ML20198H374

Responds to 840808 Note Re Further Developments Since RES Summary Concerning Truck Bomb Threat.Peer Review Conducted to Validate Sandia Findings.Research on Countermeasures to Forced Vehicle Entry Continuing

ML20198H374
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/14/1984
From:	Burnett R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML20198H337	List: IA-85-534, Advises That Encl Draft Papers Rev to NRC Safeguards Design Basis Threat & Comparison of Agency Response to Truck Bomb Threat in Us Contain Confidential Natl Security Info.W/O Encl ML20198H332 ML20198H345 ML20198H351 ML20198H368 ML20198H374 ML20198H393
References
FOIA-85-534 NUDOCS 8601310015
Download: ML20198H374 (2)

Text

.Y bNf h.. ]

( y; ~

g

• }^ -

DISTRIBUTION:

84-0813

. NMSS r/f SGPRr/f:/

SGPR s/f AUG 141984 HBlumenthal TAllen RBurnett AHoadley MEMORANDUM FOR:

John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards FROM:

Robert F. Burnett, Director i

Di.v.ision of Safeguards, t0iSS

SUBJECT:

TRUCK BOMB THREAT This responds to your note of August 8,1984 which asked if there had been any further developments since the RES Summary concerning the truck

~

bomb threat contained in the April 20, 1984 EDO weekly infonnation report.

The following developments took place:

1.

The publication of the RES Suninary precipitated several FOIA's on the subject.

Nothinghhas taken place Since initial responses.

2.

A. peer review was conducted to validate the'Sandia findings.

The Nav l Ordinance Laboratory found that the Sandia work a

was generally correct with a moderate level of conservatism in the consequence predictions.

3.

As a matter of prudence, we have continued to pursue research on countenneasures to forced vehicle entry.

That work is ongoing at Sa'ndia.

4, We have continued to monitor the dome'stic threat environment.

To date nothing has materialized that indicates the presence of a vehicular bomb threat targeted at nuclear facilities in this country.

No change in our present design basis threat l

appears warranted.

5.

In the event the domestic threat situation changes we should consider contingencies now. We are preparing a Coninission Paper suggesting that we request comment fran the National Security Council regarding the feasibility of federal contingency planning in this' area.

This is based on the staff view that protection against truck bombs should not be a responsibility of commercial entities.

B601310015 g93g99 PDR FOIA DELL 85-534 pop f

~ :'

->......................~..........!...........................

= k -

[.....:..........................................................

->.............................h.

. ~k:p W.

(

( x-W

.gc

,..c_,..r AUG I4 $SI We plan to consider the implicatiohs (if any}l of the recent 00E 6.

Notice (10CFRPart1047)whichmakes'assertonsconcerning"the increasing threat of terrorist activities" before finalizing the If DOE can :;ub.

staff recomendation on the truck bomb issue.

stantiate their position on the threat, we may wish to modify our plans outlined in item 5 above.

Robert F. Burnett[ Director Division of Safeguards, HMSS

/ l,

. \\s,.

"...S..G'P.h.....#.........S.G........).................................

SGP emesp.SGPR

........s.

c- >.H..B. l..u.m..e..n..t.h..a. l..

/ c..w...'I..A.l..l. e.......

..G.M..c. Co.r. k.l..e......

..R..B. u.,..n. e..t..t.......

=h 6

RAS /ML 82 4

8/ii/84

..,e

_...............