<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?> 
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rc4docs.xsl"?>
   <Document>
      <DocumentName><![CDATA[DOE M 473.1-1 Physical Protection Program Manual]]></DocumentName>
      <DocumentId><![CDATA[DOE M 473.1-1]]></DocumentId>
      <DocumentOpenDate>02/19/2002</DocumentOpenDate>
      <DocumentCloseDate>03/19/2002</DocumentCloseDate>
      <DocumentResolutionDate>07/12/2002</DocumentResolutionDate>
      <MajorComments>
         <Section>
            <SectionTitle><![CDATA[Overall Comments]]></SectionTitle>
            <SectionContent><![CDATA[Please provide your overall comments about this document.
Note: this 'paragraph' is not part of the original document.]]></SectionContent>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ames Labortatory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Argonne National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Associate Manager for Science & Technology, Richland]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Hanford]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Nevada]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Berkeley Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bonneville Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Brookhaven National  Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[BWXT Pantex, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Lynda McCollum]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[MHC DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[BWXT Pantex, LLC]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[There should be included in this document, for the protection of security personnel and of the general pubic, cautionary notes, practices, rules and references regarding the radiation hazards of SNM materials.  Whereas the physical security of SNM and other materials is herein addressed in great detail, the related significant hazards of SNM are not included but should be addressed herein.

These comments have been approved by John Noon, Division Manager, SS&EO.
]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Area Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[CH2MHill]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Chicago Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Critique]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Departmental Representatives Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Directives Management Team]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fernald]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fluor Hanford Inc]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Golden Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Grand Junction]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CIO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CR]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters ED]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EH]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EIA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters FE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters GC]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Richard Farman]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[GC DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters GC]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[

Subject Matter Expert steve.duarte@hq.doe.gov
1)  The draft does not appear to establish requirements on members of the public that necessitate a notice and comment rulemaking.  No action by the OPI is required.

2)  The directive is a "rule" as that term is defined by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801-804, which requires that, when issued in final form, the directive be reported to Congress.  No action by the OPI is required.  GC will report this directive to Congress when it is issued.


Subject Matter Expert laura.fullerton@hq.doe.gov
Add a list of acronyms page to assist readers.  
Wherever a reference to another Chapter
of the manual appears, add “of this manual” after the reference.


]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[Responses appear in the order listed in the comment:

&#65279;Accept.  No comment as there is no action required by
the OPI.  A memorandum subject: Statutory Necessity
finding has been prepared to provide information to
MA and GC on the DOE 473.1 issuances. 

Accept.  No comment required as there is no action to
be taken by the OPI. The comment immediately above
describes the action taken to assist GC in fulfilling the
Congressional notification requirement.

No change. As the document is written, when an
acronym appears it is explained.

No change.  The use of the words “of this manual”
adds words only but nothing in substance to referring 
to another chapter. Previously, it was recommended
that references be bracketed at the end of the
sentences.  Where ever feasible, this approach has
used to reference other Chapters and documents.    

]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters HG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters LM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters MBE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NA]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Diane Gillis]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[NA Directives Point of Contact]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters NA]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[
Edna White (NV DPC) for Nevada Operations Office
Jay H. Norman, Acting Manager, NNSA/NV approves the following comments for NNSA/NV, memo dated 3/25/02.  NNSA/NV has completed its review of the two subject documents and has identified major comments that are serious enough to preclude or significantly hamper our ability to accomplish policy objectives and to perform efficiently and economically.  The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you of our comments prior to submission to DOE/HQ.  The directives system requires your approval of these comments before submission.  A summary of the major comments is provided below.  Detailed comments on each paragraph of the order and and manual have been entered into the REVCOM system.  1.  Comment:  Requirements for various topics contained in the manual are located in multiple chapters and paragraphs.  For example, the manual, paragraph 4c, is inconsistent with Chapter III for the protection of Secret.  Chapter III (consistent with national policy) does not require supplemental protection of Secret in a GSA-approved container while paragraph 4c requires GSA containers to be under the protection of an intrusion detection system.  Additionally, this manual is not consistent with previous notices on security that were published by the DOE.  The notices must be canceled or the manual changed to be consistent with the notices.  The numerous conflicts in requirements that exist will significantly hamper our ability to implement policy.  Discussion:  We belive that these errors in drafting were oversights by the drafting organization.

2.  Comments:  The definition of a 'safeguards and security interest' has been significantly modified and expanded from current requirements.  As written in the order, every building, every piece of equipment, and every piece of DOE property is now a safeguards and security interest.  Additionally, the manual contains a new requirement for all safeguards and security interest, even in a vault or GSA container.  This is not feasible for all safeguards and security interests, even under the old definition.  The new expanded definition will hamper efficient and economic performance.  Discussion:  We believe the expanded definition was unintended by the drafting organization.  Inserting the existing definition will resolve this comment.

3.  Comment:  The order contains a new requirement for enhanced protection of security system transmission lines, which is not feasable.  This new requirement will hamper efficient and economic performance.  Discussion:  This new requirement adds significant a cost with no benefit.  This new requirement should be removed from the manual.

4.  Comment:  The cover memorandum that transmitted the order and manual reflected that the results of the Security and Counterintelligence Policy Review has been incorporated into these documents.  The requirements for nonstandard storage of classified matter were a part of the policy review.  The agreed-to-resolution is not contained in the order or manual.  Lack of nonstandard storage requirments will hamper efficient and economic performance.  Discussion:  Since the cover memorandum to this directive stated the results of this policy review would be incorporated, the lack of incorporation may have been an oversight on the drafting organization.

5.  Comment:  New requirements have been added to identify and document the probability of detection for each interior alarm system for areas containing classified matter and special nuclear material, and to conduct annual performance tests on interior intrusion detection systems protecting classified matter and special nuclear material.  These requirements create a significant increase in the level of effort required for alarm system maintenance.  These additional requirements will significantly impact the cost of site security programs and will add little or not value to the programs.  Discussion:  These new requirements add significant cost with no benefit.  These new requirements should be removed from the manual.

Although, several of our comments would suggest that the drafting organization made errors in writing these documetns, but if these documents were published without change, it would result in significant cost impact to NNSA/NV.  It is requested that you approve the submission of these comments to DOE/HQ.  Please let me know if you need any additional informaiton on these comments.








Michelle Beg (AL DPC) for Albuquerque Operations Office

Subject Matter Expert gjantz@doeal.gov
Usable document but still needs revision to incorporate latest policy and existing policy (e.g. potential technical surveillance equipment and controlled items).  There will be major impacts regarding the enhanced protections for Cat I/A SNM.

Subject Matter Expert ejohnston@doeal.gov
This manual is not usable in its current form.  The document is redundant, contains inconsistancies, requirements are not clearly written and in many cases requirements are very confusing and impossible to meet. The manual does a very poor job of defining requirements for non-SNM interests.  I  would recommend convening a meeting of SMEs to work the issues associated with this manual in order to get the manual into a useable form.  Getting contractor and field staff involved would be consistent with the recommendations of a recent GAO report 'DOE/NNSA Security Issues' [01-360025].

There is no mention of Industrial Sabotage protection requirements in this Manual, shouldn't this issue be addressed?

Delegate Ashley McConnell for Sandia National Laboratories:Throughout the document, the term S&S interests are used. This is â€śExtremelyâ€ť generic, especially since each chapter deals with different elements. Per the DOE Glossary, â€śSAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY INTEREST. A general term for any DOE asset, resource, or property that requires protection from malevolent acts. It may include but is not limited to classified matter, special nuclear material and other nuclear materials, secure communications centers, sensitive compartmented information facilities, automated data processing centers, facilities storing and transmitting classified information, vital equipment, or other DOE property.â€ť Identify the S&S interest addressed in each paragraph. Vital Area â€“ All requirements have been removed concerning the protection of this S&S interest yet it is still mentioned in several chapters. Either fully address the security requirements for a Vital Area/Vital Equipment, or completely remove any reference of it. All references to NFPA â€“ NFPA is a professional organization that provides and advocates scientifically based consensus codes and standards, research, training, and education concerning fire issues. OSHA uses them in their standards. Since this is a safety area, these references should be places appropriately in ES&H manuals and requirements, not security documents. Those sites whose assets are limited to classified matter/hardware, will find this new draft to be very confusing, especially in those areas relating to the requirements for IDS, Communications and CAS Operations. As reads, only those sites that have Cat I and II SNM are required to even have a CAS, an IDS and the requirements to continuously record operational activity. Further, the entire chapter relating acoustical control and sound masking has been entirely removed together with other requirements once spelled out in the General Design Criteria, and is no where to be found in any DOE directive/guidance. This elimination creates an unfortunate â€śvoidâ€ť in physical security requirements that was once clear. The old section on Deviations is gone. We assume this is because another order covered how to obtain deviations from any Order? The reference to the DOE Glossary has been removed â€“ is the Glossary not a valid document? It seems that the section on â€śvital equipmentâ€ť was removed but the term â€śvital equipmentâ€ť is used a couple of places. Is â€śvital equipmentâ€ť defined anywhere? There is no method to measure the effectiveness of â€śdeterrenceâ€ť. This should be dropped from the entire document. 



Delegate Cathy Tullis for Nevada Operations Office

This manual lists requirement for intrusion detection systems, access control, vaults, vault-type-rooms, alarm monitoring and other topics in several different chapters of the manual.  The requirement for a given topic should all be consolidated into the same chapter to avoid redundancy, confliction, and confusion.



]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[Responses appear in the order listed in the comment:

ď»żAccept.  Paragraph 4.c, Chapter XI, was deleted.

No change.  The definition cited is the same as that
published in the Safeguards and Security Glossary of
Terms, dated December 1995.

No Change.  The basic requirements have not
changed.  There has been added explanations to the
requirements for protection of transmission lines.
  
No change.  The Security and Counter-intelligence
Review of non-standard storage policy did not result
in a consensus position. A dissenting opinion was
written and submitted to Security and Counter-
intelligence management for resolution.  The results
are pending.
  
Accept. The paragraph was revised deleting the
requirement for identifying and documenting the
probability of detection for each interior alarm system. 
The requirement for documenting performance testing
remains unchanged. 

No change.  The manual is written to provide physical
protection requirements for SNM and classified
matter.  The TSCM requirements are cited by
reference to the appropriate document(s). 

Accept with modification. The Manual has been
revised with the objective of eliminating redundancy
and inconsistency.

Accept with modification. The manual has been
revised to provide clarification and eliminate
redundancy/inconsistency.  Generic comments were
addressed by comment as depicted above.

Accept. Vital area has been addressed in Chapter V.
IDS requirements have been revised to provide
clarification.

No change. The reference to TSCM manual and DCID
1/21 are cited.  These documents provide acoustical
and sound masking requirements.

No change.  The deviation process is referenced to 
DOE O 470.1.  This order addresses the deviation
process.

The Glossary of Terms is being issued as an
attachment to DOE O 470.1.  It will remain a valid
document.

Accept with modification.  The manual has been
revised to provide clarification and to minimize
redundancy.

]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NTEU]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OPI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PC-1]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters RW]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Honeywell FM&T (Kansas City Plant)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL - NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL-ICP-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kansas City Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Livermore Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[NA Service Center]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Yolanda Bolivar]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[AL DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[NA Service Center]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[
Subject Matter Expert gjantz@doeal.gov
Usable document but still needs revision to incorporate latest policy and existing policy (e.g. potential technical surveillance equipment and controlled items).  There will be major impacts regarding the enhanced protections for Cat I/A SNM.

Subject Matter Expert ejohnston@doeal.gov
This manual is not usable in its current form.  The document is redundant, contains inconsistancies, requirements are not clearly written and in many cases requirements are very confusing and impossible to meet. The manual does a very poor job of defining requirements for non-SNM interests.  I  would recommend convening a meeting of SMEs to work the issues associated with this manual in order to get the manual into a useable form.  Getting contractor and field staff involved would be consistent with the recommendations of a recent GAO report 'DOE/NNSA Security Issues' [01-360025].

There is no mention of Industrial Sabotage protection requirements in this Manual, shouldn't this issue be addressed?

Delegate Ashley McConnell for Sandia National Laboratories:Throughout the document, the term S&S interests are used. This is â€śExtremelyâ€ť generic, especially since each chapter deals with different elements. Per the DOE Glossary, â€śSAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY INTEREST. A general term for any DOE asset, resource, or property that requires protection from malevolent acts. It may include but is not limited to classified matter, special nuclear material and other nuclear materials, secure communications centers, sensitive compartmented information facilities, automated data processing centers, facilities storing and transmitting classified information, vital equipment, or other DOE property.â€ť Identify the S&S interest addressed in each paragraph. Vital Area â€“ All requirements have been removed concerning the protection of this S&S interest yet it is still mentioned in several chapters. Either fully address the security requirements for a Vital Area/Vital Equipment, or completely remove any reference of it. All references to NFPA â€“ NFPA is a professional organization that provides and advocates scientifically based consensus codes and standards, research, training, and education concerning fire issues. OSHA uses them in their standards. Since this is a safety area, these references should be places appropriately in ES&H manuals and requirements, not security documents. Those sites whose assets are limited to classified matter/hardware, will find this new draft to be very confusing, especially in those areas relating to the requirements for IDS, Communications and CAS Operations. As reads, only those sites that have Cat I and II SNM are required to even have a CAS, an IDS and the requirements to continuously record operational activity. Further, the entire chapter relating acoustical control and sound masking has been entirely removed together with other requirements once spelled out in the General Design Criteria, and is no where to be found in any DOE directive/guidance. This elimination creates an unfortunate â€śvoidâ€ť in physical security requirements that was once clear. The old section on Deviations is gone. We assume this is because another order covered how to obtain deviations from any Order? The reference to the DOE Glossary has been removed â€“ is the Glossary not a valid document? It seems that the section on â€śvital equipmentâ€ť was removed but the term â€śvital equipmentâ€ť is used a couple of places. Is â€śvital equipmentâ€ť defined anywhere? There is no method to measure the effectiveness of â€śdeterrenceâ€ť. This should be dropped from the entire document. 

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Energy Technology Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Renewable Energy Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Nevada Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[David Ross]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[NV DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Nevada Site Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[Jay H. Norman, Acting Manger, NNSA/NV]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[Jay H. Norman, Acting Manager, NNSA/NV approves the following comments for NNSA/NV, memo dated 3/25/02.  NNSA/NV has completed its review of the two subject documents and has identified major comments that are serious enough to preclude or significantly hamper our ability to accomplish policy objectives and to perform efficiently and economically.  The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you of our comments prior to submission to DOE/HQ.  The directives system requires your approval of these comments before submission.  A summary of the major comments is provided below.  Detailed comments on each paragraph of the order and and manual have been entered into the REVCOM system.  1.  Comment:  Requirements for various topics contained in the manual are located in multiple chapters and paragraphs.  For example, the manual, paragraph 4c, is inconsistent with Chapter III for the protection of Secret.  Chapter III (consistent with national policy) does not require supplemental protection of Secret in a GSA-approved container while paragraph 4c requires GSA containers to be under the protection of an intrusion detection system.  Additionally, this manual is not consistent with previous notices on security that were published by the DOE.  The notices must be canceled or the manual changed to be consistent with the notices.  The numerous conflicts in requirements that exist will significantly hamper our ability to implement policy.  Discussion:  We belive that these errors in drafting were oversights by the drafting organization.

2.  Comments:  The definition of a 'safeguards and security interest' has been significantly modified and expanded from current requirements.  As written in the order, every building, every piece of equipment, and every piece of DOE property is now a safeguards and security interest.  Additionally, the manual contains a new requirement for all safeguards and security interest, even in a vault or GSA container.  This is not feasible for all safeguards and security interests, even under the old definition.  The new expanded definition will hamper efficient and economic performance.  Discussion:  We believe the expanded definition was unintended by the drafting organization.  Inserting the existing definition will resolve this comment.

3.  Comment:  The order contains a new requirement for enhanced protection of security system transmission lines, which is not feasable.  This new requirement will hamper efficient and economic performance.  Discussion:  This new requirement adds significant a cost with no benefit.  This new requirement should be removed from the manual.

4.  Comment:  The cover memorandum that transmitted the order and manual reflected that the results of the Security and Counterintelligence Policy Review has been incorporated into these documents.  The requirements for nonstandard storage of classified matter were a part of the policy review.  The agreed-to-resolution is not contained in the order or manual.  Lack of nonstandard storage requirments will hamper efficient and economic performance.  Discussion:  Since the cover memorandum to this directive stated the results of this policy review would be incorporated, the lack of incorporation may have been an oversight on the drafting organization.

5.  Comment:  New requirements have been added to identify and document the probability of detection for each interior alarm system for areas containing classified matter and special nuclear material, and to conduct annual performance tests on interior intrusion detection systems protecting classified matter and special nuclear material.  These requirements create a significant increase in the level of effort required for alarm system maintenance.  These additional requirements will significantly impact the cost of site security programs and will add little or not value to the programs.  Discussion:  These new requirements add significant cost with no benefit.  These new requirements should be removed from the manual.

Although, several of our comments would suggest that the drafting organization made errors in writing these documetns, but if these documents were published without change, it would result in significant cost impact to NNSA/NV.  It is requested that you approve the submission of these comments to DOE/HQ.  Please let me know if you need any additional informaiton on these comments.






]]></Comments>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Cathy Tullis]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Delegate]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Nevada Site Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[
This manual lists requirement for intrusion detection systems, access control, vaults, vault-type-rooms, alarm monitoring and other topics in several different chapters of the manual.  The requirement for a given topic should all be consolidated into the same chapter to avoid redundancy, confliction, and confusion.

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oakland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of Energy Assurance]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of River Protection]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ohio Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[OSTI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pacific Northwest National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pantex Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Ron Holm]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Pantex Site Office DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Pantex Site Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[Elaine Springs (BWXT DPC) for BWXT Pantex, LLC wrote on 03/05/2002 16:19:55 Mountain Time:
There should be included in this document, for the protection of security personnel and of the general pubic, cautionary notes, practices, rules and references regarding the radiation hazards of SNM materials. Whereas the physical security of SNM and other materials is herein addressed in great detail, the related significant hazards of SNM are not included but should be addressed herein.

These comments have been approved by John Noon, Division Manager, SS&EO.
]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Portsmouth Paducah Project Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Richland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Rocky Flats Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia National Laboratories]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River EM Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southeastern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southwestern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Linear Accelerator Center]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[University of California]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc (SRS)]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Sandra Bishop]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc (SRS)]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[
Subject Matter Expert d.bolton@srs.gov
No comments.

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc. (Nevada)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[West Valley Demonstration Project]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Western Area Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp.]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp. for SR-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[WIPP]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (BWXT)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (WSI)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
         </Section>
         <Section>
            <SectionTitle><![CDATA[1. Purpose, 2. Applicability, 3. Cancellation, 4. References, 5. Contact, 6. Implementation]]></SectionTitle>
            <SectionContent><![CDATA[

    1.  PURPOSE.  This Manual supplements DOE O 473.1, Physical Protection Program, by
    establishing requirements for the physical protection of Safeguards and Security (S&S)
    interests.

    2.  APPLICABILITY.

             a.   DOE Elements.  Except as noted in paragraph 2c, this Manual applies to all DOE
         elements, including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), and
         DOE contractor facilities and operations located on DOE-owned and -leased
         property.

             b.   Contractors.  This Manual applies to contractors to the extent set forth in a contract.
         A separate Contractor Requirements Document is not being used for this Manual
         since all parts of the Manual are relevant as contractor and subcontractor
         requirements once the Manual is listed as a requirement in the contract.

             c.   Exclusions.  DOE facilities and activities as cited in paragraph 3c, DOE O 473.1.

             d.   Deviations.  Processed as cited in DOE O 470.1, Safeguards and Security Program,
         dated 9-28-95.

    3.  CANCELLATION.  DOE 5632.1C-1, Manual for the Protection and Control of
    Safeguards and Security Interests, dated 7-15-94, and paragraphs 1 and 2 in Chapter III,
    DOE M 471.2-1B, Classified Matter Protection and Control Manual, dated 1-6-99. 
    Cancellation of the specified Manual and paragraphs does not modify or otherwise affect
    any contractual obligation to comply with the DOE requirements.  If the canceled Manual
    or chapter is incorporated by reference in a contract, it remains in effect until the contract
    is modified to delete the reference to the requirements in the canceled Manual and chapter.

    4.  REFERENCES.  A list of references pertinent to the physical protection of S&S interests
    is provided at Attachment 2.   
    
    5.  CONTACT.  Questions concerning this Manual should be directed to the program
    manager, Protection Program Operations, at 301-903-6209.

    6.  IMPLEMENTATION.  Requirements that cannot be implemented within 6 months of the
    effective date of this Manual or within existing resources must be documented by the head
    of the field element and submitted to the relevant program office; the Under Secretary for
    Energy, Science and Environment or NNSA; and the Office of Security.
    
]]></SectionContent>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ames Labortatory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Argonne National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Associate Manager for Science & Technology, Richland]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Hanford]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Nevada]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Berkeley Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bonneville Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Brookhaven National  Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[BWXT Pantex, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Area Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[CH2MHill]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Chicago Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Jolene Bissegger]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Delegate]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Chicago Operations Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[
Subject Matter Expert vicki.prouty@ch.doe.gov
DOE M 251-1 expressly allows the option of limiting the manual to one set of requirements, rather than duplicate sets for DOE and for the Contractor (via the CRD), and we support the efficiency of this option.  Written properly, requirements are outcomes or deliverables with no indication of the performing entity (the "Responsibility" section of the directive serves that purpose).  However, the reference to "incorporation in the contract," does not reflect the fact that the DOE Directives Manual provides for implementation of this option by "including" the requirements from the Manual in the CRD of the associated Order that the Manual supplements.   Without even a reference to DOE M 473.1-1 in the CRD for DOE O 473.1, the only way to apply this Manual to contractors is to incorporate a special clause in the contract (which is contrary to DOE policy favoring standard clauses), or listing it in the List of Applicable Directives,  which is not common practice and would be possible for only M&O contracts.  Inclusion of the requirements of this Manual by reference in the CRD to DOE O 473.1 (per our comments thereon) would then make it appropriate to modify the first sentence of this paragraph to provide:  "This Manual applies to contractors subject to DOE O 473.1."  The second sentence would need to be revised also.  

CH agrees with the SME comments.

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Critique]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Departmental Representatives Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Directives Management Team]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fernald]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fluor Hanford Inc]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Golden Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Grand Junction]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CIO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CR]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters ED]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EH]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EIA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters FE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters GC]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Richard Farman]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[GC DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters GC]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[Subject Matter Expert
laura.fullerton@hq.doe.gov
wrote on 03/12/2002
11:10:14 Mountain Time:
Page i, 2.b.: Use applicability
paragraph template
language provided recently
by e-mail.

Subject Matter Expert laura.fullerton@hq.doe.gov
Page i, 2.b.: Use applicability paragraph template language provided recently by e-mail.


]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[GC template language incorporated.]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters HG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters LM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters MBE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NA]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Diane Gillis]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[NA Directives Point of Contact]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters NA]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[
Delegate Cathy Tullis for Nevada Operations Office
Numerous Notices in the 473 series that are cancelled by this Manual are not listed in the cancellation paragraph and must be included.

Michelle Beg (AL DPC) for Albuquerque Operations Office


Subject Matter Expert ejohnston@doeal.gov
Reference is made to the wrong manual....should be DOE M 471.2-1C



]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[No change.  All notices relevant to this manual have expired. 

Accept.  The reference has been deleted.  This manual will not cancel DOE M 471.1-1B. ]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NTEU]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OPI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PC-1]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters RW]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SC]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Sabeena Rangwala]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Delegate]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters SC]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[This manual contains supplemental requirements that are extremely prescriptive, and considering the nature of the following comments, it is strongly recommended that this level of detailed requirements not be mandatory and the manual be converted to a guide
]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[No Change]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[Manuals are designed to be prescriptive.]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Honeywell FM&T (Kansas City Plant)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL - NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL-ICP-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kansas City Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Livermore Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[NA Service Center]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Yolanda Bolivar]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[AL DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[NA Service Center]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[

Subject Matter Expert ejohnston@doeal.gov
Reference is made to the wrong manual....should be DOE M 471.2-1C

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Energy Technology Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Renewable Energy Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Nevada Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Cathy Tullis]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Delegate]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Nevada Site Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[Numerous Notices in the 473 series that are cancelled by this Manual are not listed in the cancellation paragraph and must be included.]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oakland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of Energy Assurance]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of River Protection]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ohio Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[OSTI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pacific Northwest National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pantex Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Portsmouth Paducah Project Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Richland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Rocky Flats Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia National Laboratories]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River EM Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southeastern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southwestern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Linear Accelerator Center]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[University of California]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc (SRS)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc. (Nevada)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[West Valley Demonstration Project]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Western Area Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp.]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp. for SR-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[WIPP]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (BWXT)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (WSI)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
         </Section>
         <Section>
            <SectionTitle><![CDATA[Chapter I, Protection Planning, 1. Planning]]></SectionTitle>
            <SectionContent><![CDATA[    
    
    CHAPTER I
                                
                      PROTECTION PLANNING


    1.  PLANNING.  The implementation of physical protection programs required by this
    Manual must be documented in a Site Safeguards and Security Plan (SSSP) or a security
    plan as described in DOE O 470.1, Safeguards and Security Program.  Physical protection
    programs must be systematically planned, executed, and evaluated as follows: 

             a.   In locations where an SSSP is not required due to the limited scope of Safeguards
         and Security (S&S) interests, a security plan must be developed to describe the
         protection program.

             b.   The graded physical protection measures provided S&S interests must be described
         in an SSSP or a security plan.

             c.   The Design Basis Threat for the Department of Energy Programs and Facilities
         (U), issued by the Office of Security, must be used in conjunction with local and
         regional threat guidance and vulnerability assessments for physical protection
         program planning. 

]]></SectionContent>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ames Labortatory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Argonne National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Associate Manager for Science & Technology, Richland]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Hanford]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Nevada]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Berkeley Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bonneville Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Brookhaven National  Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[BWXT Pantex, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Area Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[CH2MHill]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Chicago Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Critique]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Departmental Representatives Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Directives Management Team]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fernald]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fluor Hanford Inc]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Golden Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Grand Junction]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CIO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CR]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters ED]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EH]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EIA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EM]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Joni Boone]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[EM DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters EM]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[RL states: Chapter I-3, (4),'....any category or quantity of SNM....' and '....strategies to prevent radiological/toxicological sabotage that would pose a ....danger to the employee....', is too prescriptive. Although this is an appropriate requirement for Cat I and II quantities of SNM it eliminates the field office flexibility to manage risk for small Cat IV quantities of SNM. Strategies to prevent (an absolute term) radiological sabotage for the small gram quantities will require protection strategies approximating those required for Cat I and II, especially where the employees health is concerned. Where small gram sources are used in individual labs within buildings protection strategies would entail alarm systems, material surveillance, expansion of PSAP, more SPOs for response, change in the use of deadly force policy, increased explosive searches, etc are examples of preventive measures that would have to be employed. Because of the cost associated with this level of protection some of the program work and R&D would have to be terminated. RL recommends that this requirement (4) be deleted. 3b. (4), GRADED PROTECTION adequately obligates the field office to manage risk for SNM quantities less than Cat I and II. Failure to resolve this issue will jeopardize DOE's ability to accomplish policy objectives and missions. Robert M Rosselli, Deputy Manager for Business Services 


]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[No Change]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[Refer the author of the comment to paragraphs 2.a. and 3.a. in Chapter IV of DOE M 473.1-1.  Also the facility's Emergency Management Plans should address mitigating factors to the employee.]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters FE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters GC]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Richard Farman]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[GC DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters GC]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[
Subject Matter Expert laura.fullerton@hq.doe.gov
?1.: First sentence, end sentence after “security plan” and place reference in brackets after the end
of the sentence “[See.....]”

]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[The sentence was revised to reflect the comment.]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters HG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters LM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters MBE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NTEU]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OPI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PC-1]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters RW]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SC]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Sabeena Rangwala]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Delegate]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters SC]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[I-3(5)Government property must be developed and described in an SSSP "or" a security plan.]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[The paragraph was rewritten and subparagraphs a. and b. were deleted.]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Honeywell FM&T (Kansas City Plant)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL - NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL-ICP-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kansas City Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Livermore Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[NA Service Center]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Energy Technology Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Renewable Energy Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Nevada Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oakland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of Energy Assurance]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of River Protection]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ohio Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[OSTI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pacific Northwest National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pantex Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Portsmouth Paducah Project Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Richland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Joanne Shadel]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[RL DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Richland Operations Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[RL states: Chapter I-3, (4),'....any category or quantity of SNM....' and '....strategies to prevent radiological/toxicological sabotage that would pose a ....danger to the employee....', is too prescriptive. Although this is an appropriate requirement for Cat I and II quantities of SNM it eliminates the field office flexibility to manage risk for small Cat IV quantities of SNM. Strategies to prevent (an absolute term) radiological sabotage for the small gram quantities will require protection strategies approximating those required for Cat I and II, especially where the employees health is concerned. Where small gram sources are used in individual labs within buildings protection strategies would entail alarm systems, material surveillance, expansion of PSAP, more SPOs for response, change in the use of deadly force policy, increased explosive searches, etc are examples of preventive measures that would have to be employed. Because of the cost associated with this level of protection some of the program work and R&D would have to be terminated. RL recommends that this requirement (4) be deleted. 3b. (4), GRADED PROTECTION adequately obligates the field office to manage risk for SNM quantities less than Cat I and II. <b> Failure to resolve this issue will jeopardize DOE's ability to accomplish policy objectives and missions. </b> <i> Robert M Rosselli, Deputy Manager for Business Services </i>]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Rocky Flats Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia National Laboratories]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River EM Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southeastern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southwestern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Linear Accelerator Center]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[University of California]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc (SRS)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc. (Nevada)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[West Valley Demonstration Project]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Western Area Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp.]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp. for SR-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[WIPP]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (BWXT)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (WSI)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
         </Section>
         <Section>
            <SectionTitle><![CDATA[Chapter I, 2. Protection Strategies]]></SectionTitle>
            <SectionContent><![CDATA[
    2.  PROTECTION STRATEGIES.  Protection strategies must be selected, developed, and
    implemented to protect S&S interests.  Overall site protection strategies must be planned
    to incorporate both primary and secondary protection strategies.    

             a.   Protection Strategies for Category I and Category II Quantities of Special Nuclear
         Materials.  Protection strategies must be graded to address varying circumstances.

                       (1)  The primary protection strategy for Category I and Category II quantities of
              special nuclear materials (SNM) that can be rolled to Category I is denial. 
              Secondary protection strategies for Category I and Category II quantities of
              SNM are containment, recapture, recovery, and pursuit, which must be
              developed and in place in the event that the primary protection strategies fail. 
              The strategies and exceptions are outlined in Secretary of Energy
              Memorandum, dated 10-3-01, subject, Protection of Department of Energy
              and National Security Interests (U).

                       (2)  Denial Strategy.  A denial strategy must include the capabilities necessary to
              prevent an adversary from gaining unauthorized access to the S&S interest.

                       (3)  Containment Strategy.  A containment strategy must include the capabilities
              necessary to prevent an adversary from escaping from a site and/or facility
              with the S&S interest.

                       (4)  Recapture Strategy.  A recapture strategy must include the capabilities
              necessary to locate and/or regain control of an S&S interest that is under
              unauthorized control but while still within the confines of a site.  The
              recapture strategy must ensure that, at a minimum, adversaries are neutralized
              prior to the completion of estimated adversary task times.

                       (5)  Recovery Strategy.  A recovery strategy must include the capabilities
              necessary to locate and/or regain control of a S&S interest that is under
              unauthorized control and that has been removed from a site.

                       (6)  Pursuit Strategy.  A pursuit strategy must include the capabilities necessary to
              pursue the adversaries for the purpose of regaining control (recovery) of a
              S&S interest that is under unauthorized control and that has been removed
              from a site.

             b.   Strategies for Specific Security Interests.

                       (1)  Those facilities that possess, transport, process, and store S&S interests (for
              example, Category I quantities of SNM) such that unauthorized access
              presents an unacceptable risk (e.g., detonation of a nuclear device, theft of a
              nuclear device, or creation of an improvised nuclear device or nuclear
              dispersal device) must be protected with a denial strategy designed to prevent
              unauthorized access.

                                 (a)  The denial strategy must use protection measures (e.g., human
                   reliability programs, barriers/systems, protective force (PF)) to ensure
                   that unauthorized access is not achieved.

                                 (b)  Should the denial and/or containment strategy fail, an immediate and
                   timely recapture strategy must be in place to ensure that, at a minimum,
                   adversaries are neutralized prior to the completion of estimated
                   adversary task times.

                                 (c)  Should the adversaries escape with the S&S interest, robust recovery
                   and pursuit strategies must be implemented and executed.

                       (2)  Strategies for the physical protection of Category III and IV quantities of
              SNM must incorporate the applicable protection requirements cited in
              Chapter II, and these strategies must be described in an SSSP or a security
              plan.

                       (3)  Strategies for the physical protection of classified matter must incorporate the
              applicable requirements in Chapter III.  The strategies must be based on
              protection measures that will detect or deter unauthorized access, disclosure,
              modification, loss of availability, and removal from a site or facility.  

                       (4)  Strategies for the physical protection of any category or quantity of SNM that
              is considered a radiological or toxicological sabotage target must incorporate
              the applicable requirements in Chapter IV.  The strategies must be designed
              to prevent radiological/toxicological sabotage that would pose a danger to the
              health and safety of employees, the public, or the environment.  These
              strategies must be graded to address varying circumstances to achieve either
              denial or containment. 

                       (5)  Strategies for the physical protection of other S&S interests (i.e., items of
              monetary value) and the protection of Government property must be
              developed and described in an SSSP and a security plan.

                       (6)  Strategies to address the introduction and mitigation of explosives must be
              considered to include activities from hand-carried, mailed, or vehicle-
              transported devices and must be documented in SSSP or security plan.

]]></SectionContent>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ames Labortatory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Argonne National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Associate Manager for Science & Technology, Richland]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Hanford]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Nevada]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Berkeley Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bonneville Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Brookhaven National  Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[BWXT Pantex, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Lynda McCollum]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[MHC DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[BWXT Pantex, LLC]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[Paragraph 2.a.(4) and Paragraph 2.b.(1)(b)            state, 'prior to the completion of estimated adversary task times', who determines this time for each system, site, HQ, or national labs?
2.b(1) - The term 'unacceptable risk' is used in this paragraph.  The results of vulnerability assessments are categorized as low, medium, or high risk, not 'unacceptable risk.'  Recommend the word 'unacceptable' be deleted from the sentence and the word 'high' be inserted in its place.

These comments have been approved by John Noon, Division Manager, SS&EO.

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Area Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[CH2MHill]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Chicago Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Jolene Bissegger]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Delegate]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Chicago Operations Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[Chapter I, paragraph 2.b.(1)  This section states that a denial strategy is required for Category I quantitiy protection (subsection 2.b.(a)).  The next subsection (2.b.(b)) requires a recapture strategy if the denial/containment strategy fails.  This wording, in fact, makes all of these strategies required.  As such, section 2.b.(1) should specifically state that all of these strategies are required and the (a), (b), and (c) could thus be eliminated.]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Critique]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Departmental Representatives Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Directives Management Team]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fernald]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fluor Hanford Inc]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Merle D. Jackson]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Fluor Hanford Inc., DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Fluor Hanford Inc]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[

Subject Matter Expert Dennis_J_Haskins@rl.gov
Chap. 1, PROTECTION PLANNING, para. 2.b.(4), page I-3:  As written, this pertains to all categories and quantities of SNM.  This will have significant consequences.  Consideration should be given to using the graded approach outlined in DOE M 5632.1C-1.

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Golden Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Grand Junction]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CIO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CR]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters ED]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EH]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EIA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EM]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Joni Boone]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[EM DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters EM]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[FHI states: para. 2.b.(4), page I-3: As written, this pertains to all categories and quantities of SNM. This will have significant consequences. Consideration should be given to using the graded approach outlined in DOE M 5632.1C-1. Failure to resolve this issue will jeopardize DOE's ability to perform efficiently and economically. Robert M Rosselli, Deputy Manager for Business Services 


]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[No Change]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[This paragraph addresses any category or quantity of SNM considered a rad/tox sabotage target.  Not all SNM as indicated in the comment.]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters FE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters GC]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Richard Farman]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[GC DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters GC]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[
Subject Matter Expert laura.fullerton@hq.doe.gov
2.a.(1): A definition or explanation must be provided for the terms Category I, II, III and IV.  Place the last sentence in the paragraph in brackets “[]” and provide a specific citation or explanation where that information can be found.  The reference must be deleted if it is not
available to the reader.
2.b.(1): Revise beginning of sentence to read “The contractor must ensure that facilities that possess.....”  Also, change “must be protected” to “are protected”.

]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[Responses are in the order listed in the comments:

Accept.  Reference to the S&S Glossary of Terms was added to the reference section of the manual which defines the SNM categories.

Accept w/Modification.]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters HG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters LM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters MBE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NA]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Diane Gillis]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[NA Directives Point of Contact]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters NA]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[
Michelle Beg (AL DPC) for Albuquerque Operations Office

Yvonne Salaz (LANL DPC) for Los Alamos National Laboratory

Subject Matter Expert pdawson@lanl.gov
The definition of denial should be consistent throughout DOE/NNSA guidance and directives. The definition provided in this document is not consistent with other documents, suggest it be changed to: Denying hands on access to the S&S interest.



Delegate John Waterbury for Los Alamos National Laboratory


Subject Matter Expert ejohnston@doeal.gov
2.a.(1) The Secretary's memo on denial does not address a secondary strategy for Cat. I & II which rolls-up to Cat. I.  If denial fails, sites are to take immediate action to neutralize.  Strategy for Cat. II is containment.  Containment is not an approved strategy for Cat. I or Cat. II roll-up to Cat. I in any case.  

2.b.(3)&(5) Strategies (Denial, Containment etc.) are not applicable to the protection of classified matter or other S&S interests.  Need to change terminology so there is no confusion.  Protection programs would be a better term for non-SNM interests.  

2.b.(5) protection of government property is not included in the new Format and Content Guide for SSSPs.  The SSSP is a risk management/acceptance document and has gone away from being a compliance based document.  

Delegate Ashley McConnell for Sandia National Laboratories:Comply with applicable laws, rules, and regulations: 2.a.(1,2) â€“ To require denial strategy for all Category I quantities and all Category II that rolls up to Category I quantities does not allow for graded protection to be applied based on the interestâ€™s importance as stated in other parts of the Manual as cited above. This could be impractical or impossible as well as costly especially when the material is in transit or in use. Applying the denial strategy to Category IA or Category I items seems more reasonable and it also goes along with the concept of applying the most protection to the most attractive asset. 



Delegate Cathy Tullis for Nevada Operations Office




Subject Matter Expert david.dietz@nnsa.doe.gov
I.2.(5)  As written, the section has requirements beyond the control of our sites.  The first issue is that our Protective Forces should not be pursuing off site to recover an S&S interest of less importance than Category II SNM.  The second issue is that, there are two hypothetical recovery situations.  The first is that Category I or II SNM has been removed from a site by an adversary force and the pursuing Site Protective Force has maintained contact with the departing adversaries.  The second hypothetical situation would be that adversaries would be successful in escaping from the site and in breaking contact with pursuing Protective Force responders.  Responsibility for resolution of the second part of recovery (i.e., locating purloined SNM and recovering it) would rest with the Federal Bureau of Investigation with assistance from the Nuclear Explosive Search Team, Local Law Enforcement, and (although unlikely) the siteĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s Protective Force.  Therefore the section should be re-written to read, Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“Recovery Strategy.  A recovery strategy must include the capabilities necessary to pursue adversaries and regain control of Category I & II SNM that is under unauthorized control and that has been removed from a site.Ă˘â‚¬Âť  The Major Comments entered regarding this draft Manual have been approved by Bill Hensley, Director, Physical Security Division, NA-55.

I.2.(6) reads, As written, the section requires pursuit for all S&S interests.  Our Protective Forces should not be required to pursue off site to recover an S&S interest of less importance than Category II SNM.  Therefore the section should be re-written to read, â€śPursuit Strategy. A pursuit strategy must include the capabilities necessary to pursue the adversaries for the purpose of regaining control (recovery) of Category I or II SNM that is under unauthorized control and that has been removed from a site.â€ť  The Major Comments entered regarding this draft Manual have been approved by Bill Hensley, Director, Physical Security Division, NA-55.

]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[Response appear in the order listed in the comment:

Accept with modification.  To eliminate redundancy w/DOE O 470.1, the referenced paragraph was deleted.  The definition for Denial is contained in the Safeguards and Security Glossary of Terms.

Accept.  This section was rewritten for clarification and to eliminate redundance with DOE O 470.1 and DBT policy documents.

Accept.  This section was rewritten for clarification.

Accept.  The paragraph was rewritten for clarity.  It should be noted that Para 2.a. as stated in the para title is only referring to CAT I and II material.  

Accepted.  The section was rewritten for clarity.  It should be noted that Para 2.a. as stated in the para title is only referring to CAT I and II material.  ]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NTEU]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OPI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PC-1]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters RW]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SC]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Sabeena Rangwala]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Delegate]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters SC]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[The strategies prescribed are different from those stated for DOE O 473.1 (by reference to DOE O 470.1).  The proposed manual states that a denial strategy is the primary strategy for Cat I quantities of SNM (irrespective of form or composition).  This is a major change in strategy and would be a major financial and operational impact on ORNL.

The strategy proposed to prevent radiological/toxicological sabotage involving quantities of SNM less that CAT II is too prescriptive and eliminates the field office flexibility to manage risk.
]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[No Change]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[Responses are provided in the order listed in the comment:

No Change.  Rad/Tox targets have always required a denial strategy.  This is not a new requirement.

No Change.  Rad/Tox has always included SNM less than CAT II.  This is not a new requirement.]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SO]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Geralyn Praskievicz]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[SO DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters SO]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[2.a.(1) states that the primary stategy for Cat I and Cat II with rollup to Cat I is DENIAL.  
Later, in 2.b.(1) also states that a denial strategy is a "must."  
Does the 10-3-01 secretarial memorandum allow for graded protection strategy of Cat I that can be extended to containment, recovery  and pursuit, or is the line drawn at "denial?"
These two sections appear to conflict.  ]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[Para was rewritten to clarify and to eliminate redundancy with DOE O 470.1. ]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Honeywell FM&T (Kansas City Plant)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL - NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL-ICP-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Dan Mayfield]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Kaiser-Hill DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[2.a.1	This section requires a denial strategy for all Cat I and Cat II with roll up to Cat Iâ€”MAJOR IMPACT  

2.a.4	This section refers to â€śestimated adversary task timeâ€ť this time has been the topic of much debate and has yet to be formally agreed upon and identified to the contractors.  It is impossible to meet an unidentified time line.

2.b.1.b	same as above

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kansas City Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Livermore Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Yvonne Salaz]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[LANL DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Los Alamos National Laboratory]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[
Subject Matter Expert pdawson@lanl.gov
The definition of denial should be consistent throughout DOE/NNSA guidance and directives. The definition provided in this document is not consistent with other documents, suggest it be changed to: Denying hands on access to the S&S interest.

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[NA Service Center]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Yolanda Bolivar]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[AL DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[NA Service Center]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[
Yvonne Salaz (LANL DPC) for Los Alamos National Laboratory

Subject Matter Expert pdawson@lanl.gov
The definition of denial should be consistent throughout DOE/NNSA guidance and directives. The definition provided in this document is not consistent with other documents, suggest it be changed to: Denying hands on access to the S&S interest.



Delegate John Waterbury for Los Alamos National Laboratory


Subject Matter Expert ejohnston@doeal.gov
2.a.(1) The Secretary's memo on denial does not address a secondary strategy for Cat. I & II which rolls-up to Cat. I.  If denial fails, sites are to take immediate action to neutralize.  Strategy for Cat. II is containment.  Containment is not an approved strategy for Cat. I or Cat. II roll-up to Cat. I in any case.  

2.b.(3)&(5) Strategies (Denial, Containment etc.) are not applicable to the protection of classified matter or other S&S interests.  Need to change terminology so there is no confusion.  Protection programs would be a better term for non-SNM interests.  

2.b.(5) protection of government property is not included in the new Format and Content Guide for SSSPs.  The SSSP is a risk management/acceptance document and has gone away from being a compliance based document.  

Delegate Ashley McConnell for Sandia National Laboratories:Comply with applicable laws, rules, and regulations: 2.a.(1,2) â€“ To require denial strategy for all Category I quantities and all Category II that rolls up to Category I quantities does not allow for graded protection to be applied based on the interestâ€™s importance as stated in other parts of the Manual as cited above. This could be impractical or impossible as well as costly especially when the material is in transit or in use. Applying the denial strategy to Category IA or Category I items seems more reasonable and it also goes along with the concept of applying the most protection to the most attractive asset. 

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Energy Technology Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Renewable Energy Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Nevada Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Cathy Tullis]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Delegate]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Nevada Site Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Jennifer Hamilton]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[OR DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Oak Ridge Operations Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[The ORO Assistant Manager for Administration supports this major issue
submitted from UT-Battelle, LLC, contractor at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.<p> 

Chapter 1, paragraph 2.a.(1) states that a denial strategy is the primary 
protection strategy for Category I SNM.  This is a change from ORNL's 
current strategy and will require a new vulnerability assessment to 
determine impact.  Potential impacts range from additional delay devices, 
more protective force, and on-site SRT.  Cost impact is unknown, but could 
be several million per year.<p>
]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oakland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of Energy Assurance]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of River Protection]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ohio Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[OSTI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pacific Northwest National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pantex Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Ron Holm]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Pantex Site Office DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Pantex Site Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[Elaine Springs (BWXT DPC) for BWXT Pantex, LLC wrote on 03/05/2002 15:54:00 Mountain Time:
Paragraph 2.a.(4) and Paragraph 2.b.(1)(b) state, 'prior to the completion of estimated adversary task times', who determines this time for each system, site, HQ, or national labs?
2.b(1) - The term 'unacceptable risk' is used in this paragraph. The results of vulnerability assessments are categorized as low, medium, or high risk, not 'unacceptable risk.' Recommend the word 'unacceptable' be deleted from the sentence and the word 'high' be inserted in its place.

These comments have been approved by John Noon, Division Manager, SS&EO.]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Portsmouth Paducah Project Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Richland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Joanne Shadel]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[RL DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Richland Operations Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[FHI states: para. 2.b.(4), page I-3:  As written, this pertains to all categories and quantities of SNM.  This will have significant consequences.  Consideration should be given to using the graded approach outlined in DOE M 5632.1C-1. <b> Failure to resolve this issue will jeopardize DOE's ability to perform efficiently and economically. </b> <i>Robert M Rosselli, Deputy Manager for Business Services </i>]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Rocky Flats Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia National Laboratories]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Ashley McConnell]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Delegate]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Sandia National Laboratories]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[Comply with applicable laws, rules, and regulations:  
2.a.(1,2) – To require denial strategy for all Category I quantities and all Category II that rolls up to Category I quantities does not allow for graded protection to be applied based on the interest’s importance as stated in other parts of the Manual as cited above.   This could be impractical or impossible as well as costly especially when the material is in transit or in use.  Applying the denial strategy to Category IA or Category I items seems more reasonable and it also goes along with the concept of applying the most protection to the most attractive asset.  ]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River EM Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southeastern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southwestern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Linear Accelerator Center]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[University of California]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc (SRS)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc. (Nevada)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[West Valley Demonstration Project]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Western Area Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp.]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp. for SR-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[WIPP]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (BWXT)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (WSI)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
         </Section>
         <Section>
            <SectionTitle><![CDATA[Chapter I, 3. Graded Protection]]></SectionTitle>
            <SectionContent><![CDATA[
    3.  GRADED PROTECTION.  Protection must be applied in a graded manner.

             a.   Layers of Protection.  S&S interests are protected by ascending layers of security
         areas.  Protection layers are considered to be multiple barriers, supported by
         intrusion detection systems and protective personnel, that are designed to provide
         defense in depth or layers of protection in a graded manner.

             b.   Graded Protection Requirements.  The level of effort and magnitude of resources
         expended to protect an S&S interest must be commensurate with the interest's
         importance or the effect of its loss, destruction, or misuse.

                       (1)  The highest level of protection must be given to S&S interests whose loss,
              theft, compromise, sabotage, and/or unauthorized use will seriously affect
              national security, the health and safety of employees, the public, or the
              environment, or the continuity of DOE programs.  For example, theft of SNM
              has severe consequences and, therefore, Category I SNM requires the highest
              level of security.

                       (2)  Protection of other interests must be graded accordingly.  The SSSP or
              security plan must describe the graded protection provided the various S&S
              interests. 

]]></SectionContent>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ames Labortatory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Argonne National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Associate Manager for Science & Technology, Richland]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Hanford]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Nevada]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Berkeley Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bonneville Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Brookhaven National  Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[BWXT Pantex, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Area Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[CH2MHill]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Chicago Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Critique]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Departmental Representatives Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Directives Management Team]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fernald]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fluor Hanford Inc]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Golden Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Grand Junction]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CIO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CR]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters ED]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EH]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EIA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EM]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Joni Boone]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[EM DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters EM]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[Angela L. Balmforth (BWXTI DPC) for Bechtel BWXT Idaho:

Chapter I, 3.b.(1) (2). These paragraphs discuss the need for graded protection for various assets, the term "seriously affect national security" are used. There is no criteria to measure this against or what the term means. Additionally these are or should be compliance measures, and not included in the SSSP. The SSSP process will be unwieldy and bogged down that it will be too cumbersome to produce. (Comment provided by F. G. Mortensen, Technical Security)




]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[Para rewritten clarity and to eliminate redundancy with DOE O 470.1.  ]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>