Appendix C.
Interview Response Transcript
Notes made by the interviewer on the responses to in-person and telephone interviews among six KVE personnel are transcribed below. Respondent code numbers, R1, R2, etc. are used to preserve the anonymity of respondents while illustrating continuity across multiple answers per respondent. Four respondents were assigned to the Laurel County site at the time of the interviews (June 2007), and one respondent each was from the Kenton and Simpson County sites.
A. General Questions about ISSES
A1.
| A1 |
Have you used any part of the ISSES technology? If so, please list the subsystems you have used. Also note about how much you have used the subsystem and for how long. |
| A1 |
R1 |
Yes, R1 uses the thermal inspection/IR device. R1 familiarized himself with the technology several months ago. Also uses the radiation monitor, both the fixed and hand-held units. The radiation monitor alarms "a lot" for items like kitty litter and brick, both of which emit gamma rays. The audible alarms are different [i.e., items that emit higher gamma rays (40, 50, even 60,000) produce noisier/higher sounding alarms]. Bricks (~ 4-5,000) produce a lower sound.
In short, R1 uses both technologies daily. Higher number equals higher sound. |
| A1 |
R2 |
Yes, some basic training on IR device and radiation monitor and laser scanner. |
| A1 |
R3 |
Is familiar with radiation and IR device, not as much laser scanner/vehicle detector. Has been on-site when alarm occurred. Called phone number on ORNL, 12 to 13 agencies showed up, sirens going, including FBI. It was shingles that triggered alarm. Would like to put heads together to develop an SOP (e.g., if alarm goes off, use hand-held radiation device and email Frankfort Fusion Center. Vendor should have done more "in the event of..." No formal training provided, no notice that it was here. In the 2 years R3 has been there, he's had training for hand-held radiation device – separate vendor. |
| A1 |
R4 |
Yes, R4 used radiation monitor and has "heard it alarm," knows how to review alarm, location, but has "limited knowledge to overall use." Watched brakes on IR screen. Seen LPR and USDOT reader, but never seen in operation. |
| A1 |
R5 |
No. |
| A1 |
R6 |
Yes, R6 has used the thermal imaging equipment for about 8 months at this location. |
A. General Questions about ISSES
A2.
| A2 |
Does the ISSES equipment appear to be user-friendly? |
| A2 |
R1 |
For the most part, yes. Only problem is that with the radiation monitor, there was no initial training. They were getting alarms left and right. Is now "comfortable" with radiation monitor.
Brought up personnel issue. (Blue uniforms are KVE inspectors, inspectors use IR; Tan uniforms are KVE road officers.) Two inspectors currently at weigh station, hired two more, one is starting in July. Staffing the technology is an issue. The idea is, once inspectors and officers get recognition training, they still aren't sure of the capabilities of the technologies, "not sure if technology is functioning [correctly]." They just don't know enough about it, "not sure who is responsible for training to get us on the same page." Believes the ISSES equipment needs to remain there. |
| A2 |
R2 |
When it's working it does. People are always in and out making repairs and the screens are password protected. Different face each time; they do what they have to do, repair, and leave. Vendor has had show and tell with other states (OH, VA, WV, MS, TN, an MO); however technicians never ask for inspectors' feedback. Estimates it works "20% of time," times out, a "user ID" screen shows up, and sometimes starts up remotely. Does someone monitor the system remotely? If yes, why do they have to come on-site to make repairs? |
| A2 |
R3 |
Training would make it user friendly. |
| A2 |
R4 |
With training, yes. Password issue. |
| A2 |
R5 |
Personnel have not been adequately trained at this point. R5 cannot say. |
| A2 |
R6 |
Yes. |
A. General Questions about ISSES
A3.
| A3 |
If you haven't used any part of the ISSES equipment, can you explain why you aren't using it? (e.g., time issues, staffing, training issues) |
| A3 |
R1 |
No training yet to become familiar with it. In R1's position, he doesn't do a lot of hands-on inspection. |
| A3 |
R2 |
Time issues is a major thing. R2 has to conduct so many inspections per week. Staffing and training are also issues. |
| A3 |
R3 |
All three (timing, staffing, and training). There is so much to do and not enough people to watch machine, but lack of training is biggest culprit. |
| A3 |
R4 |
Access to equipment and training. |
| A3 |
R5 |
Lack of training on equipment. |
| A3 |
R6 |
Not been trained on radiation equipment. |
A. General Questions about ISSES
A4.
| A4 |
What do you want from the ISSES equipment (or any technology for that matter)? And, is there information that is difficult for you to obtain that a technology would make easier? |
| A4 |
R1 |
Main thing R1 wants is training.
Hand-held radiation detector complements radiation portal monitor. "Definite" thing to have if you have a portal monitor. The portable hand-held unit provides a confirmation of what it is, which also adds a safety benefit [to the inspector]. It is R1's understanding that any radioactive material can be shielded, even a dirty bomb. |
| A4 |
R2 |
[IR/thermal imaging system] shows one side of vehicle. Would like split screen to see other side of vehicle. Put equipment too close to building; by the time the truck arrives [at the scale house] it's too late. The radiation monitor is "very sensitive" and can result in wasted time if it alarms too frequently. "You want to hear every alarm, but you don't want to chase down every truck." |
| A4 |
R3 |
Can't think of anything else. R3 is "sure it's a good piece of equipment," but is not generating the return on investment that it could be generating. States come in and visit the system, but they can't tell them how to use it. The system is in password protected mode, black screen. R3 has never been given info, and hitting enter twice doesn't even work (earlier instructions provided to them). |
| A4 |
R4 |
Record of trucks coming though is beneficial. A record is nice. The radiation monitor is nice to have because of the nature of shipments. Needs to be finely tuned to limit false alarms on bricks and toilets. Needs an alarm cutoff. So many alarms going off. |
| A4 |
R5 |
Training, reference materials, contact information that allows inspectors access to personnel with a working knowledge of equipment. |
| A4 |
R6 |
Real-time information that would be useful in locating violations that occur within the facility. |
A. General Questions about ISSES
A5.
| A5 |
What would make you, or others you work with, use ISSES or utilize it more than you are currently using it? |
| A5 |
R1 |
Training. |
| A5 |
R2 |
Hire someone to sit and monitor ISSES. Thinks it's staffing more than training. |
| A5 |
R3 |
Training. |
| A5 |
R4 |
More training to familiarize us with equipment. |
| A5 |
R5 |
Just knowing how. |
| A5 |
R6 |
Initial training on the equipment. |
B. Questions to be asked if interviewee uses any portion of the ISSES Equipment
B1.
| B1 |
Do you recognize noticeable gaps in the data provided by the ISSES (or a particular subsystem)? |
| B1 |
R1 |
No idea. |
| B1 |
R2 |
No, not sure what to look for though. |
| B1 |
R3 |
The gap is that [inspectors] never know when equipment is working because it is password protected. (Kentucky Transportation Center staff visited the station and it was a big disappointment to see that it wasn't working. Vendor technical support specialist has been there about 3 weeks.) |
| B1 |
R4 |
Noticeable gaps in operation. More days not working than working. IR device is pretty consistent, "a lot more reliable." |
| B1 |
R5 |
N/A |
| B1 |
R6 |
No gaps noticed with thermal equipment. |
B. Questions to be asked if interviewee uses any portion of the ISSES Equipment
B2.
| B2 |
Does the ISSES generate too much information for weigh station staff to appreciate and use in the time available for an inspect/bypass decision? |
| B2 |
R1 |
Again, can't answer because R1 doesn't know enough about system. "Let's have a conversation again in 6 months" after training. |
| B2 |
R2 |
For audible radiation alarms, 90% of them are a waste of time. In terms of too much information, "Yes, in that it is constantly sending off alarms." |
| B2 |
R3 |
Don't know. |
| B2 |
R4 |
Not really. R4 utilizes ISSES for brakes. For the IR siting, it could work [better] further away, not closer that's for sure. (But not too far away, either, because inspectors could mix up trucks.) |
| B2 |
R5 |
N/A |
| B2 |
R6 |
No for thermal equipment. Unable to answer for the radiation equipment. |
B. Questions to be asked if interviewee uses any portion of the ISSES Equipment
B3.
| B3 |
Are there ISSES features or functions that could be changed or that future upgrades could offer? |
| B3 |
R1 |
For radiation portal monitor, R1 would like to retrieve information such as where the radiation is located, how much is there, and generate an "e-mail to whomever." R1 can do this with the hand-held, but not on portal. |
| B3 |
R2 |
See both sides of truck for IR device. |
| B3 |
R3 |
Don't know. Lapse in ALPR recognition perhaps, then when the ALPR system is working, the USDOT number system won't work. Inspectors use IR or radiation monitor during downtime. |
| B3 |
R4 |
As far as an ALPR addition, states check through NCIC database, hit on license plate, run it against NCIC database. |
| B3 |
R5 |
N/A |
| B3 |
R6 |
Unknown at this time. |
B. Questions to be asked if interviewee uses any portion of the ISSES Equipment
B4.
| B4 |
What benefits does the ISSES offer? Do these benefits make your job more convenient/easier compared to the legacy system? |
| B4 |
R1 |
Don't use it enough; just radiation portal monitor when something goes wrong. |
| B4 |
R2 |
Doesn't see what it actually does. It does get USDOT number, but is no benefit to people on-site. Those who benefit [from ISSES] are those operating remotely. |
| B4 |
R3 |
No, it doesn't make job easier. ISSES would offer benefits if we knew how to utilize it. |
| B4 |
R4 |
Gives you a heads up with respect to IR and radiation monitor. Soil density meter example: R4 knew "right where to look" and then used hand-held radiation detector to verify (gave off loud alarm). Good to have both hand-held (to verify at scale house) and stationary portal monitor. |
| B4 |
R5 |
N/A |
| B4 |
R6 |
Unable to answer. |
B. Questions to be asked if interviewee uses any portion of the ISSES Equipment
B5.
| B5 |
What aspect of the ISSES equipment enables you to perform your job function better? |
| B5 |
R1 |
Not much, but for vehicle inspectors, the IR should benefit them. |
| B5 |
R2 |
Haven't used it, don't know, and don't have time. R2 was trained on radiation monitor and IR device and does not feel that additional training is needed. The hand-held radiation detector is not enough insurance for him to feel safe. |
| B5 |
R3 |
IR device helps. The majority will be IR. R3 does not need training to distinguish between brake colors (i.e., white=hot; black=cold). |
| B5 |
R4 |
Heads up, additional information. |
| B5 |
R5 |
N/A |
| B5 |
R6 |
Seems to be much easier to locate possible brake defects with the IR/thermal system than working a location without it. |
B. Questions to be asked if interviewee uses any portion of the ISSES Equipment
B6.
| B6 |
Comment on the system. Does the ISSES equipment perform as expected, based on the specifications or product literature? If not, elaborate on the performance of the particular subsystem. |
| B6 |
R1 |
Again comes back to training. Really don't know enough to answer. |
| B6 |
R2 |
No comment. |
| B6 |
R3 |
No idea. |
| B6 |
R4 |
IR pretty much performs satisfactorily; others unsatisfactory/unreliable as far as daily functions. |
| B6 |
R5 |
N/A |
| B6 |
R6 |
Unable to answer. |
B. Questions to be asked if interviewee uses any portion of the ISSES Equipment
B7.
| B7 |
Does one subsystem add more value than another, or do all subsystems equally help you perform your job function better? (e.g., "Subsystem X helps staff perform their job functions better, but Subsystem Y is difficult and time-consuming to interpret") |
| B7 |
R1 |
Really don't know enough to answer. |
| B7 |
R2 |
Doesn't help R2 do his job better. |
| B7 |
R3 |
IR. |
| B7 |
R4 |
Radiation monitor and IR device provide more information. |
| B7 |
R5 |
N/A |
| B7 |
R6 |
Unable to answer at this time. |
C. Training Questions
C1.
| C1 |
Has training been provided for the use of the ISSES equipment? If so, how long did the training last? If not, how much training would be needed to become proficient in any of the ISSES subsystems? |
| C1 |
R1 |
No training has been provided. Not sure of a timeline, at least a couple days [would be needed]. Again, don't know the capabilities of the system to really give training timeline. |
| C1 |
R2 |
No training has been provided; some training for IR device and radiation monitor. R2 is accountable for so many inspections: 6 to 7 inspections/day; each inspection runs 45 minutes to one hour. |
| C1 |
R3 |
No training has been provided, and it's hard to say the amount of training needed. Nothing "over their heads." Nuclear scientists aren't on site. |
| C1 |
R4 |
As technicians work on system, they have given him info, more like self-motivated training, nothing formal. |
| C1 |
R5 |
No. Details of training content are unknown to me. I need more information to answer accurately. |
| C1 |
R6 |
No. Not at this time. Should need a couple of days to train. |
C. Training Questions
C2.
| C2 |
Are specifications or documentation (e.g., user's manual) on the ISSES equipment available on-site? Was it detailed enough, what details were missing? What kind of additional documentation would be useful? |
| C2 |
R1 |
Some of it is, probably not all of it, though. R1 probably looked more through it than anyone. Some radiation portal monitoring information exists. Documentation [that would be helpful] include user-friendly training manuals and "cheat sheet" or "Cliff's notes." |
| C2 |
R2 |
Not sure if anything is here. There is a one-page flowchart on high-pitch radioactive protocol, provided by Frankfort, and maybe posted on wall. |
| C2 |
R3 |
Anything would be useful at this point. |
| C2 |
R4 |
Not that he's aware of. Useful info would be a flowchart or quick reference guide for different aspects of system. |
| C2 |
R5 |
No and N/A. |
| C2 |
R6 |
Basic response guides are available. Unable to answer without knowledge of operation of radiation equipment. |
C. Training Questions
C3.
| C3 |
How do inspectors or managers deal with the potential liability for missed detections of unsafe or high-risk trucks, which might traverse the weigh station and then become involved in a crash caused, for example, by faulty brakes? Is there an ISSES operating protocol that helps inspectors detect as many unsafe trucks as possible or practical, and if so, how effective is that protocol? |
| C3 |
R1 |
Inspectors do not know if they missed a faulty brake; not sure IR would [either]. Officers will chase down vehicles running. If there is a protocol, he hasn't seen it. |
| C3 |
R2 |
ISSES doesn't show you things that could be faulty (e.g., broken air reserve tank, things under truck could fall out, straps). IR doesn't help here. |
| C3 |
R3 |
No. |
| C3 |
R4 |
No personnel assigned to monitor; manpower is an issue. |
| C3 |
R5 |
Check policies through KVE HQ. Again, you will need to contact KVE HQ for Policy and/or Procedures release. |
| C3 |
R6 |
Unable to answer. |
D. Selection Efficiency
D1.
| D1 |
Other than information from the ISSES, what specific data is collected from the commercial vehicle prior to making a decision on whether to inspect? |
| D1 |
R1 |
At officer's or inspector's discretion. A number of things: look at a truck and see a violation or they don't see anything. No "specific data" is collected unless they see something. Not designed to inspect "every 10th vehicle." |
| D1 |
R2 |
Condition of vehicle, USDOT number, company name, and tire conditions gives him an idea on whether to inspect. |
| D1 |
R3 |
General appearance of truck, past experience with a particular carrier and weight. |
| D1 |
R4 |
It's random; notice obvious violation. |
| D1 |
R5 |
N/A |
| D1 |
R6 |
Quick visual inspection and tax information that is obtained by data entry. |
D. Selection Efficiency
D2.
| D2 |
How is this information collected (sensors, WIM, cameras, eyesight, etc)? |
| D2 |
R1 |
Could be eyesight, sensors (one WIM on interstate, one on ramp) or cameras. |
| D2 |
R2 |
Eyesight. One WIM coming off interstate shown on a screen up front. Keeps an eye on WIM screen to help detect overweight and other stuff. |
| D2 |
R3 |
Eyesight, WIM. |
| D2 |
R4 |
Eyesight primary. IR camera and WIM are utilized the most. Trucks are automatically directed to scales. No in-house alarm. There is an audible alarm if it bypasses scale. Need another camera as to which audible truck is alarming. |
| D2 |
R5 |
N/A |
| D2 |
R6 |
Eyesight and data entry. |
D. Selection Efficiency
D3.
| D3 |
Are any external data sources (SAFER, SafeStat, Query Central) used to supplement data collected at the site? |
| D3 |
R1 |
Yes, all of them |
| D3 |
R2 |
Uses SAFER & Query Central a lot. R2 doesn't use SafeStat. |
| D3 |
R3 |
Yes all three. Not so much SafeStat, more of "compliance review" safety score, past inspections. |
| D3 |
R4 |
Utilize SAFER and QC (weight and tires to SAFER). |
| D3 |
R5 |
N/A |
| D3 |
R6 |
SAFER and Query Central are used. |
D. Selection Efficiency
D4.
| D4 |
What are the main pieces of information collected from the Kentucky Clearinghouse database to help with inspection selection decisions? |
| D4 |
R1 |
Check with an inspector for this question. |
| D4 |
R2 |
Use Kentucky Clearinghouse to see whether truck has Kentucky fuel tax credentials. |
| D4 |
R3 |
If the vehicle is in the database, if their taxes and insurance are current. |
| D4 |
R4 |
Not sure. |
| D4 |
R5 |
N/A |
| D4 |
R6 |
None. |
D. Selection Efficiency
D5.
| D5 |
Based on all data collected, how are decisions related to inspections made? What methodologies play a role in the decisions (ISS algorithm, inspector judgment, etc)? How much is based on data collected and how much is based on inspector observation and judgment? |
| D5 |
R1 |
It's hand in hand, obvious violation equals inspection. Data and judgment comes into play, including SAFER database. |
| D5 |
R2 |
a) inspector judgment and b) solely based on inspector observations and judgment |
| D5 |
R3 |
Inspector judgment to determine flat tire, lights out, placard violations, obvious defects. |
| D5 |
R4 |
Pretty much solely judgment based on scales or alarms that go off. |
| D5 |
R5 |
N/A |
| D5 |
R6 |
Mostly based on judgment, 75% observation and 25% data based. |
D. Selection Efficiency
D6.
| D6 |
How has the inspection selection process changed with the integration of ISSES at the London site? |
| D6 |
R1 |
It has not changed much. Last year IRIS vans were used, on-site 1 to 2 times per month. It is expected to be back at least once a week. On-site IR system has more benefits than IRIS (is convenient); one could complement the other. |
| D6 |
R2 |
Don't think it's changed any. |
| D6 |
R3 |
Not a whole lot. |
| D6 |
R4 |
WIM, not ISSES, has increased number of overweight vehicles pulled over. ISSES change is that it now gives a "heads up." |
| D6 |
R5 |
N/A |
| D6 |
R6 |
Not at all. |
E. Future Deployments: (perhaps discuss these questions as a group, if possible)
E1.
| E1 |
Would the ISSES yield greater benefits if it were more fully integrated with state and national systems, such as Query Central, state inspection or licensing databases, SAFER, Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS), National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (NLETS), etc.? |
| E1 |
R1 |
Yes, the way it is now you have to run USDOT number against 1 to 2 places to get information. To tie all together would make inspector's job easier. |
| E1 |
R2 |
Believe it would. |
| E1 |
R3 |
No idea. |
| E1 |
R4 |
USDOT readers connected to a database would be useful. Siting is an issue; where scanners are currently located makes it hard to make the inspection decision in time. |
| E1 |
R5 |
Yes. |
| E1 |
R6 |
I think that it would. |
E. Future Deployments: (perhaps discuss these questions as a group, if possible)
E2.
| E2 |
Does each ISSES subsystem work satisfactorily in a stand-alone mode? |
| E2 |
R1 |
Yes, from what R1 knows. |
| E2 |
R2 |
They should be together; too much stuff is separate. ISSES should be integrated with what is already available on-site for inspectors. ISSES should be "weaved into databases" (e.g., Query Central). |
| E2 |
R3 |
Don't know. |
| E2 |
R4 |
As far as scanners, slow down give them "more reaction" time. IR camera mount should be "no closer than where it is." |
| E2 |
R5 |
See previous answers. |
| E2 |
R6 |
Unable to answer. |
E. Future Deployments: (perhaps discuss these questions as a group, if possible)
E3.
| E3 |
Would the ISSES data be useful if made available to inspectors in other jurisdictions (e.g., other parts of the state or similar roadside systems in other states?) |
| E3 |
R1 |
Yes, it would be useful if everybody knew how to operate the system. |
| E3 |
R2 |
Yes, but still need a little convincing. |
| E3 |
R3 |
Don't know. |
| E3 |
R4 |
Yes, knowing truck came through "time stamped" would make it easier to verify log books. It would be a big database to keep up with though. |
| E3 |
R5 |
Yes. |
| E3 |
R6 |
I believe that it would be helpful. |
E. Future Deployments: (perhaps discuss these questions as a group, if possible)
E4.
| E4 |
What aspects of the ISSES data do you rely on with the greatest confidence? If there are no aspects that you rely on, what changes to the system might motivate you to use and rely on the data? |
| E4 |
R1 |
Would like to know more about it. |
| E4 |
R2 |
A lot more time to work with system. |
| E4 |
R3 |
IR because you can actually see trucks on the screen (and again little to no training). |
| E4 |
R4 |
IR. |
| E4 |
R5 |
N/A and again, see previous answers on workability and function. |
| E4 |
R6 |
Unable to answer, not familiar with equipment. |
E. Future Deployments: (perhaps discuss these questions as a group, if possible)
E5.
| E5 |
Can you share any lessons learned that would perhaps be useful to other states considering the deployment of similar equipment? (e.g., working with equipment, training, location of the equipment on-site, etc.) |
| E5 |
R1 |
Would like to know more about it |
| E5 |
R2 |
Location of equipment. Before installing, deployment team needs to gain knowledge about timing. When a radiation signal [alarm] is sent, an inspector can't stop the truck in time. Siting issue. |
| E5 |
R3 |
Part of the cost to the machines would include the cost of training. |
| E5 |
R4 |
Give enough reaction time to stop the vehicle; siting concerns. |
| E5 |
R5 |
After initial installation has been completed, make sure training follow-up has been planned to introduce the system to potential users; specifically operation of the system. |
| E5 |
R6 |
Not at this time. |
F. Please answer true or False to the following statements:
F1.
| F1 |
Inspectors believe that ISSES enables roadside inspectors to perform their job functions better. |
| F1 |
R1 |
True |
| F1 |
R2 |
False, because they don't rely on it all the time, because they don't have time. |
| F1 |
R3 |
False, again don't know how to use it. |
| F1 |
R4 |
True, because you have heads up advantage. |
| F1 |
R5 |
True. |
| F1 |
R6 |
Unable to answer. |
F. Please answer true or False to the following statements:
F2.
| F2 |
Inspectors believe that ISSES should be deployed more widely. |
| F2 |
R1 |
True |
| F2 |
R2 |
False, need more time. |
| F2 |
R3 |
False, based on system here. |
| F2 |
R4 |
True, with training |
| F2 |
R5 |
From what I know, I feel that this is a valuable, usable system. As long as personnel are properly trained to make full use of and take proper advantage of all aspects of the system, I would say yes. |
| F2 |
R6 |
Unable to answer. |
F. Please answer true or False to the following statements:
F3.
| F3 |
Inspectors found their training and user documentation for ISSES to be helpful to them in their normal course of duties. |
| F3 |
R1 |
True, if training was provided. |
| F3 |
R2 |
False, need more knowledge. |
| F3 |
R3 |
False, none received. |
| F3 |
R4 |
I'll answer it after it happens. |
| F3 |
R5 |
N/A |
| F3 |
R6 |
Not been trained yet. |
Previous | Next
