ML20042C762
| ML20042C762 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/13/1983 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20037D485 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436, TASK-PINC, TASK-SE SECY-83-134, NUDOCS 8304220094 | |
| Download: ML20042C762 (12) | |
Text
SSSSSSSSS$$SSSSS (g'%,,,,,+#
i SECY-83-134 April 13, 1983 POLICY ISSUE (NEGATIVE CONSENT)
For:
The Commissioners From:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
ANNUAL REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON DOMESTIC SAFEGUARDS
Purpose:
1.
To transmit to the President the enclosed annual report on domestic safeguards in response to National Security Decision Memorandum 254.
i 2.
To request approval to discontinue the-report '
in the future.
Issue:
Future safeguards reports may not be required j
since they duplicate infonnation contained in NRC's -
complete annual report to the President.
Discussion:
Since 1974 DOE (previously ERDA) and NRC have submitted joint annual reports to the President in response to i
a National Security Decision Memorandum (NSDM-254, April _ 27, 1974, SecretNSI).
However, the NRC staff was recently informed that DOE would be required to submit more detailed annual reports in the future, which could be accomplished best if DOE reported i
separately from NRC.
DOE, therefore, plans to submit the FY82 and future reports separately (see ).
NRC's input to the annual NSDM-254 report is also included in the Commission's complete Annual report, which is forwarded to the President for transmittal to Congress each year, as required by Section 307(c) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
In light of this and the fact DOE will be reporting separately, the staff believes it appropriate and practical to discontinue future NRC reports in response to NSDM-254.
Contact:
Paul Baker, fMSS 42-74194
)p
-m w
(*
(f $Dh],2DD0 hg
,7
.i Recommendations:
1.
. Approve a letter transmitting the enclosed
^
Eighth Annual Repot t on Domestic Safeguards to the President (Encl. 2).
4 2.
Approve a letter to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs requesting approval-to discontinue such report in the future-(Encl. 3)..
i William...Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
- 1. Ltr fm R. Caudie (DOE) to R. Burnett dtd 12/3/82
- 2. Annual Report w/ transmittal ltr to the President
- 3. Ltr to Asst. to the President.
for Nat. Security Affairs SECY NOTE:
In the absence.of instructions-to.the. contrary, i
SECY will notify.the staff on Thursday, April 28, 1983 that the Commission, by negative consent, i
assents to the-action proposed-in this paper.
]
DISTRIBUTION:
j Commissioners OGC OPE OCA OIA OPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO.
ELD SECY
.._ t y,.
j i
Department of Energy j.
Washington, D.C. 20545 l
i DEC 3 1982 j
iir. Robert F. Burnett l
Director, Division of Safeguards
(
Office of riuclear Material Safety l
and Safeguards U. S. Nuclear P,egul atory Commission-Washington, D. C.
20555 l
i
Dear Mr. Burnett:
Enclosed is the 00E topical outiine for.. the DOE Annual Report.on Do:riestic Safeguards covering 1982.
As discussed;with!your staff, l
~
l new requirerents placed on the DOE by the riational Security Council-l in 1982 necessitated the revision of our. traditional reporting format into a more cetailed report to be submitted separately.from the' NRC.
Although the reports will be submitted separately, beginning with the t
,next report, it is desirable that the formats of both: reports be con-
+
sistent.
In order to ensure compatibility, the enclosed outlin~e is -
~
provided for your use.
- Si nce rel y,
+
h i
R I
R 1py E. Caudle Dir tor Office of' Safeguards and Security Defense Programs Enclosure 1
I e.
(
1 I
ENCLOSURE 1 ll
,J i
1 i
DOE Annual Report on-Domestic Safeguards Topical Outline S
I.
Executive Sumary II.
Background.
i 1
A.
General.Information 1
B.
Characterization of the Threat.
III.
Facility Security
. l A.
Present' Status.
l B.
Future Plans i
IV. Transportation Status--
V.
Contingency Planning.
- t I
6 I
i 1
~
j l
I l
I
- 1 l
I l.
i l
L i.
-_~_.i'.
L I
t- -
i
~,
.c l'-
U L
l l
.i DRAFT
)
PBaker/bc(NMSS) 2/9/83-L l
l l
I L
The President l
The White House Washington, D. C. 20500 l-l
Dear Mr." President:
'i
~
Enclosed is sthe Eighth-Annual Report on Domestic Safeguards in a
response to NSDM-254, Domestic Safeguards, April: 27,.1974. - Previous reports were submitted jointly'by. the Department of L Energy-(DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission'(NRC).
However, we were recently J
informed that DOE would be required to submit more detailed annual-reports in the future, which could be-accomplished!best if. DOE reported separately from NRC. Therefore, the enclosed report discussesf only' those safeguards systems established under regulatory purview of the.
NRC.
. Respectfully, Nunzio J. ' Palladino
' Chairman
Enclosure:
As stated-d ENCLOSURE 2-1
c.
- 2.....
f
'i I-
+
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-f
.-EIGHTH' ANNUAL REPORT =;
a
.ON DOMESTIC 2 SAFEGUARDS-(U)?
l i
1 DURING THE PE'RI00 FROM -
OCTOBER l',1981 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,:1982:
l l
1
. )
- l i
4 l
4 d
1
[
7
.oe er.
m.
e
(
- r. 4 e
--V.'
..,e 5
g h-r-9-
w"~-
s-4g 9-9 s
e
EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT ON DOMESTIC SAFEGUARDS Introduction This report advises the President, pursuant to requ1rements of the National Security Council, on the effectiveness of domestic nuclear safeguards during FY-1982 in the licensed sector under the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Background
In accordance with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 the NRC requires that safeguards be applied in the licensed domestic sector to special nuclear materials (fissile uranium and plutonium) and related facilities and transportation activities.
The objectives of safeguards are to protect the health and safety of the public and the common defense and security from the conse-quences of malevolent acts involving these materials and facilities.
In general, NRC safeguards requirements for fuel cycle facilities emphasize protection against theft or diversion of special nuclear material, while those for reactors and transport of spent fuel stress protection against radiological sabotage.
The NRC did not change its design basis threat, as contained in 10 CFR 73.1, during FY-1982 because there was no new.information to justify changes. However, the staff did initiate semiannual threat reviews (the first of which was completed in June 1982) to evaluate both domestic and foreign safeguards-related data to determine the continuing soundness of NRC's design basis threat statements.
The following information summarizes the status of domestic safeguards for licensed nuclear fuel facilities, reactors and transportation. The status of safeguards contingency planning is also discussed.
~ -. _, _ _
V V
2I
}
jx J
Fuel-Cycle Facility Safeguards Status i
i Of 30 licensed fuel facilities, which Linclude six critical mass 1'
[
facilities five had actual. holdings. of = strategic'special. nuclear. material; which required compliance with the revised Physical-Protection Rule.
1-
~
One of these five facilities-~is reducing its holding so as-to require'a i
lower level of. protection.. A physical protection program commensurate
)
- b with the changed posture of this facility will be' implemented.-
5 In addition to' physical protection,- fuel cycle. facilities licensed:-
to possess and:use more-than one effective kilogram of.special nuclear 1 i.
material are requifed to maintain detailed material control and' accounting.
e t
4
.1
~
1
, prog rams. :On September 30,1982,.there were 22.such' facilities with levels of activity ranging.from active decommissioning to full scale j
production.
i
~
2 With respect to activities described in' the 1980'and 1981 reports f
concerning the Nuclear Fuel Services '(NFS) highly enriched uranium i
l facility at Erwin, Tennessee, six physical inventories were conducted between September 1,1981 and September.30,1982.
The inventory differences l
1 for all six fell within Commission approved limits. -
i 1
In the area of regulatory improvements for fuel-facilities,.NRC is inviting public comment on a regulatory approach'which would provide j
moreltimelyL indications.of possible loss _of strategic special' nuclear material =,. facilitate the. recovery of-lost material and provide long--
term assurance'that no significant loss has accurred. The3 public comment period ended in February,1982 andLa proposed rule:is being. prepared.
l
)
. ~... = - -
, l l
Also, in the material control-and accounting regulatory program, steps have been taken during both 1981 and 1982 to reflect better the difference in safeguards significance between strategic special nuclear material and low enriched uranium and to develop more cost-effective accountability requirements for low enriched uranium facilities by allowing greater flexibility in designing specific measures to satisfy regulations.
Reactor Safeguards Status The NRC accelerated its reviews of physical security plans received from applicants for licenses to operate nuclear power plants.. Eighteen L
plans were approved during 1982.
Simultaneously ~, the staff has initiated a safeguards quality' assurance program.to evaluate the security systems of licensees and to review the effectiveness of safeguards regulations at their reactors. These reviews provide for onsite analyses.to determine if the plants provide the level of public protection intended'by NRC regulations.
]
The first actual assessment was conducted at an operational power plant September 1982.
All licensees of nonpower reactors have implemented the general physical protection regulations. relating to plants and materials.
Also,-27 of 36 plans submitted for the protection of unirradiated'special nuclear material at these facilities have been approved with the balance undergoing.
final review.
Transportation Status During.1982 NRC approved 40 routes over which 123 spent fuel shipments were made..No safeguards incidents or accidents occurred which 8
F
. involved those shipments.
To comply with Public Law 96-295, NRC regulations l
were amended, in July 1982, to require NRC licensees to notify the governor of a state before making ~ a shipment of certain nuclear wastes or spent fuels in or through the state. The purpose of the rule is to provide states with information which will enable them to contribute to the safety, se:urity and j
l ease of transport of the shipments.
The NRC continued to inspect selected domestic shipments and the domestic segments of import and export shipments of significant quantities l
of strategic special nuclear materials at the points of origin, in transit, l
during intermodal transfers and temporary storage, and at destinations.
No items of noncompliance were noted.
Contingency Planning and Threat Assessment Safep ds contingency plans deal with threats, thefts and sabotage relating to licensed special nuclear material and nuclear facilities.
In
~
May 1982, the staff developed and conducted a safeguards exercise involving NRC management and representatives of the FBI. This exercise provided an-opportunity to further refine the response procedures between the two agencies with regard to nuclear safety matters, law enforcement activities, and the dissemination of information during a safequards emergency.
As part of its continuing threat assessment and data analysis effort, the staff updated its " Safeguards Summary Event List" in December 1981 and June 1982. This list provides data on safeguards-related events involving licensed nuclear materials and facilities. Also, the " Communicated Threat Credibility Project" continued to provide guidance and support for investigations of communicated threats. This project provides expert advice
- ]
a
- 4-
_k, 4
t-
-1 5-N:
a
- 4..
I; to the DOE, the NRC, the-FBI ~, an'd'other: concerned agencies. during an actualc c
I or perceived' emergency arising from' communicated threat's'Lto(nuclear-relatedi-t]
4
= - --
- facilities' or activities.
J 1
'j F.
?
f-
.- }
+
1 i
4 t'
E.
,f z.
e il 4
Y A
1 T
-1.
4 i L 1;
i,-
f
.i kr a.
1<
4
+
4 -:
s 4
'9 f5 !
t E
y
DRAFT L
The Honorable William P. Clark, Jr.
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs-The White Hot:se 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
l Washington, D. C.
20500 1
Dear Mr. Clark:
[
I recently transmitted to the President the Nuclear' Regulatory Com-mission's Eighth Annual Report on Domestic Safeguards in response to NSDM-254, Domestic Safeguards, April 27, 1974.
In the past, such reports
?
were submitted jointly by the Department of Energy '(DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.(NRC).
However,'we have been-infomed that DOE is now required to submit more detailed annual reports, which could be.done-best if DOE reported separately from NRC.
l Infomation in the ' annual NRC safeguards report is also included as part i
of the Commission's complete Annual Report forwarded to the' President each year for transmittal to the Congress, as required by Section 307 (c)'
of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
Accordingly, I believe that.
a separate NRC safeguards report responding to NSDM-254, and containing l
basically the same infomation, is not necessary and request approval to l
discontinue it in the future.
l l
Sincerely, I.
l
?.
.l l
Nunzio J. Palladino L
. Chaiman -
L ENCLOSURE 3
-