Progress in Developing the National Asset Database

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$J1L(lO~ \~ ~~ - Center for Investigative Reporting$

Attack (GCOA) tool. 42 This tool is an automated process for evaluating largenumbers of targets and attack modes to estimate, at a high level, theconsequences of terrorist attacks. IP intended to run the tool on the NADB inSeptember 2005, but flaws in the methodology and data quality concernsstalled the development of the GCOA tool. These issues have now beenresolved, but technical concerns continue to limit wide-scale implementation.At the time of our report, IP had not performed this analysis.Expert Panels. IP intends to use expert panels consisting mostly of privatesector representatives to review and refine the NADB. IP will provide panelsdata it has collected for each sector, including the results of gross consequenceof attack analysis should it become available. The panels will focus ondeveloping a methodology to measure and compare consequence by assigningvalues to various sector segments, such as prioritizing sector operations. Thepanels plan to review, sort, and rank all of their sector’s assets, too. Delays inprocessing state-submitted data prevented the panels from convening last year.The first expert panel met for the chemical sector in March 2006, and IPintends for expert panels to have concluded for all sectors by October 2006.Normalization. To develop a common risk analysis methodology that allowsfor comparability of consequence, vulnerability, threat and risk measurements,IP is developing a suite of tools called Risk Analysis and Management forCritical Asset Protection (RAMCAP). RAMCAP is intended to provide assetowners and operators a means to calculate the potential consequences andvulnerability to an attack using a common and consistent system ofmeasurements, or the means to convert the results from prior assessmentsperformed with select approved methodologies into results that can becompared to those obtained using RAMCAP methodologies. WithoutRAMCAP, the ability to gauge an individual asset’s value or compare itsimportance to that of another asset will remain subjective and dependent uponthe assessor’s personal knowledge or awareness about an asset.SSAs will complete and maintain their own risk assessments and IP willcomplete and maintain national cross-sector risk assessments. Riskassessments are ongoing and IP does not envision a definitive end-date whenthey will be complete. IP is working with the SSAs and other sector partnersto develop, implement, and validate RAMCAP consequence and vulnerabilityassessment methodologies across the 17 CI/KR sectors. Assessments usingRAMCAP have been conducted only in some sectors, in the pilot stages of42 The contractor developed three GCOA tools: Methodology for Indirect Economic Loss Model, Methodology forCasualty and Damage Models, and Hazard Methodology.Progress in Developing the National Asset Database20
development in other sectors, and awaiting development in still other sectors.Individual proprietors in other sectors are using different assessment tools,and IP will need to determine whether it can incorporate the results of otherassessment tools.Interdependency Analysis. Understanding interdependencies is a key elementin the future analysis and prioritization of CI/KR; the more IP understandsinterdependencies, the more it can confidently prioritize the NADB. Asinfrastructure by its nature has interconnected elements, the vulnerability ofone asset may be dependent on another asset. These relationships requiresignificant modeling and simulation to determine how cascading effects maycreate vulnerabilities. The National Infrastructure Simulation and AnalysisCenter (NISAC) is the government leader in the theoretical understanding ofinfrastructure interdependencies. IP coordinated in applying information fromNISAC and other sources who are evaluating CI/KR. These entities havesuccessfully modeled interdependencies in selected sectors independently ofthe NADB.RecommendationsWe recommend that the Under Secretary for Preparedness:1. Define, and systematically examine, out-of-place or “extremelyinsignificant” assets, and determine which of those assets shouldremain in the NADB. Consider redesignating low-value assetsremaining in the NADB.2. Provide state homeland security advisors the opportunity to (a) reviewtheir previously submitted assets (with the taxonomy if necessary) thatthey believe fall within the definition of “extremely insignificant” and(b) recommend to DHS whether to retain them.3. For ongoing and future data calls, clarify the guidance states shouldfollow for what data to submit, and how DHS intends to use that data.4. Identify and evaluate key milestones for the NADB and ensure thatthey are accurately captured in the NIPP.Progress in Developing the National Asset Database21
Page 1 and 2: DRAFTDEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURIT
Page 3 and 4: ContentsExecutive Summary..........
Page 5 and 6: Executive SummaryOn December 17, 20
Page 7 and 8: such as prominent national, state,
Page 9 and 10: Chart 1: NADB Totals by SectorAgric
Page 11 and 12: Chart 2: NADB Totals by Stages of D
Page 13 and 14: IP officials view the new taxonomy
Page 15 and 16: assets (such as schools) should be
Page 17 and 18: all but Indiana) and identified sev
Page 19 and 20: mortuaries, 571 nursing homes, and
Page 21 and 22: capability to be queried in a varie
Page 23: eports and reluctance of the privat
Page 27 and 28: that not only does the department n
Page 29 and 30: Recommendation #3: For ongoing and
Page 31 and 32: Appendix APurpose, Scope, and Metho
Page 33 and 34: Appendix BPreparedness Response to
Page 39 and 40: Appendix CRoles/Responsibilities wi
Page 45 and 46: Appendix DCritical Infrastructure a
Page 47 and 48: Appendix EGuidelines for Identifyin
Page 49 and 50: Appendix EGuidelines for Identifyin
Page 51 and 52: Appendix FCritical Infrastructure/K
Page 53 and 54: Appendix HReport DistributionDepart

Progress in Developing the National Asset Database

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?