ML19312E054
| ML19312E054 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/07/1977 |
| From: | Strauss P NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Rehm T NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312E053 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-77-283A, NUDOCS 8006030120 | |
| Download: ML19312E054 (5) | |
Text
.
,.g O
[
%g UNITED STATES y
]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20605 s
,o!
June 7, 1977
%.=
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Tom A. Rehm, Assistant to the Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Peter L. Strauss, General Counsel h
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON YOUR PAPER OF JUNE 1, 1977, ON AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 73 TO PROVIDE STRENGTHENED PHYSICAL PROTECTION AGAINST RADIOLOGICAL SABOTAGE AND THEFT OF STRATEGIC SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL The very brief time permitted for comment on this proposed rule has not permitted me to examine the rule in any detail.
It is, however, a proposal and so could merit publication as a means of surfacing the staff's thinking.
More 4
important in this context are:
(a)
The adequacy of the Statement of Considera-tions to expose the staff's views; (b)
The sufficiency of the Environmental Impact Appraisal.
Our tentative view is that neither document is fully explana-tory.
The Statement of Considerations, for example, seems i
not to show the relationship to 73.55 discussed in the cover
)
memo, indicates few of the options considered, and is very brief in its discussion of why the particular mix of require-ments proposed has been chosen.
There are several problems to be addressed in connection with the Environmental Impact Appraisal.
First is the segmentation of the proposed rules for upgrading safeguards.
As the appraisal points out, various aspects of upgrading safeguards have been dealt with in separate proposed rulemakings, with separate statements of consideration.and i
separate impact appraisals.
This approach presents a problem for environmenf11 analysis -- that while none of the separate parts may have a significant impact on the environment, they
Contact:
Richard S. Mallory 4
492-8155~
ENCLOSURE "D" 8006030
/2O
c-
- ' :' g.
i0$4( *
^
i<'7, COMPANTES !!AVING NUCLEAR ltEGULATORY COMMISSION
- - ]
LICENSES TIIAT POSSESS STRATEGIC QUANTITIES OF
'}
q.mj Companies Operations q
,Jpi 1.
Atomics International Ganoga Park, CA 2.
Babcock and Wilcox Apollo, PA (Nuclear Materials Division)
Parks Township, PA Babcock and Wilcox Lynchburg, VA (Naval Nuclear Fuel Division) 3.
Exxon Nuclear Company Richland, WA 4.
General Atomic. Company San Diego, CA 5.
General Electric Company Vallecitos, CA
~
6.
Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin, TN 7.
Texas Instruments Attleboro, MA 8.
United Nuclear Corporation Uncasville, CT (Naval Products Division)
United Nuclear Corporation Wood River Junction, RI (Fuel Recovery Operation) 9.
Westinghouse Cheswick, PA
.a++4
~~
COMPANIES !!OLDING NRC-APPROVED TRANSPORTATION PI.ANS F6'R SIIIPMENTS OF STRATEGIC QUANTITIES OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL l.
Tri-State Motor Transit, Joplin, MO
- 7-2.
Transnuclear, Inc., White Plains, NY 3.
Edlow International Company, Washington, D.C.~
~ l sfs b
Yl
..<a
- 4
--4bi
-)
,, GOW 5
<?
,x
" - "*O U"$O~U~NY
'A Y A
. a..
T~.
';W-
r
,.4 l
i
~
l 2
constitute a coordinated whole, and the impact of the combina-tion should be acsessed to determine whether an impact state-nent is required.
Separate appraisals are insufficient to a-t chieve this end.
While it does not appear that an overall fn appraisal would result in a determination that an impact a ;;
statement was required, an overall determination should be made nonetheless.
It need not be lengthy and may rely in large part on the separate appraisals already done or in progress, so long as it evaluates the combined impact of all the safeguards upgrading.
This appraisal seems readily adopted to the purpose.
As to whether an impact statement is in fact required, our chief concern arises from the CEQ letter of January 20, 1975, stating that the safeguards impact of plutonium recycle should be analyzed in an impact statement.
The appraisal should be frank in recognizing this possible argument.
We believe, however, that the GESMO situation might be success-fully distinguished.
There, an impact statement was clearly required, of which safeguards analysis was to be a part.
In j
addition, the question for the GESMO hearings was whether or not to recycle plutonium; the entire proposed action could be dropped if safeguards impacts proved too great.
Here, the i
l question is whether the safeguards impacts alone are sufficient j
to require an impact statement, and there is no suggestion l
that current activities-be abandoned.
Indeed, the proposed j
action is intended to have a positive impact on the environ-ment -- the reduction of the risk of theft or sabotage.
The physical and esthetic effects of such measures as added i
barriers and more secure transportation, and possible civil
- liberties impacts, can be argued not to r.each the level of i
" major federal action."
A' counter-argument, however, is pro-vided by the existence of a draft Safeguards supplement addressing each of these issues.
If the Supplement is soon l
to be made public, it may seem passing strange not to put it out in connection with these propsoals -- to which its analysis j
substantially contributed.
2~
There are several more specific problems with the Impact T
-Appraisal.
(1) The section entitled " Indirect Impact" appears to identify the risk of theft or sabotage as an impact.
In fact, decreas-ing that risk is the whole purpose of the amendments and is the major-benefit to be reaped from'the amendments and should be identified as such at the beginning of the appraisal.
Acci-j dents and the residual risk of sabotage or theft are impacts i
of current activities, not of the proposed action -- amend-j ments to upgrade safeguards; they should be mentioned in those t
a
- terms.
.e 4
~
k
-A M,
_;a aw,,.a.u.. mew iRAria
h
-.e
.]
.~
- )
3 (2) The alternatives identified cover the extremes, as they should, but they do not include more subtle and imaginative alternatives -- the ones really worth investigating -- such "mn as ways in which the mix of requirements might be altered slightly to alleviate the major impacts -- those on civil liberties -- while still achieving the stated objectives.
Since a discussion of alternatives is not required for an impact appraisal by 10 CFR 51.? (b), perhaps significant
,,,g effort need not be devoted to developing alternatives.
How-ever, the Statement of Considerations needs some additional consideration of alternatives, and the discussion in the Impact Appraisal might be imported there.
(3) There are several less important difficulties.
(a)
Page 7, para.
2, 2nd sentence.
The discussion of alterntives should show HOW the "least restrictive alternative" has been considered and arrived at.
(b)
Pages 7-8, para. b.l.
The suggestion of sur-veillance by local law enforcement authorities raises, for me, more questions than it answers.
It appears to suggest, for example, that addi-tional surveillance will be undertaken in con-nection with safeguards.
(c)
Page 8, para.
3, 2nd paragraph.
The paragraph about the Sunshine Act is a non sequitur and in no way answers the problem stated in the pre-
< uay vious paragraph.
(d)
Page 8, para.
2.
The risk of search and seizure impacts in recovery operations will be reduced if the risk of theft is reduced, and this should be noted.
The remaining risk is due to the current activities, which are not proposed to be terminated.
-W WW e
sw w
w E
)7 7Bf NSl
.)
3=
4
f
..3 r.
ENCLOSURE "E" Staff Response to OGC Comments T.
(a)
The statement of considerations has been revised to expand on the relationship of the proposed rule to 73.55 and to address in some additional detail the intent of the system specifications being a reference set of requirements with options left to the licensee
,a within the scope of the general performance requirements.
(b) Staff does not agree that an overall appraisal needs to be prepared.
A review of the separate appraisals indicate nothing that in combination would be cause to reconsider the impact on the environ-ment.
With respect to OGC comments regarding the GESM0 Safeguards Supplement, staff does not believe the Supplement is appropriate for the subject paper since it addresses an entirely new fuel cycle concept and the protection thereof. The present paper is confined to upgrading safeguards systems for the present fuel cycle facilities.
With respect to the OGC comment regarding impact versus benefit, staff agrees that more definitive wording might be better and appropriate changes will be made in Enclosure "B".
With respect to the OGC comment regarding alternatives, staff agrees that there may be subtle and imaginative choices available. This is the purpose of performance oriented regulations -- to pennit the licensee flexibility to develop and use such choices.
_,a With regard to OGC's "less important comments.":
a)
The performance oriented regulation concept should permit the licensee to select the "less restrictive alternative".
b) The second paragraph on page 8 specifically states that such
~
surveillance might be expected to be " independent of safeguards measures" and does not intend to imply " additional" surveillance
\\
for safeguards purposes.
i c)
Paragraph deleted.
i d) The first sentence of the second paragraph under item 2) indicates that search and seizure impacts would be minimized by attempting o
to prevent thefts. Staff does not believe additional emphasis on this point is needed.
~
\\
s
?
x k
~
-.._.. _. _ _ _;-,._ _ + i - b l 6 2 i
.