ML19209B041
| ML19209B041 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/16/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209B042 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-79-188, NUDOCS 7910090034 | |
| Download: ML19209B041 (5) | |
Text
..
i
..+
W March 16,1979 umtro svares
/B R
~
I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON POLICY SESSION ITEM For:
The Ccmissioners From:
Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
TASK FORCE ON NRC SAFEGUARDS POLICY.
Purcose:
To transmit the final report of the Task Force on NRC Safeguards Policy and to solicit Ccmission l
approval to implement the reccmendations contained therein.
i i
Category:
This paper covers a major issue ~. quiring Ccmission action.
Discussion:
The "FY 78 Annual Report on Comestic Safeguards"made clear the fact that the various NRC offices with safe-1
[
guards responsibilities have different approaches to safeguards regulation.
In particular, the definitions of and ways of determining safeguards adequacy are dif-ferent for fuel cycle facilities and associated trans-portation involving formula quantities of SSNM, power reactors, and non-power reactors.
These variances have caused difficulties for NRC inspectors and have deni-grated comunications concerning the Ccmission's safeguards posture.
On January 26, 1979, I established a Task Force on MDC Safeguards Policy to develop a single, integrated approach to NRC safeguards regulations (see Enclosure 1).
In establishing the Task Force, I noted that regulatory approaches for the various licensed activities need not be identical, but that they must be consistent.
Contact:
Themas Rehm 49-27731 7910090 d M i114 256
I 2
In particular. I asked that the Task Force develop recommendations for the Commission that would achieve consistent policy in the following areas:
1.
Definition of safeguards adequacy 2.
Methods used to determine safeguards adequacy 3.
Meaning and use of terms such as " reasonable"
.ersus "high" assurance 4.
Levels of design threats against which safeguards 4
l must protect 5.
Need for additional or revised rules The Task Force has prepared a final report, which is attached as Enclosure 2.
In essence, the Task Force reccmmends:
1.
Defining safeguards adequacy in terms of the safeguards mandate contained in Sections 57c(2) and 182 of the Atomic En.ergy Act of 1954, as amended.
2.
Joint development in the near future by NMSS, NRR, and IE of safeguards specifications describing licensee requirements in a way that will pennit their use in determining the adequacy of safeguards at fuel cycle facilities possessing formula quanti-ties of SSNM and at nuclear power plants.
3.
Eliminating the term "high assurance" from 10 CFR 73.55(a) and 73.20(a) of the proposed Upgrade Rule and substituting words that express the intent of those used in the NRC Memorandum and Order (Jenuary 21, 1977) concerning the Natural Resources Defense Council I114 z57 r
f i
t I
1 I
i i
3 i
petition for emergency safeguards measures, f.e.,
"will provide reasonable assurance that activities involving,special nuclear material are not inimical to the common defense and security, and do not constitute an unreasonable risk to the public health and safety."
4 Specifying the safeguards general performance require-ments in 10 CFR Part 73 in terms of malevolent acts to be thwarted rather than types of facilities to be protected. This recommendation would result in:
a) the inclusion in 10 CFR 73.l(a) of a single threat statement containing two discrete malevolent acts -- sabotage and theft or diver-sion of formula quantities of SSNM.
b) deletion of the design basis threats new con-tained in 73.55(a) and 73.20(a) of the proposed i
Upgrade Rule.
c) references to the new 73.l(a) in the general performance requirements contained in 73.55(a) 3 i
and the proposed 73.20(a).
5.
No new rules are needed at this time, but implemen-tation of the third and fourth reccemendations above would necessitate scme revisions to 10 CFR 73.1(a),
73.55(a), and 73.20(a) of the proposed Upgrade Rule.
The text of these revised rules is contained in the Commission paper from Robert S. Minogue, Office of Standards Development, and William J. Dircks, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, entitled "Strengthered Physical Protection Requirements for Fuel Cyc'e Facilities and Transportation Involving Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear 1114 258
l l
4 i
l Material - (Short Title - Safeguards Upgrade Rule)."
i Recommendation: That the Commission:
1.
Approve defining safeguards adequacy in terms of the safeguards mandate contained in the Atomic Energy Act.
2.
Approve the development by NMSS, NRR, and IE of l
safeguards specifications describing licensee requirements in a way that will permit their use in determining the adequacy of safeguards at fuel I
cycle facilities possessing formu*a quantities of SSNM and at nuclear power plants.
3.
Acorove eliminating the term "high assurance" from 10 CFR Part 73 and substituting words that express the intent of those used in the NRC Memorandum and Order concerning the Natural Resources Defense Council petition for emergency safeguards measures, f.e., "will provide reasonable assurance..."
4 Aoprove specifying the safeguards general perform-ance requirements in 10 CFR Part 73 in terms of malevolent acts to be thwarted rather than types of facilities to be protected.
5.
Acorove the revisions to 10 CFR 73.l(a), 73.55(a),
and 73.20(a) of the croposed Upgrade Rule that will result from ' mplemencation of reccmmendations 3 and 4 above.
6.
Nota that the text of the revised rules is contained in the Cuimission paper entitled " Strengthened physical Protection Requirements for Fuel Cycle Facilities and Transportation Involving Formula Quantities of Strategic Special Nuclear Material - (Short Title -
Safeguards Upgrade Rule)."
Ii14 259
3 4
J l
I 5
4 f
I 7.
Note that the appropriate Congressional Committees will be infonaed of implementation of the Task Force's recommendations, once approved.
Coordination:
The Offices of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Inspection and Enforcement, and Standards Development concur in the contents of this paper. The Office of the Executive Legal Director has no legal objection to the contents of this paper.
Scheduling:
For consideration at an early policy session.
It is i
recommended that the rationale for the fourth recom-mendation above be discussed in closed session in accordance with exemption one(l) of the Sunshine Act.
The remaining reccmmendations can be discussed in open sessi9n.
f
/
s'(
1 Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations i
Enclosures:
l.
My memorandum of 1/26/79 establishing the Task Force on NRC Safeguards Policy 2.
Final Report of the Task Force on NRC Safeguards Policy This paper will be scheduled for consideration, in conjunction with SECY-79-lS7, at an Open (Portions may. be closed) Meeting in the near future.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commissicn Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS Secretariat ii14 260
..-