Vulnerability in Chemical Sectors in the US - Research Paper Example

Student’s Name Instructor’s Name Class Name Date Chemical sector- Chemical Facilities Introduction Chemical sector forms an integral part of the economy of United States. As a component of critical infrastructure, chemical facility is an asset of the system. Critical infrastructure is a system or an asset that maintains a significance role in the society. The chemical sector is grouped into five main categories. The categories are based on chemical facility products. The categories are basic chemicals, agricultural chemicals, pharmaceuticals, especially chemicals, and consumer products. Each of the mentioned chemical sector category has specific characteristics markets, growth dynamics, issues, and new developments. Some of these sectors are privately owned while others are owned by the State. Other sectors affect these sectors; they include Critical Manufacturing, Water and Wastewater Systems, Emergency Services, Communications, Food and Agriculture, Energy, Transportation Systems, Healthcare and Public Health and Information Technology (Ec.europa.eu). On the other hand, there are vulnerabilities which impacts on productivity level of the chemical sector. Government and non-government actors come up with measures to curb the vulnerability. This research paper will discuss the chemical sector and chemical facilities. It will explain critical infrastructure design in which chemical sector is an integral part. The paper will give a description of critical infrastructure sector that is an asset or a system that that maintains a vital function of a society. The chemical sector has vulnerabilities that threaten if functions and productions. Those vulnerabilities will be discussed in this paper. The government and non-governmental acts have realized the vulnerabilities in these sectors and have responded to them. The responses will be discussed. Finally, the paper recommends policies actions to reduce these vulnerabilities. The paper has four sections namely critical infrastructure sectors, vulnerabilities in chemical sectors, government and non-government actor’s response, and recommendations. It will form the foundation for further research on vulnerabilities in chemical sectors. Critical Infrastructure Sector Critical infrastructure sector maintains the vital functions of the society (Ec.europa.eu).Governments use the term critical infrastructure to describe assets and systems that are necessary for society and economy functioning and growth. The significance of critical infrastructure sector makes it necessary to United States economic vitality, public health and safety, states security, and the way of life. There are sectors that are commonly associated to critical infrastructure such as agriculture and food, banking, chemical, communication, commercial infrastructure, and energy excreta. The sector requires protection because of the importance and probable dangers associated with them. For instance, chemical sector, which will be discussed in this paper, poses threats to national security and to them. Measure should be taken to reduce vulnerabilities facing chemical sectors. Chemical sector is not capable of offering itself security. Chemical manufacturers produce harmful toxins that should be protected and prevented from linking into wrong hands (Shreve and Brink 7). Chemical sectors are made up of chemical industries that manufacture industrial chemicals. The sector is an integral part of the modern economy of the world and converts raw material such as air, water, oil, natural gas, and minerals into more than seventy thousand different products. This magnifies its importance to the economy of any countries in the world. The shipment from chemical sectors in the US totals to about $ 450 billion per year. It is a significant producer of law material for other industries, consumers, exports, manufacturing, and defense. The export takes up almost 15 per cent of the whole total of raw material. End market of chemical sectors produces include health care, consumer products, construction, paper, home furnishing, transportation, food, paints, electronics, and textiles. For instance, the automobile industries consume a large quantity of products from chemical sectors. An auto consumes about $1500 of chemicals such as lube oil, paints, rubber tires, synthetic fiber, and plastics. A cell phone use plastic assembly and silicon-based chemicals, which are durable a fact that makes it feasible. In addition, microwave ovens are made with plastic housings, silicon chips, and fire-retardant plastic additives (Shreve and Brink 9). Chemical sector profitability and sales follow the United States consumer economy. It follows peaks sales and profits several years after a strong growth in consumer economic period and indicates low points in case of recessions (“Homeland Security Dept” Par. 4). The consumer economics can, therefore, be said to determine demands in chemical industries. The demand growth in chemical sectors has slowed since 1960s, but it remains better that the State’s annual gains in gross domestic product. In 2000, operating margins were recorded at about 6 per cent as compared with a peak of 1995, which was almost 11 per cent. The chemical sector as a critical infrastructure consumes a lot of assets in the development and research. The capital is estimated to be about $30 billion per sector. This is below seven percent of the sales. Some areas have had rapid growth and development than others. Areas of life sciences, electronic chemical and select plastic products have shown improvements. Chemical sector employs over one million people. Six hundred thousand of the employees were in direct manufacturing (Shreve and Brink 12). Vulnerability in Chemical Sectors In protecting critical infrastructure such as chemical sectors, the government is responsible for setting goals, but the implementation of steps to reduce the vulnerability of corporate and privately owned assets rest on primarily private-sector action and knowledge. Even though private firms exclusively understand their hazards and operations they necessitate, it is clear that they presently do not have suitable commercial inducement to fund vulnerability reduction. For many chemical sectors, the cost of reducing vulnerabilities offsets the benefit of reduced risk from natural and other catastrophes as well as from terrorist attacks (Kosal 719). According to the United Nations Development Program, vulnerability is the human processes or conditions that result from economic, social, physical, and environmental factors. It determines the probability with which a country, a population, or a community is likely to feel the effects resultant from particular hazards or disasters that take place in the society. The conditions which result from the above-mentioned factors make the societies and countries fringe and susceptible to disasters and hazards which inevitably leave the society, not resilient and unable to withstand the effects resulting from this (Kosal751). Vulnerability can also be defined as the actual or potential degree of loss resulting from any given hazards or harm depending on the magnitude of a disaster. Vulnerability goes determines the level of resilience. United Nations International Strategy for Reduction of Disaster defines resilience as the ability of societies or systems to withstand or accommodate the results from the impacts of hazards and disasters with efficiency and precision with respect to time. The concept of resilience is about a systems and community being able to navigate successfully through torrid times in the form of disasters with ease due to availability of necessary tools to combat and prevent the possible effects that may occur (Weick and Kathleen, 2007).It is seen as a mechanism for avoiding or coping with any given impacts of hazards or disasters or absorbing them by coping with them by locally organized means. It also involves seeking assistance from the other partners in case you do not have the resources locally, which could be financial or technical to improve the societal or communal capacity to withstand or accommodate the effects from disasters or hazards. Chemical facilities are currently vulnerable to terrorist attack and other natural causes such as earthquakes. Several cases of attacks of chemical facilities in the past demonstrate their potential vulnerabilities. Such incidents as 1984 Bhopal incident and terrorist attack of September of 2001 and recently Hurricanes such as Rita and Katrina show a possible consequence. Although not focused on so much, terrorist attack is a vulnerable possibility of chemical facilities. Some factories operate in areas that are prone to earthquake. Disasters caused by earthquake make chemical facilities vulnerable. Earthquakes of large magnitudes may damage chemical facilities storage areas that may lead to release of harmful chemicals to the environment. The governments sometimes ignore such vulnerabilities. Earthquakes, though ignored are a principle vulnerability of chemical facilities. Earthquake is a natural calamity that may be vulnerable to chemical facilities in areas prone to earthquakes. Earthquakes may also be because of increasing industrialization, urbanization, also ascending susceptibility, and intensity of modern technology in developed and developing countries (Butenweg, Karimi, and Toll). Earthquake cases are growing in these regions causing damages industries including chemical facilities. Such incidents lead to injuries, deaths, and financial losses (Butenweg, Karimi, and Toll). Terrorist may attack chemical facilities in states with weak governmental regulations. There are as many as fifteen thousand chemical facilities in America and with more than hundred situated in heavily populated areas (Brian and Tobi 1307). Such facilities hold poisonous chemicals that if placed in wrong hands would cause death injuries to thousands of people. Fire pauses as a principle vulnerable of chemical facilities. Most of the chemical plants deal with combustible materials that may cause injuries, death, and financial loss in case of fire. Danger of potential harm possessed by such facilities makes them vulnerable fire breakouts. The previous accidents in chemical facilities are the embodiment of the harm. ((Drake and Thurston 100).Accident caused by both man error and natural causes like lightning, earthquake, and strong winds and vulnerabilities that lead to release of toxic substances may harm other natural resources such as water. For instance, two chemical plants collapsed in the city of Shifang due to earthquake activities. 80 tons of ammonia leaked, and hundred people were buried in the ruins. Fire is vulnerability of chemical industries. Fire may be caused by natural phenomenon such as lightings or power faults. It may lead to loss of lives, injuries, and financial losses. It can also harm the environment (Brian and Tobi 22). Fire may cause explosions in the plant leading to release of toxic fumes in the environment. Chemical facilities are prone to accidents that may be caused by natural phenomenon like earthquake or man error. Such accidents lead to release of toxic fumes. Chemical facilities should have safety guidelines that will ensure the safety of the workers, chemical stored and surrounding community. The state should have laws and regulations that are capable of developing and maintaining improvements in chemical facilities security (Drake and Thurston 103). Vulnerability, should be the primary objective set forward to be able to attain the level of resilience needed to cope with any given disasters that may occur unexpectedly in this most vulnerable areas in any location that have been pointed out as a potential risk zone. To come up with resilience programs it is inevitable that the vulnerability assessment for a particular system or society needs to be carefully analyzed and determined. Vulnerability is used as a starting point for the initiation of risk reduction strategies, which serve to buffer the resiliency levels of the societies, systems and the country at large (Vogel and O’Brien, 2004). Vulnerability assesses the susceptibility levels of the people of the different paradigms such as the social susceptibility, environmental susceptibility, physical susceptibility as well as the economic susceptibility (Turner et al, 2003). Since the disasters effects are assessed based on the above mentioned pillars, they have been done through the development of indicators which generally act as pointers to the level of vulnerability involved enabling adequate resilience measures to be undertaken to avoid potential adversities like to occur (Cardona et al, 2005). Government and non-governmental acts responses to vulnerabilities The importance of critical infrastructure sectors such as chemical sectors to the US economy is profound. The sectors create both employment and raw material for other sectors; hence, acting as vital boosters to the economic growth. It is for these reasons that government and non-governmental sectors should respond accordingly to the vulnerabilities facing the chemical sector. In case a terrorist attack or natural disaster such as earthquake, the sector stands to lose both in capital resources and human labor. The events of September 11, 2002 are the embodiment of dangers facing chemical sectors. They uncovered realities that massive attacks by can occur in United States soil. The events show how such possibilities of future chemical, or biological chemical attack may occur. Since chemical sector produces chemicals that can be used to harm citizens in case of an attack and during a natural disaster, government and non-governmental agencies should assess the risk and come up with mitigation measures. The government of United States proposed the 2003 Chemical Security Act. The act requires that the chemical sectors assess and identify their security vulnerability, come up with ways to mitigate the threats through conducting security vulnerability assessment. The chemical facilities then report the results of the possible threats to both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Beta.congress.gov).Corporations or facilities that are subjected to the legislation are those that employ a process or chemical that may be hazardous the health and safety of its workers and public in case of release. The House and Senate versions of the bill will require sites to be ordered based on potential interest as a terrorist target, location, and surrounding population. The law does not automatically require a chemical facility to change considerably its chemical process or equipment to comply with the protocols. Relatively, such as patrols upgrading routine security, background checks conducted on all employees, or recording of vehicle plate numbers that enter the facility, excreta, is the main drive of the Chemical Security Act (Beta.congress.gov). The government and non-governmental sectors provision of insurance will tempt a manager to engage in uncertain behavior than would have else been the case. This is related to the moral vulnerability problem in insurance. There is a link between securities or mitigation measures and price of insurance, which is related to threats by terrorism and is tenuous at best (Beta.congress.gov). This exposes the chemical facilities to attacks. Currently, evidence shows that no insurance providing company in the United States that provide coverage for terrorism. This is far linked in any way the price of insurance to the security measures put in place by a chemical facility. Such case are attributed to decrease in price of insuring terrorism four years after the incidences of September 11. In addition, the cause for poor insurance coverage is due to relatively high prices for insuring the facility again. It does provide a large room for reduction of the price. Both the government and non-government acts should shield the chemical sector from this risk (Beta.congress.gov). Chemical facility advisory board is an action that requires the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to create a Chemical Facility Advisory Board. The board is made up of nine members. Seven of the nine members represent chemical facilities that Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards covers. The remaining two are experts on subjects related to chemical facilities security (Stephenson 98). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, based on the costs associated with other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advisory bodies, that implementing this provision would cost $1 million over the 2011-2015 periods. This will help build team building. Great disaster managers appreciate the role of teamwork and incorporate the use of teams in the disaster management efforts. Therefore, a good disaster manager should be the one who can work in a team and be able to coordinate this team to achieve the desired results. Recommendations Ensuring the security and eliminating of chemical facilities is importance for the growth of United States economy. Outside organization vulnerability assessments, and deliberate investment in a small set of obviously cost-effective technologies, the following structural, continuity of operations planning, organizational, and financial strategies should be considered to increase the ability of the precarious infrastructure service providers and public establishments to perform their functions (Beta.congress.gov). The cooperation or chemical facilities should strike a balance between strategies that emphasize anticipation which reduces the likelihood of attack and factors that emphasize resilience which reduces damages that are results of attacks. They should also support and recognize high-reliability reliability and organizations professionals. Enhancing the capabilities of auto adaptive response systems of various types is considered paramount in risk reduction. Companies should as well reward information sharing about organizational and technological changes and encourage organizations to stress safety. The importance of promoting negotiation among populations and stakeholders to define significances and explore options for action cannot be overemphasized. Finally, develop motivational packages should be accessible to encourage private investment in security by depending on market forces to the possible extent (Stephenson 100). In conclusion, critical infrastructure that includes chemical facilities is a system or an asset that is the significance for societal functioning. Chemical facilities are faced with vulnerabilities that threaten their functions. Such vulnerabilities include natural disasters such as earthquake and terrorist attacks. In the case of such disasters, the health and safety of workers and local community would be in danger. Government and no-government agencies come up with acts that protect chemical facilities from assessed vulnerabilities. This paper makes some recommendation on how corporations and chemical facilities should follow to reduce the vulnerabilities. Works cited beta.congress.gov. "S. Rept. 111-370 - CONTINUING CHEMICAL FACILITIES ANTITERRORISM SECURITY ACT OF 2010 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress."Beta.congress.gov, 2010.Web. 26 Feb 2014. . Brian, Williams and Lippin Mae Tobi. "Chemical Plants Remain Vulnerable to Terrorists: A Call to Action." 114. 9 (2006): 1307. Print Butenweg, C., Karimi, I., Toll, B. Vulnerability assessment of Industrial Facilities. Lbb.rwth-aachen.de, 2005.Web. 10 Feb 2014. Ec.europa.eu. "DGs - Home Affairs - What we do - ...Crisis & Terrorism - Critical infrastructure."Ec.europa.eu, 2013.Web. 25 Feb 2014. . Drake, Elisabeth M and Clark W Thurston. "A safety evaluation framework for process hazards management in chemical facilities with PES-based controls." Process Safety Progress, 12.2 (1993): 92--103. Print. Homeland Security Dept. Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) Chemical- Terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI). 25 Feb 2014. Kosal, Margaret E. "Terrorism targeting industrial chemical facilities: Strategic motivations and the implications for US security." Studies in Conflict \& Terrorism, 29.7 (2006): 719--751. Print. Moore, David A, Brad Fuller, Michael Hazzan and J William Jones. "Development of a security vulnerability assessment process for the RAMCAP chemical sector." Journal of hazardous materials, 142.3 (2007): 689--694. Print. Shreve, Randolph Norris and Joseph A Brink.Chemical process industries. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977. Print. Stephenson, John B. Homeland security. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. General Accounting Office, 2004. Print. Vogel, C. and K. O’Brien .‘‘Vulnerability and Global Environmental Change: Rhetoric and Reality’’, AVISO – Information Bulletin on Global Environmental Change and Human Security 13, Web.26 Feb 2014http://www.gechs.org/publications/aviso/13/index.html. Read More