- Home »
- News »
- Y-12 Report »
- Winter 2006, Vol. 3, Issue 4
Winter 2006, Vol. 3, Issue 4
Ways to 'AVERT' security costs
![Using AVERT saves vulnerability analysts several hundred hours when evaluating proposed upgrades. Click image for larger view.](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20080916235807im_/http://www.y12.doe.gov/news/report/3_4/img/tn_img_p11.jpg)
Using AVERT saves vulnerability analysts several hundred hours when evaluating proposed upgrades. Click image for larger view.
To protect a site from potential adversaries, one has to analyze the attractiveness of various pathways. The site's protective force must be adequately prepared for adversaries coming from any direction and using any means.
In labor costs alone, AVERT software will provide an annual cost avoidance of $280,000.
The software that Safeguards and Security Risk Management personnel currently use to analyze the Y‑12 National Security Complex's adversary pathways is quite resource intensive. It also has limited capabilities, particularly with regard to analyzing proposed security upgrades.
Obviously, the focus is on obtaining the best security posture at the most reasonable cost. However, with the current tools, Risk Management personnel were spending many hours analyzing the proposed upgrades, leaving few resources to examine alternatives.
To address these limitations, the Risk Management department began evaluating a new tool for pathway analysis. This tool—AVERT, or Automated Vulnerability Evaluation for Risks of Terrorism—provides several advantages over the current software.
AVERT is a software tool that, as the name suggests, aids in evaluating responses to terrorist risks. The software is also capable of running multiple concurrent analyses, and evaluations with Y‑12-specific data have shown the potential to save several million dollars on proposed security upgrades
Risk Management staff used AVERT to evaluate suggested vehicle and pedestrian barriers. Three scenarios for each proposed upgrade were examined, and in each case the software identified more cost-effective alternatives that provided equivalent protection.
Identifying those cost-effective alternatives is the goal, according to Rick Glass, Risk Management manager. “By running the scenarios, we're better able to advise our customer on the most efficient way to provide the required level of protection,” Glass said. “With the current tools, the cost of developing, updating and evaluating different scenarios is prohibitive.”
As for the proposed vehicle and pedestrian barriers, personnel using AVERT needed less time to work through those processes in the scenarios they examined. Moreover, the evaluations yielded potential cost avoidances of $2.5 million.
According to Glass, those projected savings should only increase: “A total cost avoidance of approximately $5 million has been achieved for FY 2008 and 2009 upgrades. By using this tool, cost avoidances for future upgrades may also be obtained.”
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Energy and NNSA recently performed a peer review of Y‑12's experience with AVERT. The review team noted the use of multiple pathway analyses as a good basis for comparing upgrade alternatives. Other advantages of the software, the team reported, include the ability to handle an enhanced level of detail and the ability to input global changes, which results in decreased labor costs.
Even when the software's cost is considered, switching to AVERT will yield real savings in FY 2008. For Y‑12, 'AVERT'ing cost appears to be a wise move.