Commissioner Burns’ Comments on SECY-14-0088, “Proposed Options to Address
Lessons-Learned review of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Force-On-Force
Inspection Program in Response to Staff Requirements Memorandum COMGEA/
COMWCO-14-0001"

The NRC staff identified actions during the lessons-learned review; these actions include
reducing the number of complex simulations, providing the opportunity for stakeholder input to
the significance determination process, and clarifying compensatory measure requirements.
The NRC staff also reports that it is evaluating guidance and training in exercise control and
mission planning and guidance on insider information provided to the composite adversary
forcer. These areas do not require Commission action, and are being addressed by staff
through existing revision and enhancement processes. | encourage staff to maintain its focus
on the principles of good regulation as it addresses the identified actions. Staff should provide
an information paper to the Commission regarding its resolution of the above mentioned
actions.

The NRC staff requests Commission direction in three specific areas related to the force-on-
force program: composite adversary force, exercise realism and unattended opening
requirements.

| approve the staff's recommendation to establish a working group to better define the
composite adversary force tactics, techniques and procedures using real-world adversary
training and attack information.

| agree with Commissioner Ostendorff and Commissioner Baran that the actions regarding the
configuration of the MILES equipment is not a matter for Commission decision and that the
staff's existing change management process would allow staff to consider and make such
changes promptly and fairly so as to lend stability to the program. Therefore, | do not approve
the staffs recommended option 2 to restore the MILES equipment to its original configuration.

| also approve the staff recommendation to maintain its current guidance with respect to

unattended openings requirements.

Stephen G. Burns
4 Dec¢mber 2014



NOTATION VOTE

RESPONSE SHEET

TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary
FROM: COMMISSIONER SVINICKI
SUBJECT: SECY-14-0088: PROPOSED OPTIONS TO ADDRESS

LESSONS LEARNED REVIEW OF THE NRC'S
FORCE-ON-FORCE INSPECTION PROGRAM IN
RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUIREMENTS -
COMEGA/COMWCO-14-0001

Approved _XXIn Part _ Disapproved _XX In Part Abstain
Not Participating

COMMENTS: Below___ Attached _XX__ None _____

NATURE

42/ {9 14
DATE

Entered on “STARS” Yes ,/ No___



(3) Unattended Openings: While | understand that the staff has stated that current NRC
requirements are consistent with the guidelines of other Federal Agencies, | personally
believe that the existing standards may be overly conservative and unrealistic,
particularly for long, tortuous pathways (tunnels). That said, | do not believe the
Commission is the appropriate body to determine whether or not to relax the existing
requirement for unattended openings. In the near term, the staff should use a practical
approach when evaluating inspection findings and assessing licensee corrective actions
to account for the realistic ability for specific opening configurations to be exploited. In
the longer term, the staff should evaluate the NRC requirements for unattended
openings through the same NRC working group that is being established to evaluate
tactics and any changes should be evaluated through a formal change control process
with stakeholder input.


through the use of a formal change control process. | agree with Commissioner Ostendorff
that the staff should ensure that force-on-force exercises are realistic and consistent with the
design basis threat. The staff should assess whether the introduction of a new tactic,
technique, or procedure raises the specter that attention and resources will be diverted to a
vanishingly low probability event at the expense of scenarios more likely to be faced by site
responders.

| agree with a majority of my Commission colleagues that the decision to restore the MILES
equipment to its original software configuration is an operational decision appropriate for staff
resolution. The staff should resolve this issue utilizing the existing change management
process and coordinating through the Nuclear Security Working Group — the same process
used to arrive at the current configuration. If the MILES equipment is to be restored, however,
the staff has noted that “updates to responder training and controller guidance will be required
to address the concerns that prompted the initial reprogramming of the MILES equipment.”
Consequently, any change to the MILES equipment configuration should only be made
concurrent with the availability of the revised guidance.

| conclude that there is a substantial difference between 11 inches and 18 inches when one is
contorting oneself through three-dimensional confined spaces. | challenge anyone who does
not agree that there is a difference, to try it. | also do not find it logical that the attacking force
members can be both broad-shouldered behemoths, carrying many pounds of equipment, and
spritely acrobats navigating small diameter torturous pathways at the same time. That being
said, | join Chairman Macfarlane and Commissioner Ostendorff in approving a proposal to re-
assess the requirements on unattended openings in the context of the working group on
tactics, techniques, and procedures established in response to the adversary tactics issue
discussed above.

ristine L. Svinicki 12/ 70 4


Commissioner Svinicki’s Comments on SECY-14-0088
Proposed Options to Address Lessons-Learned Review of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission’s Force-On-Force Inspection Program in Response to
Staff Requirements Memorandum — COMGEA/COMWCO-14-0001

| approve in part and disapprove in part the set of actions proposed by the staff in this paper.
Further, the staff has described an extensive set of actions that it terms “Commitments” or
items not requiring Commission approval, arising from the lessons-learned review, which the
staff commits to undertake. Reviewing this set of staff commitments, in conjunction with the
set of recommendations for the Commission’s approval, has eliminated the need for members
of the Commission to propose these staff actions, or similar ones, for Commission direction.
As a consequence, the staff commitments for follow-on lessons-learned responses
enumerated in the paper — unless disapproved or modified in the Commission's final staff
requirements memorandum (SRM) — should be tracked within the Commitment Tracking
System. If the staff proposes to alter, discontinue, or delay these actions, the staff should
utilize existing agency mechanisms to keep the Commission fully and currently informed of
such proposals. In addition, the staff should provide an information paper to the Commission,
annually, providing the status of these activities.

The set of issues on which the staff has committed to take follow-on action through
established agency processes is significant, including actions to tackle the complexity of
simulations, to review and update the physical protection significance determination process,
and to clarify compensatory measure requirements. Taken as a whole, the staff-directed
actions in response to the lessons-learned review rival the potential impact of the three areas
for recommended Commission decision. | encourage the staff to move forward with dispatch
on the improvement initiatives identified in the paper and to keep the Commission informed of
progress and/or elevate any issues requiring Commission resolution. The staff should move
forward without delay on its planned generic communication to licensees clarifying NRC’s
expectations regarding the implementation of compensatory measures. The staff should also
move forward, as a high priority, with its proposed actions to reduce the number of extensive
performance simulations in NRC-conducted force-on-force inspections by developing,
assessing, and implementing alternative means of evaluating potential non-regulatory issues
that might affect the site’s protective strategy to determine whether these potential
vulnerabilities might be inappropriate for performance testing.

| disposition the staff's recommendations for Commission approval, as follows:

With respect to adversary tactics, the staff's broad assertion “that the Commission has defined
these characteristics and tactics through the [design basis threat] DBT, with amplifying
descriptions contained in Regulatory Guides 5.69 and 5.70” hugely understates the
divergence that has the potential to be introduced at each step of translation from
Commission-approved DBT, to adversary characteristics, to working group discussions, to
decisions made, real-time, in the field during the conduct of the force-on-force exercise. This
is the crux of the issue before us now. Do the interpretations, at each level, stay within the
bounds of the regulations? There is no universal mechanism to answer this question, without
dispute between experts. Often, in such cases, the best available device is to continue to
gather together those responsible for these issues, along with subject matter experts, for
routine exchanges on particular cases. In this vein, | approve the staff's proposal to establish
a working group to better define adversary tactics, techniques, and procedures for NRC-
conducted force-on-force exercises. The staff should introduce greater discipline in this area


Commissioner Ostendorff's Comments on SECY-14-0088:
“Proposed Options to Address Lessons Learned Review of the NRC's Force-on-Force
Inspection Program in Response to Staff Requirements - COMEGA/COMWCO-14-0001”

As discussed in COMWCO-14-0001/COMGEA-14-0001, the current force-on-force program has
been in place for 10 years and significant security enhancements have been implemented by
licensees since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As such, a lessons learned review
of the force-on-force program was appropriate.

In SECY-14-0088, the staff described how it reviews and assesses the force-on-force program
during each triennial cycle to make the program more effective and efficient while ensuring that
it continues to meet its objectives. Notably, the staff revised its significance determination
process for the current force-on-force Cycle (Cycle 4) to provide an increased emphasis on the
licensee's overall security performance. The staff also plans a comprehensive review and
revision of the significance determination program for the security baseline inspection program.
| applaud these initiatives to improve the NRC’s oversight of licensee security programs.

As a result of the current lessons learned review, the staff identified several areas for
improvement. These were identified in SECY-14-0088 as actions that could be taken under
established processes that do not require Commission approval. | commend the staff for
identifying these actions that can be taken under existing Commission Policy and | support
these planned improvements to the force-on-force program.

In SECY-14-0088, the staff also sought Commission approval for actions in three areas. My
vote for each of these topics is provided below.

(1) Tactics: | approve the staffs recommendation to establish an NRC working group to
determine how to better integrate knowledge of adversary training methodologies and
actual attacks with the tactics, techniques, and procedures used by the NRC composite
adversary force. The staff should also use a formal change control process with
stakeholder input before implementing changes. In doing so, the staff should ensure
that force-on-force exercises continue to be realistic and consistent with the design basis
threat. The staff should provide periodic updates to the Commission on this activity, and
any policy matters should be identified for Commission approval.

8

Realism: | do not approve the staff's recommendation to restore the MILES equipment
to its original condition. | do not view this as a matter for Commission decision. Rather,
the staff should use the existing change management process to fully evaluate the pros
and cons of this change to determine whether the MILES equipment configuration
change would result in an overall enhancement to force-on-force exercises. The staff
should inform the Commission of the results of this review and does not need
Commission approval to change the MILES gear unless a policy matter is identified.


UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

SECRETARY

December 19, 2014

COMMISSION VOTING RECORD

DECISION ITEM: SECY-14-0088

TITLE: PROPOSED OPTIONS TO ADDRESS LESSONS LEARNED
REVIEW OF THE NRC’S FORCE-ON-FORCE INSPECTION
PROGRAM IN RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUIREMENTS —
COMGEA/COMWCO-14-0001

The Commission (with Chairman Macfarlane and Commissioner Baran approving and
Commissioners Svinicki, Ostendorff, and Burns approving in part and disapproving in part)
acted on the subject paper as recorded in the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) of
December 19, 2014.

This Record contains a summary of voting on this matter together with the individual vote
sheets, views and comments of the Commission.

Poeite. Zou

Rochelle C. Bavol
Acting Secretary of the Commission

Attachments:
1. Voting Summary
2. Commissioner Vote Sheets

ce: Chairman Macfarlane
Commissioner Svinicki
Commissioner Ostendorff
Commissioner Baran
Commissioner Burns
OGC
EDO


Commissioner Baran’s Comments on SECY-14-0088, “Proposed Options to Address
Lessons-Learned review of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Force-On-Force
Inspection Program in Response to Staff Requirements Memorandum —
COMGEA/COMWCO-14-0001”

| appreciate the NRC staff's thorough lessons-learned review of the force-on-force inspection
program, which considered the views of a variety of stakeholders. This effort demonstrates the
adaptability of the program and the NRC staff's ability to respond to stakeholder input. As a
result of the lessons-learned review, the staff is initiating several worthwhile actions to improve
the program consistent with existing Commission policy.

In SECY-14-0088, the NRC staff requests Commission direction in three specific areas related
to the force-on-force program: adversary tactics, configuration of the MILES equipment, and
treatment of unattended openings.

With respect to adversary tactics, | support the staff's recommended option 2 and agree with the
staff's conclusion that current tactics and techniques used by the composite adversary force are
in accordance with the design basis threat and current guidance. | share the staff's view that it
is neither efficient nor necessary for the Commission to vote on each force-on-force tactic or
technique challenged as “new’ by licensees. | believe the better solution would be the formation
of a working group to inform composite adversary force tactics, techniques, and procedures
using real-world adversary training and attack information to improve realism. | also support
Chairman Macfarlane’s proposed direction that the working group report its findings to the
Commission in a notation vote paper. In order to provide the staff with time to develop any
policy recommendations for inclusion in the notation vote paper, | suggest a deadline of
eighteen months.

Regarding the configuration of the MILES equipment, the staff explains that the 2010 software
update has caused false error messages directly leading to a decrease in realism of force-on-
force exercises. Therefore, | support the staff's recommended option 2 to restore the MILES
equipment to its original configuration. Moving forward, | agree with Commissioner Ostendorf
that the staff's existing change management processes allow staff to evaluate MILES equipment
configuration matters without future Commission consultation.

Finally, the staff recommends that NRC should maintain its current guidance with respect to
unattended openings. | agree with the staff's recommendation that the current requirement for
unattended openings be kept in order to continue providing high assurance that these openings
do not challenge the effectiveness of licensees’ physical protection programs and that licensees
continue to meet the general performance objectives of 10 CFR 73.55. As noted by the staff,
the 96-square-inch standard is consistent with requirements used by other federal agencies. In
the absence of new information or a change in how other federal agencies address this issue, |
do not see a need to relax the unattended opening requirements at this time.

Jeff Baran Date



NOTATION VOTE

RESPONSE SHEET
TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary
FROM: Commissioner Baran
SUBJECT: SECY-14-0088: PROPOSED OPTIONS TO ADDRESS

LESSONS LEARNED REVIEW OF THE NRC'S
FORCE-ON-FORCE INSPECTION PROGRAM IN
RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUIREMENTS -
COMEGA/COMWCO-14-0001

Approved x Disapproved Abstain

Not Participating

COMMENTS: Below ___ Attached xX None ___

A b—
SIGNATURE

liq |

DATE

Entered on “STARS” Yes No


TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Approved _X

NOTATION VOTE
RESPONSE SHEET
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary
Commissioner Ostendorff
SECY-14-0088: PROPOSED OPTIONS TO ADDRESS
LESSONS LEARNED REVIEW OF THE NRC'S
FORCE-ON-FORCE INSPECTION PROGRAM IN

RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUIREMENTS -
COMEGA/COMWCO-14-0001

Disapproved _X Abstain

Not Participating

COMMENTS:

Below_____ Attached _X__None___

Z Lt Midelf

SIGNATURE

2fZOfIY

DATE

Entered on “STARS” Yes_X__No___


Comments accompanying Chairman Macfarlane’s vote on
SECY-14-0088 —- PROPOSED OPTIONS TO ADDRESS LESSONS-LEARNED REVIEW OF
THE U.S. NRC’S FORCE-ON-FORCE INSPECTION PROGRAM IN RESPONSE TO STAFF

REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM - COMGEA/COMWCO-14-0001

| appreciate the staff's answers to the set of questions posed in COMGEA/COMWCO- 14-0001,
following what appears to me to have been a comprehensive lessons-learned review of the
NRC’s Force-on-Force (FOF) Inspection program. This process led the staff to commit to a
number of actions, namely, working with industry to review simulations used in developing and
executing FOF scenarios, reviewing and updating the physical protection significance
determination process, issuing a generic communication to licensees to clarify the application of
compensatory measures, and enhancing guidance, training and inspection procedures in the
effort to improve the realism and effectiveness of FOF exercises. | support these valuable
initiatives.

Regarding the staff's recommendation on adversary tactics, the staff points out and | agree that
the current tactics and techniques utilized by Composite Adversary Forces during NRC-
conducted FOF inspections accord with the NRC’s Design Basis Threat and adversary
characteristics. Nevertheless, | believe that more can be learned in this realm, and accordingly,
| approve Option 2, establishing a working group to assess knowledge of adversary training
methods and actual attacks. However, while this appears to be a strong analytical approach, |
cannot justify what appears, absent the discussion of a specific timeframe in SECY-14-0088, to
be an open-ended project. Thus, | direct that after one year, the working group report its
findings to the Commission in a notation vote paper, with recommendations regarding the need
to continue its research and, if the study is complete, any revisions to be made to Composite
Adversary Force tactics, techniques and procedures. Option 1, which would require
Commission review and approval of all Composite Adversary Force tactics, techniques and
procedures, would be neither efficient nor effective use of the Commission's resources.

Regarding the staff's recommendation on exercise realism, | approve Option 2, which calls for
restoring the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System equipment to its original
configuration.

Regarding the staff's recommendation on unattended openings, | acknowledge the staff's
conclusion that the current requirement enables licensees to provide high assurance in
protecting against the applicable DBT. At the same time, | agree with Commissioner Ostendorff
that there is value to periodically reviewing the appropriateness of NRC’s requirements;
consequently, the staff should assess the requirements on unattended openings in the context
of the working group on tactics, techniques and procedures, discussed above.

4 wp — h

AllisonM. Macfarlane Date

ull



NOTATION VOTE

RESPONSE SHEET
TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary
FROM: Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane
SUBJECT: SECY-14-0088: PROPOSED OPTIONS TO ADDRESS

LESSONS LEARNED REVIEW OF THE NRC'S
FORCE-ON-FORCE INSPECTION PROGRAM IN
RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUIREMENTS -
COMEGA/COMWCO-14-0001

Approved X Disapproved Abstain

Not Participating

COMMENTS: Below____ Attached _X__None___

AtypAd_—
“SIGNATURE
U [ Ue [ Ig
DATE

Entered on “STARS” Yes_X_ No___


VOTING SUMMARY - SECY-14-0088

APRVD DISAPRVD ABSTAIN PARTICIP COMMENTS DATE

CHRM. MACFARLANE X

COMR. SVINICKI

COMR. OSTENDORFF
COMR. BARAN

COMR. BURNS

X

X
X
xX

RECORDED VOTES

NOT

X
Xx xX
X X
X
X X

11/4/14

12/10/14

10/30/14
11/14/14

12/4/14


NOTATION VOTE

RESPONSE SHEET

TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary
FROM: Commissioner Burns
SUBJECT: SECY-14-0088: PROPOSED OPTIONS TO ADDRESS

LESSONS LEARNED REVIEW OF THE NRC'S
FORCE-ON-FORCE INSPECTION PROGRAM IN
RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUIREMENTS -
COMGEA/COMWCO-14-0001

Approved X Disapproved __X Abstain

Not Participating

COMMENTS: Below_____ Attached _X_ _None___

Hiln Ou

SIGNATURE

4 December 2014

DATE

Entered on “STARS” Yes_x_ No