POLICY ISSUE

(Information)

January 12, 2007 SECY-07-0018

FOR: The Commissioners

THRU: E. Roy Hawkens

Chief Administrative Judge

FROM: Daniel J. Graser

Licensing Support Network Administrator /RA/

SUBJECT: LICENSING SUPPORT NETWORK PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION -

SEMIANNUAL REPORT

PURPOSE:

This is to inform the Commission, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.1011(c)(5), of the status of

the Licensing Support Network (LSN) and the activities of the LSN Administrator (LSNA) for the

six-month period ending December 31, 2006.

BACKGROUND:

The Commission’s Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated January 31, 1992, directed

the submission of a semiannual report on the activities of the LSNA (formerly the Licensing

Support System (LSS) Administrator). The scope of this semiannual report includes LSN

program activities from July 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006.

DISCUSSION:

I. Activities

A. Licensing Support Network Administrator (LSNA) and Staff

LSN staff member Roy Hardin, LSN Quality Assurance Auditor, has accepted a lateral transfer

to the Office of New Reactors, Division of New Reactor Licensing (NRO/DNRL). This transfer,

in conjunction with the vacancy created in June 2006 when another LSN employee took a 

CONTACT: Daniel J. Graser, LSNA/ASLBP

301-415-7401
The Commissioners - 2 -

supervisory position in the Office of Information Services (OIS), see SECY-06-165, at 2

(July 27, 2006), has reduced the ASLBP technical team dedicated primarily to the LSN from

three individuals to one. As a consequence, there is no federal staff backup for LSN project

management and technical operations in Rockville. The recently-announced hiring freeze has

resulted in NRO not being able to finalize Mr. Hardin’s transfer into that organization,

necessitating an extension of his detail to them and delaying ASLBP’s commencing, with any

reasonable assurance of being allowed to complete a new hire, the process of advertising for a

replacement. ASLBP has taken action to prevent a coverage gap in the quality assurance and

deputy project manager duties that were encompassed in the two vacant positions. In the

interim, Joseph Deucher, the Las Vegas Facility Manager and Deputy Project Manager for the

Digital Data Management System (DDMS), has been assigned to act as the LSN Deputy

Project Manager. The implications of this staffing situation are discussed in Section II, Issues,

later in this report.

B. Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)-Related Activities

Dr. Andrew Bates of the Office of the Secretary (SECY) continues to serve as the Licensing

Support Network Advisory Review Panel (LSNARP) Chair. On November 29, 2006, the

Commission approved a slightly modified LSNARP Charter and on December 6, 2006, the

Charter renewal was filed with our congressional oversight committees and the General

Services Administration. The renewed charter will run for two years, expiring on December 6,

2008. 

C. LSN Advisory Review Panel (LSNARP) Activities

No meetings of the LSNARP occurred during the reporting period. While no meetings are

planned for the immediate future, when they are deemed necessary they will be held in

conjunction with other NRC and DOE meetings to conserve on resources. 

D. LSN Administrator Guidelines

No LSN Administrator Guidelines were revised, and no new Guideline was promulgated, during

the reporting period. The technical bases for LSN operations, including participant organization

technologies, remain stable.

E. Interactions with Other NRC Offices and Entities

1. The Commission

The previous LSNA semiannual report was submitted to the Commission in July 2006. 

2. Office of Information Services

In response to inquiries posed by the LSNA at the end of the previous reporting period, OIS has

clarified the requirements for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPV6) compliance by applications
The Commissioners - 3 -

1

 A number of transition mechanisms are available to enable IPV6-only hosts to reach

IPV4 services, such as the LSN, and to allow isolated IPV6 hosts and networks to reach the

IPV6 Internet over the existing IPV4 infrastructure. A network stack that supports both IPV4

and IPV6 while sharing most of the code is called a dual stack. Encapsulating IPV6 packets

within IPV4, in effect using IPV4 as a link layer for IPV6, is called tunneling.

systems such as the LSN that are not installed on the NRC infrastructure. OIS has advised that

as of this time, there are no mandates regarding applications using IPV6. With the information

available, we have been advised that use of IPV6 by the LSN should not be anticipated prior to

the 2010-2011 time frame. 

As part of a further attempt to identify the risk associated with IPV6 transition that might be

mandated by schedules established by other federal entities over which NRC has no control,

LSN staff reviewed 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart J, governing LSN operations and believes that the

reference in section 2.1011(b)(2)(vi)(A) to the LSN participants maintaining HTTP/1.1 network

access over Transmission Control Protocol over Internet Protocol, which requires mandatory

conformance with Internet Engineering Task Force (ITEF) Request for Comment (RFC) 791,

alleviates any concern in this regard. Under these protocols, neither the LSN nor the parties to

the potential Yucca Mountain high-level waste (HLW) repository licensing proceeding whose

documentary material is available on the system will have to adopt approaches such as “dual

stacking” or “tunneling” to permit communications between servers using IPV4 (such as the

LSN) and a potential party attempting to use IPV6.1

 This also avoids difficulties associated with

the fact there currently are no software security products for monitoring IPV6 networks or

systems.

 

LSN staff completed the annual LSN Security Self Assessment used to comply with the Federal

Information Security Management Act (FISMA). The Chief Administrative Judge signed off on

the LSN Security Self Assessment on July 18, 2006. Additionally, LSN staff submitted required

Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) quarterly update reports to OIS on August 15, 2006,

and November 28, 2006, as accreditation.

ASLBP management was informed of the scores assigned by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) as a result of its Form 300B review of the LSN. As with all fourteen agency

systems identified during this most recent OMB Form 300B review process, the LSN was

placed on the OMB Watch List largely because it continues to function under a

FISMA-associated Interim Authority to Operate (IATO). ASLBP is working with OIS to expedite

the process for obtaining a full Authority to Operate (ATO) for the LSN by May 8, 2007, or

sooner if consistent with the agency’s response to OMB. Funds for a security certification and

accreditation (C&A) support contractor have been identified, a statement of work developed,

and a request for procurement action was forwarded to the Office of Administration, Division of

Contracts (ADM/DC) in hopes of a January 2007 kickoff for this effort. 
The Commissioners - 4 -

3. Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Interactions with the NRC staff on LSN matters dealt primarily with routine document collection

maintenance issues. The staff, following procedures established by the Pre-License

Application Presiding Officer (PAPO) Board, withdrew the text and images of a small number of

privileged documents from the LSN in November.

Additionally, in August the LSNA provided information to the Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards on the history and use of “reasonably contemporaneous” document availability

as originally addressed in Subpart J, including the statements of consideration that

accompanied the original rule and subsequent rule revisions.

4. Office of the Inspector General

On November 20, 2006, LSNA Dan Graser and LSN Project Manager Matt Schmit met with

representatives of the NRC Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to provide background

information on any previous LSNARP or LSNA discussions regarding the submission of OIG

documents to the LSN. This question arose because the Department of Energy’s (DOE) OIG

contacted NRC OIG regarding requirements to submit OIG materials to the DOE document

collection, perhaps believing that NRC’s OIG could provide it with the answer based upon 

NRC’s actions in dealing with the same issue.

The LSNA referred OIG counsel Maryann Grodin to the NRC’s Office of General Counsel

(OGC) as the possible author of a NRC opinion/decision/determination that he recalled

indicated Commission-level office materials generally were not to be included in the LSN (in

contrast with the required submission of materials from offices reporting to the Executive

Director for Operations (EDO)). 

5. Office of Administration/Division of Contracts

The LSN operations and maintenance (O&M) contract was awarded on July 14, 2006. The

award was made to AT&T Government Solutions, the previous support contractor, and

accordingly, there was no disruption in service. 

The LSN O&M contract consists of a one-year base contract valued at $719,141, with two

option-years totaling $1,499,160, for a total three-year award of $2,218,301. If both optionyears are invoked, the O&M contract would expire on July 13, 2009 (which, under the current

DOE schedule for submitting its HLW repository construction authorization application and the

10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix D schedule for the HLW repository licensing proceeding, would be

about the time of the initial prehearing conference regarding participant standing and contention

admissibility).

6. Office of Administration/Division of Facilities and Security

Subsequent to award of the new O&M contract, the LSN contractor has pursued establishing 

an enhanced development, test, and evaluation configuration at its offices in Tysons Corner,

Virginia. This stand-alone configuration provides the contractors with a matching version of the
The Commissioners - 5 -

LSN that can be used to test new software releases, thereby ensuring uninterrupted operation

of the production LSN system. One aspect of this activity is that installing this test environment

at the contractor facility is subject to FISMA security requirements, which potentially includes

having a facility security review performed by the Office of Administration, Division of Facilities

and Security (ADM/DFS). On December 20, 2006, LSN project staff met with ADM/DFS

personnel to determine what level of facility review was needed. We were advised that no

physical security review of LSN contractor space was required because: (1) the LSN is a

publically-available system containing information that is not protected data; (2) contractor staff

are subject to the Information Technology (IT) Level I or Level II security approval process for

access to NRC IT non-sensitive, non-classified systems; and (3) numerous NRC-sponsored

organizations have reviewed the facility. Relative to the last point, the National Security Agency

(NSA) conducted a review of the AT&T contractor space during LSN-instituted information

assurance assessments completed and delivered in August 2002 and August 2005 in

conjunction with the system’s prior ATO certification.

LSN Project Manager Matt Schmit has been overseeing the process of securing appropriate

clearances for the LSN contractor staff since the award of the new O&M contract. Although

contractor staff do not visit the NRC facility on a regular basis or have NRC LAN IDs, they do

have access to the software code used to maintain and operate the publicly accessible LSN

and the non-sensitive, non-classified documentary material it contains. The contractors

completed the security application paperwork in November 2006. To date, one of three AT&T

staff members have been approved for badging. 

Similarly, LSN project staff has been coordinating with the O&M contractor staff to ensure they

are obtaining the mandatory annual computer security awareness course to meet the FISMA

computer security awareness requirement. Because these courses initially were scheduled at

NRC headquarters in Rockville in the October-December timeframe before clearances had

been issued to any of the LSN contractors, we were advised we would be able to use an

alternative training delivery method, i.e., an OIS-developed DVD of the Dale Carnegie Institute

training session.

F. Interactions with DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

on Its Efforts and Readiness to Meet LSN Commitments

On July 19, 2006, the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)

released its schedule for submitting a license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain

HLW repository. The schedule includes plans for DOE to certify that its LSN document

collection is in compliance with the requirements of Subpart J on December 21, 2007. This

event will trigger a period of intense activity for LSN staff and contractors; other participants and

potential licensing adjudication participants, whose own LSN certification deadlines are pegged

to the DOE certification date; and the PAPO Board, which will be addressing any contested

certifications and documentary material disputes.

In October 2006, in response to staff reassignments within OCRWM, LSN staff updated the

Point of Contact (POC) page entries for DOE. The current POC is Dong Kim, who has been

designated as the lead person within the OCRWM program responsible for LSN certification
The Commissioners - 6 -

and Subpart J compliance. In subsequent meetings with Mr. Kim, the LSNA was advised that

DOE is on schedule for submitting its LSN certification no later than December 21, 2007. 

DOE’s “backlog” document pipeline is empty and it now is processing “current” materials. 

LSN-associated activities planned by DOE between now and December 2007 include yet

another round of internal reviews of the DOE collection to identify and remove Personally

Identifiable Information (PII), and preparing privilege claim logs and redacted versions of all

sensitive documents that are to be available roughly concurrent with its planned December

2007 document collection certification.

LSN staff continued to work with DOE during regularly-scheduled conference calls to coordinate

document loading and other LSN-related administrative activities. At DOE’s request, the

schedule for these meetings has been changed from biweekly to monthly.

G. Interactions with Other Participants in Conjunction with Their Efforts to be

Ready to Meet LSN Commitments

As of this date, the following organizations have submitted LSN certification/compliance

statements to the HLW proceeding Electronic Hearing Docket (EHD): NRC, the Nevada

counties of Lander, White Pine, Eureka, and Mineral, and Inyo County, California. Additionally,

DOE submitted a certification, the validity of which was challenged by the State of Nevada.

The LSNA together with Joseph Deucher, the Las Vegas Hearing Facility Manager, met with

technical representatives from Clark County, Nevada, and the Nevada cities of North Las

Vegas and Henderson on August 22 in Las Vegas to discuss the LSN system and its

operations. Additionally, a representative of the City of Las Vegas who was unable to attend

the meeting due to a late-developing schedule conflict subsequently was provided with a

complete set of materials used at the briefing. The meeting was very well received and resulted

in a November 6, 2006 follow-up meeting.

Subsequent to the August meetings, representatives from the office of the Henderson City

Attorney sent general questions regarding potential participation in the HLW repository

adjudication, including how to obtain, and the obligations and privileges associated with, the

different levels of participation in the proceeding (e.g., party vs. interested governmental entity). 

This request was forwarded by the LSNA to NRC OGC for a response. 

In October 2006, the LSNA provided examples of document collection certifications from the

HLW EHD to Inyo County, per its request. Thereafter, on November 15, 2006, Inyo County

submitted an initial certification of compliance with Subpart J requirements. At the time of the

attempted certification, however, Inyo County had not met LSN certification requirements. The

LSNA thereafter provided further clarification to county representatives on the sequence of

events needed for successful technical implementation. Working with Inyo County staff, the

county’s documents were successfully integrated into the LSN, bringing to fifteen the total

number of HLW repository licensing proceeding participant or potential participant LSN

document collections available via the LSN.
The Commissioners - 7 -

Also in November 2006, following PAPO procedures for revising an available certified

collection, the NRC staff responsible for administering the NRC document collection removed a

small number of documents found to contain sensitive information.

During this reporting period, LSN staff also successfully tested integrating Esmeralda County,

Nevada, into the LSN. Esmeralda County, which contracted with the same technical staff that

successfully integrated several other Nevada counties into the LSN, expects to post documents

in the near future.

On November 21, 2006, Nevada Governor Guinn released a letter requesting that DOE open

the “closed” portion of its LSN document collection. In that letter, he also stated that Nevada

had opened its own document collection as a gesture of comity. Upon reviewing the letter, the

LSNA contacted representatives of the State of Nevada (Nevada) seeking clarification

regarding its intentions, as the Nevada collection was emptied, per its direction, following

successful connectivity testing more than a year earlier. LSN staff subsequently worked

diligently with Nevada to re-index its 3,372 documents and open its collection for searching

using the LSN. The Nevada collection was available via the LSN on November 27, 2006, thus

effectuating the Governor’s request. 

H. LSN Project Plan Implementation

1. Ongoing Upgrades and Expansion to the LSN

There are no upgrades or expansions of the LSN production system currently underway.

2. Administration of the LSN

Regarding LSN project management performance for the fiscal year concluding September 30,

2006, the LSN project achieved all its planned milestones for user access, participant support,

and timeliness of document loading. During the fiscal year, the project team maintained system

integrity and document accuracy throughout the year consistent with the LSNA Guidelines, and

successfully addressed the potentially severe security event associated with placement of

certain sensitive documents into its document collection (as discussed in the July 27, 2006

LSNA semiannual report, see SECY-06-165, at 9). Project performance for the fiscal year was

on budget, and all funds were committed well in advance of the end of the fiscal year. A new

multi-year O&M contract was competed and put in place without any interruption in system

service. 

In September 2006, working with ADM/DC, LSN staff completed the annual maintenance

contract with GSA for maintaining the LSN.GOV domain registration.
The Commissioners - 8 -

The following table presents cumulative performance metrics for the LSN during the reporting

period:

Licensing Support Network System Performance Metrics for the Reporting Period

July August September October November December

Number of Participants 14

(3 hidden)

14

(3 hidden)

14

(3 hidden)

14

(3 hidden)

14

(2 hidden)

15

(2 hidden)

Number of Documents 3,429,448 3,439,862 3,448,571 3,453,872 3,468,298 3,476,201

System Availability (Against

Schedule) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Number of Days with Outage

More than Four Hours 000000

The following table presents the net document additions/deletions per month, by participant:

Licensing Support Network Documents Added by Participant

Added

July

Added

August

Added

September

Added

October

Added

November

Added

December

Total 7/06

Through

12/31/06

Churchill Co. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

City of Las Vegas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Clark Co. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DOE I (159) 26 0 0 (32) (17) (182)

DOE II* 15,845 10,388 8,709 5,217 11,083 7,804 59,046

Eureka Co. 00 000 0 0

Lander Co. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lincoln Co. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mineral Co. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

State of Nevada 0 0 0 0 3,372 0 3,372

Nuclear Energy

Institute (NEI) 00 000 0 0

NRC 0 0 0 84 3 111 198

Nye Co.* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

White Pine Co. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Inyo Co., CA 0 0 0 0 0 4 4

Total 15,686 10,414 8,709 5,301 14,426 7,903 62,439

*LSN collection not publically available.
The Commissioners - 9 -

3. Security Profile of the LSN

No system downtime was experienced during the reporting period because of hacker attacks

directed against the LSN. 

The LSN continues to operate under an IATO, which is valid through October 31, 2007. The

LSN, however, continues to be an extremely secure IT system, due in large part to its original

design architecture, the web hosting infrastructure provided by AT&T, and the robust third-party

security services included in the turnkey O&M contract.

On July 17, 2006, Chief Administrative Judge Hawkens, in accordance with Management

Directive (MD) 12.5, “NRC Automated Information Security Program,” appointed Joseph

Deucher and Andrew Welkie as the primary and alternate LSN Information System Security

Officers (ISSOs), respectively. As neither holds database administrator responsibilities on the

system, these appointments provide the appropriate separation of duties for the LSN in that

separate individuals are assigned key duties such as authorizing, approving, and recording

transactions; issuing or receiving assets; making payments; and reviewing or auditing so as to

minimize the risk of misappropriation or loss of system assets. 

I. LSN Communication Plan Implementation

LSN Communication Plan activities during the period were limited to the participant interactions

noted above.

II. Issues

A. Impacts of DOE License Application Schedule Uncertainty on LSN

As noted in the previous LSNA’s Semiannual Report, see SECY-06-165, at 12-13, three

budget/staffing resource issues have been identified as a result of DOE HLW repository

scheduling announcements, including its December 2007 LSN certification and submission of a

Yucca Mountain HLW repository construction authorization application in June 2008:

• The contract providing LSN O&M coverage through July 2009 will expire at the outset of

the prehearing phase if a license application for a Yucca Mountain repository is

docketed in mid-calendar year (CY) 2008. NRC should anticipate another multi-year

LSN O&M contract will need to be put in place by mid-CY 2008. Extending the useful

life of the LSN through 2018 will require at least two major technology substitution

efforts in addition to routine hardware and software refresh efforts. This issue is within

the control of ASLBP management and the LSNA to the extent we can plan for future

reprocurement activities and include budget resources during the appropriate budget

formulation process, which looks two fiscal years ahead.

• Another near-term impact of such extended LSN operation is an increase in the number

of FTEs allocated to LSN to accommodate these new procurement efforts, rather than

maintaining (or even reducing) LSN-associated FTEs if the LSN were to remain in a

steady-state for only a three-to-four year proceeding. Accordingly, besides planning for
The Commissioners - 10 -

and conducting an additional O&M procurement for multiple years of support, LSN

budget formulations for FY 2009 and beyond may reflect a significant re-analysis of the

impacts of conducting extended operations subsequent to the DOE document collection

certification. This issue is within ASLBP and LSNA management control insofar as we

can reallocate existing ASLBP IT team members to address some workload spikes,

specifically those that are of relatively short duration. As with budget resources, we also

can coordinate staff resource increases as part of the budget formulation process.

• A concern relative to the Affected Units of Local Government (AULGs) arises if there are

additional delays in the DOE license application submission date beyond June 2008. 

The Commission should anticipate that some AULGs may seek to “pull the plug” on their

LSN document collections until such time as a DOE document collection certification is

imminent. As a practical matter, this could mean the LSN project would sustain costs

equivalent to what it already has incurred relative to these existing participants by having

to incorporate these “former” participants as additional “new” participants as they

eventually return and request reconnection to the LSN. The LSN staff believes this

issue is manageable if participant organizations maintain some degree of institutional

knowledge, which would facilitate participant LSN reconnection based on their earlier

successful efforts.

B. LSN Project Staffing and Hiring Freeze Under a Continuing Resolution

ASLBP’s IT support team is currently understaffed by two positions. As noted earlier in this

report, as soon as the hiring freeze is lifted, we are prepared to advertise for an IT Specialist

(Sysadmin/Sysanalysis) to perform duties currently assigned to the vacant LSN quality

assurance and deputy project manager positions. We have been advised by the Office of

Human Resources that nothing precludes us from posting the position, reviewing resumes or

interviewing individuals, but that we would not be able to extend an offer until the hiring freeze is

lifted and risk having to restart the process if the applicant list becomes “stale.” In the interim,

Joseph Deucher, the Las Vegas Facility Manager and DDMS Deputy Project Manager will act

as the LSN Deputy Project Manager. This interim action is less than optimal due to the physical

distance and time-zone differences between Rockville and Las Vegas, as well as the DDMSrelated workload currently assigned to Mr. Deucher.

III. Future LSN-Related Activities

Project Manager Matt Schmit will aggressively seek full ATO status for the LSN in accordance

with FISMA C&A procedures.

Contractor staff will complete the installation of the development, test, and evaluation facility.

Badged LSN contractor staff will take the mandatory IT security training via OIS-provided

DVDs.

 
The Commissioners - 11 -

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection.

/RA/

 

Daniel J. Graser

Licensing Support Network Administrator

Atomic Safety and Licensing

 Board Panel

Distribution:

Commissioners

OGC

ASLBP

CFO

EDO

SECY
The Commissioners - 11 -

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection.

/RA/

 

Daniel J. Graser

Licensing Support Network Administrator

Atomic Safety and Licensing

 Board Panel

Distribution:

Commissioners

OGC

ASLBP

CFO

EDO

SECY

ADAMS: ML070160026

* SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE

ASLBP ASLBP/Editor ASLBP/OD OGC SECY

D. Graser:DJG* P. Bollwerk:GPB* E. Hawkens:ERH* E. L. Williamson for

K. Cyr

A.Vietti-Cook:AVC

01/12/07 01/12/07 01/12/07 01/24/07 01/26/07

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY