Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security at 	 
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants Needs to Be Strengthened	 
(04-SEP-03, GAO-03-752).					 
                                                                 
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks intensified the	 
nation's focus on national preparedness and homeland security.	 
Among possible terrorist targets are the nation's nuclear power  
plants--104 facilities containing radioactive fuel and waste. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) oversees plant security	 
through an inspection program designed to verify the plants'	 
compliance with security requirements. As part of that program,  
NRC conducted annual security inspections of plants and 	 
force-on-force exercises to test plant security against a	 
simulated terrorist attack. GAO was asked to review (1) the	 
effectiveness of NRC's security inspection program and (2) legal 
challenges affecting power plant security. Currently, NRC is	 
reevaluating its inspection program. We did not assess the	 
adequacy of security at the individual plants; rather, our focus 
was on NRC's oversight and regulation of plant security.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-752 					        
    ACCNO:   A08295						        
  TITLE:     Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security at  
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants Needs to Be Strengthened	 
     DATE:   09/04/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Counterterrorism					 
	     National preparedness				 
	     Nuclear facility security				 
	     Nuclear powerplant security			 
	     Inspection 					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Regulatory agencies				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-752

                                       A

Letter

September 4, 2003 The Honorable John D. Dingell Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives The Honorable
Edward J. Markey House of Representatives The September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon intensified
the nation*s focus on national preparedness and homeland security. Among
possible terrorist targets are the nation*s commercial nuclear power
plants* 104 facilities containing radioactive

fuel and waste operating in 32 states. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) licenses commercial nuclear power plants and requires the licensee,
among other things, to protect the plants against a potential terrorist
threat. The design basis threat* which NRC develops for these facilities*
delineates the maximum number of terrorists that NRC expects plants to
defend against, the extent of their training, and the weapons and tactics
they could use.

To ensure that commercial nuclear power plants can be protected against
the design basis threat and meet other security requirements, NRC requires
each licensee to have an NRC- reviewed and -approved security plan before
NRC allows the plant to operate. After the plant begins operations, NRC
oversees plant security through an inspection program designed to verify
that the plant continues to meet security requirements. As part of the
security inspection program, NRC conducts annual security inspections of
plants and conducts force- on- force exercises. During the security
inspections, NRC reviews (1) the list of those who have access to the
plant, (2) the plant*s response to an unusual security event, (3) any
changes to the security plan, and (4) samples of the plant*s own
assessment of its security. Since 1991, the inspection program has also
included periodic force- onforce exercises, which are designed to simulate
an attack on the plant that is based on the design basis threat. NRC also
conducts nonrecurring inspection activities, such as special inspections
to ensure that postSeptember 11, 2001, security enhancements have been
implemented at each plant.

In 2001, NRC curtailed its annual security inspections and force- on-
force exercises to redesign them for heightened security threats. Until
the annual

security inspections are resumed sometime in 2004, NRC inspectors have
been verifying that post- September 11, 2001, security improvements have
been implemented at each plant and conducting special inspections if a
serious problem is identified by the licensee in its quarterly
selfassessment. In terms of force- on- force exercises, NRC is currently
testing and evaluating these exercises under a pilot program that has
resulted in five exercises being conducted since January 2003.

You asked us to review (1) the effectiveness of NRC*s inspection program
to oversee security at commercial nuclear power plants and (2) legal
challenges currently affecting physical security at the power plants. We
did not assess the adequacy of security at the nation*s nuclear power
plants. Rather, our focus was on NRC*s oversight and regulation of plant
security.

In conducting our review, we analyzed NRC*s inspection program from
January 2000 through September 2001 and the force- on- force exercise
program from January 1991 through September 2001. We also reviewed NRC*s
initiatives to enhance power plant security after September 11, 2001, as
well as its efforts to ensure that the power plants implemented those
initiatives. We met with NRC, the Department of Energy (DOE), and power
plant representatives and obtained NRC advisories, orders, regulations,

and inspections reports. To determine how NRC tests the power plants*
security, we reviewed reports for 80 force- on- force exercises that NRC
conducted through September 2001. We designed and completed a data
collection instrument in order to organize specific elements that we
extracted from these reports. We also held discussions with DOE officials
to determine how they conduct force- on- force exercises at DOE*s nuclear
facilities and if there are any *promising practices* that might be
applied to NRC*s program. Finally, we obtained NRC*s and industry
officials* views on

laws that could affect a licensee*s ability to adequately secure
commercial nuclear power plants. Appendix I contains a more detailed
discussion of our scope and methodology.

Results in Brief Since September 11, 2001, NRC has taken numerous actions
to increase security at commercial nuclear power plants. However, three
aspects of

NRC*s security inspection program have reduced its effectiveness in
overseeing security at commercial nuclear power plants. First, during
annual inspections, NRC inspectors often classified security problems as
*non- cited violations* if the problem had not been identified frequently
in the past or if the problem had no direct, immediate, adverse
consequences at the time that it was identified. This classification tends
to minimize the seriousness of the problems. Non- cited violations do not
require a written

response from the licensee and do not require NRC inspectors to verify
that each problem has been corrected. For example, guards at one plant
failed to physically search several individuals for metal objects after a
walkthrough detector and a hand- held scanner detected metal objects in
their clothing. The unchecked individuals were then allowed unescorted
access throughout the plant*s protected area. Although this incident
appears serious, NRC issued a non- cited violation for it and rated the
plant*s security as meeting security objectives. Through its extensive use
of noncited violations, rather than reporting the problems as more serious
cited violations, NRC may have overstated the level of security at power
plants.

Second, NRC does not have a centralized process for routinely collecting,
analyzing, and disseminating security inspections to identify problems
that may be common to plants or to provide lessons learned in resolving a
security problem. Third, although force- on- force exercises could
demonstrate how well a nuclear plant might defend against a real- life
threat, several weaknesses in how NRC conducted past exercises limited
their usefulness. Specifically, (1) NRC conducted these exercises at each
nuclear power plant once every 8 years; (2) the licensees used plant
defenses during the exercises that were enhanced beyond those used during
normal operations; (3) the attacking forces were not trained in terrorist
tactics; (4) participants used unrealistic weapons (e. g., rubber guns
instead of laser equipment, which would better simulate weapon fire); (5)
exercises did not test the full extent of the design basis threat; and (6)
exercise reports were often late. As a result, the exercises did not
provide information on a power plant*s ability to defend against the
maximum design basis threat and permanent correction of problems may have
been delayed. Furthermore, NRC has made only limited use of some available
administrative and technological improvements that would make force-
onforce exercises more realistic and provide a more useful learning
experience.

Commercial nuclear power plants face legal challenges in ensuring physical
plant security. First, federal law generally prohibits private citizens*
including guards at these plants* from using automatic weapons, although
terrorists are likely to have them. As a result, guards at commercial
nuclear power plants could be at a disadvantage in firepower if

attacked. Second, state laws vary regarding the permissible use of deadly
force and the authority to arrest and detain intruders. According to NRC*s
force- on- force reports and NRC officials, plant guards are unsure about
when and if they can use deadly force, and guards are unclear about what
authority they have to arrest and detain intruders. As a result, guards
may

hesitate or fail to take action if a plant comes under attack. NRC has
recognized the impact of these federal and state laws on security and has
sought federal legislation to address these legal challenges.

We are making recommendations to the NRC Commissioners to restore and
strengthen NRC*s oversight of security at commercial nuclear power plants*
specifically, NRC*s annual inspection program and force- on- force
exercises. In reviewing a draft of this report, NRC did not comment on our
conclusions and recommendations. NRC did comment that our report failed to
reflect changes made to the program since September 11, 2001, and that the
issues addressed in the report were relatively minor and were
appropriately addressed. While we agree that NRC has taken many actions
since September 11, we note that most of these actions related to
enhancing security at the plants and did not relate to NRC*s oversight
efforts. In fact, since September 11, NRC has suspended the two major
elements of its oversight program, baseline inspections and force- on-
force exercises. We believe that the issues cited in this report, such as
improperly screening individuals entering the plant, are not minor, and
that promptly

restoring the annual security inspections and force- on- force exercises
will improve NRC*s oversight responsibilities.

Background NRC is an independent agency established by the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 to regulate civilian use of nuclear materials.
NRC is headed by a

five- member commission. The President designates one commission member to
serve as Chairman and official spokesperson. The commission as a whole
formulates policies and regulations governing nuclear reactor and
materials safety, issues orders to licensees, and adjudicates legal
matters brought before it. Security for commercial nuclear power plants is
primarily the responsibility of NRC*s Office of Nuclear Security and
Incident Response. This office develops overall agency policy and provides
management direction for evaluating and assessing technical issues
involving security at nuclear facilities, and it is NRC*s safeguards and
security interface with the Department of Homeland Security, the
intelligence and law enforcement communities, DOE, and other agencies. 1
The office also develops and directs the NRC program for response to

incidents, and it is NRC*s incident response interface with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and other federal agencies. NRC

1 DOE operates facilities that contain radioactive material used in its
nuclear weapons program.

implements its programs through four regional offices. Figure 1 shows the
location of commercial nuclear power plants operating in the United
States. (See app. II for a list of the commercial nuclear power plants,
their

locations, and the NRC regions that are responsible for them.)

Figure 1: Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United States

Commercial nuclear power plants are also subject to federal and state laws
that control certain matters related to security functions, such as the
possession and use of automatic weapons by security guards and the use of
deadly force.

NRC Security Regulation NRC begins regulating security at a commercial
nuclear power plant when and Oversight

the plant is constructed. Before granting an operating license, NRC must
approve a security plan for the plant. Since 1977, NRC has required the
plants to have a security plan that is designed to protect against a
design basis threat for radiological sabotage. 2 Details of the design
basis threat are considered *safeguards information* and are restricted
from public dissemination. 3 The design basis threat characterizes the
elements of a postulated attack, including the number of attackers, their
training, and the weapons and tactics they are capable of using. The
design basis threat, revised twice since it was first issued in 1977,
requires the plants to protect against *a determined violent external
assault by stealth, or deceptive actions* or *an internal threat of an
insider, including an employee in any position.* Under the 1977 design
basis threat, plants had to

 add barriers to vital equipment and work zones and develop
identification and search procedures for anyone entering restricted areas;

 upgrade alarm systems and internal communication networks and control
keys, locks, and combinations; and

 maintain a minimum number of guards, armed with semiautomatic weapons,
that had to be on duty at all times (unless NRC granted an exemption that
allowed fewer guards).

In 1993, in response to the first terrorist attack on the World Trade
Center in New York City and to a vehicle intrusion at the Three Mile
Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, NRC revised the design basis
threat for radiological sabotage to include the possible use of a vehicle
bomb. This action required the installation of vehicle barriers at the
power plants. On April 29, 2003, NRC issued a revised design basis threat
that the commission believes is the *largest reasonable threat against
which a regulated private guard force should be expected to defend under
existing law.* NRC has given the power plants 18 months to comply with the
new design basis threat.

2 Radiological sabotage against a nuclear power plant is a deliberate act
that could directly or indirectly endanger the public health and safety by
exposure to radiation. 3 Safeguards information is unclassified sensitive
information.

NRC*s inspection program is an important element in its oversight effort
to ensure that commercial nuclear power plants comply with security
requirements. Security inspectors from the agency*s four regional offices
conduct annual inspections at each plant. These inspections are designed
to check that the power plants* security programs meet NRC requirements in
the areas of access authorization, access control, and response to
contingency events. The inspections also involve reviewing changes to the
plant*s security plan and random samples of the plant*s own assessment of
its security. NRC suspended its inspection program in September 2001 to

focus its resources on the implementation of security enhancements. NRC is
currently revising the security inspection program. NRC also conducted
force- on- force exercises under the security inspection

program. These force- on- force exercises, which were referred to as
Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation (OSRE) exercises, were designed
to test the adequacy of a plant*s capability to respond to a simulated
attack. NRC began conducting these exercises in 1991 but suspended them
after September 11, 2001. NRC intends to restructure the program. It has
recently begun a series of pilot force- on- force exercises that are
designed to provide a more rigorous test of security at the plants and to
provide information for designing a new force- on- force exercise program.
No date has been set for completing the pilot program or for initiating a
new, formal force- on- force program.

NRC Actions to Enhance In order to respond to the heightened risk of
terrorist attack, NRC has had

Security at Commercial extensive interactions with the Department of
Homeland Security and the

Nuclear Power Plants since Homeland Security Council on security at
commercial nuclear power

September 11, 2001 plants. NRC also has issued advisories and orders that
were designed to increase the size and improve the proficiency of plant
security forces,

restrict access to the plants, and increase and improve plant defensive
barriers. On October 6, 2001, NRC issued a major advisory, stating that
the licensees should consider taking immediate action to increase the
number of security guards and to be cautious of temporary employees. NRC
conducted a three- phase security inspection, checking the licensees to
see if they had complied with these advisories. Each licensee*s resident
inspector 4 conducted phase one, which was a quick overview of the
licensee*s security program using a headquarters- prepared survey. During

4 NRC resident inspectors are stationed at each commercial nuclear power
plant facility. The resident inspectors are not security specialists,
focusing primarily on plant safety.

phase two, NRC*s regional security inspectors conducted a more thorough
survey of each plant*s security. During phase three, which concluded in
January 2002, NRC*s regional security inspectors reviewed each licensee*s

security program to determine if the licensee had complied with the
additional measures suggested in the October 6, 2001, advisory.

NRC used the results from the three- phase security inspection in
developing its February 25, 2002, order requiring licensees to implement
additional security mechanisms. 5 Many of the order*s requirements were
actions suggested in previous advisories. The licensees had until August
31, 2002, to implement these security requirements. In December 2002, NRC
completed a checklist to provide assurance that the licensees had complied
with the order. In addition, NRC developed a security inspection procedure
to validate and verify licensee compliance with all aspects of the order.
NRC estimates that this procedure will be completed by December 2003.

On August 14, 2003, NRC stated that 75 percent of the power plants had
been inspected for compliance with the order. NRC also took action on an
item that had been a security concern for a

number of years* the use of temporary clearances for temporary workers.
Commercial nuclear power plants use hundreds of temporary employees for
maintenance* most frequently during the period when the plant is shut down
for refueling. In the past, NRC found instances in which personnel who
failed to report criminal records had temporary clearances that allowed
them unescorted access to vital areas. 6 In its October 6, 2001,

advisory, NRC suggested that licensees limit temporary clearances for
temporary workers. On February 25, 2002, NRC issued an order that limited
the use and duration of temporary clearances, and, on January 7, 2003, NRC

issued an order to eliminate the use of these clearances. 7 NRC now
requires a criminal history review and a background investigation to be
completed before allowing temporary workers to have unescorted access to
the power plants.

5 NRC Order EA- 02- 026. 6 The vital area, within the protected area,
contains the plant equipment, systems, devices, or material whose failure,
destruction, or release could endanger the public health and safety by
exposure to radiation. This area is protected by guard stations,
reinforced gates,

surveillance cameras, and locked doors. 7 NRC Order EA- 02- 261.

On April 29, 2003, in addition to issuing a new design basis threat, NRC
issued two orders that are designed to ensure that excessive work hours do
not challenge the ability of security forces in performing their duties
and to

enhance the training and qualification program for security forces. Three
Aspects of NRC*s

NRC*s security inspection program may not be fully effective because of
Security Inspection weakness in three areas. First, during the annual
inspections conducted from 1999 until September 2001, NRC*s regional
security specialists used a Program Inhibit

process to categorize the seriousness of security problems that, in some
Effective Oversight cases, minimized their significance. As a result, NRC
did not track these problems to ensure that they had been permanently
corrected and may have overstated the level of security at power plants.
Second, NRC does not

routinely collect and disseminate information from security inspections to
NRC headquarters, other NRC regions, or other power plants. Dissemination
of this information may help other plants to correct similar problems or
prevent them from occurring. Third, NRC has made limited use of some
available administrative and technological improvements that would make
force- on- force exercises more realistic and provide a more useful
learning experience. NRC*s Inspection Practices

NRC ensures that commercial nuclear power plants maintain security by
Minimize the Significance of monitoring the performance and procedures of
the licensees that operate

Some Security Problems them. NRC*s inspection program is the agency*s only
means to verify that

these plants comply with their own NRC- approved security plans and with
other NRC security requirements.

NRC suspended its annual security inspection program after September 11,
2001, and currently is revising the program. NRC does not expect a new
security inspection program to be implemented until some time in 2004.
Although NRC has temporarily suspended its annual security inspections, it
continues to check a plant*s self- assessments and conduct an inspection
if the licensee identifies a serious problem.

Under the previous security inspection program, initiated in 1999 and
suspended in 2001, NRC used a *risk informed* performance- based system
(the Reactor Oversight Process) that was intended to focus both NRC*s and
the licensees* resources on important safety matters. In an attempt to
focus NRC attention on plants with the most serious problems, and to
reduce regulatory burdens on the nuclear industry, the Reactor Oversight
Process

relied heavily on performance assessment data generated by the licensees
and submitted quarterly to NRC. In the security area, these licensee
selfassessments provided NRC with data on (1) the operation of security
equipment (such as intrusion detectors and closed- circuit television
cameras), (2) the effectiveness of the personnel screening program
(including criminal history and background checks), and (3) the
effectiveness of the employee fitness- for- duty program (including tests
for substance abuse and behavioral observations). Under guidelines for
these self- assessments, licensees are required to report only the most
serious problems. NRC inspectors followed a multistep process to monitor
security, including verifying the licensees* self- assessments and
conducting their own annual inspection. NRC inspectors did not verify all
aspects of the licensees* self- assessments. Instead, the inspectors made
random checks of the quarterly self- assessments during their annual
security inspection of the plant.

During the inspections, the inspectors reviewed the following aspects of
security at each plant:

 Access authorization and fitness for duty (performed annually).

Inspectors interviewed supervisors and their staffs about procedures for
recognizing drug use, possession, and sale; indications of alcohol use and
aberrant behavior; and records of testing for suspicious behavior. These
procedures were designed to ensure that the licensee conducts adequate
personnel screening and enforces fitness- for- duty requirements*
functions considered critical to protect against an insider threat of
radiological sabotage.

 Access control (performed annually). Inspectors observed guards at entry
points during peak hours, checked screening equipment, read event reports
and logs, checked access procedures for the plant*s vital area, and
surveyed data in the security computers. For example, inspectors observed
searches of personnel, packages, and vehicles for contraband (i. e.,
firearms, explosives, or drugs) before entry into the protected area and
ensured that the guards granted only authorized persons unescorted access
to the protected and the vital areas of the plant.

 Response to contingency events (performed triennially). 8 Inspectors
tested the licensee*s physical security by testing the intrusion detection
system.

 Random checks of changes to security plans (performed biennially).

Under NRC regulations, licensees can change their security plans without
informing NRC if they believe that the change does not decrease the
effectiveness of the plan. Inspectors reviewed security plan changes and
could have physically examined a change if an issue arose.

If NRC inspectors detected a security problem in these areas, they
determined the problem*s safety significance and whether it violated the
plant*s security plan or other NRC requirements. If a violation occurred,
and the inspectors determined that the problem was *more than minor,* they
used a *significance determination process* to relate the violation to
overall plant security. According to NRC officials, the significance
determination process is also being revised. Under the process previously
used, the inspectors assigned a violation one of the following four
ratings: very low significance, low to moderate significance, substantial

significance, and high significance. For violations more serious than very
low significance, the licensee was required to prepare a written response,
stating the actions it would take to correct the problem. However,
violations judged to be of very low significance* usually categorized as

non- cited violations* were routinely recorded; entered into the plant*s
corrective action plan; and, from NRC*s perspective, closed. Violations
were judged to be of low significance and categorized as a non- cited
violation if the problem had not been identified more than twice in the
past year or if the problem had no direct, immediate, adverse consequences
at

the time it was identified. In addition, for non- cited violations, NRC
did not require a written response from the licensee and did not routinely
follow up to ensure that a permanent remedy had been implemented unless
the noncited violation was randomly selected for review of the licensee*s
corrective action program. We found that NRC frequently issued non- cited
violations. NRC issued 72

non- cited security violations from 2000 to 2001 compared with no cited
security violations during the same period. In addition, NRC issued
noncited violations for security problems that, while within NRC*s
guidance for

8 A contingency event is any event that could impact on the security of
the plant.

non- cited violations, appear to be serious and seem to justify the
formality and follow- up of a cited violation. For example:

 At one plant, an NRC inspector found a security guard sleeping on duty
for more than half an hour. This incident was treated as a non- cited
violation because no actual attack had occurred during that time, and

because neither he nor any other guard at the plant had been found
sleeping more than twice during the past year.

 At another plant, a security officer falsified logs to show that he had
checked vital area doors and barriers when he was actually in another part
of the plant. The officer was the only protection for this area because of
a *security upgrade project.*

 At another plant, NRC inspectors categorized two security problems as
non- cited violations because they had not occurred more than twice in the
past year. In one incident, an inspector observed guards who failed to
physically search several individuals for metal objects after a
walkthrough detector and a hand- held scanner detected metal objects in
their clothing. The unchecked individuals were then allowed unescorted
access throughout the plant*s protected area. Also, security was
compromised in a vital area* where equipment that could be required to
protect public health and safety is located* when an inspector found

that tamper alarms on an access door had been disabled. In this case, the
only compensatory measure implemented was to have a guard check the
location once during each 12- hour shift.

In addition to NRC*s annual inspections, NRC will conduct an inspection if
a plant*s quarterly self- assessment identifies a serious security
problem. Between 2000 and 2002, only 4 of the 104 plants reported security
problems

that required NRC to conduct a follow- up inspection. In 2000, each plant
identified that equipment for controlling access to the plant*s protected
area was often broken, requiring extra guards as compensation. None of the
104 plants* self- assessments identified any security problems in 2001,
2002, or the first 6 months of 2003.

Once every 3 months, NRC develops performance summaries for each of the
nuclear power plants it regulates. In the security area, NRC uses each
plant*s self- assessment performance indicators and its own annual
inspections as the basis for each plant*s quarterly rating. The
performance rating can range from *meeting security objectives* to
*unacceptable.* The ratings are displayed on NRC*s Web site, which is the
public*s main link to

NRC*s assessment of the security at each plant. However, because of NRC*s
extensive use of non- cited violations, the performance rating may not
always accurately represent the security level of the plant. For example,
the plant where the sleeping guard was found was rated as meeting security

objectives for that period. NRC also rated security as meeting objectives
at the plant where physical searches were not conducted for metal detected
by scanners.

NRC Does Not NRC does not have a routine, centralized process for
collecting, analyzing, Systematically Collect,

and disseminating security inspections to identify problems that may be
Analyze, and Disseminate

common to other plants or to identify lessons learned in resolving a
Information That May

security problem that may be helpful to plants in other regions. NRC
Improve Security at All

headquarters only receives inspection reports when a licensee challenges
the findings from security inspections. Following the inspection, the
Plants

regional security specialist prepares a report that is then sent to the
licensee for comment. If the licensee does not challenge the report*s
findings, the report is filed at the region. If the licensee challenges
the findings, a NRC headquarters security review panel meets to resolve
the

issue. At this point, headquarters security specialists may informally
retain copies of the case, but, officially, headquarters returns the files
to the region, which replies to the licensee. According to NRC
headquarters officials, they do not routinely obtain

copies of all security inspection reports because headquarters files and
computer databases are insufficient to hold all inspection reports. In
addition, some of the reports contain safeguards information and can only
be transferred by mail, courier, or secure fax. Instead, headquarters only
has a list of reports in its computer database* not the narrative details
that include safeguards information. According to headquarters officials,
regional NRC security specialists may maintain their own information

about security problems and their resolution, but they have not done this
systematically nor have they routinely shared their findings with
headquarters or the other regions.

NRC*s Force- on- Force From 1991 through 2001, NRC conducted force- on-
force exercises, called

Exercises Are Limited in OSREs, at the nation*s commercial nuclear power
plants. Although these

Their Usefulness exercises have provided learning experiences for the
plants and may have helped improve plant security, the exercises did not
fully demonstrate the

plants* security preparedness. The exercises were conducted infrequently,
against plant security that was enhanced by additional guards and/ or

security barriers, by simulated terrorists who were not trained to operate
like terrorists, and with unrealistic weapons. In addition, the exercises
did not test the maximum limits of the design basis threat, and inspectors
often filed OSRE reports late. As a result, the exercises did not provide
complete and accurate information on a power plant*s ability to defend
against the

maximum limits of the design basis threat, and permanent correction of
problems may have been delayed. Furthermore, NRC has made only limited use
of some available administrative and technological improvements that

would make force- on- force exercises more realistic and provide a more
useful learning experience. Exercises Were Conducted

NRC was not required by law, regulation, or order to conduct OSRE
Infrequently

exercises; however, NRC and the licensees believed that these exercises
were an appropriate mechanism to test the adequacy of the plants* security
plans, and all licensees agreed to participate in these exercises. Since
there is no requirement, NRC started the OSRE program without guidance on
how frequently the exercises should be conducted at each plant. NRC

conducted OSRE exercises at each commercial nuclear power plant about once
every 8 years. Sixty- eight power plant sites have conducted one OSRE
exercise and 12 sites have conducted two exercises.

Like NRC, DOE conducts force- on- force exercises at its nuclear
facilities. 9 DOE*s regulations state that force- on- force exercises
should be conducted at every facility once a year. According to DOE
officials, annual inspections are important because DOE wants up- to- date
information on security preparedness at each nuclear facility; and more
frequent exercises require the facilities to maintain the quality of the
security program because another drill is always only a few months away.
According to NRC officials, they are planning to initiate a new force- on-
force exercise program that will be based on ongoing pilot force- on-
force exercises. They plan to conduct an exercise for each licensee every
3 years, which will require additional regional security inspectors.

9 DOE*s facilities differ from the commercial nuclear power plants that
NRC oversees. Both of these types of facilities, however, contain
radioactive material that must be protected. The security that is required
to protect the facilities also differs; however, we believe that there are
some similarities that allow for lessons learned or promising practices by
one agency to have application by the other.

Exercises Were Conducted According to NRC officials, they provided the
licensee with up to 12 Against Enhanced Plant

months* advance notice of OSRE exercises so that it could assemble a
Defenses

second team of security guards to protect the plant while the exercise was
being conducted. However, the advanced notification also allowed licensees
to enhance security prior to the OSRE exercises, and they were not
required to notify NRC of any enhancements to their security plan. As a

result, according to NRC officials, during the exercises, many plants
increased the number of guards that would respond to an attack; added
security barriers, such as additional fencing; and/ or added defensive
positions that they did not previously have. According to our review of
all 80 OSRE reports, at least 45* or 56 percent* of the exercises were
conducted against plant defenders who had received additional training for
the exercise or against enhanced plant security features, such as
additional guards or defensive positions or barriers. Figure 2 shows the
number of OSRE reports that stated that the exercises were conducted
against (1) guard forces that were larger than those provided for in the
security plan; (2) increased defensive positions or barriers; (3) guards
that had received additional training; and (4) guard forces that were
larger than those provided for in the security plan, guards that had
received additional training, or plants that had enhanced defensive
positions or barriers.

Figure 2: Security Enhancements Made before OSRE Exercises

Although we found 11 instances in which plants had increased the number of
security guards for the OSRE exercises, an NRC official told us that the
number was actually higher but was not reported in the OSRE reports.
According to this official, 52 of the first 55 OSREs conducted used more
guards than provided for in the plants* security plans. For these plants,
the number of guards used exceeded the number called for in the security
plan by an average of 80 percent. According to this official, using
additional

guards impaired the realism of the exercise because in the event of an
actual attack, only the number of guards specified in the security plan
would protect the plant.

Plants that used increased numbers of guards, increased training, or
increased defensive positions or barriers fared better in the OSREs than
those that used the plant defenses specified in the security plan.
According to the OSRE reports, of the 45 plants that increased plant
defenses beyond

the level specified in the security plan, 10 (or 22 percent) failed to
defeat the attackers in one or more of the exercises conducted during the
OSRE. However, of the 35 plants that used only the security levels
specified in the

security plan, 19 (or 54 percent) failed to defeat the attackers in one or
more exercises conducted during the OSRE.

The increased training and preparation for the OSRE exercises provided an
opportunity for the licensee to examine its security program and upgrade
the program in areas found lacking. However, according to an NRC official,
the licensee could decrease security to previous levels after the
exercise.

Consequently, the exercise only provided an evaluation of the *ramped up*
security and provided little information on the plant*s normal day- to-
day security. According to this official, NRC could not hold a licensee
accountable for ramping down after the OSRE exercise because the enhanced
training and additional barriers were not part of the licensee*s security
plan, and NRC can only hold the licensee accountable for its security
plan. NRC has not required that security enhancements implemented to
prepare for OSRE exercises be included as part of the plants* security
plans. However, as of November 2000, NRC no longer allowed the licensee to
increase the number of guards or add defensive

positions or security barriers for OSRE exercises. Between November 2000
and the suspension of the program in September 2001, only eight OSREs were
conducted. DOE* which also provides its facilities with advanced notice of
a scheduled force- on- force exercise (up to 1 year) and allows the
facility to upgrade its security for the exercise* requires that any
enhancements to security that are implemented for the exercise become
integrated into the facility*s security plan. DOE inspectors conduct
follow- up visits to verify that the enhancements have been maintained.

Adversary Forces Were Not Licensees used off- duty guards, guards from
other licensees, and Trained in Terrorist Tactics

management personnel as the simulated adversary force for OSRE exercises,
but these forces may not have accurately simulated the dangers of an
attack. The guards on the adversary force had training only in defending
the plant, not in terrorist and offensive tactics or in the use of

weapons that a terrorist might have. Furthermore, plant managers
participating in the drill had little or no training or experience, even
in defensive tactics. Finally, some members of the adversary force could
have a vested interest in having the licensee*s guard force successfully
defeat

them in attempting simulated radiological sabotage, thereby demonstrating
an adequate security program.

In contrast, DOE uses a trained, simulated composite adversary force in
all of its force- on- force exercises. This force includes guards from all
departmental facilities. 10 Team members are trained in offensive tactics
and, according to DOE officials, have an *adversary* mind- set, which
allows them to think and act like terrorists.

According to NRC officials, as part of the pilot program, they are
assessing the characteristics, training, and selection of the adversary
force. They said that they also have reviewed DOE*s composite adversary
team methods, attended DOE*s adversary training school, and are assessing
the DOE program*s relevance to NRC activities.

Exercises Used Unrealistic Adversary and plant defensive forces generally
used rubber weapons

Weapons during OSRE exercises. Although under some circumstances, such as
very

confined spaces, rubber weapons would be the most practical, in general,
rubber weapons do not simulate actual gunfire or provide real- time
experience. Licensee employees (controller judges) had to determine
whether a guard or adversary member*s weapon hit its intended target. This
led to unrealistic exercises. For example, in one OSRE exercise, the

controller judges reported that they could not determine when weapons were
*fired* or if a person was hit.

DOE usually uses Multiple Integrated Laser Equipment to simulate weapon
fire and provide real- time experiences. Multiple Integrated Laser
Equipment consists of weapons- mounted laser transmitters and laser
sensors on the guard forces and adversary team members. When a laser gun
is fired and hits a target, an alarm registers the hit, thereby allowing
the participants to simulate weapon fire and participate in real- time
exchanges.

A few NRC OSRE exercises used Multiple Integrated Laser Equipment.
According to one OSRE report, the use of laser guns provided realistic
scenarios and simulated the stress of an actual engagement. Consequently,
the exercise showed results that *significantly helped in evaluating the
effectiveness of both the defensive strategy and the officers executing
the strategies.* NRC officials said that they are conducting a $1.4
million assessment of the use of Multiple Integrated Laser Equipment.

10 DOE, Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance, Inside
Oversight,

Special Edition, June 2002, 1- 2.

Exercises Did Not Test the NRC never tested several aspects of the design
basis threat in the OSRE

Full Extent of the Design exercises. As a result, NRC could not determine
the plants* capability to

Basis Threat defend against the maximum credible terrorist attack.
According to the NRC official who was in charge of the OSRE program, NRC
did not use and

test certain adversary capabilities because the exercises would have been
too rigorous, would have resulted in too many exercises in which the
adversaries achieved their objectives, and thus may have resulted in the
elimination of the OSRE program. The second round of OSRE exercises, begun
in 2000, was originally planned to include all of the adversary

capabilities. However, from the beginning of the second round of OSREs to
the suspension of the program in September 2001, none of the OSREs
included all adversary capabilities.

DOE tests the full adversary capabilities of the design basis threat and
often goes beyond those capabilities. DOE officials believe it is
important to test the licensee*s security against all of the adversary
capabilities so that DOE can determine how secure the facility is and what
improvements are needed.

Operational Safeguards NRC had a program goal of issuing OSRE reports 30
to 45 days after the

Response Evaluation Reports end of the exercise, but 46 of 76 reports (60
percent) were not issued within

Were Not Timely the required time. 11 Delays in releasing a report to the
licensee may have affected the timeliness of permanent corrective actions
and diminished the

effectiveness of feedback on the exercise. On average, NRC issued OSRE
reports to the licensees 98 days after the end of the exercises. The OSRE
reports addressed any problems that needed to be corrected and specified
how long the licensee had to correct the problem. NRC communicated the
results of the exercise to the licensee at a closeout meeting. If a
concern was severe and made the licensee vulnerable to security breaches,
the licensee was required to provide temporary protection to address that

concern until it implemented a permanent correction. However, the OSRE
reports have specified an average of 51 days to permanently correct a
concern after the report was issued. As a result, nearly 5 months elapsed
between when the exercise was completed and when the report was issued and
a permanent correction was required.

11 Four of the 80 reports did not contain the information that was
necessary to determine the time required to issue the report.

Federal Law Limits the Commercial nuclear power plants face challenges in
securing their plants

Type of Weapons That against intruders because federal and state laws
limit security guards*

ability to defend these plants. Federal law generally prohibits private
Guards Can Use, and

ownership of automatic weapons, and there is no exemption in the law for
State Laws Vary on

security guards at commercial nuclear power plants. 12 As a result, no
Guards* Authority to

nuclear power plants use automatic weapons in their defense. However,
terrorists attacking a nuclear power plant could be armed with automatic
Deal with Intruders

weapons or other advanced weapons. NRC officials believe that a terrorist
attacking a nuclear power plant could obtain and use any weapon that can
be purchased on the black market, while guards generally have to rely on
semiautomatic pistols, rifles, or shotguns. As a result, guards at nuclear
power plants could be at a great disadvantage in terms of firepower, if
attacked.

According to NRC officials, the use of fully automatic weapons would
provide an important option to plants as they make security decisions
about a number of factors, such as the number of plant guards, the
positioning of guards at the facilities, and the quality and capabilities
of surveillance equipment. According to these officials, plants will have
more options in developing the appropriate combination of security
elements if guards have the authority to carry automatic weapons. NRC
recognizes, however, that some plant sites face special conditions under
which fully automatic weapons might not be beneficial or practicable.

12 Automatic weapons manufactured before 1986, prior to the Firearms
Owners* Protection Act (18 U. S. C. 921 et. seq.) are regulated by the
National Firearms Act (26 U. S. C. 5801 et. seq.), which allows civilian
ownership provided certain requirements are met. States may further
restrict ownership of automatic weapons.

Commercial nuclear power plants also face security challenges because of
the absence of nationwide legal authority and clear guidance on when and
how guards can use deadly force in defending these plants. According to

NRC*s regulations, 13 a guard should use deadly force in protecting
nuclear power reactors against sabotage when the guard has a reasonable
belief that such force is necessary for self- defense or the defense of
others. However, in general, state laws govern the use of deadly force by
private

sector persons, and these laws vary from state to state. For example,
under New Hampshire statutes, guards may not use deadly force if they can
safely retreat from the encounter. 14 In contrast, Texas statutes allow
guards to use deadly force in defense of private land or property, which
includes nuclear power plants, without retreating, if such action is
necessary to protect against another*s use of unlawful force. 15 In still
other states, such as Virginia and Michigan, no state statutes
specifically address the issue, and the courts decide whether deadly force
was appropriate in a given

situation. NRC officials believe that guards* concerned about their right
to act* might second- guess, hesitate, delay, or fail to act appropriately
against an attacker, thereby increasing the risk of a successful attack on
the nation*s nuclear power plants. During OSRE exercises, NRC officials
presented

guards with various scenarios that could involve the use of deadly force.
In 7 of the 80 OSRE reports we reviewed (about 9 percent) NRC found that
the guards did not understand or did not properly apply its guidance on
the use of deadly force.

13 10 C. F. R. 73.55( h)( 5). 14 N. H. Rev. Stat. 627.4. 15 TX Pen. Code,
Sections 9. 41- 9.43.

Finally, guards at nuclear power plants do not have nationwide legal
authority and clear guidance on when and how to arrest and/ or detain
intruders at the nation*s plants. NRC officials believe that there is a
question about whether federal authority can be directly granted to
private security guards who are not deputized. State laws governing this
authority vary. For example, in South Carolina, private security guards*
authority to arrest and/ or detain intruders on plant property is similar
to local law enforcement officials* authority. 16 However, in most states,
these guards have only the arrest authority afforded every U. S. citizen.
17 To enable nuclear power plants to better defend against attacks, NRC
has

sought federal legislation that would authorize the use of deadly force to
protect the plants. Legislation has not been enacted but is currently
pending on arrest and detain authority. Conclusions NRC has taken several
actions to respond to the heightened risk of attack

following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and, in April 2003,
issued a new design basis threat that the commercial nuclear power plants
must be prepared to defend against. However, NRC*s past methods for
ensuring that plants are taking all of the appropriate defensive measures*
the annual security inspections and the force- on- force exercises* had
significant weaknesses. As a result, NRC*s oversight of these plants may
not have provided the information necessary for NRC to ensure that the
power plants were adequately defended.

In particular, NRC*s past use of non- cited violations for security
problems that appear to be serious is detrimental to ensuring the plants*
security because NRC did not require follow- up to ensure that a non-
cited violation was corrected. Lack of follow- up reduces the likelihood
that needed improvements will be made. Moreover, NRC may have overstated
security levels when it provided a *meeting security objectives* rating to
some plants having non- cited violations that appear to have serious
security

implications. NRC could not have known whether some non- cited 16 S. C.
Code Section 40- 18- 110. 17 Citizen*s arrest authority evolved from old
English law. Some states have statues specifying and clarifying citizen*s
arrest authority, and others rely on common law citizen*s arrest
authority. Generally, under common law, a private citizen may arrest
another when there is probable cause to believe that the other person is
committing or has committed a felony in the citizen*s presence.

violations, such as guards found asleep on duty or failure to physically
search for metal detected by scanners, were vulnerabilities that could
have been exploited. However, accepting such vulnerabilities post-
September 11, 2001, opens the power plants to undue risk. Furthermore, NRC
may be

missing opportunities to better oversee and improve security at the plants
because it does not routinely collect, analyze, and disseminate
information on security enhancements, problems, and solutions among the
plants and within the agency. Such a mechanism may help other plants to
improve their security. Similarly, the force- on- force exercises were not
realistic enough to ensure

the identification and correction of plants* security vulnerabilities.
Untrained adversary teams, temporarily enhanced defenses, and rubber
weapons used in past force- on- force exercises simply do not compare with
simulated attack exercises using technologically advanced tools that
provide realistic, real- time experience. Furthermore, NRC was not
required to conduct these exercises and has done so infrequently, thereby
making

plants even less prepared to address an attack. In addition, in the past,
exercises have not addressed the full range of the design basis threat.
Finally, delays in issuing reports on the OSRE exercises may have resulted
in delays in the permanent correction of known security problems.

NRC is in the process of revising both its security inspection program and
its force- on- force exercise program. What these programs will consist of
when they are revised is currently unknown. NRC expects its security
inspection program to be restored by 2004 and will decide the future of
its force- on- force program after completing its pilot program* at a date
yet to be determined. Revisions of these programs provide NRC with an
opportunity to use the lessons learned from the suspended programs to
strengthen them and make them more relevant to the post- September 11,
2001, environment.

Until these programs are restored, NRC is relying on plants*
selfassessments and the force- on- force pilot program as its mechanisms
to oversee security at the nation*s nuclear power plants. The self-
assessments

rely on the licensees to identify problems, which then prompts NRC to
conduct security inspections. Since the inspection program was curtailed
in 2001, the plants have not identified any serious security problems in
their self- assessments. Therefore, it is critical for NRC to revise and
restore promptly its annual security inspections and force- on- force
exercises to fulfill its oversight responsibilities.

Recommendations for To strengthen NRC*s security inspection program, we
recommend that the

Executive Action NRC Commissioners

 ensure that NRC*s revised security inspection program and force- on
force exercise program are restored promptly and require that NRC regional
inspectors conduct follow- up visits to verify that corrective actions
have been taken when security violations, including non- cited violations,
have been identified;

 ensure that NRC routinely collects, analyzes, and disseminates
information on security problems, solutions, and lessons learned and
shares this information with all NRC regions and licensees; and

 make force- on- force exercises a required activity and strengthen them
by  conducting the exercises more frequently at each plant;  using laser
equipment to ensure accurate accounts of shots fired;  requiring the
exercises to make use of the full terrorist capabilities

stated in the design basis threat, including the use of an adversary force
that has been trained in terrorist tactics;

 continuing the practice, begun in 2000, of prohibiting licensees from
temporarily increasing the number of guards defending the plant and
enhancing plant defenses for force- on- force exercises, or requiring that
any temporary security enhancements be officially incorporated into the
licensees* security plans; and

 enforcing NRC*s requirement that force- on- force exercise reports be
issued within 30 to 45 days after the end of the exercise to ensure prompt
correction of the problems noted. Agency Comments and

We provided a draft of this report to NRC for its review and comment. NRC
Our Evaluation

stated that our report did not provide a balanced or useful perspective of
its role in ensuring security at commercial nuclear power plants. NRC
believed that our report was *of a historical nature,* focusing on NRC*s
oversight of power plants before September 11, 2001, and that our report
failed to reflect the changes NRC has made to its program since September

11. Furthermore, NRC commented that our characterization of non- cited
violations as minimizing the significance of security problems is a
serious misrepresentation. NRC said that the *anecdotal* issues noted in
the draft report were *relatively minor issues* and that it treated them
appropriately.

We agree that NRC has taken numerous and appropriate actions since
September 11, 2001, and that additional security procedures have been, and
are being, put in place to increase power plant operators* attention to
enhancing security. Our draft report had discussed many of these actions,
and we have added additional language to the report to more fully reflect
these actions. We note that most of these actions were advisories or
requirements for the licensee to enhance plant physical security and did
not relate to NRC*s oversight activities. With respect to NRC oversight of
security at the nuclear power plants, NRC has suspended the two primary
elements of its oversight program, the security inspection program and the
OSRE exercises and has not yet resumed them. NRC*s oversight actions since
September 11 have been interim in nature; it has conducted ad hoc
inspections and some force- on- force exercises as part of a pilot
program. NRC said that it plans to reinstitute the security inspection and
the forceon- force exercise programs in the future, but it does not now
know what the revised programs will consist of. As a result, we remain
convinced that it was appropriate to examine NRC*s security oversight
program before September 11. In the absence of any formal post- September
11 oversight program, this was the only way to systematically assess the
strengths and weaknesses of NRC*s oversight. Our recommendations are
directed at strengthening the oversight programs and making NRC*s
oversight more

relevant to the post- September 11 environment. In that regard, while the
NRC comments reference numerous efforts and enhancements, we note that,
with one exception, these actions were designed to enhance power plant
security and not to improve or enhance NRC*s oversight program, which is
the subject of this report. The one exception is NRC*s force- on- force
evaluation program, a major element in NRC*s oversight program. In its
comments, NRC stated that we failed to adequately reflect NRC*s enhanced
force- on- force evaluation program,

including the increased frequency and greater degree of realism of the
exercises. We disagree. NRC has not yet instituted a new force- on- force
program, and our report reflects NRC*s current force- on- force efforts.
NRC suspended its old OSRE program after September 11, 2001, and is
currently conducting pilot force- on- force exercises, which we describe
in this report. NRC has not determined when a permanent program will be
instituted or

what it will consist of when it is reinstituted. NRC plans to use the
results of the pilot exercises to help formulate a new, permanent program.

We also disagree that the *anecdotal* issues cited in the draft report
were *relatively minor issues* and do not believe that the continued
extensive use of non- cited violations will achieve the best oversight.
Sleeping guards,

unauthorized access to protected areas, disabled alarms in the vital area,
and failure to inspect visitors who set off alarms on metal detectors are
all serious security problems that warrant NRC attention and oversight.
NRC*s belief that it should rely on the licensees to self- identify and
correct these types of problems is troubling. Instead of discounting
problems that are, on their face, quite worrisome, NRC should aggressively
determine the root cause of the problems, formulate corrective actions,
and follow up to ensure that the approved corrective actions have been
implemented and that the implemented actions have corrected the problems.
The use of noncited violations delegates these activities and
responsibilities to the licensees. NRC believes that such delegation is
appropriate and that the use of non- cited violations contributes to an
environment in which the licensee self- identifies and corrects problems,
a behavior that NRC said it encourages. However, in the cases we cited,
the delegation of responsibility

for identifying and correcting security problems was not effective because
all were security problems that the licensee failed to identify, but
instead were found by NRC security inspectors.

Finally, NRC stated that its process requires it to review a sampling of
the licensees* corrective actions to ensure that the licensees are
implementing the corrective actions. NRC failed to note, however, that the
requirement cited is part of the baseline security inspection program that
was suspended after September 11, 2001, and that has not been reinstated.
In addition, when NRC was conducting baseline security inspections, the
program required corrective action checks only every 2 years, and the
sample selected for checks included all corrective actions* safety and

emergency preparedness, as well as security. As a result, NRC had no
assurance that any security corrective actions would be selected for
followup. Licensees should be involved in identifying and correcting
problems. However, we believe that by delegating these functions to the
licensee, NRC is abandoning its oversight responsibilities and, as a
result, cannot guarantee that problems are identified and corrected.

NRC did not comment on our recommendations for reinstituting and improving
its baseline inspection and force- on- force exercise programs.
Nevertheless, we hope that NRC decides to implement our

recommendations as it fulfills its 31 U. S. C. 720 requirement to submit a
written statement of the actions taken on our recommendations. This
statement is to be submitted to the Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform not later than 60

days after the date of this report*s release, and to the Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations with the agency*s first request for
appropriations made more than 60 days after that same date.

In addition to its overall comments and observations (see app. III), NRC
provided a number of technical comments and clarifications, which we
incorporated in this report as appropriate.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of the
report to interested congressional committees, the Chairman of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget. We will make copies available to others on request. In addition,
this

report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http:// www.
gao. gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me
at (202) 512- 3841 or contact me at Wellsj@ gao. gov. Key contributors to
this report are listed in appendix IV. Jim Wells Director, Natural
Resources and Environment

Appendi Appendi xes x I

Scope And Methodology Our objectives were to review (1) the effectiveness
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission*s (NRC) inspection program to oversee
security at commercial nuclear power plants and (2) legal challenges
currently affecting physical security at the power plants.

To meet these objectives, we visited NRC*s Headquarters in Rockville,
Maryland, and Region I in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; obtained NRC
advisories, orders, regulations, Operational Safeguards Response
Evaluation (OSRE) reports, and annual security inspection reports; and
interviewed officials who were knowledgeable about NRC*s physical

security requirements for nuclear power plants. We also visited the
Limerick, Oyster Creek, and Calvert Cliffs power plants; obtained licensee
documents and requirements regarding their security procedures; and
interviewed licensee officials who were knowledgeable about the
facilities* security plans, procedures, and NRC*s nuclear power plant
physical security regulations. During our visits, we observed the security
measures that were put in place to reflect NRC*s advisories and orders
since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

To determine the extent of NRC*s oversight of nuclear power plant
security, we held discussions with NRC Region I security inspectors and
officials in NRC*s Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response,
Office of General Counsel, and Office of the Executive Director for
Operations. We also held discussions with licensee officials at the
Limerick, Oyster Creek, and Calvert Cliffs power plants on their security
procedures and mechanisms and on their interaction with NRC security
inspectors. In addition, we collected information on nuclear security from
all NRC regional security offices.

To determine how NRC assesses the quality of daily security procedures and
mechanisms against the licensees* security plans, we obtained and reviewed
all 49 NRC inspection reports that contained a finding that was judged to
be of moderate significance or higher. We also had discussions with
officials in NRC*s Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response
regarding the methods for conducting and reporting annual inspections and
in NRC*s Office of Enforcement regarding how security violations are
administered.

To determine how NRC tests licensees against the design basis threat, we
interviewed NRC officials to understand both the process for OSRE
exercises and report writing and the follow- up procedures for any
concerns found during an OSRE exercise. We also examined all OSRE reports
from

each NRC licensee. We designed a data collection instrument in order to
organize specific elements that were extracted from 80 OSRE reports. Two
GAO analysts followed procedures to ensure the completeness of all data
collection instrument entries. The data collection instrument data were
entered into a spreadsheet file for analysis. To detect potential coding
and keying errors, the accuracy of the data entered into the spreadsheet
file was verified. We also held discussions with Department of Energy
officials to (1) determine how they conduct force- on- force exercises at
the department*s nuclear facilities and (2) determine if there are any
promising practices that might be applied to NRC*s OSRE program. To
determine NRC*s views on federal and state laws and on NRC

institutional policies (i. e., regarding the use of automatic weapons, the
authority to use deadly force, and the authority to arrest and detain)
that could impact a licensee*s ability to adequately secure commercial
nuclear power plants, we discussed these issues with officials from NRC*s
Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response and Office of General
Counsel. Additionally, we discussed these same issues with industry
officials who were specifically knowledgeable about these areas. We
examined existing

federal and state laws, and we also examined federal and state bills that
have been proposed or are pending legislative passage.

U. S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants That

Appendi x II

Are Licensed to Operate Power plant City State NRC region Arkansas Nuclear
1 Russellville AR 4 Arkansas Nuclear 2 Russellville AR 4 Beaver Valley 1
McCandless PA 1 Beaver Valley 2 McCandless PA 1 Braidwood 1 Joilet IL 3
Braidwood 2 Joilet IL 3 Browns Ferry 1 Decatur AL 2 Browns Ferry 2 Decatur
AL 2 Browns Ferry 3 Decatur AL 2 Brunswick 1 Southport NC 2 Brunswick 2
Southport NC 2 Bryon 1 Rockford IL 3 Bryon 2 Rockford IL 3 Callaway Fulton
MO 4 Calvert Cliffs 1 Annapolis MD 1 Calvert Cliffs 2 Annapolis MD 1
Catawba 1 Rock Hill SC 2 Catawba 2 Rock Hill SC 2 Clinton Clinton IL 3
Columbia Generating Station Richland WA 4 Comanche Peak 1 Glen Rose TX 4
Comanche Peak 2 Glen Rose TX 4 Cooper Nebraska City NE 4 Crystal River 3
Crystal River FL 2 D C Cook 1 Benton Harbor MI 3 D C Cook 2 Benton Harbor
MI 3 Davis- Besse Toledo OH 3 Diablo Canyon 1 San Luis Obispo CA 4 Diablo
Canyon 2 San Luis Obispo CA 4 Dresden 2 Morris IL 3 Dresden 3 Morris IL 3
Duane Arnold Cedar Rapids IA 3 Edwin I. Hatch 1 Baxley GA 2 Edwin I. Hatch
2 Baxley GA 2 Fermi 2 Toledo MI 3

(Continued From Previous Page)

Power plant City State NRC region Fort Calhoun Omaha NE 4 Ginna Rochester
NY 1 Grand Gulf 1 Vicksburg MS 4 H. B. Robinson 2 Florence SC 2 Hope Creek
1 Lower Alloways Creek NJ 1 Indian Point 2 New York NY 1 Indian Point 3
New York NY 1 James A. FitzPatrick Oswego NY 1 Joseph M. Farley 1 Dothan
AL 2 Joseph M. Farley 2 Dothan AL 2 Kewaunee Green Bay WI 3 La Salle 1
Ottawa IL 3 La Salle 2 Ottawa IL 3 Limerick 1 Philadelphia PA 1 Limerick 2
Philadelphia PA 1 McGuire 1 Charlotte NC 2 McGuire 2 Charlotte NC 2
Millstone 2 New London CT 1 Millstone 3 New London CT 1 Monticello
Minneapolis MN 3 Nine Mile Point 1 Oswego NY 1 Nine Mile Point 2 Oswego NY
1 North Anna 1 Richmond VA 2 North Anna 2 Richmond VA 2 Oconee 1
Greenville SC 2 Oconee 2 Greenville SC 2 Oconee 3 Greenville SC 2 Oyster
Creek Toms River NJ 1 Palisades South Haven MI 3 Palo Verde 1 Phoenix AZ 4
Palo Verde 2 Phoenix AZ 4 Palo Verde 3 Phoenix AZ 4 Peach Bottom 2
Lancaster PA 1 Peach Bottom 3 Lancaster PA 1 Perry 1 Painesville OH 3
Pilgrim 1 Plymouth MA 1 Point Beach 1 Manitowoc WI 3

(Continued From Previous Page)

Power plant City State NRC region Point Beach 2 Manitowoc WI 3 Prairie
Island 1 Minneapolis MN 3 Prairie Island 2 Minneapolis MN 3 Quad Cities 1
Moline IL 3 Quad Cities 2 Moline IL 3 River Bend 1 Baton Rouge LA 4 Salem
1 Lower Alloways Creek NJ 1 Salem 2 Lower Alloways Creek NJ 1 San Onofre 2
San Clemente CA 4 San Onofre 3 San Clemente CA 4 Seabrook 1 Portsmouth NH
1 Seqouyah 1 Chattanooga TN 2 Seqouyah 2 Chattanooga TN 2 Shearon Harris 1
Raleigh NC 2 South Texas Project 1 Bay City TX 4 South Texas Project 2 Bay
City TX 4 St. Lucie 1 Ft. Pierce FL 2 St. Lucie 2 Ft. Pierce FL 2 Summer
Columbia SC 2 Surry 1 Newport News VA 2 Surry 2 Newport News VA 2
Susquehanna 1 Berwick PA 1 Susquehanna 2 Berwick PA 1 Three Mile Island 1
Harrisburg PA 1 Turkey Point 3 Miami FL 2 Turkey Point 4 Miami FL 2
Vermont Yankee Battleboro VT 1 Vogtle 1 Augusta GA 2 Vogtle 2 Augusta GA 2
Waterford 3 New Orleans LA 4 Watts Bar 1 Spring City TN 2 Wolf Creek 1
Burlington KS 4 Source: NRC.

Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory

Appendi x III Commission

Appendi x IV

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Andrea Wamstad Brown
(202) 512- 3319 Kenneth E. Lightner, Jr (202) 512- 3471 Staff

In addition to those named above, Jill Ann Roth Edelson, Kevin L. Jackson,
Acknowledgments

William Lanouette, J. Addison Ricks, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and Barbara
R. Timmerman made key contributions to this report.

(360201)

GAO*s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good
government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity,
and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext GAO Reports and

files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
Testimony

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail this

list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select *Subscribe to
e- mail alerts* under the *Order GAO Products* heading. Order by Mail or
Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are
$2 each. A check

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO
also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to
a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax:
(202) 512- 6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E-
mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Federal Programs

Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 Public
Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D. C. 20548

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2003 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Oversight of Security at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants Needs to Be
Strengthened

GAO- 03- 752

Contents Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 Background 4 Three Aspects of NRC*s Security Inspection
Program Inhibit

Effective Oversight 9 Federal Law Limits the Type of Weapons That Guards
Can Use, and State Laws Vary on Guards* Authority to Deal with Intruders
20

Conclusions 22 Recommendations for Executive Action 24 Agency Comments and
Our Evaluation 24

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope And Methodology 28

Appendix II: U. S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants That Are Licensed to
Operate 30

Appendix III: Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 33

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 35 GAO Contacts 35
Staff Acknowledgments 35

Figures Figure 1: Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United States 5
Figure 2: Security Enhancements Made before OSRE Exercises 16

Abbreviations

DOE Department of Energy NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OSRE
Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation

This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

NRC has taken numerous actions to respond to the heightened risk of
terrorist attack, including interacting with the Department of Homeland
Security and issuing orders designed to increase security and improve
plant defensive barriers. However, three aspects of its security
inspection program reduced NRC*s effectiveness in overseeing security at
commercial nuclear power plants.

First, NRC inspectors often used a process that minimized the significance
of security problems found in annual inspections by classifying them as
*non- cited violations* if the problem had not been identified frequently
in the past or if the problem had no direct, immediate, adverse
consequences at the time it was identified. Non- cited violations do not
require a written response from the licensee and do not require NRC
inspectors to verify that the problem has been corrected. For example,
guards at one plant failed to physically search several individuals for
metal objects after a walk- through detector and a hand- held scanner
detected metal objects in their clothing. The unchecked individuals were
then allowed unescorted access throughout

the plant*s protected area. By making extensive use of non- cited
violations for serious problems, NRC may overstate the level of security
at a power plant and reduce the likelihood that needed improvements are
made. Second, NRC does not have a routine, centralized process for
collecting,

analyzing, and disseminating security inspections to identify problems
that may be common to plants or to provide lessons learned in resolving
security problems. Such a mechanism may help plants improve their
security.

Third, although NRC*s force- on- force exercises can demonstrate how well
a nuclear plant might defend against a real- life threat, several
weaknesses in how NRC conducted these exercises limited their usefulness.
Weaknesses included using (1) more personnel to defend the plant during
these exercises than during a normal day, (2) attacking forces that are
not trained in terrorist tactics, and (3) unrealistic weapons (rubber
guns) that do not simulate actual gunfire. Furthermore, NRC has made only
limited use of some available improvements that would make force- on-
force exercises more realistic and provide a more useful learning
experience.

Even if NRC strengthens its inspection program, commercial nuclear power
plants face legal challenges in ensuring plant security. First, federal
law generally prohibits guards at these plants from using automatic
weapons, although terrorists are likely to have them. As a result, guards
at commercial nuclear power plants could be at a disadvantage in
firepower, if attacked. Second, state laws vary regarding the permissible
use of deadly force and the authority to arrest and detain intruders, and
guards are unsure about the extent of their authorities and may hesitate
or fail to act if the plant is attacked. The September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks intensified the nation*s focus on national preparedness and

homeland security. Among possible terrorist targets are the nation*s
nuclear power plants* 104 facilities containing radioactive fuel and
waste. The Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) oversees plant security through an inspection
program designed to verify the plants* compliance with

security requirements. As part of that program, NRC conducted annual
security inspections of plants and force- on- force exercises to test
plant security against a simulated terrorist attack. GAO was asked to
review (1) the effectiveness of NRC*s security

inspection program and (2) legal challenges affecting power plant
security. Currently, NRC is reevaluating its inspection program. We did
not assess the

adequacy of security at the individual plants; rather, our focus was on
NRC*s oversight and

regulation of plant security. GAO is making recommendations to strengthen
NRC*s oversight at commercial nuclear power plants by promptly restoring
annual security inspections and revising force- on- force exercises. NRC
disagreed with many of GAO*s

findings, but did not comment on GAO*s recommendations. GAO continues to
believe its findings are appropriate and the recommendations need to be
acted upon.

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 752. To view the full product,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Jim Wells at (202) 512- 3841 or wellsj@ gao. gov.

Highlights of GAO- 03- 752, a report to congressional requesters

September 2003

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Oversight of Security at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants Needs to Be
Strengthened

Page i GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 1 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548

Page 1 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

A

Page 2 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 3 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 4 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 5 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 6 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 7 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 8 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 9 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 10 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 11 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 12 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 13 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 14 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 15 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 16 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 17 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 18 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 19 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 20 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 21 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 22 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 23 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 24 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 25 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 26 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 27 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 28 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Appendix I

Appendix I Scope And Methodology

Page 29 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 30 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Appendix II

Appendix II U. S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants That Are Licensed to
Operate

Page 31 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Appendix II U. S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants That Are Licensed to
Operate

Page 32 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 33 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Appendix III

Appendix III Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 34 GAO-
03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Page 35 GAO- 03- 752 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security

Appendix IV

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid

GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***