.
  • Integrated the private sector into national level exercises (in fact, National Level Exercise 2008 featured the explosion of a chemical tanker holding 4000 lbs of methyl isocyanate – of Bhopal, India infamy).
  • Developed chemical sector driven requirements for threat and intelligence products generated by the Department’s Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center (HITRAC).

So as you can see, DHS’s chemical security activities don’t start and stop with CFATS.  It’s a multilayered approach to protection and resilience that relies on public private partnerships and interagency coordination.

Now back to the Houston Chronicle articles – Congressional fallout from Ms. Hatcher’s article has thus far been fairly limited, but interesting nonetheless. Two supporters of the latest and greatest chemical security legislation (H.R. 2868, the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009), Gene Green of Texas and the aforementioned Subcommittee Chairwoman, are both on the record as being concerned with the fate of the bill as it rests in the Senate – the interesting wrinkle lies within their respective interpretations of the potential implications of Ms. Hatcher’s revelation.

According to the follow-up article, Rep. Jackson Lee, representing Houston, has called for hearings to investigate the delays, citing risks posed to communities around the nation by the alleged drawn out process of ensuring the chemical industry’s compliance with CFATS. In his blog post, Mr. Coyle also indicates that Jackson Lee “is concerned that [the inspection] delays will further justify delays in considering and ultimately passing H.R. 2868 in the Senate.”

Rep. Green, a House Energy and Commerce Committee member also of Houston (not to be confused with House Homeland Security Committee Representative Al Green from Houston), is also concerned with the implications of Ms. Hatcher’s report on H.R. 2868.  Rep. Green, however, appears to be less concerned with how the Senate is going to react and more concerned with the operational challenges of piling new regulatory requirements on an agency and industry already up to their eyeballs in implementing CFATS. Green puts it best: “we need to know if CFATS is working or not before we overlay another level of regulation.”

Those are two fairly divergent opinions from two key supporters, don’t you think? One concerned about getting a bill through that stacks additional (and some would say extremely controversial) requirements on an existing program; the other concerned with ensuring the current program’s foundation is solid. While Mr. Coyle doesn’t provide any direct source for his claim that Rep. Jackson Lee is concerned about the fate of H.R. 2868, it sure makes sense, doesn’t it?

She has carried the chemical security legislation water for the last several years, with H.R. 2868 being the first stand-alone piece of legislation to make it out of the House and into the Senate (the CFATS authorizing language was included in the 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Act). Were this bill to bog down in the Senate, whether due to the other provisions in the bill (e.g., Inherently Safer Technology, Water Sector chemical security issues, etc.) or concerns with DHS’s ability to implement the rule, it would be a significant setback to Rep. Jackson Lee and her staffers who have toiled over this issue the past several years.

But in going back to Ms. Hatcher’s articles, this all raises a larger question – whether it’s a good idea to drastically overhaul the Department’s approach to chemical security while DHS is in the midst of the very first compliance cycle for the regulatory program?  Having been involved in the stand-up as well as the implementation of the CFATS program, I think Rep. Gene Green has it right – let’s take a pragmatic approach and allow DHS to get through one cycle of CFATS compliance before revisiting the program’s authorizing structure and adding game changing requirements like Inherently Safer Technology. Ultimately, it’s generally not a good idea to start rebuilding a plane’s engine in mid-flight.

Chris Krebs is Vice President at Dutko Worldwide, leading the firm’s Global Risk Management business division, and was previously Senior Policy Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection at the Department of Homeland Security.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological | Comments

The Value of Exercise

Friday, April 2nd, 2010

I’m seething….  For my regular Security Debrief readers that may be nothing new, but after reading today’s front page Washington Post story, “National disaster exercises, called too costly and scripted, may be scaled back,” I’m really torqued.

For all of the Administration’s talking points we have heard about the need for enhanced national preparedness and exercises, the prospect of scaling them back because of unrealistic scenarios – they are too big, costly and so forth – gives echo to the word, hypocrisy.

Citing the political pressures that scrubbed a nuclear explosive exercise in Las Vegas, Spencer Hsu’s article cites the problems that have plagued previous national-level exercises and questioned their overall effectiveness. His article goes on to say that the Obama Administration is considering scaling them back entirely.

In an week where two suicide bombers boarded subway trains in one of the world’s largest cities and killed more than three dozen people; historic flooding has dramatically impacted the lives and infrastructure of hundreds of thousands of people in New England; and the emergency communications infrastructure for the nation’s capital went kaput rendering DC’s first responders having to use their own cell phones to relay information, this is not the news we need to be hearing.

I fully recognize the tremendous costs and time associated with these types of efforts, but if the Administration decides to truly scale back from undertaking exercises like a New Madrid Earthquake, (which is particularly salient after watching the colossal destruction that has wracked Haiti, Turkey and other portions of the globe these past few months) it is not being honest with the public it serves about the risks that exist today. (A New Madrid earthquake would impact eight U.S. states, millions of citizens and billions of dollars of infrastructure.)

If you talk to any emergency manager in the country, particularly those in the eight-state area where the New Madrid fault lies, they will all tell you this threat is real, it is of concern and we need to take our preparedness for something associated with it very seriously.

It is a fair criticism that a number of exercises simply go through the motions.  It’s also a fair criticism that many of them are far too scripted and devolve into “photo ops” to show off in front of political officials and TV cameras. But for all the criticisms about what an exercise does or does not do, they have value. Minnesota proved that in amazing ways following the 2007 bridge collapse of I-35.

Based on my own personal experiences in the public and private sector with exercises, I have witnessed firsthand how they have often (and purposely) avoided tackling truly hard scenarios, such as the collapse of communications networks and civil unrest. People understandably do not want to be seen in an embarrassing light (unless you’re a reality TV contestant who enjoys that kind of notoriety).

We have also seen any number of situations where those who fail in an exercise or even during an actual event are pilloried by political figures, the media, late night comedians and the public – all for their own purposes. Failure in an exercise is a metric of success because it defines what you need to improve. If we chose to avoid scenarios where we might embarrass ourselves, we will never be prepared or resilient when real scenario occurs.

Craig Fugate of FEMA speaks forcefully and eloquently on this very subject and is an ardent practitioner of what he preaches. With no notice or inkling, he tests himself and FEMA’s senior leadership and personnel in any number of scenarios because he knows they are only a moment away from actually being involved in something bigger than they can imagine. What a healthy way to look at this challenge.

If you choose to look at exercises entirely as a cost (as the Administration is being described), there is no wonder you want to get rid of them. They do require money for the people, planning, operations, assessing performance and so forth. God knows in a federal budget that bleeds more red every day they are a significant cost, but there are some things in our national way of life that are worth paying for and this is it.

Exercises are an investment in our communities, our first responders, our public and private sectors, our infrastructures and our way of life.

Should they be tailored to address cost concerns and effectiveness? Absolutely, but to walk away from the eight planning scenarios that FEMA developed for all our states and territories to consider in their own planning and preparedness efforts (as the Post article alludes to), undermines the credibility of the Administration’s words on wanting us to become a more prepared and resilient citizenry.

While the explosion of a10-kiloton nuclear devise may seem completely unrealistic (and unpalatable to Las Vegas and other jurisdictions), the reality of today’s world is that it is becoming more dangerous because of man-made and natural hazards.

The people of DC’s Metro system have recognized that and have adopted a pro-active behavior and investment strategy to address those realities. The exercises they have engaged in during these past weeks, months and years show that, and if there is one facet of that beleaguered transportation system that is going right it is this one. With any luck, the Administration will recognize the example in their own neighborhood and see and prepare in similar ways.

We’d be all the better for it.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

Debating QDR Recommendations for Northern Command

Friday, April 2nd, 2010

Inside the Pentagon reports there is an important debate taking place over the Pentagon’s plan to downsize U.S. Northern Command forces that are ready to respond to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive (CBRNE) attack on American soil.

Rather than prepare three brigade-sized CBRNE Consequence Management Response Forces (CCMRFs) with about 4,500 personnel each, the Quadrennial Defense Review recommends increasing the size of the first CCMRF while moving personnel from the other two forces to ten smaller Homeland Response Forces in each of the Federal Emergency Agency districts.

According to current Pentagon officials, the QDR recommendations will:

  • Speed the time of arrival for the first CCMRF
  • Enable 2,000 equipped personnel to reach the site of attack within 24 hours
  • Allow 3,000 personnel to arrive within 48 hours
  • Move second and third CCMRFs to command and control support

In Monday’s Washington Examiner, I wrote: “The Pentagon argues that less is actually more, because it has split the troops into smaller force packages that can get to a disaster area faster. But while smaller may be OK for small disasters, it won’t work for big ones.”

Critics argue that the three full-size CCMRFs are necessary for a potential WMD event. Command and control support offers little help during a WMD attack, and the Defense Department’s former homeland defense chief, Paul McHale, told Inside the Pentagon, “If implemented as written, the QDR decision will place our country at great risk.”

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) also worries about losing two brigade-sized forces to 10 smaller Homeland Response Forces, which would be less effective during a catastrophic attack.

To ensure the U.S. is prepared to handle a catastrophic WMD attack, the Obama Administration should:

  • Maintain three fully resourced CCMRFs
  • Train and equip tens of thousands more special forces for emergency response to catastrophic attacks, as recommended by recent studies conducted by Rand Corp. and the congressionally chartered Commission on National Guard and Reserve
  • Prepare a sufficient force that is able to reach the site of the attack as soon as possible.

National security should be fully funded, and the QDR recommendations should not be influenced by previously imposed budget limitations.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

Bioterrorism Threats Highlighted in Hearing

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

Bioterrorism Threats Highlighted in Hearing – Counterterrorism Blog

State Department and non-government experts have told Congress that a biological weapons attack is a clear and present danger and that countering the threats overseas is essential to protect the United State.

The issues were discussed at a hearing Thursday by the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade on “the National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats,” chaired by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California).

Mr. Vann H. Van Diepen, the acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, testified that “The biological threat has several important components, including intent from groups that have expressed interest in obtaining biological weapons and expertise, emerging infectious diseases that create new opportunities for havoc, and growing biotechnology capacity in areas of the world with a terrorist presence.”

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

Yet again we hear it. Is Congress listening?

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

Among the many important findings in the Report Card issued by the co-chairs of the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Commission,  Congress’s failure to consolidate oversight of homeland security received a big fat “F.” The co-chairs, former senators Graham and Talent do not make this finding lightly given their years of elected service on the Hill. It is a bipartisan finding that should get attention, but it appears to keep falling on deaf ears inside the Capitol.

What an embarrassment it should be to Congressional leadership – yet six years after the 9-11 Commission report, the situation regarding the “inevitably dysfunctional oversight” (Senator Graham’s words) has not changed.

Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid – are you listening? Are you willing to do anything about it? Or are you proud that a highly respected bipartisan commission – one funded by Congress – has called your leadership an outright “failure?” Can Congress heal itself?

I, for one, continue to be distressed that this issue has not been addressed. How much longer need we wait?

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

WMD Commission Head: Biological Agents Remain Greatest Risk

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

WMD Commission Head: Biological Agents Remain Greatest Risk — CQ Homeland Security

In its 2008 report “World at Risk,” the congressionally appointed National Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism predicted that a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction was “more likely than not” before 2013 and would probably involve a biological weapon.

Posted in WMD, Chemical & Biological | Comments

How prepared is the U.S. for a bioterror attack?

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

How prepared is the U.S. for a bioterror attack? – Homeland Security News Wire

The current U.S. bioterror detection program: A federally funded, locally run program with an $80 million annual budget, deploying a network of vacuum pumps that draw surrounding air through filters, sniffing for signs of biological agents

Posted in Science & Technology, WMD, Chemical & Biological | Comments

« Older Entries
©2008 Adfero Group. All Rights Reserved.