DOE M 470.4-1 Chg1, Safeguards and Security Program Planning and Management, now contains the new DOE Tactical Doctrine and other requirements for protection program planning.

DOE M 470.4-2 Chg1, Physical Protection, addresses physical security enhancements and more reliance on technology to augment PFs.

DOE M 470.4-3 Chg1, Protective Force, focuses on changes to PF structure, organization, deployment, training, supervision, equipment, performance testing, and tactical exercises. A career progression plan and new Rules of Engagement for the application of deadly force have been included within this manual.

Q: What is the Tactical Response Force concept of employment?

A: The tactical response force concept, combined with the integrated use of security technology and a well designed barrier plan, provides a solution that is less manpower intensive and, at the same time, is less sensitive to the number of adversaries encountered. It recognizes that there traditionally have been PF duties and posts that are primarily intended to support routine operations and, because of location or other considerations, are of secondary tactical value during an attack on a special nuclear material (SNM) location. The tactical response force concept redirects highly trained and tactically skilled PFs toward their primary mission. Similarly, the defense of an SNM location involves three equally important functions: early detection and assessment capabilities to enable early interdiction as far away from the target as possible; establishment of a formidable protective perimeter around the target before the adversary arrives; and deployment of highly mobile, heavily armed forces who assess early alarms, engage adversaries sufficiently to evaluate their main assault, and maneuver decisively against them when the assault team is fixed by fire from the defensive perimeter. Mobility and firepower for the maneuver forces are provided primarily by lightly armored vehicles with weapons providing high rates of fire, and secondarily by dismounted forces with lighter, high rate of fire weapons such as the squad automatic weapon. In general, mobile units will be covered by over watch elements with long range weapons on vehicles or within the static defensive perimeter.

Q: What are the primary duties of the Tactical Response Force?

A: Application of the Tactical Response Force principles is dependent upon site-specific defense strategies, but tends to lead naturally to three categories of armed combatant: 1) armed personnel who are primarily assigned to routine duties but who assume key blocking positions upon attack; 2) armed personnel near target locations who assume prepared defensive positions upon attack; and 3) mobile forces who carry the fight to the adversary. The first two of these categories will generally not be required to move long distances under tactical conditions and are categorized as Security Police Officers (SPO)-I in the revised policy. Members of the mobile force whose primary duty is to fight using the capabilities and armament of the vehicle could also be designated as SPO-I. Mobile force members whose primary mission is to maneuver on and attack adversary forces on foot should be designated as SPO-II and therefore subject to more rigorous physical fitness standards. Members of either the static or mobile force who are designated as special response team members with responsibility for reentering areas defended by an adversary or other special response team duties, such as hostage rescue and pursuit, should be designated as SPO-III, with the accompanying training and physical fitness requirements.

Q: Is every site required to have a Tactical Response Force?

A: No. A Tactical Response Force is required only at sites where the PF is responsible for the security of Category I quantities of SNM; credible rollup of SNM to a Category I quantity; and those facilities that meet or exceed the Threat Level 2 criteria specified in DOE O 470.3A, Design Basis Threat Policy, for chemical, radiological, or biological thresholds. (At this time, none have been designated.)

Q: Who determines which categories of SPOs are needed at a site and in what numbers?

A: DOE policy provides sites/facilities the latitude, based on mission, vulnerability analyses, protection strategy, and response plans, to decide how many SPOs are needed in each category. Those decisions are made in conjunction with respective Headquarters Program Offices.

Q: Are all DOE PF personnel required to complete a one-mile run as part of their physical fitness qualifications?

A: No. DOE M 470.4-3 Chg1, Protective Force, requires that those personnel designated as SPO-II or SPO-III must meet the Offensive Combative Standard (OCS) specified in Title 10, CFR, Part 1046, "Physical Protection of Security Interests." Those designated as SPO-I are required only to meet the Defensive Combative Standard (DCS). The most significant difference between the OCS and DCS is a 1-mile run in 8 minutes 30 seconds for OCS versus the half-mile run in 4 minutes 40 seconds for DCS. Unarmed security officers have no physical fitness standard.

Q: What is the difference between offensive and defensive posts?

A: In general, at sites where a Tactical Response Force (TRF) is required, offensive posts are those manned by individuals who take the fight to adversaries and who meet the OCS fitness requirement. These are members of the active defense, or maneuver element, and would deploy from a vehicle or post with expectations of moving greater than 50 yards from that vehicle or post. Defensive posts are situated such that the adversaries must come to them and are staffed by personnel who meet the DCS fitness requirements. As part of the static or fixed defense, they may deploy from a vehicle or post with expectations of moving less than 50 yards from that vehicle or post. The cited distances associated with deployment are intended as general guidelines and are dependent upon the most tactically advantageous maneuver options available from the post or patrol at the time of deployment. They distinguish relatively short distances that could be negotiated by less physically-capable SPOs, as opposed to longer distances that might require more stamina. At sites where a TRF is not required, reaction distances for DCS-qualified personnel will vary depending on the post response plans. Line management is responsible for determining the likelihood of extended deployment zones for each assigned post, whether offensive or defensive.

Q: Why is there no longer a "grandfather clause" for the OCS so that PF personnel with age, illness, or injury issues can keep their jobs as SPO-IIs?

A: With the publication of DOE M 473.2-2, Protective Force Program Manual, on
6-30-00, the fitness requirement for SPO-IIs was established at the OCS as described in Title 10 CFR 1046, "Physical Protection of Security Interests." A "grandfather clause" was inserted that allowed incumbent SPO-II personnel to remain at the DCS. When DOE M 470.4-3, Protective Force, was published on 8-26-05, the grandfather clause was not included, because the original intent of the CFR was spelled out in more detail, noting that the fitness standard for an individual depended on assignment. DOE sites were to designate posts as either offensive or defensive in nature, with the intent that less physically demanding defensive posts could be staffed by those who could not meet the OCS.

Q: How do the new designations of SPO-I, II, and III relate to the old ones, especially with regard to physical fitness standards?

A: Previously, few sites used the SPO-I designation, but those who were so designated were required to meet the DCS contained in Title 10 CFR. The SPO-II designation was applied to more highly-trained PF personnel who, depending on duty assignment, might be required to meet either the DCS or the OCS specified in 10 CFR 1046. SPO-IIIs were even more highly trained, including certain specialized training, and required to meet the OCS. The revised categories and physical fitness standards are shown in the table below.

Previous Directives			Current Directives
Position Designation	Physical Fitness Standard		Position Designation	Physical Fitness Standard
SO	None		SO	None
SPO-I	Defensive Combative Standard		SPO-I	Defensive Combative Standard
SPO-II (Defensive)	Defensive Combative Standard
SPO-II (Offensive)	OffensiveCombative Standard		SPO-II	Offensive Combative Standard
SPO-III	Offensive Combative Standard		SPO-III	Offensive Combative Standard

Q: How are the older and more senior PF personnel supposed to be able to qualify as SPO-IIs?

A: The ability to qualify as a SPO-II at the OCS is not so much a function of age, seniority, or gender as it is of physical conditioning resulting from a disciplined individual wellness and fitness program. Injuries or illness can produce exceptions, of course. The Secretary's elite force initiative resulted in a Tactical Doctrine and a Career Progression Plan that combine to provide DOE sites the opportunity to develop protection plans that include the establishment of both offensive and defensive posts. Personnel who can meet the OCS may be categorized as SPO-IIs or -IIIs and assigned to the offensive posts, while those who can qualify only at the DCS may be categorized as SPO-Is and assigned to defensive posts. This policy changes mainly the title, or categorization, of PF personnel. Those persons who previously worked SPO-II defensive posts may continue to be eligible to work those posts and remain valued and essential members of the PF; the new policy simply redesignates them as SPO-Is.

Q: Does DOE policy dictate which categories of PF personnel, and in what numbers, are to be assigned to a site?

A: Yes, Tactical Response Forces are required at sites with Category I quantities of SNM; credible rollup of SNM to a Category I quantity; and those facilities that meet or exceed the Threat Level 2 criteria specified in DOE O 470.3A, Design Basis Threat Policy, for chemical, radiological, or biological thresholds. Tactical Response Forces require some Offensive Combative Standard (OCS) qualified protective force personnel. Within this constraint, DOE policy provides sites/facilities the latitude, based on protective force mission, vulnerability analyses, protection strategy, and response plans, to decide how many SPOs are needed in each category. Those decisions are made in conjunction with respective Headquarters Program Offices. Threat Level 3 and 4 sites do not require OCS qualified protective force personnel.

Q: If circumstances warrant the designation of most or all PF personnel as SPO-IIs, thereby requiring the OCS, must all qualify at that standard immediately?

A: If management is committed to designating all or most of their PF personnel as SPO-IIs, then those so designated will be required to meet the OCS. Even at that, management will have the latitude to establish compliance milestones in their implementation plans to allow phase-in of the OCS. Paragraph 8 of the introductory section of DOE M 470.4-3, Chg. 1, states: "Requirements that cannot be implemented within 6 months of the effective date of this Manual or within existing resources must be documented by the cognizant security authority and submitted to the relevant program officers…" That provision allows the sites time to prepare PF personnel who will be assigned to offensive posts to attain the ability to complete the OCS.

Q: Why do the DOE physical fitness standards not allow for age and gender variations?

A: DOE policy does not discriminate based on age or gender with regard to the performance of assigned duties. All SPOs within specific categories, regardless of age or gender, must be able to perform the essential tasks of their assigned positions, whether offensive or defensive. This concept has been accepted within the DOE since the mid-1980s.

Q: Why doesn't the DOE adopt an approach to fitness standards such as that used by the military?

A: The military, although similar in some respects, is structured differently. With some exceptions, older, more senior individuals and females are generally more remote from direct engagement with the enemy than younger males. The vast infrastructure of the military demands that more experienced personnel advance into less tactically-oriented, and thus less physically demanding, roles; therefore, their fitness standards adjust accordingly. DOE PF organizations are not structured to accommodate large numbers of personnel whose primary duties do not revolve around tactical defense of a nuclear site. Any modifications to the current standards will comply with rulemaking requirements, to include addressing all public comments.

Q: Are the mile and half-mile run standards legitimate tests of a person's fitness to perform DOE PF duties?

A: The present standards were derived from a correlation between observed performance of a series of tactical scenarios and the selected evaluative criteria. The DOE Office of Security Policy is evaluating a revised standard that will be equally demanding, but will consist of tasks more closely resembling current PF duty requirements.

Q: Must the assignment of automatic weapons, particularly, crew-served firearms, be limited to PF personnel who have qualified at the OCS?

A: No. DOE policy does not limit the employment of automatic weapons to sites or posts designated as offensive. In fact, DOE Tactical Doctrine encourages the placement of crew-served automatic weapons in defensive emplacements protecting sensitive targets.

Q: Did the elite force policy revisions change the requirement for possession of a "Q" clearance to be assigned an automatic weapon?

A: No. The issue of the requirement to have a "Q" clearance to be armed with an automatic weapon was not affected by the elite force policy revisions. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1046.14 conveys two stipulations: "SPOs possessing less than "Q" access authorization shall not be assigned to offensive positions or (emphasis added) duties where fully automatic firearms are required." "Offensive positions" and "duties where fully automatic firearms are required" are not synonymous. It makes no difference whether an automatic weapon is deployed in a defensive or an offensive position; the SPO to which the weapon is assigned must have a "Q" clearance according to the CFR.

Q: What has been done to clarify the circumstances under which deadly force may be applied at the site level?

A: The March 2006 policy revisions included, for the first time, guidelines for rules of engagement (ROE) that require the development of site- and post-specific ROE incorporating the concept of "hostile intent." Such ROE must consider the type of materials being protected, site geography, building construction, PF strength and capability, adversary task times, adversary characteristics as described in the current DOE Design Basis Threat, and consequences of asset loss. The ROE must clearly state under what conditions the circumstances of hostile intent have been met for each post in order for deadly force to be applied. The posting of perimeter signage that states, "Halt, Deadly Force is Authorized Beyond This Point" is authorized. Completed ROE must be submitted to the DOE cognizant security authority for review and approval. The National Nuclear Security Administration requires that site ROE be reviewed by the local DOE Chief Counsel. Upon approval, examples of likely scenarios where the use of deadly force may and may not be authorized must be included in General and Post Orders.

Q: On December 3, 2007, the DOE Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer signed out a memorandum establishing policy panels to increase feedback from the implementers of DOE policy. How will the protective force policy panel be organized?

A: The Protective Force Policy Panel (PFPP) will be organized to provide expert opinion to the Director, Office of Security Policy, on policy implementation, firearms, tactics, and other pertinent issues relating to DOE PF programs. The PFPP will provide a forum where all PF issues, even if they are already being considered by other entities such as working groups or quality panels, can be addressed. The PFPP also will provide a forum and mechanism where applicable draft and existing directives, and guidance can be addressed and reviewed. The PFPP will consist of three standing task teams or working groups, each consisting of subject matter experts in firearms, special response teams (SRT), and armory operations. The Protective Forces Safety Committee (PFSC) will operate in conjunction with the PFPP. Additional working groups will be formed as needed.

Q: What is the status of the revision to the protective force manual?

A: A policy review team consisting of representatives from Headquarters and several sites has recommended that DOE M 470.4-3 Chg 1, Protective Force, be divided into two separate manuals addressing requirements for contractor and Federal protective forces respectively. Drafts of both have been completed and the contractor version has been submitted to the DOE Office of Management for final preparation for RevCom. The Federal manual, which will contain annexes with specific requirements for the Office of Secure Transportation, the Headquarters Office of Special Operations, and Federal Officers, is in the final stages of development.

Q: What is the major difference between the current protective force manual and the draft contractor protective force revision?

A: Specific requirements (duties, training, equipment) will be layered for each category of PF personnel, including security officers and security police officers (Is, IIs, and IIIs) Dedicated chapters are provided for special response teams, firearms training, firearms operations, firearms qualifications, and operational assurance.

Q: Will the revised protective force manual address canine operations?

A: Yes. The revised protective force manual establishes minimum training and testing requirements for canine teams at Departmental facilities by adding Attachment 2, Appendix 3, Canine Program.

Q: What is CAIRS and why is it important to protective force operations?

A: The DOE tracks its accidents and injuries via the Computerized Accident and Injury Reporting System (CAIRS). The Office of Security Policy recognizes that it is not reasonable to compare injury rates of DOE's office and production workers to those of its protective forces given the significant differences in mission. For instance, some sites in the past have forbidden its operating contractor personnel from running on site based on the premise that running is inherently riskier than walking. On the other hand, protective force personnel are required to demonstrate the ability to run in order to meet physical fitness requirements. Last year, the CAIRS database was revised to permit the capture of protective force injury data based upon the activity in which the individual was engaged when the injury occurred. Recently, HSS has begun contacting selected sites to obtain data on past incidents in order to establish an analytical baseline for comparison of like information. This reconstruction is designed to enable the presentation of a more realistic picture of protective force experience while the database is populated.

Return to Top of Page

Return to the FAQ Topic List