ML17249A406: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION
{{#Wiki_filter:SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION
 
                                          September 6, 2017
  September 6, 2017  
Mr. James D. Ellis
Director, Fleet Security Program
341 White Pond Drive
Mail Stop: A-WAC-B1
Mr. James D. Ellis Director, Fleet Security Program  
Akron, OH 44320
341 White Pond Drive  
SUBJECT:         RESPONSE TO YOUR APPEAL OF THE FORMAL DISAGREEMENT WITH
Mail Stop: A-WAC-B1  
                  ADVERSARY CHARACTERISTICS, ATTRIBUTES, OR TACTICS EMPLOYED
Akron, OH 44320  
                  OR PREPARED AS PART OF AN NRC-EVALUATED FORCE-ON-FORCE
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO YOUR APPEAL OF THE FORMAL DISAGREEMENT WITH ADVERSARY CHARACTERISTICS, ATTRIBUTES, OR TACTICS EMPLOYED  
                  EXERCISE - DISPUTED ITEM 05000346/2017201-01 AND
OR PREPARED AS PART OF AN NRC-EVALUATED FORCE-ON-FORCE  
                  05000346/2017201-02
EXERCISE - DISPUTED ITEM 05000346/2017201-01 AND
Dear Mr. Ellis:
05000346/2017201-02  
The Division of Security Operations (DSO) has received your letter, dated September 1, 2017,
Dear Mr. Ellis:  
appealing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs decision to continue to use
two tactics, techniques, or procedures (TTP) planned for the Davis-Besse force-on-force
The Division of Security Operations (DSO) has received your letter, dated September 1, 2017, appealing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's decision to continue to use two tactics, techniques, or procedures (TTP) planned for the Davis-Besse force-on-force exercise. Your original dispute was submi
exercise. Your original dispute was submitted on August 29, 2017, and the NRC staffs initial
tted on August 29, 2017, and the NRC staff's initial decision was issued on August 31, 2017.  
decision was issued on August 31, 2017.
In your original submittals, you disputed a TTP within Scenario 1 and 2 developed by the NRC
force-on-force inspection team. I have carefully reviewed your appeal to the initial decision, and
concluded that the disputed TTP is approved for use within the NRC-evaluated scenario for the
following reasons: (1) it is within the design basis threat, (2) it is supported by available data,
(3) it is within your ability 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 NRCs detailed response to your appeal has been entered into the NRC Response to
Disputed Item Database, Disputed Item 05000346/2017201-01 and Disputed Item
05000346/2017201-02, and is provided as an Enclosure to this letter, marked Safeguards
Information.
  The enclosure transmitted herewith contains Safeguards Information. When separated
  from the enclosure, this transmittal document is decontrolled.
                                    SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION


                                    SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION
In your original submittals, you disputed a TTP within Scenario 1 and 2 developed by the NRC force-on-force inspection team. I have carefully reviewed your appeal to the initial decision, and concluded that the disputed TTP is approved for use within the NRC-evaluated scenario for the following reasons:  (1) it is within the design basis threat, (2) it is supported by available data,  
J. Ellis                                        2
(3) it is within your ability to provide defense-in-depth, (4) it can be safely performed and
Upon notification by Robert Johnson, Branch Chief, Security Performance Evaluation Branch,
controlled, and (5) it provides a credible and realistic challenge to your site's protective strategy.
DSO, of the NRCs decision that the disputed TTP was approved for use, you requested to
appeal the decision to me. I received your appeal via e-mail on September 5, 2017. After
further discussion, the NRC carefully reevaluated your dispute and determined that the disputed
item is still appropriate for use in an NRC-evaluated force-on-force exercise.
                                              Sincerely,
                                              /RA/
                                              Marissa G. Bailey, Director
                                              Division of Security Operations
                                              Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response
Enclosure:
NRC Response to Disputed Item
  05000346/2017201-01 and 05000346/2017201-02
cc w/enclosure: William Willis, Manager, Site Security
                                    SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION


The NRC's detailed response to your appeal has been entered into the NRC Response to Disputed Item Database, Disputed Item 05000346/2017201-01 and Disputed Item
05000346/2017201-02, and is provided as an Enclosure to this letter, marked Safeguards


Information. The enclosure transmitted herewith contains Safeguards Information.  When separated from the enclosure, this transmittal document is decontrolled. 
  ML17249A406
SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION
  OFFICE     NSIR/DSO/SPEB     NSIR/DSO/SPEB       NSIR/DSO
J. Ellis 2
NAME       J. Berry           C. Johnson           M. Bailey
SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION
DATE       9/ 6 /17           9 / 6 /17           9 / 6 /17
Upon notification by Robert Johnson, Branch Chief, Security Performance Evaluation Branch, DSO, of the NRC's decision that the disputed TTP was approved for use, you requested to
appeal the decision to me.  I received your appeal via e-mail on September 5, 2017.  After
further discussion, the NRC carefully reevaluated your dispute and determined that the disputed
 
item is still appropriate for use in an NRC-evaluated force-on-force exercise.
Sincerely,  /RA/  
  Marissa G. Bailey, Director
 
Division of Security Operations
Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response
 
  Enclosure:
NRC Response to Disputed Item
  05000346/2017201-01 and 05000346/2017201-02
 
cc w/enclosure:  William Willis, Manager, Site Security 
 
ML17249A406 OFFICE NSIR/DSO/SPEB NSIR/DSO/SPEB NSIR/DSO NAME J. Berry C. Johnson M. Bailey DATE 9/ 6 /17     9 / 6 /17     9 / 6 /17
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 21:01, 29 October 2019

NRC Appeal Response to Davis-Besse Force on Force Disputed Item 05000346/2017201-01 and Disputed Item 05000346/2017201-02
ML17249A406
Person / Time
Site: Davis Besse Cleveland Electric icon.png
Issue date: 09/06/2017
From: Marissa Bailey
Division of Security Operations
To: Ellis J
- No Known Affiliation
Josh Berry
References
2017201-01, 2017201-02
Download: ML17249A406 (3)
v • d • e


See also: IR 05000346/2017201

Text

SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION

September 6, 2017

Mr. James D. Ellis

Director, Fleet Security Program

341 White Pond Drive

Mail Stop: A-WAC-B1

Akron, OH 44320

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO YOUR APPEAL OF THE 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

05000346/2017201-02

Dear Mr. Ellis:

The Division of Security Operations (DSO) has received your letter, dated September 1, 2017,

appealing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs decision to continue to use

two tactics, techniques, or procedures (TTP) planned for the Davis-Besse force-on-force

exercise. Your original dispute was submitted on August 29, 2017, and the NRC staffs initial

decision was issued on August 31, 2017.

In your original submittals, you disputed a TTP within Scenario 1 and 2 developed by the NRC

force-on-force inspection team. I have carefully reviewed your appeal to the initial decision, and

concluded that the disputed TTP is approved for use within the NRC-evaluated scenario for the

following reasons: (1) it is within the design basis threat, (2) it is supported by available data,

(3) it is within your ability 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 NRCs detailed response to your appeal has been entered into the NRC Response to

Disputed Item Database, Disputed Item 05000346/2017201-01 and Disputed Item

05000346/2017201-02, and is provided as an Enclosure to this letter, marked Safeguards

Information.

The enclosure transmitted herewith contains Safeguards Information. When separated

from the enclosure, this transmittal document is decontrolled.

SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION

SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION

J. Ellis 2

Upon notification by Robert Johnson, Branch Chief, Security Performance Evaluation Branch,

DSO, of the NRCs decision that the disputed TTP was approved for use, you requested to

appeal the decision to me. I received your appeal via e-mail on September 5, 2017. After

further discussion, the NRC carefully reevaluated your dispute and determined that the disputed

item is still appropriate for use in an NRC-evaluated force-on-force exercise.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Marissa G. Bailey, Director

Division of Security Operations

Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response

Enclosure:

NRC Response to Disputed Item

05000346/2017201-01 and 05000346/2017201-02

cc w/enclosure: William Willis, Manager, Site Security

SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION

ML17249A406

OFFICE NSIR/DSO/SPEB NSIR/DSO/SPEB NSIR/DSO

NAME J. Berry C. Johnson M. Bailey

DATE 9/ 6 /17 9 / 6 /17 9 / 6 /17

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17249A406&oldid=2000906"