ML23312A200
| ML23312A200 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/14/2023 |
| From: | Jeffrey Bream NRC/NSIR/DSO/SOSB |
| To: | Desiree Davis NRC/NSIR/DSO/SOSB |
| References | |
| Download: ML23312A200 (7) | |
Text
.
MEMORANDUM TO: Desiree Davis, Chief Security Oversight and Support Branch Division of Security Oversight Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response FROM: Jeffrey Bream, Senior Security Risk Analyst Security Oversight and Support Branch Division of Security Oversight Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF PUBLIC MEETING BETWEEN THE U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE ON LICENSEE CONDUCTED FORCE-ON-FORCE EXERCISES Meeting Identifier: 20231164 Date of Meeting: October 31, 2023 Type of Meeting: Observation Meeting Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) white paper on incorporation of COVID-19 lessons learned on the performance of licensee conducted annual force-on-force (FOF) exercises (ML23305A030 non-public).
General Details: The meeting was attended by approximately 50 NRC personnel and external stakeholders. Representatives from NEI and the Union of Concerned Scientists were among the participants that identified themselves and provided comments or questions. The meeting started at 1:00pm EDT and completed by 2:00pm EDT, ahead of the anticipated schedule. The meeting was held virtually over the Microsoft Teams application.
Summary of Presentation: The NRC provided a formal presentation for the meeting discussion. This presentation can be located at ML23297A174. No other participants provided a formal presentation.
The NRC staff and NEI made opening comments prior to the beginning of the NRC presentation. As part of their opening comments, NEI indicated that there appeared to be a miscommunication between NEI and the NRC on the intent and purpose of the NEI proposal.
NEI indicated that additional detail on implementation of the proposal was missing from the NEI white paper that could address many of the concerns that were identified in the NRC presentation. The NRC staff acknowledged NEIs comment noting that the NRC presentation addressed the white paper as presented to the NRC but welcomed additional engagement on this topic in the future.November 14, 2023 Signed by Bream, Jeffrey on 11/14/23
D. Davis 2
The NRC presentation addressed potential concerns from NRC staff with the regulatory compliance of the proposed FOF exercise modifications contained in the NEI white paper. The NRC presentation emphasized that the potential concerns identified in the presentation were not necessarily all-inclusive or all-encompassing. Any potential violation of NRC regulatory requirements would depend on site-specific implementation of the NEI white paper proposal.
The NRC presented the following concerns with the NEI proposal during the meeting.
POTENTIAL CONCERN 1:
There is no discussion in the NEI White Paper on how the revised FOF exercise plan will demonstrate and assess the effectiveness of their onsite physical protection program in accordance with regulatory requirements.
Regulatory requirements indicate that the purpose of the licensee Performance Evaluation Program is twofold. One function of the Performance Evaluation Program serves as security officer training and validation for their assigned duties within the protective strategy. The other function serves to assess the effectiveness of the protective strategy as a whole. The NRC review noted that the NEI white paper focused the evaluation on the security officer training aspect of the performance evaluation program but did not identify how this second function would be met by the proposal.
POTENTIAL CONCERN 2:
The NEI White Paper equates tactical response drills to FOF exercises beyond the intent of the regulatory requirements. Specifically, the NEI proposal concludes that two separate but related tactical response drills, limited to only portions of the protective strategy each, equates to a full FOF exercise.
The NRC staff noted that 10 CFR 73, Appendix B, Section VI.C.3.f permits tactical response drills to be limited to only portions of the licensees protective strategy; however, annual FOF exercises are not included in the allowance of that regulatory requirement. Therefore, the NEI proposal of two separate, but related tactical response drills that are limited to only portions of the licensees defensive strategy, contradicts the intent of this regulatory requirement.
POTENTIAL CONCERN 3:
The NEI White Paper allows for additional personnel above the minimum number of armed responders and armed security officers committed to in the security plan to participate in the tabletop drill and receive credit for completion of the annual FOF exercise.
Specifically, the NEI proposal contains a statement that licensee personnel not assigned to a security shift can participate in the tabletop drill and receive credit for participation in an annual FOF exercise. This is contrary to regulatory requirements regarding the number of security personnel and positions that are permitted to participate in annual exercises.
D. Davis 3
POTENTIAL CONCERN 4:
The NEI White Paper removes hands on, in-scenario, demonstration of knowledge, skills, and abilities of the security personnel that do not participate in the live action portion of the licensees proposed exercise plan. This inhibits the security personnel from demonstrating the defensive strategy in situations that simulate the conditions under which they may be required to perform their assigned duties.
The NRC staff noted that licensee security personnel that are not involved in the limited scope portion of the NEI proposal would not have the opportunity to demonstrate knowledge, skills, and abilities of their roles in the defensive strategy in situations that simulate, as closely as practicable, the conditions under which they may be required to perform their assigned duties. The NRC staff determined that a tabletop drill does not provide an adequate simulation of other defensive strategy skills, such as the manipulation of defensive positions and delay features; maintaining situational awareness and surveillance of areas of responsibility; or communication with command-and-control personnel, among other potential concerns, during a potential hostile action.
POTENTIAL CONCERN 5:
The NEI White Paper replaces the annual FOF exercise with two independent, but related tactical response drills. This does not replicate an FOF exercise in that it does not involve the full participation of the entire security force executing the protective strategy.
The NRC noted that the proposed tabletop drill and limited scope drill do not contain the same participants. Those security personnel and positions involved in limited scope drill do not participate in the tabletop drill and vice versa.
POTENTIAL CONCERN 6:
The NEI White Paper limits the post-exercise critique process by failing to fully implement the strategy, equipment, and performance of the entire defensive strategy.
For example, No Action players would not have the opportunity to demonstrate or exercise the performance of response equipment.
Security personnel that participate in the tabletop drill will not have the same opportunities to identify deficiencies and enhancements, for example, with deployable barriers, defensive positions, and response communication equipment, during the drill than if they had participated in an FOF exercise. Deficiencies and enhancements to these aspects of the defensive strategy may not be adequately identified during the less stressful testing of a tabletop or limited scope drill.
POTENTIAL CONCERN 7:
The NEI White Paper does not require security personnel to demonstrate the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform their assigned duties during situations that simulate the conditions under which the security personnel would be required to perform.
Specifically, security personnel that participate in the tabletop portion would discuss D. Davis 4
roles and responsibilities but would not demonstrate them through hands-on applications.
The NRC does not feel that a tabletop drill provides an equivalent opportunity to demonstrate knowledge, skills, and abilities in situations that simulate, as closely as practicable, the conditions under which security personnel would be required to perform their assigned duties.
POTENTIAL CONCERN 8:
The NEI White Paper increases artificialities associated with the FOF exercises by limiting the participants of the live action portion of the exercise and reducing the tactical flexibility of the adversary group to a pre-determined, and limited, attack pathway.
The NRC noted that by limiting the participants of the live action portion of the drill to only those security personnel that would be actively involved increases the artificialities of the drill by flagging the attack pathway and potential adversary characteristics that the adversary force can use. Those in the field cannot help but know that the attack scenario would be coming in their direction.
POTENTIAL CONCERN 9:
The NEI White Paper limits the ability of the adversary force to apply all aspects of the design basis threat in the performance of the attack scenario. Specifically, aspects related to deception, direction, and team composition could be significantly limited.
The NRC identified that licensees attempting to maximize the potential benefits of the NEI proposal could conversely limit the potential adversary characteristics utilized in the scenarios (for example, deception, distraction, and points of entry) such that the mock adversary force does not replicate, as closely as possible, the full adversary characteristics of the design basis threat.
POTENTIAL CONCERN 10:
The NEI White Paper implements through guidance a change in policy that previously required exemptions to NRC requirements.
The NRC noted similarities between the NEI proposal and temporary regulatory exemptions that were granted during the COVID-19 PHE. The NRCs review of the NEI proposal raised concerns that similar regulatory exemptions or alternative measures would be required to implement the proposed annual FOF exercise modifications.
However, the NRC noted that the NEI proposal did not contain sufficient regulatory justification for why an exemption or alternate measure would not be required.
Action Items/Next Steps: NEI requested that speaker notes from the NRC presentation that were not included in the ADAMS version be released to help NEI evaluate and respond to NRC concerns with the white paper proposal. The speaker notes for each of the potential concerns is included in this meeting summary in response to that request.
D. Davis 5
Additionally, NEI indicated that they may reevaluate the proposed FOF exercise modifications contained in the white paper and reengage the NRC at a later date. The NRC indicated that they will be open to engaging in further dialogue on this topic, if desired.
Attachments:
- List of Attendees
- Meeting notice and agenda; ML23289A183
- NRC presentation slides; ML23297A174 List of Attendees*
Name Affiliation
J. Bream U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission D. Davis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission T. Inverso U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission F. Peduzzi U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission D. Young Nuclear Energy Institute C. Newton Nuclear Energy Institute B. Gross Nuclear Energy Institute P. Asendorf Tennessee Valley Authority E. Lyman Union of Concerned Scientists J. Conly Certrec Corporation N. Nappo AUS
- Attendees reflected on this list are limited to those that spoke during the meeting or submitted their names to be added to this list.
Memo ML23312A200 OFFICE NSIR/DSO/SOSB NSIR/DSO/ILTAB NSIR/DSO NSIR/DSO/SOSB NAME JBream JB DDavis DD TInverso TIJBream JB DATE Nov 8, 2023 Nov 9, 2023 Nov 14, 2023 Nov 14, 2023