ML17242A096: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION | {{#Wiki_filter:SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION | ||
Mr. James D. Ellis | |||
Director, Fleet Security Program | SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION | ||
First Energy Nuclear Operating Company | |||
341 White Pond Drive | |||
Mail Stop: A-WAC-B1 | |||
Akron, OH 44320 | |||
SUBJECT: | August 31, 2017 | ||
Dear Mr. Ellis, | Mr. James D. Ellis | ||
Thank you for your e-mail sent by Mr. William Willis, Manager, Site Security, at Davis-Besse | Director, Fleet Security Program | ||
Nuclear Power Station, on August 29, 2017, to the Division of Security Operations (DSO), | First Energy Nuclear Operating Company | ||
Security Performance Evaluation Branch with the two attachments entitled Formal | 341 White Pond Drive | ||
Disagreement with Adversary Characteristics, Attributes, or Tactics Employed or Prepared as | Mail Stop: A-WAC-B1 | ||
Part of an NRC-Evaluated Force-on-Force Exercise (safeguards encrypted), in accordance | Akron, OH 44320 | ||
with Addendum 4 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Procedure | |||
71130.03 Contingency Response - Force-on-Force Testing. | SUBJECT: | ||
In your attachments you dispute tactics, techniques, or procedures (TTP) within Scenario 1 and | RESPONSE TO FORMAL DISAGREEMENT WITH ADVERSARY | ||
Scenario 2 developed by an NRC Force-on-Force inspection team. | CHARACTERISTICS, ATTRIBUTES, OR TACTICS EMPLOYED OR | ||
The NRC has carefully reviewed both of your formal escalations and concluded that the | PREPARED AS PART OF AN NRC-EVALUATED FORCE-ON-FORCE | ||
disputed TTPs are approved for use within both the NRC-evaluated exercise scenarios for the | EXERCISE - DISPUTED ITEM 05000346/2017201-01 AND DISPUTED ITEM | ||
following reasons: (1) it is within the design basis threat; (2) it is supported by available data; | 05000346/2017201-02 | ||
(3) it is within your program requirements to provide defense-in-depth; (4) it can be safely | |||
performed and controlled; and (5) it provides a credible and realistic challenge to your sites | Dear Mr. Ellis, | ||
protective strategy. | |||
Thank you for your e-mail sent by Mr. William Willis, Manager, Site Security, at Davis-Besse | |||
Nuclear Power Station, on August 29, 2017, to the Division of Security Operations (DSO), | |||
Security Performance Evaluation Branch with the two attachments entitled Formal | |||
Disagreement with Adversary Characteristics, Attributes, or Tactics Employed or Prepared as | |||
Part of an NRC-Evaluated Force-on-Force Exercise (safeguards encrypted), in accordance | |||
with Addendum 4 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Procedure | |||
71130.03 Contingency Response - Force-on-Force Testing. | |||
In your attachments you dispute tactics, techniques, or procedures (TTP) within Scenario 1 and | |||
Scenario 2 developed by an NRC Force-on-Force inspection team. | |||
The NRC has carefully reviewed both of your formal escalations and concluded that the | |||
disputed TTPs are approved for use within both the NRC-evaluated exercise scenarios for the | |||
following reasons: (1) it is within the design basis threat; (2) it is supported by available data; | |||
(3) it is within your program requirements to provide defense-in-depth; (4) it can be safely | |||
performed and controlled; and (5) it provides a credible and realistic challenge to your sites | |||
protective strategy. | |||
The enclosure transmitted herewith contains Safeguards Information. When separated from the | |||
enclosure, this transmittal document is decontrolled. | |||
SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION | |||
J. Ellis | |||
If you would like to appeal this decision, provide a written response within 3 days from the date | J. Ellis | ||
of this letter with the basis of your appeal to the Director, DSO. | 2 | ||
SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION | |||
If you would like to appeal this decision, provide a written response within 3 days from the date | |||
of this letter with the basis of your appeal to the Director, DSO. | |||
Enclosures: | Sincerely, | ||
1. NRC Response to Disputed Item | |||
2. NRC Response to Disputed Item | /RA/ | ||
cc w/enclosures: William Willis, Manager, Site Security | |||
Robert C. Johnson, Chief | |||
Security Performance Evaluation Branch | |||
Division of Security Operations | |||
Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response | |||
Enclosures: | |||
1. NRC Response to Disputed Item | |||
05000346/2017201-01 | |||
2. NRC Response to Disputed Item | |||
05000346/2017201-02 | |||
cc w/enclosures: William Willis, Manager, Site Security | |||
ML17242A096 | |||
OFFICE | |||
NSIR/DSO/SPEB | |||
NSIR/DSO/SPEB | |||
DATE | NAME | ||
J. Berry | |||
C. Johnson | |||
SIGNATURE | |||
DATE | |||
8 / 29 /2017 | |||
8 / 31 /2017 | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:31, 8 January 2025
| ML17242A096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse |
| Issue date: | 08/31/2017 |
| From: | Rachel Johnson Security Performance Evaluation Branch |
| To: | Ellis J FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co |
| Josh Berry | |
| References | |
| IR 2017201 | |
| Download: ML17242A096 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000346/2017201
Text
SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION
SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION
August 31, 2017
Mr. James D. Ellis
Director, Fleet Security Program
First Energy Nuclear Operating Company
341 White Pond Drive
Mail Stop: A-WAC-B1
Akron, OH 44320
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO FORMAL DISAGREEMENT WITH ADVERSARY
CHARACTERISTICS, ATTRIBUTES, OR TACTICS EMPLOYED OR
PREPARED AS PART OF AN NRC-EVALUATED FORCE-ON-FORCE
EXERCISE - DISPUTED ITEM 05000346/2017201-01 AND DISPUTED ITEM 05000346/2017201-02
Dear Mr. Ellis,
Thank you for your e-mail sent by Mr. William Willis, Manager, Site Security, at Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Station, on August 29, 2017, to the Division of Security Operations (DSO),
Security Performance Evaluation Branch with the two attachments entitled Formal
Disagreement with Adversary Characteristics, Attributes, or Tactics Employed or Prepared as
Part of an NRC-Evaluated Force-on-Force Exercise (safeguards encrypted), in accordance
with Addendum 4 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Procedure
71130.03 Contingency Response - Force-on-Force Testing.
In your attachments you dispute tactics, techniques, or procedures (TTP) within Scenario 1 and
Scenario 2 developed by an NRC Force-on-Force inspection team.
The NRC has carefully reviewed both of your formal escalations and concluded that the
disputed TTPs are approved for use within both the NRC-evaluated exercise scenarios for the
following reasons: (1) it is within the design basis threat; (2) it is supported by available data;
(3) it is within your program requirements to provide defense-in-depth; (4) it can be safely
performed and controlled; and (5) it provides a credible and realistic challenge to your sites
protective strategy.
The enclosure transmitted herewith contains Safeguards Information. When separated from the
enclosure, this transmittal document is decontrolled.
SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION
J. Ellis
2
SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION
If you would like to appeal this decision, provide a written response within 3 days from the date
of this letter with the basis of your appeal to the Director, DSO.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Robert C. Johnson, Chief
Security Performance Evaluation Branch
Division of Security Operations
Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response
Enclosures:
1. NRC Response to Disputed Item 05000346/2017201-01
2. NRC Response to Disputed Item 05000346/2017201-02
cc w/enclosures: William Willis, Manager, Site Security
OFFICE
NSIR/DSO/SPEB
NSIR/DSO/SPEB
NAME
J. Berry
C. Johnson
SIGNATURE
DATE
8 / 29 /2017
8 / 31 /2017