ML20205H562
| ML20205H562 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/01/1975 |
| From: | Harris J NRC OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS (OPA) |
| To: | Anders W, Gilinsky V, Kennedy R, Mason E, Rowden M, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9904080291 | |
| Download: ML20205H562 (8) | |
Text
I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULAToHY COM'.11SSION 3-W ASHING TON, D.
C.
20S %
bec.ory 6 Sp/s /
December 1, 1975 S
x4 wp Sm 7
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Anders f(I N ~7id'/((
4 Commissioner Rowden Commissioner Mason pg Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy i
[
FROM:
John A.
Harris, Director
//,
Office of Public Affairs
SUBJECT:
MITRE REPORT ON SAFEGUARDS Nineteen reports prepared by contractors in connection with the. Federal Security Agency study and the Special Safeguards Study were placed in the Public Document Room on Friday, November 28.
The MITRE report had been leaked to the Chicago Daily News on November 26, resulting in a story in that newspaper on November 28.
The Daily News made no contact with NRC so far as we know.
Its story, written by a reporter who we understand recently ficd Beirut, said that the MITRE report was ordered by Congress last year as part of the Energy Reorganization Act.
In a related story, the Daily News contended that this Congression-ally-mandated report (MITRE) had been suppressed by the NRC.
We have contacted the Daily News reporter and told him that the MITRE report was not mandated by Congress; it is one of 11 contractor activities being carried out as part of the Special Safeguards Study, which is part of the NRC's consideration of the use of mixed oxide fuel and highly enriched uranium in nuclear power plants.
CBS-TV in its " Evening News" contained a segment on the MITRE report on November 28, and both the Associated Press and the Chicago Sun Times also have carried stories.
While press activity on this report appears to have waned since the weekend, the Commission has requested that consider-ation be given to issuing a follow-up statement on the MITRE report in view of some of the press statements that have been made about it.
The alternatives are:
l 1.
Issue a statement contexting the MITRE report as j
just one part of the overall Special Safeguards Study, noting f
that it contains little new informntion.
j
Contact:
John A.
Harris, PA j
. (
j 492-7715
.y j
9904080291 751201 I
PDR CCMMS IWtCC l
CoRRESP@lDENCE PDR j
h December 1, 1975 2.
Prepare such a statement for use in response to inquiry, and volunteer it to the trade press and to any other publications which may be working on stories.
3.
Stand on the original note to editors issued on November 28.
The note to editors contexted the reports--
although it did not single out the MITRE report.
Regardless of which approach is taken, there is the question of whether any further NRC comment should be directed solely toward contexting the MITRE report, or whether it also should address the content of the report.
It is the feeling of NMSS and PA that the note to editors (copy enclosed) properly contexts the report, and that any additional statements would escalate public discussion.
Further, if we address the content of the report (and, in fact, essentially disavow it), then we raise questions as to the wisdom of contracting with MITRE and paying $139,000 for the work.
We would expect requests for comment on the content of the dozens of other reports.
Thus, staff recommands that no further statement be issued, and that questions be responded to along the lines of the enclosed Q&A.
In event the Commission decides it would like to address the content of the MITRE report, a draft statement--which could be volunteered or used as a response--also i's enclosed.
Enclosures:
- 1. Announcement 75-279
- 2. Q&A
- 3. Draft Statement e
I s
DRAFT STATEMENT An of ficial of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said today a report prepared by the MITRE Corporation for the NRC "is not, and was not intended to be, a complete and self-contained answer" to the question of safeguarding special nuclear material and protecting i
nuclear facilities.
He added that the MITRE report " represents one input into the wide range of threat analysis being undertaken by the NRC."
As a result of press stories on the report, which was released by 1
the NRC last week, Kenneth R. Chapman, Director of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, said:
"We now are working on two separate studies in the safeguards (1) a study, required by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, area:
into the need for, and the feasibility of, a security agency with responsibility for protecting nuclear materials and facilities; and (2) a special safeguards study designed to develop safeguards alterna-tives in connection with the proposed widescale use of mixed oxide fuels.
The MITRE report was prepared in conjunction with the latter study.
"As part of the effort on both studies, and to bring to bear as broad a spectrum of thinking as possible, the NRC staff entered into contracts with a number of outside organizations. Their reports, which 4
have been coming in over the last several weeks, are working papers and--
along with staff thinking and information from other sources--comprise input to the two studies.
i -
l l
l "It had been our plan to make these contractor reports public upon completion of, and toe reporting on, these studies.
- However, as a result of wide public interest evidenced by a number of requests we decided to put these reports we now have into the NRC's public document room as soon as they had been reviewed for classification.
Nineteen such reports were placed in the Document Room on November 28, and three additional reports were made public on December 2.
"We will ultimately have a total of about 45 such reports--from about 26 contractors--and all will be made public as they are received and af ter classification review is completed.
"Because of publicity associated with the MITRE report, I think it is important to make a few observations:
"First, the MITRE report is not, and was not intended to be, a complete and self-contained answer to the overall question of safeguards.
I
" Secondly, while some aspects of the MITRE report may be incor-porated into our final special safeguards study, I believe our final conclusions will have better balance and better justification.
The NRC staff is examining a broad spectrum of potential threats, ranging from' a single disgruntled employee to a well organized group of international terrorists.
The MITRE report represents one input into the wide range of threat analysis which we are making.
Information is being obtained from other contractors, other government agencies, and from work by our own staff.
l l
l
l j l l
" Third, there have been published reports that the llRC suppressed the MITRE report, and that it was, under law, to have been dispatched l
promptly to the Congress.
That reflects a misunderstanding. We are required to submi t to the Congress our securi ty agency study. The MITRE report, however, was prepared in connection with the special safeguards study, which was not mandated by the Congress, but instead was initiated at the request of the Commissioners."
ll I
I l
i l
i i
1 l
a U
1
\\
l 00 A ON MITRU REPORT l
l Q.
There has been recent publicity on a report by the MITRE Corporation for the MRC on the subject of safeguards.
What is the nature of the report?
A.
The NRC now is working on two major studies involving the safeguards area.
One deals with the feasibility of, and need for, a security agency to protect nuclear materials and nuclear facilities.
This study was mandated by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and our report,is to be submitted to Congress.
The other effort is a special safeguards study, initiated at the request of the Commission, aimed primarily at developing rafeguards alternatives for consideration in connection with the environmental impact statement on mixed oxide fuels.
In the case of both of these studies, the MRC staff went to outside contractors for input.
A total of about 28 contractors are preparing some 45 reports as input to the two studies.
These reports, which we regard as working documents, have been coming in over the past several weeks, and will continue to come in for the next month.
They have not been assessed by staff, and, in fact, contain contradictory views.
This is not surprising in light of the broad spectrum of thinking the staff sought on these questions.
Because of the sensitive nature of the subject matter, the reports are given a classification review as they are received.
The MITRE report, which was prepared as part of the special M -
l 2
safeguards study, was received in early October, and has I
been through classification review, and--along with 18 other l
reports--was placed in the NRC's Public Document Room on November 28.
Three more reports were added to the PDR on December 2.
Q.
Why are the reports being released in this manner?
A.
It had been our plan to make public all of the working papers used as input to both of these NRC studies at the time our l
studies were completed.
However, as a result of requests, the Commission decided to place all of these contractor reports in the Public Document Room after classification review.
Q.
There are reports that the NRC had suppressed the MITRE report, and that it should have been passed to Congress as soon as it was received.
Your comment?
l A.
There was no intention to suppress the report.
Congress did not require that we pass along working papers prepared in j
connection with the security agency study, but rather Congress wants a final report from the NRC which will be available next month.
The MITRE report, however, was prepared as input to l
the safeguards study, which was not required by Congress but was initiated by the Commission.
1
.c 3
4 Q.
Was the NRC contacted by the Chicago Daily News before that newspaper wrote its story charging the report was being suppressed?
A.
No.
i Q.
What did the MITRE report cost?
A.
$139,000.
(Following assumes no comment on content.)
Q.
The MITRE report seems to draw some frightening conclusions--
namely that a determined band of terrorists could sabotage a nuclear power plant with potential hazard to the area.
What are your views about the contents of the report?
A.
Because the MITRE report is only one of several viewpoints, I
and has not yet been assessed by our staff, I will not comment on its contents--nor on the contents of any of the other contractor reports.
.