SUMMARY REPORT ON THE 2006 STATE REGIONAL GROUP (SRG) SECURITY SURVEY

Transcription

1 SUMMARY REPORT ON THE 2006 STATE REGIONAL GROUP (SRG) SECURITY SURVEY Background Information In the spring of 2006, the four state regional groups (SRGs) surveyed their states to obtain information on the states preferences and practices for receiving and protecting shipment information, conducting inspections, escorting shipments, and training personnel to accomplish all these activities. The staff developed the survey instrument with input from state representatives on an ad hoc working group. The questionnaire covered four broad topics: State experiences on training in handling of sensitive and classified information, including command and control between organizations. Information requirements regarding the movement of nuclear material to Yucca Mountain. Procedures for reporting events involving shipments to local, State, and Federal authorities. State capabilities, human resources, laws and regulations, and roles and responsibilities pertaining to shipment security, including appropriate inspector and security escort roles and responsibilities. The staff pilot tested the questionnaire in six states and revised it based on feedback from those states. The staff used an on-line surveying tool Survey Monkey to administer the survey. The on-line system did not require respondents to answer every question. The states were given a total of three months to complete the questionnaire. A total of 45 states were surveyed. 1 The following is a breakdown of respondent states by region: 2 Midwest: 10 out of 10 states responded Northeast: 8 out of 10 states responded South: 7 out of 15 states responded West: 10 out of 10 states responded A er compiling the results of the survey, the staff analyzed the data with the goal of answering several broad questions. In each case, the answers point to some action that DOE, the states, or the SRGs could take to address outstanding issues, state needs, or other activities related to shipment security. Depending on the specific regional preferences, the SRGs could pursue the recommended actions as part of their cooperative agreements with OCRWM. 1 Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota will not be affected by shipments and therefore were not surveyed. 2 These figures are used throughout the document and are repeated when necessary.

2 Page 2 What kind of training can DOE expect to have to do or pay for? With regard to information security, most states conduct some kind of information instruction rather than full-fledged training on handling of safeguards information. Training or instruction for local officials is far less common, with only around 20% (7 of 35) of the states doing such training. Over two-thirds (24 of 35) of the states reported that the existing programs they use do not provide sufficient security information training for spent fuel and high-level waste shipments to a repository. Slightly over half (18 of 35) the states reported that they do not have the resources necessary to train people on information security for a shipping campaign on the scale of the repository shipments. For inspecting and escorting shipments, most states (83%) reported that they do not currently have the necessary resources and personnel to escort shipments on a weekly basis. A smaller majority (69%) are in a similar situation with regard to resources for inspections. It is likely, therefore, that states will look to the financial assistance available through 180(c) to conduct training activities to ensure their readiness to inspect and escort shipments. Does your state currently have the necessary resources and personnel to train appropriate people in connection with repository shipments 3? Information Security Inspections Escorts Region Yes No Yes No Yes No Midwest Northeast South West Total Possible actions: The SRGs should consider working with individual states to assess their specific needs for training in the areas of protecting information, inspections, and escorts. DOE should research the existing federal programs for training in protecting information to determine their strengths and weaknesses. 3 For inspections and escorts, the question specifically asked about shipments occurring on a weekly basis.

3 Page 3 What kind of coordination can DOE expect will occur between state and local agencies regarding information sharing? With one exception, the governors designees in all regions pass information on to one or more agencies within the state. Fi y-one percent of the states reported sharing the information with three or more other agencies. It is less common for the designees to pass the information on to local government officials. More than half (6 of 10) of the Western states share information with affected counties or tribes, whereas no states in the northeast reported doing so. In all cases, the states reported that they share information with other state and local agencies because those agencies need the information in some way to do their job. Examples ranged from processing paperwork for fees and permits to being prepared in case of an emergency. What agency or agencies subsequently receive the safeguards notification from the office of the Governor s designee in your state (include state and local agencies or officials) Number of Agencies Region or more Local agencies Midwest Northeast South West Total Possible action: Given the number of different agencies in each state that will be receiving information on shipments, DOE should work with the states to develop wri en materials and/or arrange informational meetings well before shipments commence.

4 Page 4 Do states need to develop procedures and protocols for sharing safeguards and other information? What about in an emergency? The states are all well prepared to receive safeguards information and further distribute it to agencies with a need to know. Most states are also prepared to receive SSI, LESI, and OUO information. There is a lower level of comfort with procedures for receiving classified information largely because, in the majority of responding states, a different agency than the governor s designee would receive the information. Does your state plan include information on sharing Safeguards or higher levels of information within the Incident Command/Unified Command System in an emergency? Region Yes No Midwest 3 7 Northeast 2 6 South 5 2 West 3 7 Total Although states generally have established procedures for routine sharing of protected information, many states reported that they do not have specific procedures in place for sharing such information in the event of an emergency. Possible actions: The SRGs should consider working with their states to develop model procedures for sharing safeguards and other information in an emergency. DOE should address the issue of who receives classified shipment information in the case where that person is someone other than the Governor s Designee for safeguards information.

5 Page 5 What is the preferred method for receiving and distributing information? Overall, certified mail ranked as the most popular means of receiving information, with secure coming in fourth. For distributing information, most states preferred using guarded telephone or having the information picked up in person. Other options that the states preferred for either receipt or distribution included statewide communications systems and secure web sites (e.g., similar to TRANSCOM). Which mode does the Governor s designee prefer for receiving shipment notifications containing safeguards information? Region Guarded Fax Guarded Telephone Certified Mail Courier Pager Secure Midwest Northeast South West Total Other What mode does the Governor s designee prefer for transmi ing shipment notifications containing safeguards information? Region Guarded Fax Guarded Telephone Certified Mail Courier Pager Secure Pickup Other Midwest Northeast South West Total Possible action: Given the wide disparity in how different states prefer to receive information, DOE may need to visit this topic in more depth prior to the start of shipments. While DOE would no doubt find it convenient to use one standardized mode for all states, the Department must also address the concerns of those states that do not prefer, or cannot receive, that mode.

6 Page 6 What type of long-term and near-term planning information can DOE expect to provide to the states, and when? And is there any difference in information requirements between the two primary modes? States were asked to rank the importance of receiving the information listed below for both advance notification of specific shipments as well as long-term planning information for upcoming campaigns. The states were also asked to indicate whether they would need the information for truck shipments, train shipments, or both. Information General route information Detailed route information General time frame of campaign Specific shipment dates/times Number of cars/casks Expected dose rates (during routine transportation) Expected activity, specific radionuclides Cask model(s) Point of origin info (State/utility) Presence of state escorts in neighboring states Presence of federal security measures, e.g., escorts Tracking systems being used Point(s) of contact for campaign Safe parking locations Possible alternate routes Any scheduled stops (in state) Inspections already conducted Security plans Across all regions, the average rankings for all the specific pieces of information were in the 1-5 range, with one being high and five being low. Information on cask models ranked as the least important piece of information to all regions, although it still rated close to 3 overall. There was no significant difference in what information the states would need between the two transport modes. There is a wide variety in how far in advance of shipments states want to receive information. Depending on the specific information, the answers ranged from one day to three years for both shipment-specific and campaign information. There was no significant difference between information needs for individual shipments compared to campaigns. Possible actions: The SRGs should refine the estimates of how far in advance the states wish to receive the specific pieces of information for the purpose of developing a communications timeline. DOE should work with the states to incorporate specific information needs into the department s advance notification and long-term planning information protocols.

7 Page 7 What will DOE have to provide states regarding notification when there is an incident or an accident? The survey asked the states to indicate whether they would like to receive the following information in the event of an incident or accident: Location of incident Time of incident Total # vehicles/cars/ casks involved Basic description of incident Detailed description of incident Has there been a release? Number/type of injuries Results of initial radiation survey Shipping papers (dose rates, activity, etc.) Incident commander/point(s) of Contact at incident site Point(s) of Contact for shipper/carrier Presence of state escorts in neighboring states Presence of federal security measures, e.g., escorts Other Federal assets on-site or responding Tracking systems being used Radiation monitoring systems being used Cask model(s) The states reported that all the suggested pieces of information were important with cask information being the lowest rated. Some states reported needing other information, including whether escorts were required, other agencies responding, and cask recovery information. The states were also asked about their preferred mode(s) for receiving the information. Most preferred either telephone or fax. Speed seemed to be what influenced on the method states preferred for receiving information. That is, in an emergency the states wanted information fast, e.g. through telephone or fax. Possible action: State preferences for receiving information in an emergency Region Fax Telephone TRANSCOM Warning System Midwest Northeast South West Total Other DOE should incorporate specific information needs into the department s protocol for emergency notification. In general, DOE should plan to provide as much information as possible, as quickly as possible.

8 Page 8 Do states need to develop procedures or protocols for responding to emergencies involving radioactive waste shipments? The states are well prepared in terms of having plans in place for responding to emergencies. Many of these plans specifically address emergency response to incidents involving radiological materials. States that do not have such specific plans reported having all-hazards plans that were adequate. As noted earlier, most states do not have specific wri en procedures for how to share safeguards information in the event of an emergency. Likewise, most states do not have plans for what to do in the event that the National Threat Warning level changes while a shipment is in transit. Possible action: Does your state have a plan for what to do in the event of a change in the National Threat Warning level while a spent fuel shipment is in transit in your state? Region Yes No Midwest 5 5 Northeast 2 6 South 3 4 West 2 8 Total Using EM s protocol as a starting point, the SRGs should work with the states to develop a model protocol for dealing with shipments that are in transit when National Threat Levels change.

9 Page 9 What can DOE expect in terms of inspection requirements in the states? The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration requires a CVSA Level VI inspection at the point of origin. Fi een of the states surveyed have an additional requirement for a point-of-origin inspection, while another nine states reported that they would likely conduct such an inspection. For train shipments, only six states require inspections at the point of origin, but another 9 states are likely to conduct one. En route shipments by truck are likely to undergo inspection in 12 states. Only half as many states will inspect train shipments en route. States where point-of-origin inspections are currently required Region Train Truck Midwest 4 6 Northeast 1 2 South 0 2 West 1 5 Total 6 15 States where en route inspections of truck shipments are required or likely Region Required Likely Midwest 4 1 Northeast 2 2 South 3 1 West 3 3 Total 12 7 States where en route inspections of train shipments are currently required or likely Region Required Likely Midwest 4 1 Northeast 1 3 South 0 1 West 1 3 Total 6 8 Most states reported that they wanted at least two weeks notice for scheduling inspections of train shipments. For truck shipments, all but a few states reported they would need one week or more advance notice to schedule truck inspections. Some states reported needing three weeks or more advance notice for scheduling both types of inspections. About half (17 of 35) of the states would honor a CVSA Level VI decal, although some level of inspection may be required if there is a state law (e.g., level 2). However, whether a neighboring state had conducted an inspection did not appear to influence a state s decision to inspect. In all regions except the South, most states reported that an inspection in a neighboring state would not affect their decision to inspect. In the South, the responding states were evenly divided. Possible actions: DOE and the states should work out a plan for point-of-origin inspections to be conducted for all shipments by truck and train. DOE and the states should work out a plan for some (but not all) states to conduct en route inspections.

10 Page 10 How o en can DOE anticipate having state escorts accompany shipments? Nationally, only 10 states currently require a state escort for spent fuel shipments, with the greatest percentage being in the Midwest. Three of the four Midwestern states and 6 of 10 overall requiring escorts do so for both truck and train shipments. Counting the states that are likely to escort, a total of 21 states expect to escort shipments to the repository. Does your state require or will it likely require a state escort for spent fuel shipments? Region Required Likely Midwest 4 2 Northeast 1 4 South 3 2 West 2 3 Total Possible action: The SRGs should work with the states to examine logistical issues pertaining to state escorts, including potential costs and the availability of state resources.

11 Page 11 How much (and how) can DOE expect to pay for state shipment inspections and escorts? At this time, with so much uncertainty in the federal program, it is impossible to estimate how much DOE will likely have to pay for inspections and escorts in connection with shipments to the repository. As noted above, most states anticipated hiring more staff. States listed several ways of covering the costs. Some states said they traditionally do not bill for services as long as the activity occurs during a reasonable time of day when sufficient staff are available. Other states said they would bill the shipper or carrier for the inspection or escort. Still other states indicated that they would recoup their costs through shipment fees. In fact, several states with fees indicated that, as shipment frequency increases, they will generate sufficient revenue through fees to cover the costs of hiring and training new personnel. Possible actions: The SRGs should make shipment-fee information available to states that do not currently charge fees but may have an interest. A er reliable information on routes and shipment numbers is available, the SRGs should develop estimates for the fees that states will charge for shipments to inform DOE s development of annual budgets.