ML16049A533: 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 2: Line 2:
| number = ML16049A533
| number = ML16049A533
| issue date = 02/19/2016
| issue date = 02/19/2016
| title = Response to Formal Disagreement with Adversary Characteristics, Attributes, or Tactics Employed or Prepared As Part of NRC Force-On-Force Evaluated Exercise - Disputed Item 05000458/2016201-01
| title = Response to Formal Disagreement with Adversary Characteristics, Attributes, or Tactics Employed or Prepared as Part of NRC Force-On-Force Evaluated Exercise - Disputed Item 05000458/2016201-01
| author name = Cardenas D
| author name = Cardenas D
| author affiliation = NRC/NSIR/DSO/DDSO/SPEB
| author affiliation = NRC/NSIR/DSO/DDSO/SPEB

Revision as of 10:08, 27 February 2018

Response to Formal Disagreement with Adversary Characteristics, Attributes, or Tactics Employed or Prepared as Part of NRC Force-On-Force Evaluated Exercise - Disputed Item 05000458/2016201-01
ML16049A533
Person / Time
Site: River Bend 
Issue date: 02/19/2016
From: Cardenas D
NRC/NSIR/DSO/DDSO/SPEB
To: Cook R
Entergy Operations
Joe Willis
References
Download: ML16049A533 (2)


See also: IR 05000458/2016201

Text

February 19, 2016

Mr. Robin Cook, Security Manager Entergy Operations, Inc. River Bend Station 5485 U.S. Highway 61N St. Francisville, LA 70775

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO FORMAL DISAGREEMENT WITH ADVERSARY CHARACTERISTICS, ATTRIBUTES, OR TACTICS EMPLOYED OR PREPARED AS PART OF A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FORCE-ON-FORCE EVALUATED EXERCISE - DISPUTED ITEM 05000458/2016201-01

Dear Mr. Cook:

Thank you for your email dated February 17, 2016. The Division of Security Operations (DSO), Security Performance Evaluation Branch received a "Formal Disagreement with Adversary Characteristics, Attributes, or Tactics Employed or Prepared as Part of an NRC Force-on-Force Evaluated Exercise," in accordance with Addendum 4 of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Procedure 71130.03 "Contingency Response - Force-on-Force Testing."

In your email, you dispute a tactic, technique, or procedure (TTP) within scenario 1 developed by the NRC force-on-force inspection team.

The NRC has carefully reviewed your formal escalation, 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 site's protective strategy.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please provide a written response upon receipt of this letter with the basis for your appeal, to the Deputy Director, DSO.

Sincerely,/RA/ Daniel Cardenas, Branch Chief (Acting)

Security Performance Evaluation Branch Division of Security Operations Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response February 19, 2016

Mr. Robin Cook, Security Manager Entergy Operations, Inc. River Bend Station 5485 U.S. Highway 61N St. Francisville, LA 70775

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO FORMAL DISAGREEMENT WITH ADVERSARY CHARACTERISTICS, ATTRIBUTES, OR TACTICS EMPLOYED OR PREPARED AS PART OF A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FORCE-ON-FORCE EVALUATED EXERCISE - DISPUTED ITEM 05000458/2016201-01

Dear Mr. Cook:

Thank you for your email dated February 17, 2016. The Division of Security Operations (DSO), Security Performance Evaluation Branch received a "Formal Disagreement with Adversary Characteristics, Attributes, or Tactics Employed or Prepared as Part of an NRC Force-on-Force Evaluated Exercise," in accordance with Addendum 4 of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Procedure 71130.03 "Contingency Response - Force-on-Force Testing."

In your email, you dispute a tactic, technique, or procedure (TTP) within scenario 1 developed by the NRC force-on-force inspection team.

The NRC has carefully reviewed your formal escalation, 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 site's protective strategy.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please provide a written response upon receipt of this letter with the basis for your appeal, to the Deputy Director, DSO.

Sincerely,/RA/ Daniel Cardenas, Branch Chief (Acting)

Security Performance Evaluation Branch Division of Security Operations Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response ADAMS Accession No. ML16049A533 OFFICE NSIR/DSO NSIR/DSO NSIR/DSO NAME J. Willis L. Pearson D. Cardenas DATE 02/18/16 02/18/16 02/18/16 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY