Wastewater Workshop Presentation 2007[2 R]

660 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
660
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Wastewater Workshop Presentation 2007[2 R]

  1. 1. POST “9/11” SECURITY What Does It Mean for Industrial and Wastewater Treatment Plants
  2. 2. Security Wake-Up Call <ul><li>America is vulnerable to a terrorist attack </li></ul><ul><li>Implementing proper Security is a challenge </li></ul><ul><li>There are many types of threats </li></ul><ul><li>Countermeasures must be effective </li></ul>
  3. 3. Industrial & Wastewater Security <ul><li>Security is important </li></ul><ul><li>Health Issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Disease </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Breeding Ground for Biological Agents </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Economic Consequences </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inability to Treat Waste Shuts Down Industry/Commerce </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lack of Public Confidence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Messy Inconvenience </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Spreads to Other Sectors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>General Loss of Confidence </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Industrial & Wastewater Security <ul><li>Government Legislation </li></ul><ul><li>Vulnerability Assessments (VA) </li></ul><ul><li>Meeting VA Recommendations </li></ul>
  5. 5. Key Infrastructure
  6. 6. Recent Security Legislation <ul><li>2002 – Wastewater Security Act (not promulgated) </li></ul><ul><li>2003 – 2004 Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act (BPRA) </li></ul><ul><li>2003 – Hazardous Materials Transportation – 49 CFR Parts 171-178 </li></ul><ul><li>2003-2004 Maritime Transportation Security Act </li></ul><ul><li>2003 – International Air Transportation Administration (IATA) Regulations </li></ul><ul><li>2006 – DHS Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism (CFAT) Standards, (ANPR) – 6 CFR Part 27 </li></ul><ul><li>2006 – Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Rail Transportation Security (ANPR) – 49 CFR Parts 1520 & 1580 </li></ul><ul><li>2007 – DHS CFAT Interim Final Regulations </li></ul>
  7. 7. Recent Security Legislation <ul><li>2004-2006 City of Baltimore; MD state; New Jersey; New York – various state and local regulations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Maryland did not exclude Wastewater </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New Jersey developing extensive additions to current legislation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Illinois following New Jersey </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Current Legislation <ul><li>It is likely that what we are seeing at the moment is simply the “ Tip of the Iceberg ” </li></ul><ul><li>Many States are planning new Security Related Laws aimed at: </li></ul><ul><li>ANYONE involved in the manufacture, use of, storage of, distribution of or any other form of involvement with Dangerous, or Strategic Chemicals and Gases </li></ul>
  9. 9. Security Vulnerability Assessment <ul><li>Focus of Legislation </li></ul><ul><li>Pre “9/11” Known as Risk Assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Essential Elements: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Methodology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assess Threat Level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify Critical Assets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Detect Delay Respond </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recommendations </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Recommendations <ul><li>Based on Methodology Utilized </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Detect, Delay and Respond </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Deter, Detect and Respond </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Typically Costly </li></ul><ul><li>IST Factor </li></ul><ul><li>Practical Consequences </li></ul>
  11. 11. What To Do <ul><li>Meet Recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>Do Nothing </li></ul><ul><li>Compromise </li></ul><ul><li>Follow Security Industry </li></ul>
  12. 12. Prudent Management <ul><li>Understand Your Individual Situation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Vulnerability Assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Realistic Recommendations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Act on Sensible Recommendations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Phased Implementation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consider Implementation over Stages </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Deterrent Approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Follow Security Industry Standards </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. The Deterrent Approach <ul><li>Sandia Approach : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Detect Delay Respond </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Security Industry Approach: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Deter Detect Respond </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Factors Affecting Recommendations <ul><li>Problem Areas </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Number and Location of Critical Assets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Response Time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Practical Consequences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Operational Impact </li></ul></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Delay/Response
  16. 16. Client XXX Security Improvement Cost Estimate Sandia Methodology Approach Summary of Risk Reduction Solutions for Client XXX $3,590,000 TOTAL 1,060,000 Hardening Measures As Above (3C) 300,000 Perimeter Security Improvements & Upgrade As Above (3B) 1,240,000 Perimeter Security Improvements & Upgrade WTP Facility (3A) $190,000 Hardening Measures As Above (2B) $200,000 Perimeter Security Improvements Control # Y & I-XX/C-XX Culverts (2A) $600,000 Perimeter Security Improvements & Upgrades Control # X (1B) $TBD Relocate with New Housing Control # X (1A) ESTIMATED COST DESCRIPTION CRITICAL ASSET RISK REDUCTION SOLUTION
  17. 17. Deterrent Approach <ul><li>Deter </li></ul><ul><li>Detect </li></ul><ul><li>Respond </li></ul>Successfully utilized within the security industry for many years
  18. 18. Main Features of Deterrent Approach <ul><li>Emphasis on perimeter protection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fencing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Signage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lighting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Surveillance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Detection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective Audible Alarm(s) </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Differences in Cost <ul><li>Fencing </li></ul><ul><li>Lighting </li></ul><ul><li>Signage </li></ul><ul><li>Surveillance </li></ul><ul><li>Detection </li></ul><ul><li>Alarm </li></ul><ul><li>Hardening of Critical Assets </li></ul><ul><li>Fencing </li></ul><ul><li>Perimeter Lighting </li></ul><ul><li>Perimeter Signage </li></ul><ul><li>Perimeter Surveillance </li></ul><ul><li>Perimeter Detection </li></ul><ul><li>Effective Audible Alarm(s) </li></ul>Sandia Approach Deterrent Approach
  20. 20. Client XXX Security Improvement Cost Estimate Sandia Methodology Approach Summary of Risk Reduction Solutions for Client XXX $3,590,000 TOTAL 1,060,000 Hardening Measures As Above (3C) 300,000 Perimeter Security Improvements & Upgrade As Above (3B) 1,240,000 Perimeter Security Improvements & Upgrade WTP Facility (3A) $190,000 Hardening Measures As Above (2B) $200,000 Perimeter Security Improvements Control # Y & I-XX/C-XX Culverts (2A) $600,000 Perimeter Security Improvements & Upgrades Control # X (1B) $TBD Relocate with New Housing Control # X (1A) ESTIMATED COST DESCRIPTION CRITICAL ASSET RISK REDUCTION SOLUTION
  21. 21. Client XXX Security Improvement Cost Estimate Deterrent Methodology Approach Summary of Risk Reduction Solutions for Client XXX $1,133,900 TOTAL REDUCTION OF 68.42% $1,060,000 Hardening Measures As Above (3C) $192,000 Perimeter Security Improvements & Upgrade As Above (3B) $560,500 Perimeter Security Improvements & Upgrade WTP Facility (3A) N/A Hardening Measures As Above (2B) $105,400 Perimeter Security Improvements Control # Y & I-XX/C-XX Culverts (2A) $276,000 Perimeter Security Improvements & Upgrades Control # X (1B) $TBD Relocate with New Housing Control # X (1A) ESTIMATED COST DESCRIPTION CRITICAL ASSET RISK REDUCTION SOLUTION
  22. 22. Industry Quotes “ The current approach to facility sites ignores the tremendous value of deterrence that can be achieved at a fraction of the cost proposed for hardening the site. Except at the highest profile sites, the threat to the site can be reasonably deterred without building a fortress.” James M. Woodruff, PE, CPP CEO American Consulting Engineers
  23. 23. Industry Quotes &quot; The Design Basis Threat for many facilities is ‘Environmental/Social Extremist’ or lower.  This level of threat does not need the levels of protection recommended for ‘domestic terrorist’ or ‘state sponsored foreign terrorist.’ Concentration on deterrence countermeasures can markedly reduce the cost of protecting the site and provide an appropriate measure of security protection consistent with the Design Basis Threat level.&quot; David L. Rockford President, The Wickford Group
  24. 24. Consideration <ul><li>In following the Deterrent Approach, it is estimated that industrial facilities can reduce their security costs by a factor of 30-60 percent. </li></ul>
  25. 25. Summation of Benefits <ul><li>Significant Reduction in Cost </li></ul><ul><li>Less Operational Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Easier Implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Greater Acceptance by Staff and Vendors/Visitors </li></ul>
  26. 26. Conclusion <ul><li>Significant Security Legislation & Likely to Increase </li></ul><ul><li>Legislation Encourages Security Vulnerability Assessments (SVA) </li></ul><ul><li>Important to Understand Vulnerabilities </li></ul><ul><li>Pursue Sensible SVA Incorporating Security Industry Standards & Deterrent Approach </li></ul><ul><li>Seek Degree of Professional Assistance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NO SUBSTITUTE FOR EXPERIENCE IN SECURITY </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Questions <ul><li>Wivenhoe Management Group </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tel. (609)-208-0112 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fax (609)-208-1295 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>www.wivenhoegroup.com </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul>

×