intrusions. Biometrics, sophisticated passwords, and other high-security tools also are being used.

Mr. Shannon spoke about the difficulties encountered by rescuers when entering a damaged facility. Hazards, risk, and protection all play a role in how help can be rendered when needed. A structure that is heavily compartmentalized can better survive a fire, but escaping such a structure can be a problem for rescue operation teams.

One person's protective measures are another person's obstacles, and the same defense mechanisms for protection from attackers can also keep rescuers out of a structure. There is a trade-off between knowing about hazards and developing acceptable protective measures to mitigate them. It is absolutely essential to address protective measures in either above-ground or underground construction during the engineering design process.

The controlled environment within UGFs is advantageous. UGFs face the problem of access points becoming possible avenues for an attack, but proper engineering can mitigate the impact. Even when attacked, UGFs still their structural integrity. Protective measures should be based on risk analysis and on the specific hazards identified.

Mr. Shannon recounted his experience supervising rescue efforts in Oklahoma City after the bombing of the Murrah Building and some of the special problems faced by rescue teams there.

Mr. Little opened the question-and-answer session by summarizing the viewpoints expressed by the panelists. UGFs are essentially a physical solution to a problem, but there is debate as to which infrastructure vulnerabilities are physical issues. He alluded to Mr. Brandenburg's discussion of choosing between hardening and mobility for increasing the survival rate of an infrastructure. In the banking industry, very few threats are directly physical, although there is a need for better backup facilities. The question is to what extent these backup facilities need to be located underground. Mr. Rodger's comments made it clear that there are sectors of the energy industry for which physical solutions are necessary and that users and suppliers must be brought together. Finally, Mr. Shannon urged that these facilities be engineered with rescue and recovery in mind. Mr. Little highlighted the enormous need for coordination between service providers and the infrastructure community for development of the physical solutions to infrastructure protection problems.

Front Matter (R1-R6)

Introduction (1-4)

Welcoming Address (5-6)

Findings of the President (7-11)

Key Issues in Going Underground (12-12)

Infrastructure Protection in the United States: A Norwegian Perspective (13-14)

Panel Discussions, Panel 1: Infrastructure Protection Issues (15-23)

Panel 2: Needs and Requirements of the Infrastructure Community (24-29)

Panel 3: Experience with Underground Facilities: Capabilities, Limitations, and Applications (30-37)

Panel 4: Factors Influencing the Decision-Making Process (38-44)

Breakout Sessions (45-47)

Closing Remarks (48-49)

Appendix A: Speaker Biographies (50-58)

Appendix B: Workshop Agenda (59-61)

Appendix C: Workshop Participants (62-63)