Safeguards and Security
Frequently Asked Questions

Safeguards and security (S&S) policies and systems provide a formal, organized process to establish the roles and responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) S&S Program. This process facilitates planning, performing, assessing, and improving the secure conduct of work and protection of important DOE assets in accordance with risk-based protection strategies. Specific requirements for each of the key elements are contained in their respective programmatic Manuals. The requirements are based on national level policy promulgated in laws, regulations, Executive orders, and Presidential directives and are designed to prevent unacceptable impacts on national security, the health and safety of DOE and contractor employees, the public, or the environment.

The following frequently asked questions (FAQs) are organized by the topical areas and offer answers to recurring questions or policy clarification requests. All FAQs can be viewed by scrolling through the whole document or viewed by clicking on the following topical areas:

General

Q: How are S&S FAQs developed and how can they benefit my program?

A: Many of the S&S FAQs are provided directly from our field/operational elements. Subject matter experts from the Office of Security Policy in HSS finalize select questions in each topical area e.g., Information Security, Protective Force, Physical Security, etc. After several reviews the questions are posted on the HSS website at http://www.hss.energy.gov/SecPolicy/ss_faqs_main.html. The FAQs may provide an answer to a question you have about one of the topical areas, or increased clarity of certain Departmental security policy.

Q: I understand that DOE directives are behind the DOE Firewall and public access is restricted. Are all Departmental directives currently restricted?

A: No, many Departmental directives are not restricted (i.e., behind the DOE Firewall). Recently, the Office of Security Policy has received permission and has taken steps to allow public access to the DOE M 470.4 series and the several previous archived policies (except for the Personnel Security Manual, which will remain behind the DOE Firewall). However, there are a few other security related directives outside the 470 series which are restricted.

Q: Why are these directives restricted from the general public?

A: Public access was restricted to several Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), Office of the Chief Information Officer, and Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence directives in May 2002, at the request of those offices. The availability of the restricted directives presented an unneeded disclosure of Departmental security policies. Questions regarding this matter or requests for any DOE restricted policies should be directed to the HSS managed mailbox Security.Directives@hq.doe.gov.

Q: What is the purpose of the Security Policy Panels?

A: The goal of the security policy panels is to expedite the identification of policy issues and to increase productivity specifically within the policy process, thereby enhancing both the Department's policy formulation and execution.

Q: What are some of the areas within security that are represented in security policy panels?

A: There are 5 areas represented by the security policy panels, they are Program Planning and Management, Physical Protection, Protective Force, Information Security and Material Control and Accountability.

Q: Is the security policy panel information available online?

A: Yes, the link is: http://www.hss.doe.gov/SecPolicy/policypanel_main.html

Q: Are the panel members all Federal employees or can contractors become members?

A: The policy panel members are comprised of both contractors and Federal employees who are subject matter experts in their respective fields.

Program Planning and Management

Q: When a cleared employee moves from one employer (contractor or Federal) to another at a site, is it necessary to have the employee sign a new SF-312, Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, for their new position?

A: No, as long as the SF-312, which the individual originally signed, can be readily located and retrieved from wherever it is filed, there is no requirement to have the individual sign a new one. There is no prohibition against having the person execute a new form, but it is not necessary as long as the first one is available. When the employee is moving from a position with one contractor to a position with a different contractor company, the form cannot be retained by the original employer after the individual changes jobs. However, the form can be given to the new employer to hold while the individual works for that employer, or it can be retained in a file held by a DOE Federal office.

Q: Is there a requirement to process a Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) determination for individuals regardless of how they are paid (e.g., proprietorship, corporation, LLC, etc.) if they are acting as individuals and do not hire additional persons to work on a task?

A: Individuals who are operating as a proprietorship, corporation, or other form of business must be processed for a FOCI determination, whether or not they are the sole employee or have others working for them. However, a FOCI determination is not required for an individual performing work under a consulting agreement. The key is whether the individual has in fact registered himself or herself as a business of some sort and is contracting as such. A person performing work as someone who is hiring out his or her individual expertise is a consultant and does not require FOCI review.

Q: Our office recently received documents from the Department of Defense that contain NATO Secret information. The information is in documents originated by the United States government. Does this warrant a change in our Facility Data and Approval Record (DOE F 470.2)? Our current DOE F 470.2 shows that we are approved for access to U.S. national security information at the same level as the NATO information.

A: Yes, an update to the FDAR must be submitted in this case. DOE M 470.4-1 C1, Program Planning and Management, requires the submission of accurate FDARs. It also requires that significant facility changes, including changes to the classification level, category or other special access requirements of information authorized, must be documented on an updated FDAR. Whether the NATO information originated in the United States is not a consideration in determining whether possession of the information must be reported. For NATO information, the issue is not which country the information originated in, but the fact that there are special requirements for access to and protection of NATO information.

Q: I was recently told by a Department of Defense site that they would not accept a classified visit request processed according to the requirements stated in DOE M 470.4-1, Chg 1, Section L. The DOD office stated that they would not accept DOE F 5631.20, Request for Visit or Access Approval, and would only allow classified visits for DOE staff if DOE started entering its security clearances in the DOD Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS). Can they do this?

A: No. DOD cannot ask any other department or agency to put its clearances into JPAS for any purpose. While DOD has made special arrangements to use its JPAS database as the repository for its own security clearance information, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 makes the Clearance Verification System (CVS) operated by the U. S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) the required clearance database for all civilian departments and agencies. DOD internal procedures state that verification of a visitor's security clearance may be accomplished by a visit authorization letter or document such as DOE F 5631.20 or by use of database information, whichever is required by the procedures of the agency submitting the request. These procedures are also reflected in the Visits section of the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) applicable to contractor visits. However, while there is no requirement to use the JPAS system, acceptance of DOE F 5631.20 at some DOD sites may present a new set of challenges.

Q: Why does DOE F 470.1, the Contract Security Classification Specification (CSCS) form, allow unescorted access to security areas as a justification for access authorizations? Our processing personnel security office recently disallowed unescorted access as a basis for an access authorization, so it would seem that classified contracts should not be registered on this basis.

A: The CSCS form lists possible activities for which a contractor's employees might require access to classified information or matter in connection with contract performance. Unescorted access might, in some exceptional circumstances, be necessary to allow individuals to perform work under a contract where access to classified information cannot be successfully precluded by any reasonable measures. However, merely marking the blocks on the form does not constitute a valid justification for the access authorizations, nor for the automatic processing of a facility clearance. In all cases, the DOE cognizant security authority is required to determine and validate the security requirements indicated on the CSCS before granting the facility clearance. Since granting access solely to permit unescorted access to controlled areas is prohibited by Executive Order 12968, the cognizant security authority must establish that no other reasonable measures could be taken to preclude access and still permit contract performance prior to granting the facility clearance. Further specific justification for each individual security clearance would then be required before the requests for access authorizations could be processed by the personnel security office.

Q: Why doesn't DOE require tax identification numbers for contractors who are in need of FOCI?

A: Although current DOE policy does not require tax identification numbers, any contractor requesting a favorable FOCI determination must do so via the electronic Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (e-FOCI) System and complete all the entries therein. The e-FOCI Registration Page requires that a contractor provide the company tax identification number in order to register and successfully submit a FOCI package. Therefore, although not required in current policy, the information is still collected via the e-FOCI System.

Q: How is DOE FOCI policy reviewed within the FOCI operations community?

A: In August 2007, the FOCI operations community participated in a detailed review of current FOCI policy as part of the Office of Health, Safety and Security's Zero Based Policy Review. FOCI subject matter experts from across the DOE complex were members of a working group that evaluated all the requirements in current directives, determined whether a need existed to retain and/or modify the requirement, and restructured the residual policy into a new modified set. Upon completion of the requirements review by the working group, four DOE field offices critiqued the draft policy and assessed the impact of implementing the policy in their respective programs. The FOCI requirements resulting from the August 2007 review have not yet been finalized and are currently under evaluation by the Office of Security Policy within HSS.

Physical Protection:

Q: If an error is made while dialing the X-07 combination lock and it will not power up, is it broken?

A: Not necessarily. After 10 successive failed attempts on the X-07, the LCD will blank out. Wait a few minutes for the unit to power down and try again.

Q: What does a lighting bolt on the LCD of an X-07, X-08 or X-09 lock mean?

A: A lighting bolt is caused by any of the following improper techniques:

• Entering the combination too quickly (in less than 10 or 15 seconds).
• Turning the dial more than 1-1/3 revolutions without pausing at least ¼ second.
• Reversing the dialing direction without pausing at least ¼ second.
• Entering an incorrect combination.

Q: I am having a problem with my X-09 lock. I correctly entered the combination and turned the dial to the right and the "OP" is displayed on the LCD. However, continued dialing to the right indefinitely does not open/unlock the lock. What could be the problem and what can I do about it?

A: The "OP" display means you have entered the correct combination. Remember to turn the dial with full wrist turns. This will keep the lock fully powered. The problem may be that the combo motor is an early version, which should be replaced. Try varying the speed of dialing after achieving the "OP" display. Dialing either more rapidly or more slowly will often retract the bolt.

Q: Are Level III locks/keys (DOE M 470.4-2 C1, Physical Protection) required for doors to offices/areas that contain a GSA approved security container(s) that store classified matter?

A: No. An additional level of locking protection is not needed if the classified matter is stored in a GSA approved security container and the office/area is within a Limited Area or higher.

Q: What is the date upon which the requirements, described in Appendix C, DOE M 470.4-2-2 Chg1, Safeguards and Security Alarm Management and Control Systems (SAMACS), must be implemented?

A: The appendix applies to all new physical protection systems installed or made operational after January 1, 2008, that protect Category I and II quantities of SNM.

Q: Has Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) revised the balanced magnetic switch (BMS) standard, UL 634, Connectors and Switches for Use with Burglar-Alarm Systems, to establish a Level 2 standard to define more stringent requirements?

A: Yes. The requirement evolved from requests from certain government departments and agencies for an improved version for high security applications but existing BMS will, not necessarily have to be replaced. It depends on the results of a vulnerability analysis, and the existing and/or offsetting security measures to mitigate the vulnerability. If the asset is located in an area where there are no other protection measures present, then the Level 2 BMS would be appropriate. The BMS is manufactured by a single source and costs considerably more than prior generation BMSs, so a judicious approach should be taken before making an arbitrary decision to replace existing high security BMSs.

Q: Is the Secondary Alarm Station (SAS) to be fully redundant to the Central Alarm Station (CAS)?

A: No. However, without advance notice it must be capable of assuming the command and control functions should the CAS become unable to fulfill its security monitoring and control role. The SAS does not have to receive all of the alarms, and perform complete assessment of the intrusion detection alarm zones/devices. It must be capable of providing command and control of site response forces and provide security status reports to the facility's Emergency Command Post/Operations Center. The CAS and SAS requirements relate to the protection of Category I and II SNM and other high consequence assets.

Return to Top of Page

Protective Force

Q: DOE Directives allow for reduced frequency of inventory and maintenance checks for stored firearms. What is meant by the term "stored firearms"?

A: To qualify as "stored firearms," the weapons cannot be designated as available to support "contingency operations;" e.g., M-4s that could be issued for an emergency response would need to be inspected semiannually. They could not be defined as "stored firearms". In other words, "stored firearms" cannot be part of the active inventory available for duty, training, qualifications, or contingency response operations.

Q: Federalization of the Department's protective force is an option which has been discussed for many years. What is the official DOE position on this option?

A: Since 2004, several studies have been conducted by the DOE and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) regarding this issue. After jointly reviewing the results of the studies, on January 19, 2009, the Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration and the Chief, Health, Safety and Security Officer issued a joint memorandum stating that, "…federalizing the protective force is no longer a viable option that should be pursued" in the current environment. This decision, however, was not meant to foreclose further action to improve the situation of protective force members. On the contrary-the leadership of the Department is committed to exploring every feasible protective force career option and is further committed to developing both near- and long-term actions on behalf of the protective forces. There is a need to consider every aspect of the issue while giving due consideration to previously proposed actions. This will require the collective insight of the senior technical staff of the Department's security community.

Q: How does DOE determine what modifications should be authorized for its weapon systems (both duty weapons and those modified for electronic simulation system use) and how is that information promulgated?

A: When a site identifies a new weapon modification, a package outlining the change is developed and provided to the Office of Security Policy and the National Training Center. After review and discussion with subject matter experts, e.g., at the Armorer's Policy Panel, if the modification is approved, it is added to the Firearms Modification List posted on the HSS website in the Protective Force Supplemental document section at http://www.hss.energy.gov/SecPolicy/pfs/FML.pdf. Additionally, the Firearms Modification List is reviewed annually at the policy panel held in conjunction with annual armorer training.

Q: During a review of the new Contractor Protective Force Manual (DOE M 470.4-3A) it was noted in Attachment 1, Chapter II, paragraph 7.a.(3) that instructors must have the ability to develop course objectives, lesson plans, training aids, and student evaluations. Does this mean that instructors need a course in curriculum development in addition to Basic Instructor Training, in order to fulfill the "ability to develop" requirement?

A: No. The intent is that instructors should understand the basic principles and techniques involved in curriculum development, which enables them not only to assist in that process, but also to be able to conduct effective reviews of lesson plans--all designed to make them more proficient in delivery. National Training Center's Curriculum Development (CD) course would be an excellent professional development vehicle, but it is by no means required that instructors attain that skill level. Obviously, if an instructor functions also as a curriculum developer then the formal CD course would be advisable.

Q: Given the publication of DOE M 470.4-3A, Contractor Protective Force, why hasn't the old DOE M 470.4-3, Chg.1, Protective Force, been canceled?

A: The old protective force manual addresses both contractor and Federal protective force requirements. The associated Contractor Requirement Document was canceled by the issuance of DOE M 470.4-3A. However, until the publication of Draft DOE M 470.4-8, Federal Protective Force, the old directive must remain in force.

Return to Top of Page

Information Security

Q: Why was the timing for CMPC refresher training removed from the Information Security Manual?

A: The timing element was removed to provide CMPC POCs with sufficient latitude to manage and implement their program. The Manual requires each site/facility to establish its own CMPC Program with a CMPC Point-of-Contact (POC). There is a national requirement for individuals to have an initial security briefing and/or training when they receive a clearance or access authorization. There is also a national requirement for an annual security refresher briefing based on that initial security briefing/training. In addition, individuals who work with classified information on a routine basis are required to receive detailed CMPC briefing/training as it applies to their job duties prior to their taking on those tasks.

Since the CMPC POC is knowledgeable about the activities and missions at their site/facility, they are responsible for determining when CMPC briefing/training should be provided based on their knowledge of the national requirements, the information provided at the initial security briefing/training, the activities of individuals at their site/facility, and whether the specific skills are perishable or not. They are also responsible for disseminating new information as policies or other factors change. Depending on the information that needs to be promulgated, the CMPC POC may choose to add that information to the annual security refresher briefing or they may choose individually developed briefing/training based on the specific topical areas within CMPC.

Q: Why was the one-hour rule not included in DOE M 470.4-4A?

A: The one-hour provision was removed as a result of the comment and resolution period within the RevCom process for DOE M 470.4-4A. DOE and National policy requires that classified matter be protected from unauthorized access and for it to be provided appropriate storage when not in use or under the control of an authorized individual. Anything that does not meet those requirements would require a deviation. Additionally, one of the objectives in revising the information security manual was to reduce or eliminate "how-to" direction for local program implementation and the one-hour rule was a how-to. Local procedures to implement classified matter storage and in-use requirements must be documented as part of your CMPC program plan and included in your local site/facility security plan.

Q: There was a change in the length of time a Top Secret working paper could remain a working paper, decreasing from 180 days to 30 days. Does the 180 days still apply for Confidential and Secret working papers?

A: Yes, each Confidential and Secret working paper must be marked as a final document no later than 180 days after creation. Only Top Secret working papers must be brought into final marking condition within 30 days. Also, once something is determined to possibly be Top Secret, it becomes accountable, even if it is still a working paper.

Q: I have a piece of Accountable Classified Removable Electronic Media (ACREM) that has been degaussed and is awaiting physical destruction, do I still have to inventory it as accountable matter?

A: Yes, unless it is verified that the item no longer contains any of the information that required it to be accountable and no such information is recoverable from the item, it must still be considered accountable and subject to inventory requirements. DOE M 470.4-4A states, "Inventories must consist of a physical comparison of each item against the current inventory listing. Discrepancies must be resolved, if possible using the previously reconciled inventory and receipts, transfers and destruction records. Each item listed in an accountability record must be verified visually."

However, since 32 C.F.R. Parts 2001 and 2004, and the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) do not specify the "physical" and "visual" aspects of inventories, it may be acceptable to develop an acceptable substitute to DOE's requirements, provided:

• The media remain adequately protected;
• The current and previous individual assigned control/possession of the media at any given time are documented and this information remains available throughout record retention periods;
• The media remain accessible for inspection; and
• Inventories and resolution of discrepancies are used to validate the location and status of the media.

For example, if multiple appropriately degaussed media are inventoried and placed into a container that is sealed with an adequate tamper indicating device, and the sealed container is stored in a security area cleared for open storage of the highest level/category of the media, with the container being configured and located such that there is high assurance the media have not been accessed since being placed, it may be acceptable to base the subsequent inventory of the media on verification of the sealed container rather than by access to the individual media. Approval of this type of deviation must also consider the potential to access the information on the media, including presence and recoverability of information and all applied protection measures. Destruction requirements remain applicable for all accountable matter.

Q: What role do HSS and/or the Office of Security Policy have in the DOE OPSEC Program?

A: Our goal is to provide OPSEC managers and practitioners in DOE with policy direction, interpretation of its requirements, and other assistance as requested. This policy focus will enable the DOE Program Offices to concentrate on their various operational implementation responsibilities.

Q: What is Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and does it apply in DOE?

A: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) refers to unclassified information that does not meet the standards for National Security Classification under Executive Order 12958, as amended, but is:

• Pertinent to the national interests of the United States or to the important interests of entities outside the Federal Government, or
• Under law or policy requires protection from unauthorized disclosure, special handling safeguards, or prescribed limits on exchange or dissemination.

On May 9, 2008, President Bush issued a memorandum mandating the use of the term "Controlled Unclassified Information" within the Information Sharing Environment (ISE) and mandating Government-wide policies for the identification and safeguarding of CUI within the ISE. Policies for CUI are being developed by the CUI Office within the National Archives and Records Administration with the assistance of a CUI Council. The Office of Classification (HS-90) is the DOE representative to the CUI Council and is the lead for CUI policy in DOE. Because CUI policies under the May 2008 memorandum are under interagency development, no action should be taken by DOE employees until CUI requirements are finalized and promulgated. Employees should continue to follow Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information and Official Use Only directives.

Additional information regarding CUI may be found on http://www.archives.gov/cui

Q: Is the Department of Energy Authorized to Create Special Access Programs (SAPs)?

A: Executive Order 12958, Classified National Security Information Act, as amended, (March 28, 2003) states, "Unless otherwise authorized by the President,… the Secretary of Energy, or the principal deputy, may create a special access program."

Q: When are Special Access Programs established?

A: Special Access Programs are established only when the program is required by statute or upon a specific finding that:

(1) the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional; and
(2) the normal criteria for determining eligibility for access applicable to information classified at the same level are not deemed sufficient to protect the information from unauthorized disclosure.

Q: Are there Special Access Program limitations?

A: Special access programs are limited to programs in which the number of persons who have access is reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved.

Return to Top of Page

Nuclear Material Control and Accountability

Q: Can material from two Reporting Identification Symbols (RISs) be used and stored in the same Material Balance Area (MBA)?

A: Yes, you can have materials associated with multiple RISs (location and/or programmatic RISs) in a single MBA.

Q: What are L-RIS and P-RIS?

A: Location Reporting Identification Symbols (L-RIS) can be assigned to represent an entire site such using AWA to represent Pantex, a particular facility at a single site such as the KAMS area at SRS, or for multiple facilities operated by the same contractor at the same site (e.g., Hanford used to have a different L-RIS for the PNNL, Fuel Fabrication operations, Reactor operations, and Chemical Separations reflecting different operating contractors). These L-RISs are assigned at the discretion of the field office with oversight responsibilities for the facilities and materials.

Programmatic Reporting Identification Symbols (P-RIS) are also assigned at the discretion of the field office (usually coordinated with the headquarters program office) based on the funding responsibility for the projects used in reporting the materials assigned to those projects.

Q: Do L-RIS and P-RISs have to be the same?

A: Location Reporting Identification Symbols (L-RIS) and Programmatic Reporting Identification Symbols (P-RIS) for a particular project can be the same but do not have to be the same. P-RISs are associated with projects rather than locations and are established at the same time the project number is established in the NMMSS. For example if PNNL were doing work on tritium research and development in support of Defense Programs programmatic activities at Los Alamos. Any tritium physically located at PNNL would have a PNNL L-RIS of HYA and a PNNL project number but the PNNL project number might have a LANL P-RIS of AUA indicating the tritium located at PNNL is in support of the LANL activities.

Q: How is P-RIS used in NMMSS?

A: The Programmatic Reporting Identification Symbols (P-RIS) is used to sort and total material in programmatic project reports (e.g., P-111's). Therefore NMMSS reports are able to be produced, based on programmatic responsibility for materials across the entire DOE complex.

Q: Who uses P-RIS information?

A: HQ program offices and materials managers are the typical users of the Programmatic Reporting Identification Symbols (P-RIS) information based reports. NMMSS operations also use this information to respond to requests from site representatives about what materials they have at their site that "belong" to other sites.

Q: How is the P-RIS information collected?

A: Programmatic Reporting Identification Symbols (P-RIS) Information is entered/updated during an annual data call to the field offices, which is done for updating the project numbers, and/or when a new project number is established within the NMMSS.

Return to Top of Page