ML19294A861
| ML19294A861 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/18/1979 |
| From: | Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19294A863 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7905080070 | |
| Download: ML19294A861 (54) | |
Text
Drf;m.
l6CFR k.g%ja.i. < ',
Q, '
- fhh NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING INITIAL DISCUSSION OF UPGRADE RULE
& SUPPORTING GUIDANCE
(
Place - Washington, D. C.
Date Wednesday, 18 April 1979 P ages 1-5 3 Teleencne:
(202)347 3700 ACE - FEDERAI REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialRepor:ers 79050SOtr70 m Ncr h C ;:itci Street l
Wcshingten, D.C. 20C01 NATICNWICE COVERAGE DAILY
~ 4
.3 u
b, 1
CR4150
(
\\'
~
.\\
l e
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States wednesday,18 Acril 1979 in the Nuclear Reculatory Comission held on Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, it.
W., Wasnir.gton, D.
L.
tne This trar. script meeting was open to public at:2ndance and observaticn.
has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracTes-
. The transcript is intended sclely for general informa'tional purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the femal or infomal record of decision of the matte-s discussed.
Expressiens of opinica in do not necessarily reflect final de:erminaticns or this transcri::
l:o cleading or other paper may be filed with the Comission in beliefs.
any prnceedir.g as the result of or addressad to any statement or arg : ment contained herein, except as the Cc=ission may authori:e.
O
L il 2
il ll CM150 l'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 d
'1UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
PUBLIC MEETING 4
INITIAL DISCUSSIO;1 OF UPGRADE RULE 5
& SUPPC RTING GUIDANCE 6'
7l Room 1130 8'
1717 H Street, N. W.
Washington, D.
C.
9 Wednesday, 18 April 1979 10 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m.
11 BEFORF:
12 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner (presiding)
RICHARD T.
KENNEDY, Commissioner PETER A.
B RAEFO RD, Commissioner 15,
JOHN F. AHEARiiE, Commissioner 16 j 4' ALSO PRESENT:
17 7 1
Messrs. L. Evans, R.
Burnett, W.
- Dircks, L.
- Gossick, la 13. Snyder, H. Shapar, L. Ong, and Ms. Nordlinger.
19 '
20 21
- 3
- 1 40, r 31 N eOCf fff1. I f*C.
s
s f
3
.lSJ.01.1 gsn i
CO,v'4 I Sb !O JER J I L I..S 'Y (presiding).
.ie're here 2
to ciscuss the upgr7de rule.
3 Peter Ere if ori eill ce here i n a - o m e n *..
thera 4
he is.
I thin % in le acin; us inrou;n t.ne ysteries of tne 5
rule, it would ce good if you would se* aside for ano:ner ee t ing, probaoly next sae%. the nuestion of whetner the
/
standard ought to 09 reasonaole a ssu r.inc e o r h i:37 1scurance.
i ih is is one of the 19v auestions here, and it's y
one tnat th? Ch a i rm an ha s t a k e n 1 stron, intarest in.
I 13 think we ought to discu ss that vnen n3's mare.
Il C3."M I SS IO.iE R AH3 Ad.'i3 :
209s that also tal%
- n tne 12 ouestion of wether you should h9 ve on e or t'io ie s ign threa t 3 ?
13 Ca v4 ISb!O-IER GI LI..S < /: ahat 10 vou t s i q
1'out th;t.
14 Bill?
10
.iR. JIHCK3:
le thought that the oriefin; 'as to 15 discuss the up.;rade rule, and tnan oc into the PD0's safe 7uari 17 tas'e force -aport.
The s3fecu1ris ta3 reocrt moes e.
' ~ ' alsa 13 the nuestion of reasonaole ve sus.igh assur7mce.
19 discusses the various concects.
2J 30 that could ce o sc% i m i in tnar - 2 x: ar ia f ir^.
21 C0 ;.".i I Sb IO.IE R J I L I IS < Y :
raat's a -aascnaals cau12
_et as ruc, o f
'u 22 nat we can leave over for ner ti,e an d c3 status report.
Just 9s 9 s7r" Of
'2,3-21 Orin7i"~
t a
^-
c o-- i.e s i on e r s ;
.,-date
-a a t i :..., v
- c-'t m>
23 go 3hea07
a 4
163.01.2 gsn i
1R. DIhCK6: I don't #990 to sev very nucn avcept 5,
2 me n t io n that tnis is eoout the f7urta time we've d isc u ss e :
3 the uparade rule.
I t's oeen out for oubl ic co-ent en 4
two occasions.
5 Lest ti e we discussed it before the c^m'tesinn, we s eemed to ce in sc19what of agreement on t1e uo; race rule.
7 But we have not creoared guida,ce docu,ents.
d So we have cc,e basic 9lly to com'ent on the v
u0 grace rule.
- le ' v e got the ; J iia n c e 1cco,ent ani h've -et 13 w ith tne puolic on the guidance do c um ent s.
11 CO V4ISSIO.!Ed JILI.iS: Y: Can people heer 'ack tne re !
c 12 VOICE 3:.h.
13 ad. DIRCKa:
A' ell, let ne go over it 9^ein.
14 cle've gone out f o r ouolic cc,nent twice on *.his 15 rule.
We've orecared guidance documents to inst-uct the 15 industry in how to meet the requirements of the rule.
17 I might also remind you that we he^ Co,gressioral 13 hearinas on tne rula on the sub iect of safe ^ua-ds lect ve=r, 17 and we did get sc*e criticis, for not na v in; a'c ' ; c.. r 2J requirements somewhat in line with tne requira'ents 7 f
~~ a 21 Decart ent of Jefense and tne Je =rt'en. of iner;:v deali'.
22 with stratejic a au-ts of s.;ecial material.
23 30 in tnat retard, I t a h '. : at
'"2r?
is s; e i=si-2 21 CO 'CVs or th? up'; r lo ? TUl? om 5 ^. e 79"*
"De :: * $ f f.
1r.
I
^
5 essu 9 ^n t9 e o li'"
9r
'.79 c 7 * ' i s s io n 9 r s.
'150.01.3 5
7sh 1
I'll turn it over to dud svaas, 'vho has been quite 2
excert in briefing on this ule.
I uniorstand this is tqe 3
f ou r th ti e that iud has gone over the outline I tni-> of tne 4
rule.
5 14. d '/ A :!S :
Thank you, 3111.
6 H,pefully, this will ce tne ea s ie r, cart of ' hat 7
would have oeen a txo 09rt sessian.
I will try to tie in 6
the areas tnat are to be co ve r e d in tne next session and how 9
they relate to the ucgrade rula, as 'v9 go througn the briefinJ.
IJ Joe, I'd like the first slide.
11 (Slide.)
12 desicallv. wnat I'd like to di s cu ss tnis,,rnin:
13 deals aitn four mafor arees.
in e first is just a quick 14 overview o f what the backgrouqi events ere that lod to the 15 upgrace rul? and sort o f any we're he re, why we're a*
dhare li we're et toda y.
I7 -
5econi, tne contents of the -ule itself.
16 fqe third rafor ere3 deals with tna guidanc e of 19 the 0111 just mentioned, wh ic, vt nave cean equaste> en hava 23 croduced and out for cuali: co--3nt orior to havi ;
me rule 21 cut out in effective form.
23 Ehen, finally, e scneoule which I t h i r '< is 23 consistent witn Sqe schedu!= ve acr 3e : on.
-H ne c,--issim, 2a acre =a on :ne last ti e we -e-= nere f:r je t; - :e
- l e 7;.
2d in o f f = C ~. i v9 T3r* Vith tn ?
3u',Citi"^
1 C 'l' e r $ 5.
el5J.01.4 13h 1
Next slide.
2 (511de.)
3 3a sic a lly, tne events thar led to tne uograce ruls C
started about 3 years ago in the be7 inning of January, wha, the 5
taen-division director stated that he did not fael co-forteole 6
that he could deternine the adecuecy of sefe70erds in the I
fuel cycle facilities.
3 As a result of tnet f?eling, tnree specific 9
ections were undertaken.
First, a round o f s ite e ss ? ss ents 13 of all the fuel cycle facilities were ordered.
Secord, en 11 ind us t ry-g ov ernm ent meeting took place at which the then 12 division direc tor t elked to tne industry, 1s d id Jr. b ie' ens 13 from E.40A, and the then-cheirnen oflNC. ebout various vays 14 tnet sefeguards were adequate et fuel cycle facilities.
15 Fina ll y, there was 3 Joint.13C-i RD A task f,rce l$
established whicn was to deternine how 7ood safeguar's shcul!
17 be. rather than how good they 90tuell/ wer= in the fieli et 13 that time.
19 At tne sa'e tine. e cet it ion c e's in recue;ti'g 2) en emergency snutdown of all f uel c ycle f'cilities.
21 Eerly in l v 77, tha co,1=sion, thro :gn tna 22 tnen-airector of. 13S, answe red that ant i. lon and s e i <i. no.
23 the re is no energencv.
Tme e is ac -ecuir e-ent to s ut to v, 22 tnose facilities.
25 However. ;cm-3,in7
-f those f7c;1. ties is
~~ces'=
7 153.01.5 75h 1
It is crudent to uograde those safegu3rds, but it should oe 2
cone tnrough an o rd erly rul e-,9% ing p roc e ss, anc tner= should 3
be public certic ioation in that oroc e ss.
4
- io w I*think that's unet 1r. Dirc%s was raferria) to 5
in terms of the go ing out for several roun1s of puolic conment f o r ac t'Ja ll y getting ouclic cart ic ipa tion in the 7
develoc9ent of the guidelines as well.
5 In any event, tnat ser ies of avents led to tne 9
issuance of a nurcer of rules, anc as the nevt two sl i de s 1) snow 11 (Slide.)
12
-- they'll show you whv the sa f eguards re T il e t ory 13 staff has not oeen oore1.
Jen we look at tn15 one an d the 14 next one, Joe, pl ea se ?
15 (Slide.)
16 You'll see that in almos. e very month, there's oeen 17 a mahar regulatory action in the safejuaris area.
f,e coint Id tnat I went to focus evervoodv on is in tqe first slico.
I?
fn e first 5 cf these, all of wnich went out in l y 77 tnese 23 are the na jor r 21es tha t in.cact 70st 33..' A licensees.
fw o 21 of tne, are already in e ff ective formi na-elv, tna 22 contingency plannin; rule and tne quard traininc uo;-ade 23 rule.
21 (he o f tne, ae'ra
- alk in; accut ten =v e ri i'r+="e 20 to ao into eff9CtiVe for~. 1909^11"! 39 Ine C7'~iC31 i
- i50.01.5 3
gsn 1
dec i s io n s.
Inat's the upgrada rule.
The other two are still 2
under consideration.
They oath deal with security clearances, 3
one for access to sin 1, es the hearing ooard recently reported 4
on, the second dealin g with acce ss of lic=, sees to cl 3 ssi fi *d 5
materi?1 and ways for then to store it.
5 Those two we will ce cack up to you on, I'm sure, 7
over the coning ranths.
3 But casic ally, those five rules on the casis of 9
the upgrading project that was delinelta d a ll the wav Jack 10 in 1975 and early 1977.
11 Ilow what does tne upgrade ru le itself cover?
12 (Slide.)
13 In general, wnat are w3 protecting?
ie' e crotecting 14 strategic soecial nuclear materials in greater-than-f o r'ul a
~
at fixed s ite and during transportati)n.
15 ouantities where.
ooth l$
Against what?
A determined violent a ssault, a s in gle 17 individual, and a consoiracv ostween incividuals.
13 ahv?
To arev=nt theft and to protec t a g a in s t 11 secotage.
23 C0!WISSIO.!ER \\Hi Li.il :
.sv I as% a nuestion?
I-t,3 21 crotection of SSN%, do yo u t i e t,e cr tection of 33a to 22 categories or to quantities ?
23 1,d I ask tnat ~uestio,'cecause tar = n=s :=en 30,+
21 discus sion or 07 csialy at j'J:;tiy.
t"? 7ua n,1
- iis in ce 23 Cetegories.
- 15J.01.7 9
ash I
lAR. E /A.lS:
Tne answer to that is that the 2
categories incluce quantities 3
In otner woros, whe, ve 100%at the catecories 4
above a certain quantity of a material with a certei, 5
CO MV. I 5 S I O.iE.<
t.dE A.{l: : dut, for exa90le, if the 6
ouantities were to ce snitted so tnet wnet is in a given 7
categcry changes, il your rule tiei to the cuantity or is it d
t ied to the category?
/
'H.
EVANS: cio..le l l, it is tied to the cuantity 10 to the extent that it does talk 3 bout formule kilogr7.ms.
11 But in terms of modif ying the rule, it would not be hard 12 because all we would do is to nodify the forTula.
13 I'n aware of tha pacer you're talk ing acout.
.v e 14 have lpoked at how to work it in. and two things can be said 13 aoout it.
15 lurcer ons, it will not 1909ct any Categor/ 1 17 licensees or Category 2 lic ensee s one way or the oth>r in 13 ter s of shiftina then from one c a te go ry to the other.
19 Jumoer 2.
in terms of modif ying the rule, it's a 2J very si cle a endme.7t wh ich is !as t a ma tter of taki: ; th=t 21 for-ula and changing it to the new for ula, if the co-,issic, 22 decides tnat that's the wav it 57culd ;o.
23 CD '"4 I 3S I D 15 7 % Al. C C : "at that does 1csu 3 nst c-N9 acc9?t the ciner 03cer 3s it is.
I 9ain wa M^n't
!? n ie 2D One foT9ula in 30~.9 oth9r Ney.
is 150.01.3 gsn 1
4d. EVANS:
.'.'o ma t t e r ho w you would chance the 2
formule, it's a matter of inserting tnat fo rmu l a.
3 Ad. JIROK;: It would cnance the nu-oer of 4
f ac ilities.
5
..t d. EVAJ5:
I f you chance tne formula --
o coWISSIoJER M AlFO-:J: If we change the :i2 nuncer.
7 n',A. E V A.13 : That's cor act.
3 4R. 3UR.iE iT : Particularly if it was reduced to half 9
or sor.ething like that.
1)
(Slide.)
11 MR. EVAJS: In terms of t9e gener,1 structure and 12 content of the up;rece rule itself, it's gener=lly cased on 13 three t ie rs.
The first one sevs you've got to prevent theft 14 by the adversary de s c r ip t io n. which will be discu ssed at the 15 next meeting now, whicn
'tr.
B ur n e tt was go ina to d is c u ss 16 later on the policy t as k fo rce.
17 The seconi one is tnet the system must a ss.; r e oiven Id capabilities a gainst that threat level, must have a certain 19 cerformance le ve l.
23 And then, finally, we actually e staol i sh s.ce c i f ic 21 system hardware comacnents and orac edJre s which the s J st om 22 will normally inclu de if it is ooina to have these c, abili.i:s 23 of protection a7einst tnet eaversary level.
c Anc so i 's -e e lly 3 tn ee-tier -cle.
ed bw -e tne r th e,
- o into t 7e ieteils -f -ho s e
11
!!50.01.9 gsn I
capabilities since we've been tn-ough them Tanv t i. e s cefore,
~
2 I thought I would ratner go to thin]s that woulc show you tne 3
differences between tne existing regulat ions and tne a
regulation as it's now o rc oc s e d.
5 ComtI55!0.iER JILIN5<f Could you Just sav a little 5
nore acout what you mean ov "Jeneral performance recuire ents" 7
and the system capaoility and the rafarence svste,?
3 MR. EVA;45: dure.
anat we've tried to do is have 9
an overall statement of protecti>_.n for these f ac ilities; 10 namely, that you will protect either with high or reasaracle 11 assurance, dependin; on which one the co mm iss ion decides,
12 against a given adversary fescriotion.
13
- low tnat adversary dec r iot ion, as I mentioned on 14 the last slide, include s, one, a determined violent assault 15 CO te4 I SS IO.!ER GI L I.i5 < (: Rv nore than ene merson ?
15 1R. EVAilS: Oh, yes, sir.
As a natter of f'ct.
17 lancua;e coe s into the fact tnat they can areak into 'wo nr 13 more teens and you've g]t several persons versus s~atl 19 grouc issues that
'4 r. S Irne tt will oe tal%ing acout.
2J COMMI SS IOJER JI LI '5(f: I just d7nted to distincuism 21 that from the single indivicual.
22 MR. EVAdS: Yes, sir.
It is cis t ingu ishaole.
23 Ca WI5S I').IE A JILIJS;Y:
Jiho is oceratina i-ci9 tne 24 facility.
25 W. E / A.45 :
Ocara.ing inside.
ia.ss to.ai irai:4
12 150.01.10
- sh I
knowledge and tnen a consoiracy oetveen individuals can also 2
have total inside knowledge.
3 Inat's wnat we call our general cerror ance 4
requirenent, to crotect against that.
5 CO '.w I SS !O.iER GI LIliS:' f : And the conspiracy can 6
include both insiders and outsiders.
7 J.d. EVANS: The consotracv is lootec et as an insider 3
croolen.
Tnat's the bi y, 71g nut to crack. is when chav 9
have inside knowledge.
IJ MR. BUHNEIT: -lith relat ion to the assault av 11 large nu,bers of people that ein divide into two smaller 12 groups, that is working with a s in gle in s i de r from en 1ssault 13 point of view, and that the two insider activities limited
]
14 an inside consoiracy, not vorkin g witn an outside a ssault 15 team.
16
'4 9. ddYJEd: Boo, isn't it in a sense a conspiracy 17 if you have an outside group that nelas the ins i de.
That 13 is a conspiracy.
11
'A R. E VA.1S : That is a good ooint.
2J AR. SNYDEA: So you have two tyces of consoirecies:
21 Fullv ins ide, and inside and outside.
22 ad. EVAJS: ihat's true.
23 Md. luk.;E FT: That's one vev to look at it, "es.
2:
G.
E V A.'!S :. !c w the cecability -envire-cnts, tr 9
's 20 what we c'll our cefense in ceatn.
13 150.01.11 gsn i
Joe, if you could find tn a t cnart for
'e, evbe we 2
can show ther sa ecifica lly what se mean.
3 ahat we have done --
4 (Slide.)
5
-- is. cut concentric layers of capacility trotection 5
eround tne facility and we've actually said that you're acia; 7
to pre vent unauthorized a ccess into protected areas, which is d
the second oullet there.
L'han you'ra 70in7 to have an inner 9
wing f ro' that where you're coing to. ore vent that 1cc e ss at 10 tne material access area, 11 Then you're coing to worry about what's henr9ning 12 within the materi3l acce ss are1, botn in terms of ma Arial 13 a nd ceccle.
14 That's where de talk a.) cut only authorized placement to and movement of 53iu, the third oullet, and only authorized l$
well, let's see -- authorized ac'.1vities and conditi:ns, 17 which is the second bullet.
Id do tnere we've taken you fro tne outs ide cerireter IV to the inside perineter to what nacpens inside. And *. hen 20 tne final time is ramoval, whicn is tne fourth culle:. whien 21 talks about removal of only authorizei and confir ed for s il end amounts of 3S.PA.
23 So we've ac'.us11v cuilt i, five lavars of i a f e n.: e 24 or carsoi l itv lavere.
That's vn a t we ean cv
.h a canacilitiss.
13
- o w la ter's of One reference s'/sta, Jea, if ve
'15J.01.12 Ic
- sh I
coulc go to Slide 6-A, I think we can start ru n ing ther 2
through that.
3 (511de.)
4
- low what this basically snows is the difference 5
between what we are going to equire av the u?;rade rule versus 6
what was reauired av existinq regulations or what is todev 7
required oy e.visting regulations.
3 And there are so e cases Nnere ev ist ing re juletions d
that bean buttre ssei by licensed condition.
I'll try to -
IJ mentica those.
11 Co.'.W I SS I O.lE R G I L I '4S ( ( :. sow how does this get to tne 12 reference group?
13
'U. EVANS: These thin;s are i nc l ud ed in th-la reference system.
That's the tnird one.
15 C:) w.'. I SS I O. lE N U I L I.lS'< Y : I see.
So there's a set of 16 casic requirements.
17 MR. EVA!S: dight.
13 COM2 I 5S It).!ER GI LI 15 < (: Or s aec ific require 'ent s.
19 74d. EVA:iS: 3peci fic requirement s, soec if ic kinds of 2J tnings thet a syste, will nor,elly ne ve and in orcer in naet
' es ic ai lv. it 21 those canabilities se just talked eocut.
And n
22 says tSat we're requirin; 7 armei gur.rds versus 2 nr aone.
23 And bv license conditions, it todav requires 5 21 erned 7ueris.
cie're re,uirin s escort v e '. i c l a s vn+re s
25 haven't required tnem before.
la
'150.01.13 7sn i
CouMISSIO JER GILI:iS<Y: You're co, paring it with 2
the regulations.
3
- 43. $VA.1S : With tne re;ulation, ves, sir.
I'-
trying 4
to nention license conditions, wnen they're a cclicabl e.
5
'4d. S ti f DE 4 : Because many of thes= tninas are 6
alreadv in olace, to a certain degree.
7 MR. JIHCKS: He just mentioned tnet.
3 Md. EVA.iS: I just said there are five guards oy 9
l ic ense co nd i t io n. But wnat's in the orintad ve r s io n here is 10 what's in tne regs.
II C04t I SSIO:lER GILI:iS.<Y: flow this vould acolv for 12 greater than f ormul a amounts?
13 MR. EVA.45: Yes, sir. !OW va've got escort vehicles.
14 2 or 3.
Tha t depends on whetner they use e hardenad truck, 15 or whether they're just using en armored car.
15 It's 3 if it's Just an er'.ored car. It's 2 if it's 17 a hardened truck, a specially designed venicle versus in 18 the regs none.
IV Scretimes 1 or 2 oy license d condit ion at ^ite, 20 today.
But that is not with the soeciall/ cesicned truck.
21 de are requiring tne vehicles to be oullet--esistent.
22 And I'm 'us t going to hignlight these cecause there's so -env the 'ic ones.
23 of then.
I '~ n just acing to try and 5it c
24 We're requir in^ 'or + c om un icat ion tha-re:uirec 25 cefore.
.ve're -ecuiring a cencrel coor71n3 cia: coint. xnicn
- l50.01.I4 15 7sh I
uo the re is ref erred to as a moving control center, vhich 2
k eeps the location of the truck th rou gho u t the entire trio.
3 ive're requiring a 30-minut e ca l l-in, as occose d to 4
2 to 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> so tnat we can keep much closer track on exactly 5
whe re that material is.
6 CO MMISS IO.iER '3ILI NSKY: The movement control center 7
is under the control of the licensee?
d VR. EV AtJS : Yes, sir.
It's e place wnere tney 9
can receive communications from that truck, radio telechone IC c omm un ic a tio ns.
11 We've reduced the ca ll-in t imes so we're, ore 12 aware o f the location of the eterial at all times.
.ie've 13 required armed escorts et intermediate stoos.
14 And the last cullet is just technicality.
15 COVMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You say "we're" aware of 16 where the shipment is.
Is it "we" or tne licensee?
17 AR. EVANS: It's the licensee.
They are suocoseo to 13 notify us innediately of proolems.
1)
CO MM ISS IO JER AHEARNE: You pointed out in tne 20 beginning the significant di ff er e nce listed on your chart 21 is not as significant when you look et l ic en s e canditions.
22 How a'cout the other points that you !ust made?
23 MR. EVANS: The only ceses wnere tnere are license 24 conditions would be the first bullet I menticned.
Toer2 wa a 25 5 cv license co ndi t io n.
Th e second bullet, there is a-e =scort
17 1150.01.15 ash I
vehicle a day, two by night.
2 The ne xt-to-l as t one, there are five by l ic ens e 3
condition.
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 a/
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CR 4150 I
19 HOFFMAN 2 I
i mu 1 l
[
And there is redundant communication required by license condi- ;
j i
ti n, but not at quite the same level.
l 2
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do we have someone available 3
,' at all hours to take a call if one comes?
MR. BURNETT:
I&E has recently gone into a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 5
i manning.
6 7l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
As a result of our recent 1
1 8l exp rience?
Good.
I 1
MR. GOSSICK:
Yes, we have a duty officer on call at 9
any time.
10 I
MR. BURNETT:
My understanding is that there is now 11 t
- somebody actually within the Center, as opposec to an assigned 12,
duty officer, 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So, these would be in the same jg l facilities?
15 l
MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir.
16 i I
j7 l (Slide.)
l 18 '
N w, the next slide for air shipments.
There are two j9 l armed escorts versus none.
There is a requirement for common language, so if a problem occurs they can do something about it.
,0 4
I gl COM'4ISSIONER AHEARNE:
How common language?
=l MR. EVANS:
In other words, the pilot and the people 23 ] escorting the material will be able to communicate with one 3 :another so that they can communicata.
A ct f at R@OOf fffi. I FC.
COMMISSIODER GILINSKY':
Such as English?
3,
.mu 2, 19 i,
1l MR. EVANS:
Right.
2l
,1 We recommend that the SSNM be loaded last on the cargo '
31 plane and off first.
That's to prevent any intermediate stops 4
where the SSNM is there and it's vulnerable. Seven armed escorts; f
t
~
j at stops versus none before.
I 6i j
MR. SNYDER:
Do you actually prevent intermediate 7i, stops?
8j l
MR. EVANS:
There is provision for providing for ex-j 9'i ceptions but they are to plan not to have intermediate stops.
I 10 '
l If it becomes that they can' t do it without refueling or some-1 11 i j thing -- and then it would be taken care of.
3ut the purpose l
12 '
} is to try to keep the plane off the ground if possible.
'3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Similar to the previous ques-14 tion, are any of these that you've just described different from 15 ! present regulations already in place as a result of the license 16 ; conditions?
17 !
MR. EVANS:
No, these are not.
18 (Slide.)
i 19,
In terms of rail shipment, there are -- again, there i
20 lwill be requirements for seven armed cars versus two today.
l 21 7; There will be searches of the cars, as equipment is loaded on -- that material is loaded on -- to make sure there 's no one
" lin there who's going to try to steal the stuff.
There's a limit 2
LA
,, a oorms. inc.. in terms of what you can put on an open car, so that people 2a 25 l
mu 3 20 i
l l
can' t just jump on the car and take it off.
j I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What does that mean, 5000 2!
pounds?
3 MR. EVANS:
In other words, that's like for Naval I
t reactor.
A Naval reactor could be shipped on an open car as 5
i pp sed to a box car.
It takes r.assive cranes to load it on.
6 I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
This is the minimum.
7; i
MR. EVANS:
That's the lower limit.
Yes, sir.
8l t
'T ow, there is in the present regs a lower limit of 9i
' 500 pounds.
We thought it was too low.
This was coordinated 10 with them and they didn' t have any problem with it. Again, there jj is the redundant communication requirement.
There's a require-12 i
ment going to the Movement Control Center.
And there's the 13 !
I ja j 30 minute call
-in versus two hours for keeping better track.
The same kinds of things with the sea shipments, as i
15 16 y u can see.
I don't know as we need to go over each one.
h 1,, ;
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Uhy are you restricting it to i
container ships?
jg l
MR. EVANS:
That again, exemptions are possible.
How-39 o ! ever, if you can have your container surrounded by other con-
\\
s l
21 l tainers, then it becomes very difficult for someone to do any-thing with it.
So, you have a container that ' s 4 0 feet up in g
a the air that has containers all the way around it -- it gives a 23 I lot of protection.
g
' cz ral Reoorters. Inc.
(Slide.)
25
mu 4 i
21 l
1 i
All right.
Turning to the fixed-site side, one thing that you should be aware of is non-power reactors are included 2
under this regulation.
However, self-protected material, that 3
1 which is irradiated above 100 rems is exempted.
Let me give you i
the bottom line.
5, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's per hour, isn't it?
i i
MR. EVANS:
It is per hour.
'l i
8:
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Per hour at some distance.
1 i
MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir -- three feet.
9 Now, the bottom line of that -- then you may have a 10 question -- that it turns out that there's one reactor that will jj be impacted by this regulation.
That's Fort St. Vrain.
The 12 thers will either reduce the amount of material they have or 13 I
I I
i else irradiate above that level.
So that they will be category g
i
! U
~~
15 l
g; COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is that the right level; is i
p 'l anybody looking at that?
i 18 l MR. EVANS:
There's been a lot of staff looking at
! that.
I am not an expert at tha t.
But in taking the expert's 39 advise, that is what they came to -- a combination of the
,0 4
standards people, NRR people have looked at that -- and they g
i
,, j felt that was the right level.
It is also the level used on the a i I
! safety side of the house.
3 i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
'fe ll, that goes back a long 3
rai a oornes. inc.
ace e
25,way, it seems to me, when concerns were a little different.
i i
mu 5 22 I i
1 I certainly would like to have --
l 2 l1 MR. EVANS:
We can work something up on that.
I i
~
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
An explanation of why that was l
4-i the level that's picked.
I 5'
i MR. EVANS:
All right.
I6' l
MR. SNYDER:
If you go back into history on this thing, i
7!
i
! and I happen to have done that, over 10 years ago -- I've forgotten the exact time period -- there was essentially zero 9ll rationalization when it was either put into the Federal Register.
i 10 notice when this rule was first adopted, or stated considerations 11 for that law.
I had legislative research done on that, and i
12 have provided that --
13.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you want to say something?
j 14 MR. MILLER:
NRR has a program where we are looking at 15,
j the 100 rem as it impacts non-power reactor fuels and the storage i
16 lthere, and will be glad to talk to you about it as soon as we're i
17 ready -- I think in another month or so.
i 18 '
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Good.
I 19 MR. EVANS:
All right.
20 l In terms of the security organization, I think the 1
'l 1
^
- ioverview comment on that is we've become more specific regarding i
the number of necessary aspects of a gaurd force, in terms of
- their training and their armament, making sure the management I
24 reviews what they're doing, and that they're doing it at the a,
.rai 9.oorms. inc.
c
,c
!1evel they should be -- those kinds of things.
'mu 6' l
l 23 :
I i
(Slide.)
1 i
2 i We'll go on to the next slide.
This really should I
i 3'
read access and exit controls.
l 4
And in terms of highlighting some of the things, we're t
i Si requiring 100 percent search of all hand-carried packages with l
6 !
the exception of cleared employees where it's random.
But it t
7 is again -- given this defense in depth -- we have 100 percent i
I search at the MAA, whether cleared or not, so you catch every-8l
~
i 9
body.all the time, and sometimes you catch them twice.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Would you repeat that?
What l
11 is the rule for cleared employees?
12 MR. EVANS:
Cleared employees?
Nhat we have done 13 is allowed for a random search at the perimeter, the very outside i
ja perimeter of the facility.
However, when you go into the t
i 15 material-access area, then it is everybody.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Physically searched?
16 l ll 17 l MR. EVANS:
Packages of materials.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
All packages of materials?
19 MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir.
20 ]I MR. BURNETT:
There is no physical human search in-
}
21 !volved at all.
77 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And what sort of random search?
MR. EVANS:
That gets into a paper that Ralph Jones 23,
24 'sent up to you all.
'Cr "r@l A dOOf fert. Inc, (Mhereunon at 10:39,:Cormissioner Kennedy enters.)
y MR. EVANS:
Because we went through this at t." e last
24 l mu 7 i
i I
briefing, and I'm going to defer to Ralph's paper on that.
I'm not an expert at how you statistically determine what the right i
3 sample randomly is, but it was sent up here and comments were 4
asked for.
And there was not any disagreement that I am aware S.
j of with the approach that was described in that paper.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So, let's see -- are we going 7
to be hearing about that?
i 0
MR. EVANS:
Well, we can send you the paper again if 9
you want to take another look at it.
10 MR. BURNETT:
Or bring it up again at this next i
11 !
l meeting.
12 MR. DIRCKS:
Ralph is not here, and he would probably 13 be the most appropriate one to go over it.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But there must be a number that you could come up with.
16 '
N1R. EVANS:
There is a number based on statistics and il 17 '; I don't remember how it all works.
It's a model, it's a 1
18 ; statistical model that varies in terms of how many they do on a 19 3 given day at a given time, and how they pick what they do, aOletcetera, et cetera.
And I'm not familiar with how all that nj !
l works.
^
i Scme of the other important things on here are, the
. access control station is going to be bullet resistant to protecr
^4 the gaurds from someone coming in and killing them before they ice ral AfDorters. Inc.
c can get notice out that this is occurring.
We've significantly
mu 8 25 i
increased the protection of directly usable material by assuring 1
i 2 l that's it's in the vaults and that the vaults are much stronger I
than they have been in the past, that they' re able to withstand 3
1 3l multiple charges, and that the response forces can get there i
before the people can get into the vault, particularly important; 5
I 6 l regarding the CFE kind of scenario.
i COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
Could you just mention why DOE 7
vehicles, DOE couriers, are exempt?
8 i
MR. EVANS:
They have their own clearance system,'and 9,
I n) they actually present identification and so on that they have 11 ! been through that clearance process with picture badges.
And l
12 ! we call back and verify with the DOE people at headquarters that I
13 they are the actual people that they say they are.
And we felt ja.
that we shouldn' t be getting into their clearance process, and l
15 '
they were very strong in feeling that we shouldn' t be.
16 l So, it was a combination of --
We felt it gave us 17 l adequate assurance in terms of doing all the extra checks that jg ! we do to make sure that the people were who they said, and that 19 they were the ones responsible for doing those clearances and d
20 not us.
i i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Does that also exempt them from
- 3) 1
- 4 the search that the --
MR. EVANS:
They do not go into rhe material-access 23 24 area.
Ace
'ral Reoorters. Inc, 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
They do not?
Okay.
26 mu 9 i
(Slide.)
j l
l 2l If they were to go in -
?
+
l r
MR. EVANS:
That is a question I can't answer at this 3
time.
3 i
Sj MR. BURNETT:
They have made a very strong posture in this area.
6 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Nell,I would like to get --
7 MR. EVANS:
We'll get you an answer to daat.
8 j
l 9l All right, in terms of detection alarms, we're 10, requiring duress alarms now for the quards so that when they l
11 l.come under attack, they can automatically push a button or I
something to let people know they're under attack.
Ne have 12 ll significantly upgraded secondary alarm stations and required 13 ja them -- we've required them to be independent versus slave.
15
'Ihey are totally redundant with the primary alarms, so the 16 primary alarm station is neutralized.
Then the secondary alarm il j7lstationcantotallytakeover.
It also gives you a lot of I
jg protection against conspiracy which is where we found that the 19 j people in the primary alarm station could almost run everything 20 that was happening in the f acility.
And it only took one person dt neutralize your whole system.
21 1
,, l That's whv we went to secondarv alarms.
We recuire
" they be bullet-resistant and we require that you not be able to 73 24 see the inside of them from the outside of then so that ycu t
ter r al Recorrers. Inc. i
.c cannot kill one of the guards quickly.
And then we require
- mu 10 27 !
1 back-up power for all of the aiarm systems to make sure that 2l someone doesn't take out your primary power system which lines 3
come in from outside and thereb'y cause your whole system to go I
i 4
down.
I l
5' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What does PA stand for?
i 6f MR. EVANS:
Protective area -- dbat's the outside rim.,
7 (S lide. )
8' In communications, it should be central, not center, I
9l alarm stations.
But again, we've got the redundant communica-l 10 tions at both the primary and the secondary alarm station now 11 rather than just at the central alarm station.
Ne ' ve go t a l,
12, test and maintenance program included in this rule.
It has the i
13 thing so near that of course with the contingency planning rule 14 and through requirements on the minumum numbers of guards and so.
15 on, we have a response program that's more specifically delin-i 16 l!
eated than it had been in the past rule.
l 17 j I think the basic thought that I'd like to leave, 18 after having been through all this, is that it really has been i
19
-- there will be a significant upgrading of our protection of 20 ] these f acilities, given this rule.
1 21 l Now, given public comment, we have proposed some 22 : changes which make it appear like we downgrade everything.
L
( S lid e. )
24 : So keep in mind on those past slides, that there are some things Aa rae Recorrett Inc.
25 4 that we have reduced, based on not only public comment but our
28 i
j i
i mu 11 I
i i
own study.
And here 's the ones. One, nunber one, that the 1
threat is not a reduction but that is something that we'll talk 2j
' about next week or whenever that other part of the briefing is scheduled.
The vault definition we changed.
That again, is not:
4l i
i
! a reduction from the last oublished version.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What is the ref erence to --
6l, i
10 CFR 73.l?
~
MR. EVANS:
Oh, what we did was put the adversary 8 i i description up front in part 73.
It's a purely technical mzpda-9 l tory thing. We've taken what was an adversary description in 73.55 and what 10 i
gj l was an adversary description in the upgrade rule and said, Hey, i
all of the things that we're protecting against at all facilities I
ought to sit up front at the beginning of the reg so the people l
- can see what they are and what the purpose of the reg is.
l g!
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Are you then saying 73.55 15
! deals with reactors?
16,
Il MR. EVAUS:
Yes, sir.
17 :
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So you're saying all facili-
)g
' ties are protected against the same threat?
39 d
tiR. EVANS:
No, sir.
But again, I would prefer we 0
4 hold that discussion until the policy task force makes the
,)'1 I recommendation.
g 2, I MR. DIRCKS :
Part of that is the second version of a
this.
4
.ce ral A f00 f f e's. I nc.
MR. EVANS:
I guess the point I'd like to make here 25,
I
mu 12 I
29 !
l 1l is that this rule be brought into conformance with what your i
2i decisions are, given the briefing that Mr. Burnett will give on the EDO safeguards policy task force report in their recommendations 4l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But that seems to be distinct 5li from the reasonable assurance versus high assurance question.
6 MR. EVANS:
Oh, yes it is.
l t
I iR. BURNETT:
That was the threat issue.
7;l 8
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That was the second issue.
I 9
MR. EVANS:
All right, this second bullet -- basically 10 ' all that happened was that a lawyer said, Hey, you are regula-i i
11 i ting by definition, because we have the vault level performance 12 I requirements in the definition -- took it out of the definition, 13 put it into the reference system.
It's like I just mentioned.
l 14 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But you didn't change --
l 15 MR. EVANS:
We didn't change the substance; it's just 16 : as it came out for public comment.
In the last version, we had h
17 required nine escorts during transportation.
We have since 18 received a study from Sandia which we feel justified 19 that there is almost the same level of protection at a much 20 reduced cost going with seven escorts.
21 The reason for that is that we have a number of escort 22!vehiclesinthisrulethatwehavenothadunder the present Iregulations.
It is those escort vehicles that give you the
- 3 i
24 l primary protection against attack -- not the number of gaurds.
Ace ras Reoorters. Inc. i 25 i In terms of the next bulletin, we have tried to d
.1
l 30 l
mu 13 increase the flexibility for the licensees to be able to assure i 1
2 ; that three people are aware of a vault opening.
The purpose l
i
' here is to protect against conspiracy.
Initially, we had i
! identified one way to do it, namely three CCTV monitor stations.l 4
i i
l l We have since determined that there are several other ways that
^
SI i
j one could do it and we've changed the rule to allow that to i
! happen.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Such as?
i 8!
i i
MR. EVANS:
Such as having the cuards in the primary 9
alarm station, the guards in the secondary alarm station preview the vault with the CCTV, and have a third cuar l go to the vault 12 ll when it's opened as opposed to having another CCTV run to a i
i third station.
That's one example. ^And there are others.
I'm 13 l l
14 ; not f amiliar with all of them, but there is a regulatory guide.
i 15 lWe include it in our guidance package which delineates a number of those.
16 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And how would the third quari.
17 !
I know that the vault would be open?
18 i
MR. EVANS:
Because the quards have to be notified of 9
I vaults being opened before it can even be opened.
And then the
,o t
,l l person that has the key has to be accompanied by a cuerd. He e
q
>can't open that.
2, 23 'i
~ monitored.
MR. BURNETT:
Plus it's electrically IIR. EVANS:
Then you've got alarms.
People in the 2,'
ra; seoorrm. inc. h d smion be to her de Mn aa 25,
.mu 3.4 31 i
jl COMMISSIONER AHEARNE.
You're not answering my i
2 i; question correctly.
Why did you go to the TV?
3 MR. EVANS:
Initially?
.g COMMISSIONER AHEAR'1E :
Yes.
S MR. EVANS:
Because it was at that time -- that was i
6 the only way we thought of to do it.
t 7]
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Why go to a TV?
8 MR. EVANS:
Why go?
l 1
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Rather than just the alarm?
I 10 '
MR. EVANS:
Because this is for times when you i
i 11 i actually do open the vault.
Say that it's determined there is i
12, a need to go into the vault.
All right?
Then if there is that 13 1 ne3d, the people in the alarm station have to turn of f the I
I 14 alarms to the vault.
Then you want to have three people who 15, are aware of what's going on with that material before it's 16 removed so that a conspiracy cannot take it out.
I I
17 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So you're trying to get three i
18 {people to be watching what's happening rather than just know 19, that the vault is being opened?
20 i MR. EVANS:
Yes.
l 21 j COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So the requirement will then be 22.that if you have two TVs, that tha t m.' a r d, in addition to the 23 guard that normally would have been going to it --
21 MR. EVANS:
Normally there is a person who would have ACT
'r st Reoorters Inc.
25 i--- a production person would have a key.
Nhat he does is --
f
mu 15 32 l l
l jl COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Normally the production person i
w uld not have a gua.rdwith him?
2o F
MR. EVANS:
In the past, he could have done without.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And one of the ways of meetina 4
the requirement would be to have a guard going with him?
S 11R. EVANS:
That's right.
You do have the two-ran rule.
6 MR. BURNETT:
You still have the two.m.an rule in i
7t, 1
g; effect.
So you include the two people who have access to the vault and the TV monitor.
9
?tR. EVANS:
Really, the upgrading is that you will 10 i
l ij j have the CCTV as a secondary monitor.
That is what really gives i
12 ; y u your third persen.
I (Slid **}
13 i
COFSIISSIONER KENNEDY:
While he's in the vault, it's 33,
l being observed by not one, but three different people.
15 '
b1R. EVANS:
- Yes, si'.
16 ll 37 l1 COM!1'.SSIONER KENNEDY:
Probably in three different i
jg l locations.
COM11ISSIONER AHEARNE:
Not necessarily.
j9 1
CO!D1ISSIONER KENNEDY:
It could be, but not necessar-01 4
1 1
- Iily, but at least in two.
,1 1
g; MR. SUR'1ETT :
At least two.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
One of wnich is the vault.
,3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
One of which could be the vault.
3 Ace rat Recorrers. Inc.
MR. EVA'IS :
We're trying to allow flexibility and this 73 -
e
mu 16 l
33 i
i ll will all be subject to licensing reviews, and so on, to make i
2 h sure that what's submitted is adequate.
,I 3
All right.
The next one is that with all of the layers 4l of protection, in terms of the capabilities that we just men-S tioned, the redundancies in those protection levels, we decided 6
we didn't need another layer; namely, penetration-resistant 7
containters which had initially been required.
And we just 3
backed off from that requirement and said they weren't l
end 2 9'
necessary.
10,
i l'
11 !
12,
i 13 14 15 '
i 16 ll 17 la y
19l i
20 i
21 l i
i 23 21
. ice tal Reoorters, Inc.
23
34 l
l CR 4150 1!
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Excuse me.
Penetration HO"FMAN 43 pt.
- 1 2p resistant containers where?
4
'l 3 !
MR. EVANS:
This is the actual containers that hold 4,
the stuff that's in the process of being stored.
5' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But not being transported.
6 MR. EVANS:
No, no, not transportation.
This is 7!
fixed site.
8i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
This is fixed site, okay.
9, MR. EVANS:
Now implementation schedule.
CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is a pentration 10,l I
11 '
resistant container?
12 '
MR. EVANS:
That was one of our problems.
When you 13 '
try to establish what performance level you come at, you can i
14 look at it all the way frem, you know, someone taking a gun to 15 - it and trying to fire a bullet into it to just being able to 16 h keep someone with a normal hand tool frcm getting in it.
a 17 j COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
A safe cabinet is a penetration 18 ! resistant container.
The question is what level of resistance.
19 MR. EVANS:
It led to problems.
We didn't feel that 20 it provided us really an increase in safeguards, so we dropped 21 It, and that was what the ccmments, public ccmments that came in recommended.
We agreed with them.
COMMISSIONER BRADFCRD:
What was the original theory, 22 that if you had a pentration resistant container, anyone m
<ai wcm ire.
- 5 seeking to take it would have to carry the container?
35 I
pmcc 2
~
1(
MR. EVANS:
No, it was time delay.
We were 2
concerned about the CFE problem, someone bringing the casing 3"
or building a clandestine explosive into the facility and just 4
pouring the material into it.
We wanted to make sure that 4
5 the response people had enough time to get there and prevent 6:
that kind of thing from happening.
That was what was really 7
the theory behind it.
8' And we've tried to take care of that by increasing 9
the vault level, level of the vault, requiring that the process 10 lines be locked and those kinds of things where people aren't II in there and motion detectors to assure ourselves that we know 12 '
when people are in there who shouldn't be in there, and by 13 !
increasing the number of guards who are to be available to i
f 14 i respond, so that they can get there and keep that frcm i
15 happening.
16 In terms of the implementation schedule, initially, 17 and I'll talk about this more when we get into the guidance
- I 13 area -- I'll try to speed this up, but basically we have 19 !
initially said that for collusion we could not provide enough 20 guidance to allow for one single security plant submission.
21 We have completed the guidance on the collusion area.
22 As a result we've been able to allow the licensees to make 22 one submission and not have to go through this twice, and you 21 can see the time frame's there.
4
' 11 A tPOO f ?f f t i nc.
25 We added a number of definition changes clarifying
36 i
pmcc 3 ll the editorial changes.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see.
It's 150 days 2
frem the time the rule becomes effective.
4 MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir, I'm going to go into the 5
details of the schedule and what it means en the very last t
6 slide.
7l MR. SNYDER:
Before you leave the changes, could I 8
ask a quick question with regard to the previous version that 9
went out. The first draft that went out, there were a large 10 number of comments frcm industry that were of much larger e
II magnitude than you seem to have reflected here.
Did those 12 comments all go away?
13 ll MR. EVANS:
No.
Two things happened.
Number one,
'l 141 the rule was significantly changed as a result of the first l
15l round of public comment which took care of a number of those
.I l
16 ] concerned.
Number two, we again have made these changes in a
171 light of the second round of public comment; however, there 13i are comments going both ways, depending on whether they come
'i 19 from industry or whether they come from intervenors in terms 20 of whether we should further decrease or further increase 21 levels of protection we've came out with.
22 So what we've tried to do was to evaluate all those 23 comments and to decide whether they have merit on substantive 22 safeguard grounds.
If they did, we tried to make the changes.
r3 d eDC f f ff t. l "C.
^C If they didn't, we tried to explain how we did not make the
j 37 1
i pmcc 4 changes in our response to the comments.
Every comment has 1
23 been responded to, and those comments are attached in the a
2 commission paper which would go to the public document rocm,
4; when and if the Commission approves this rule for publication.
I 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I wonder if you could at 6'
some point characterize some of what you regard as the most 7i important comments and why you agreed or disagreed with them, 8
particularly the ones you disagreed with.
9 MR. EVANS:
All of those are delineated in an i
10,
attachment to that ecmmission paper.
It will be very easy to O
11 '
run through those either at a future briefing -- if you want, 12 you know, I guess the real bottom line on all of them is have i
13 ] you established the right threat level.If you really want to l
14 come down to the bottom line, that's it.
15 MR. BURNETT:
That really continues to be the one 16 consistent question.
I've met with industry about three weeks P
17 ] ago to discuss the guidance, and that again was the major l
18 ' topic of interest.
19 '
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
They're feeling we've set it a
20 too high?
i 21 MR. BURNETT:
They feel that we hava not justified 22 the existence;we've maintained consistently that we are not 23 saying that a threat really exists out there.
This is just a 21 pre-level to protect against.
That debate continues.
,,4 ry Ancr'eq I n c.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is there some feeling that,
3 38 I
I pmcc 5 I
given the level of threat that we've set here to protect l
i:
2 against, that the protection is inappropriate for that level 2
of threat --
4, MR. EVANS:
With the exception of some of the 5+
changes that we've made, in most cases, no, that's not the 6'
problem.
There are very few cases in that regard.
7l MR. BURNETT:
I think that in all candor and honesty, i
8 in talking with some of the reactor people, they do feel, they 9;
have stated that these precautions are in excess, even to 10 what they would see required.
We have not seen a similar II comment with regard to fuel cycle facilities.
12 '
MR. SNYDER:
I think it's significant, though, to 13 note, on looking, that only one commentator suggested that 14 federal forces are needed to do this job.
That was New York 15 State, as opposed to the first set of comments that we got on 16 the very original set of rules, in which there were at least a 17] dozen of those kind of comments frcm industry, the people that I
ISl it directly affected.
J 19 MR. BURNETT:
I had personal conversations on that
- 0 particular issue, and industry is split.
They're debating the i
ej advantages cr disadvantages of a federal force, but we did not 4
i 22 receive that amount of interest in the second program.
22 I did want to say that some commentators simply 21 referred to all their previous comments.
So I think it would r 1e R *00rf tf 5 IFC.
25 be unfair to say that it is over.
We did sense some reduction.
1 39 I
i I
pmcc 6 II But again, my personal evaluation is that industry is still 2!!
split on the subject.
2 COSDiISSIONER A3EARE: On the opposite side would you 4
characterize those who are not satisfied with the level of 5
protection we're proposing?
Is it that they disagree with the 6'
threat, or given the threat, that they disagree that this is adequate?
7 i MR. BURNETT:
I think that we could safely say they i
a disagree with the threat, because I think they want a more 1
9' specific definition of the threat. 'Ihey want tne nu: ers nere precisely stated.
10 MR. EVANS:
Then we get into classification problems.
i 11 MR. BURNETT:
And we've discussed this on many 12 '
occasions.
I 13 !
MR. SNYDER:
Excuse me, Bob.
I think it's fair to d
i 14 ~
point out, however, that in looking at the list of 18 15,
commenters, none of them were not industry in this last go-16 j around, so I'm not sure that you've got any response as I 9
17 -
look at the list.
1 13 '
They're all licensees or industry representativac of 19.I some sort.
20 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What's your point?
21 MR. SNYDER:
My point is that he was trying to represent what the non-industry side of the public represen-tatives think about this rule, and they didn't cen=ent, as I 24 see it.
-a es,nexren we.
25 MR. BURNETT:
Tha may be true, Bernie.
I can't
1 40 l
i pmcc 7 1
account for that.
2p MR. SNYDER:
They certainly were given it.
F 3
MR. BURNETT:
But in personal contacts I haven't 4
sensed any heavy enange from the non-industry side.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Going back to your point, 6 ~
Bill, they want the levels more explicitly stated.
i 7l MR. DIRCKS:
In other words, they'd like to see i
8 numbers in there which we haven't given them made publicly 9,
available because of the classification.
i 10 CCMMISSIONER AHEARE: You mean rather than a group or 11 :
a few.
3 12 MR. DIRCKS:
Right.
We've been skirting around 13 h that.
l l
14 '
MR. EVANS:
That goes back to the two rules that
- 1 i
15 ] we're still considering in terms of access to that kind of f
16 information.
i 17 i MR. BURNETT:
Also, as you know, the staff does not
'l 1
13 4 really believe that the. numbers are the important degree of a i
19 ' characterization.
It's more the motivation and capabilities 20 of the adversary forces which are the important attribute, 21 ' because whether it's five or six, I'm not sure that a case can 22 be made that a system would fail, and even if it did fail, it 23 would fail in the degree of degradation, not catastrophically, 22 so the staff has never really supported the number concept.
- .a ral QeDOF??fl. IPC.
25 (Slide.)
i
41
{
t pmcc 8 Il MR. EVANS:
In terms of the guidance to support the 20 rule, if we look at this next slide, what we see is that the i'
3 last time we were up here, which was early summer of last year, i
4 the staff made a commitment to the Commission to complete 1
5 several types of guidance, first of all, guidance on how the 6
licensee can design a system that will satisfy the upgrade 7l rule, and as you can see from the right hand column, that 8
was completed.
9 In terms of technical guidance, we said we'd have 10 70 percent of it done.
We probably get what, 90 or 95 percent II of it.
We're very close to having all of that done.
In terms 12 of the licensee security system, the standard format and i
13 i content guide, that is done.
I 14 As I mentioned earlier, while we told the Ccmmission 15 we could not get this done for collusion in time, we did, and 16 so that is completed and this is completed for both fixed site i
17 0 and for in transit.
Now, as you've heard, we had a meeting in 18 Richmond with the oublic.
It was held at the Defense
,1
~
19 l Industrial Security Institute.
We had a lot of interaction i
20 j with both the industry and with some people from outside the i
21 industry at that meeting, and we won't be responding to all of 22 their ccmments, which will come in in about another month 23 and modify the guidance based on that.
24 (Slide.)
act t al AeDO Utt1.Inc.
"C But in terms of what that guidance looks like,
42 I,
pmcc 9 1
basically it boils down to three major guidance documents, two i
2!
for fixed site and one for transportation in the fixed site i
3 area.
We've called the two documents an upgrade rule guidance f
4 compendium.
i I
5 Basically these fall into two things, all the 6
guidance that you need to the upgrade rule, hence to nuclear i
7:
facilities themselves, and then a number of reference tech-8 nical documents which are generally applicable to security 9
problems.
10 (Slide.)
l.
Il The next one shows the transportation guidance 12 document.
Basically the major document there is the standard i
13 l format and content guide.
We have modified the standard 14 l approach to this, in that we have included a lot of informa-J 15 tion on the intent of all the regulatory provisions within the 16 document, alternative ways licensees might go about meeting h
h 17 the requirements.
18 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Standard format in content of d
l9 ! what?
20 MR. EVANS:
That is the standard format in content 21 of the licensee security plan that gets submitted to the NRC.
22 I'll be talking more specifically in about two seconds from 22 now on that.
24 (Slide.)
.a r,, q,xnen i n c.
25 If we can go back to fixed-sites fer a second and
43 l
pmcc 10 1,
look at the upgrade rule guidance compendiums themselves, 2j when we developed these, we tried to put ourselves in the j
2 position of the people that would have to use theae documents, i
4-namely the licensees.
l 5,
Therefore, we asked ourselves what questions would L
6 we ask if we were a licensee.
And basically we said there are 7j six ma]or questions.
The first is the obvious one, how do you l
8, use the material, and that's the first document up there, I
9; introduction and user information.
10 The second and more important one is what would I Il '
have to do or have to submit to NRC to get a license, in other 12,
words, to keep their facility operating.
You've got to get 13 that license.
They want to know what they need to submit, i
i 14 l what information and how, and that's the standard format and 15 ;
content guide.
I 16 I The third question would be what do the regulatory i
17 provisions in this rule really mean, and that we tried to d
la ' describe in the intent and scope of regulations document.
I9 q
The fourth question is how could I design a system i
20 ; which satisfies the regulation and allows me to self-test my 21 design to be sure it's cost effective, namely build the 22 cheapest system possible that will satisfy this regulation, 22 and that the design methodology documents do.
22 The fifth and sixth questions are answered by volume
- Cs r v Recor?trs. inc.
25 two, which is a bibliography and microfiche library of
44 i
pmcc 11 1l technical guidance.
The first of those two questions is what 2!!
technical factors do I as a licensee need to take into account 3
in choosing alternative safeguards, components, and where do 4,
I find that information, and it's all provided in that 5:
document.
6' (Slide.)
7, The next slide shows there is a process for using 3,
all this information.
I don't think we need to go into the 9:
details of that.
That's the process that's laid out.
10,
(Slide.)
i 11 i In terms of the specifics in each of those documents I just 12 mentioned, standard format and content guide, as you just asked, i
13 ll it does three ' major things.
It tells what information NRC I
14 needs in order to license physical protection plans.
We've 15 reoriented that information toward the results of the system.
16 i In other words, what does the system produce, how well does b
i-17 it operate, as opposed to what is the system composed of?
We 18 :j still want to know what it's composed of, but we don't just n
ll 19 j want to know that.
We want to know what the output is, as
- i 20 t opposed to just the input.
l 21 '
We laid out the format that we'd like the informaticn 22 '
presented in, and then we've done something we haven't done
- 3 before.
We've included, actually written, a part of a 24 security plan and provided it in the back of this dccument as
-.C1r f 31 R for)r ?f r$ inc.
25 a sample of how we think they could go about meeting these
45 '
I l
I pmcc 12 1i information needs.
ii il 2p (Slide.)
3 In terms of intendant scope of regulations we tried 4
to describe the hierarchy of the upgrade rules as I described i
5' it to you earlier.
We tried to show the interrelationships i
6' between that hierarchy, and then we tried to answer every 7-question that the public or the staff has posed of major a
significance about the rule, so that they know what was the 9
intent behind the legal language that's in the regulations.
10 (Slide.)
i 11 l Design methodology does three major things, defines 12,
the jobs the system has to perform in order to satisfy the I
13 requirements.
It identifies specific components that the l
14 ;
licensees can use in order to perform those jobs.
It gives 15 feasible technical alternatives for doing it, and then it 16 su? plies detailed criteria.
in 17 /
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In what form does it describe 13 these components?
19 MR. EVANS:
Well, a lot of forms.
1 20 ;
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In the generic sense?
I 21 ',
MR. EVANS:
It lays out every component.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It's not identified.
23 MR. EVANS:
It's not identified by brand name.
It is 24 identified by generic type.
aa rit ReOQf fff t, I nc.
25 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Okay.
i 46, i
i I
pmcc 13 1
MR. BURNETT:
It's showing what you could expect out j
2h of this type of hardware.
3' MR. EVANS:
In this document we've laid out 4
technical information regarding every single one.
5 MR. BURNETT:
I'm not so sure.
These were l
I 6
circulated to your staff.
7l MR. EVANS:
In January.
Basically that lays out, 8l gives a list of every component procedure hardware that could 9;
be used to perform these jobs, and then in here in microfiche i
10 information we have actually provided detailed technical 11 l specs on all of the hardward and components that are listed in 12 here.
i 13 l MR. BURNETT:
This document is what we held a l
14 seminar on a couple of weeks ago.
Verbally we received very 15 positive sentiments.
16 '
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Given the fact that the Y
17 ;l hardware has a tendency to undergo substantial revision and l
18 upgrading itself on an annual cycle, I assume you will have 19 I this document under continuing reference.
J O'
MR. EVANS:
Standards development will be responsible 1
21l for that.
22 MR. BURNETT:
That very aspect.
I think it's safe 22 to say, however, having been in the field for a long time, 24 major changes are minimal.
Act
'31 Af00rfert, loc.
25 MR. EVANS:
Okay.
The final thing we do with the t
47 '
I pmcc 14 1l design methodology is lay out a detailed set of criteria l
i 2 ji which aid in the selection of those ccmponents for their 3
systems, so they can tell how well the components they have eno 43 4 ',
selected are meeting the requirements of the rules.
1 5'
I 6'
i 7!.
8 9 l.
10 l
l 11 l 12 i l
13 i
14 {
l i
15 l 16 '
I lIl 17 9 d
il N
18 9 1
- l 19 20 l t
l 21 ;l 22 22 2a
' Cf
'30 AeOOr??rs I NC.
^5
CE 4150 t
- HOFFMAN 4i 49 3
mu 1 i
I l
(Slide.)
2i f
MR. EVANS:
Finally, the supportive literature is what
~
I refer to here in the microfiche sheets.
It comes out of three, 4
major areas.
One was existing NRC guidance which has been up-5 I dated to be applicable to the rule.
The second is new NRC 6
guidance which we've actually produced in a working group.
And
- ll then finally, a non-NRC technical literature that applies to i
8 j security problems which we've screened to make sure that it's 9' applicable to our particular concerns with fuel cycle facilities.
i 10 l
MR. BURNETT:
I think that's an important thing to i
11 !
focus on, that a task force was formed under SG to work on this i
12 i
! document for six months and did review all of this area so the 13 I l licensee can now see what is the premise of our decision-making 14 '
l process.
15 l l
MR. EVANS:
All right, where does all this lead us to?
16 l it (Slide.)
o 17 j Implementation schedule. To give you some pinpoints, 18p a if you'll look over on the left-hand column where it says i9 guidance out for public comment, that occurred on March 2nd.
20 llComments are due back on May 2nd which is the first black tri-21 /janglethere.
22 L l
MR. SURNETT :
Gold, up there.
22 MR. SVANS:
Gold, up there.
I'm sorry.
N w
r, a,oo r.m. i nc.
In terms of the guidance being final, we feel it would
- m..
,;take us about 60 days to T.odify the guidance based on the
mu -
49 1 l comments that we've already received from the industry at the i.
2l
' meeting that we held in Richmond, as well as the formal ones 3
that were received by May 2nd.
Therefore, we can have the i
1 4
guidance final by July 1st.
At that point we' re ready to go 5
with an effective rule if the Commission approves.
6' Now what that would mean is that we'd have an effective 7'
j rule July 1st.
Five months after that, the licensees would 8! submit their plans.
One year after the rule was effective, the 9'
l plans would be implemented with the exception of major construc-10 tion and long-lead hardware items that they put into their plans.
11 !
i Because seme stuff is not available and can't get there for that 12 t extra length of time.
We give them an extra six months for that, 13 which would be a year and a half.
14 !
What that says is, by the end of 19 80, if we go out 15 ; in July, we will have ' upgraded safeguards at fuel cycle facili-16 hties and during transport.
h 17 1 COtiMISSIONER AHEARNE:
A couple of cuestions.
f 18 il
[
You have the 60 days after the public comments come in.
19 ;
Approximately how many of those days were you planning on us 20
. meditating?
Or is this 60 days from when you give it to us?
I 21
]
MR. EVANS:
It was 60 days when we give it to you.
So you've got to gamble there, yes, sir.
23 MR. BURNETT:
Ne would also hope the Commission would 21 start meditating from today.
2 c, rv woorren. inc.
25 i MR. EVANS:
Now, in the pasr --
mu a 50 !
I t
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You want to try?
[
1l l
2l MR. EVANS:
The guidance shouldn' t change that much.
i 1
3l In the past the Commission hasn' t spent a lot of time with i
guidance.
4 6
5!
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The second question, to what F extent will this schedule -- could it be significantly impacted 6
i 7j by the subject of next week's briefing?
i
(
MR. EVANS:
Ne have until July 1st, in effect, to make 8,
l 9l that.
It will take us maybe one week to make any changes that jo ' you want -
given changes in the recommendations.
I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm not asking the question 11 j 12, very well.
13 You've got things out for the comment coming tack in i
ja j on the second.
This schedule is new based upon what is already 1
15 ! out.
Are the subjects that are coming up next week for further 16 discussion already decided on, and what's out for public comment?
17 MR. EVANS:
They do not impact, no impact at all.
18 MR. BURNETT:
That's this material that's available 19 for comment.
l 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All right.
i MR. EVANS:
In fact, in terms of the rule and so on, 21 j 1
'the only impact is probably going to be the reasonable versus 73 23 high.
I have
.ot heard any staff debate or concern about the 22, level that the thread has been set at for fuel-cycle facilities a.
.. n,w rt.,s.inc.
25 MR. BURNETT:
And really, this is just a word change
~.
51 l ri v-l t
i I
depending on which way the Commission goes.
We are prepared to 2h
' go either way.
3 RR. DIRCKS:
The decision you411 be making on the l
4 safeguards task force report will impact not so much on the fuel i
I 5'
I cycle facilities but on how you extend the thinking from the i
6 fuel cycle facilities back to the reactors.
7; i
MR. EVANS:
That was the point.
I 8<
}
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Does that complete your pre-9'
- sentation?
10 1
MR. EVANS:
Yes.
I 11 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Could you say something about r
12
! how many facilities are involved here?
13 MR. EVANS:
11 fixed sites, and we anticipate between 14 l10 and 15 transportation plans.
i 15 ;
CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This is 10 or 15 transporters?
16 MR. EVANS:
No, sir.
No, only probably two transpor-l 17 !
t ters, but they have to submit different plans for different 18 routes and so on that would be coming in.
Each time they come 19 to a different facility or between different facilities or 20 l import-export.
l
^1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So this would cover all the 22 various routes?
m MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir.
24 COIIIISSIONER GILINSKY :
Over which this kind of mater-
.S ma rrers.inc.,
25 '
'ial wculd be traveling?
e..
t 52 l
mu 5 l
i t
II MR. EVANS:
Yes, sir, i
51R. DIRCKS:
Each time ddey're going to move material, 3
this wot 1d,in ef fect between f acilities, they would have to 4
submit a plan.
5, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Nhat happens with amounts of 6' material that are below five kilograms?
l 7
MR. EVANS :
They will be licensed if we get approval 8
for the Category 2, 3 Rule.
They will be licensed under the 9
i Category 2,3 Rule.
There will be plans submitted on those and 10 l they will go through the same kind of licensing process.
11 '
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
And where do we stand with 12 ! that?
Is that before us?
13 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes, sir.
I t
14 '
312. EVANS:
Yes, sir.
15 ;
MR. BURNETT:
As you know, it's an attempt to put us 16 I, in line with the international aspect of Categories 2 and 3.
17 '
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay.
I guess unless we've l
i 18
! got anything further to raise, I propose --
H 19 l MR. ONG:
Commissioner, could I just respond partially
- to you earlier cuestion about the irradiated number?
1 71 !
1 COfSIISSIONER GILINSKY:
Sure.
,e
- 1R. ONG:
If I remember right, it's a spent fuel guideline.
That's hopeful that we put it in for spent fuel.
2 ~'
Ten years ago, as one of the three people who worked on the 2 c, m a.mnm. inc.
9C". program --
It was called an emergency rule.
Ne put it
53 mu 6 l
1 out in 1969.
We put out an emergency licensing order.
2 Before 1969, there will really no physical protection requirements, and a licensing order was issued by the Director i
4' j of Regulation for imposing physical protection requirements 5
with a notice that rule-making would follow within 30 days.
And 1
6' we had 30 days; we moved very quickly.
And, if I remember right, 7l the criterion the 10 0 re.m, ' etcetera, is a spent fuel number.
I 8[
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't remember the spent i
9l fuel numbers exactly, but it seems to me it was many, many years.
10 '
! before spent fuel reaches that low a level.
I 11 1' MR. EVANS:
Therefore, they got excluded from that.
12 MR. ONG:
If I was the staf f, I'd start tracking at I
13 about that place.
14 i l
MR. EVANS:
Okay.
15
We'll ccordinate with NRR on that and get back to you 16 l' people.
l; 17 MR. BURNETT:
Hopefully, we'll try to have that ready I
18 before the next meeting.
Our task force will keep it all 19 dove-tailed.
20 1 i
COMMISSIONER GILISNSKY:
Okay, we'll try and schedule
- 1 !
a meeting for next week in which Joe can be present, and to
! discuss this other package.
4, (Mhereupon, at 11:05 a.m.,
April 18, the hearing was b'
recessed.)
Ace it R ecor*?* s. inc.
".C
{
,