ML22230A064
| ML22230A064 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/18/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780118 | |
| Download: ML22230A064 (57) | |
Text
RETURN TO SECRETARIAT RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
Briefing on GENERAL SAFEGUARDS Place - Washington, D. C.
Date - Wednesday, 18 January 1978 Pages 1 - 54 Telephone :
(202 ) 347-3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY
(
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Januacy_l8,_ 1978 in the Commission s offices at 1717 H Street, N. w.;-washington, D. C. The 1
- nee ting \HS open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
( As provided by 10 CFR 9. 103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs. r~o pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument
( contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize. *
(
1 CR 6082 Barther 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
Briefing on 4
.GENERAL SAFEGUARDS 5
Wednesday,-January 18, 1978 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Commissioners' Conference Room 1717 H Street N.W.
18 Washington, D.C.
19 The brie~ing convened pursuant to notice at 20 10:00 a.rn.
21 PRESENT: Commissioners Hendrie, Kennedy, Glinsky 22 and Bradford.
23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I am sorry we are late getting 2 started this morning. We had some difficulties gathering the 3 necessary quorum.
--- 4 5
The meeting this morning is concerned with a general briefing on the Commission's safeguards programs and 6 activities. This is yet one more in a series of general 7 briefings on major topic areas of the Commission's business.
8 The intent of this series of briefings is, in each of these 9 areas, to provide an overview of what is going on in the 10 area, the_problems .at hand, the programs that have been 11 provided and are being considered to deal with them, to give 12 the Commission an opportunity to try to look at a major topic 13 area as an entityi to try to see whether we in fact have 14 reasonable coverage in these areas, what other things might need 15 to be initiated, and so on.
16 The subject this morning then is safeguards. Lee, 17 I see the safeguards staff is at hand.
18 MR. GOSSICK: They are here. Dr. Smith can introduc
_19 the subject, and Mr. Burnett will give the overall briefing 20 which reflects the activities of many parts of the NRC 21 staff.
22 MR. SMITH: You have already given my introduction .
23 Bob Burnett, who is the Director of our Safeguards Division 24 in the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards will Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 make the presentation.
3 I want to amplify on what Mr. Gossick said, that it does represent a coordinated effort on the part of all NRC 2
3 offices in the area of safeguards, so that in pulling this briefing together, i~ has required the utmost in coordination.
4 Without further ado, you can go ahead, Bob.
5 MR. BURNETT: I would like to distribute to the 6
Commissioners yet two further pieces of paper. I will give 7
them to the Secretary now, so you can have them readily at 8
hand during the discussion.
9 10 One is just a review of the five major areas I will 11 be discussing, and the second is an overall briefing format.
12 I think it should be stated the difference between this briefing
** -- - --~-----*-- ------- -- -- ~ -- - . - -
13 and the one ~ecently received by you concerning the 14 financial safeguard effort, that being the contract research.
15 This briefing covers, in addition to thsoe subjects, the 16 operational responsibilities of each office.
17 For the new Commissioners, I would reiterate that 18 there are five major offices .involved in safeguards, and of 19 course International. There are six divisional Directors 20 of Safeguards. And they all did participate in the generation 21 of this document. Obviously all of the programs that we will 22 cover here today-~
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You say there are six 23 24 divisional Director-s of Safeguards?
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BURNETT: Yes, sir. There are one each in the f've
4 main areas, and one in International.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Thank you.
3 MR. BURNETT: Yes, sir. As I was going to say,
--- 4 5
obviously there are a lot of efforts being pursued of a complex nature, and I am not in a position to answer detailed questions 6 on each project. But representative in the audience are people 7 who will delve into the detail that you desire on any _specific 8 project.
9 Without any further ado, if I could call your attenti n 10 to the briefing format, first we will cover the overall safeguar 11 goals, the participants in and outside NRC, resources, manpower, 12 money, and then go into a project discussion.
13 (Slide) 14 We have designed the briefing to move from a major 15 activity area, as defined further in the briefing, down to the 16 specific project. I will cover as we step down in that 17 development effort, projects that I believe have already been 18 marked or earmarked of Commissioner interest, or ones *that r 19 believe from our own knowledge that we believe you will have 20 interest in.
21 If you have any specific questions, just stop us as w 22 roll on. Towards the end we will present a paper showing 23 the projects that will be coming to you in the next four-month 24 period, and, finally, we will end up with those that you present y Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 have before you that the staff is awaiting guidance on.
5 (Slide)
I don't plan to spend a great deal of time on this.
2 Of course you know the goals of safeguards, to protect the 3
American public, and also the non-proliferation aspects of 4
our responsibilities.
5 (Slide) 6 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: Our responsibilities extend 7
to materials in the civilian sector, right?
8 MR. BURNETT: Yes, sir.
9 10 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: You probably ought to make 11 that qualification.
12 MR. BURNETT: Okay. As I say, I think we are all 13 together on this, but the military aspects of non-proliferation 14 are outside of the purview of NRC.
15 16
- materials_ in --the licensing sector.
17 MR. BURNETT: Correct.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Which it should be 19 recorded is not necessarily restricted to the civilian sector.
20 The license sector may well involve .:material which is going 21 to the --
22 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY :-* Tha-c ~s - intended for military 23 uses, yes, I think that is right.
24 (Slide) -
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BURNETT: This is just a quick resume of the
6 offices that are involved in a small one-liner to give you some 2 idea of the major emphasis in their offices. This is not 3 to detail their total responsibilities.
4 (Slide) 5 Number 4 shows the participants outside of the 6 NRC boundaries that we are working closely with on domestic 7 matters, the FIB, CIA, Customs, DOD, DOE. On the international 8 front, State Department, ACDA, DOE, and of course the 9 same participants in the implementation of IAEA safeguards.
10 - (Slide) 11 This is a quick rehash, really, of the last briefing 12 showing manpower devoted to safeguards areas, and the funding 13 presently in '78 and projected in '79. rhat funding that 14 you see represents both T and A research.
15 (Slide) 16 Now folling the format of the briefing, all of 17 the safeguards activities have been divided into five major 18 areas as you see in the left-hand column, regulatory base, 19 licensing, monitoring licensee operations, additional Federal 20 responsibilities, and general. On the right side they are 21 supported by general categories. This was necessary to get 22 to the next step of specific projects. There are 11 categories.
23 Each category will be defined as to what the object of the 24 category is and how the programs in that category support it
, Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 for resolution.
7 (Slide)
The first one, establish a basis for regulations. Th 2
objective is to build a broad base for establishing safeguard 3
requirements. The categories were simply conveniently chosen 4
so that we could put the ongoing projects into these categories.
5 They are not something thatyou have seen before, you may 6
not really see them again.
7 I think the next one is of most interest, number 8
8, where we start to get into specific projects.
9 10 (Slide) 11 I might call your attention to the first one, the 12 Material Control and Accounting Task Force, which was formed sometime ago, it was reformed about six months ago to produce 13 14 documentation coming to the Commission outlining our goals 15 and how we can achieve those goals.
16 As you see on the right, that report is due to come 17 to you in March. It is on schedule. The draft is now being 18 circulated among the Staff for comment, and we see no slippage 19 there.
Moving down to the second one, regulatory policies, 20 there are two really I should call attention to, the 21 deadly force issue, which NRC ha:*s beerr -asked to address 22 has been undertaken within NMSS. We have draft documentation 23 24 and it is also being circulated now amongst the staff and it Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 will be getting to you very shortly, again in March.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE; What is the relation of this 2
ongoing effort on the deadly force issue to that? Didn't we 3
publish in the Federal Register a statement on deadly force, 4
at least for --
5 MR. BURNETT: A. partial statement, sir. In that 6
~tatement we directed the fuel cycle guard forces to intervene 7
themselves between the material an_d the aggressor, thereby 8
establishing themselves in a position of protect+/-ng themselves 9
and they would fight force with force.
10 In addition to that, Congress specifically asked 11 NRC to explore the possibility of requesting additional 12 legislation to develop the deadly force issue, or the right
- 13 14 15 to use it, and not being in a protection CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I see.
MR. BURNETT: And that paper is in a drafting form.
16 Also another one of Commissioner interest is classification of 17 sensitive fuel cycle and safeguard information. That has 18 been forwarded to you for action and it will show up later.
19 Under the third billet, general risk analysis, 20 adversary characteristics. This was a study started out of 21 the CONRAD allegations, and it is due in mid summer. It is 22 a very encompassing report, looking at the training, the weapon y 23 available and the mobilization that would be used for adversary 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
forces. It is a very complete study on the ca-abilities that 25 we believe is possessed by the adversaries.
-- -~------------------------,,----------------------,
9 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Is that in-house?
2 MR. BURNETT: It is in-house, but we are going to 3 both DOD and DOE, exploring their threat base, comparing
--- 4 5
that to ours, trying .to come up with comparability.
the effort is being carried on in-house, it coordinates all So althoug 6 facilities of the government that we think are germane.
7 MR. PEDERSEN: I note that the schedule is for mid-8 summer. And the revised proposed upgrade rule is now scheduled 9 for February. How are those two meshing, since obviously 10 this risk analysis is an important aspects of the upgrade?
11 MR. BURNETT: As you know, they are both being 12 done in my office,and we.-are taking care of that mesh. Even 13 though we have had a slight slippage in our adversary character 14 istics, it is really in getting the paper work together. Our 15 threat is not changing. And the work that is going on in 16 upgrade is actually resulting from the public opinion that came 17 in to make a more acceptable package to the public, and yet 18 provide us adequate security. And we are dovetailing this.
19 Since they are both in my office, we are doing it.
20 MR. PEDERSEN: So you don't see anything coming 21 out of this risk analysis that would change anything?
22 MR. BURNETT: No, sir, and that is being watched.
23 The final one, I hesitate hitting anything in 24 this area here, but- I think the SECOM program might be Of Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 interest. There is a medium amount of money directed in this
10 area, and this is an attempt to keep continuous communications 2 of our vehicle transporting Sand M, when they are moving 3 from site to site.
4 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: With this Material Accounting 5 Task Force, does it look like we will be able to make 6 any improvements?
7 MR. BURNETT: Yes, sir, resulting from spec~fic 8 Commissioner guidance in our last meeting, we actually 9 precipitated into the reformation of that group, and we 10 have addressed problems that were ennunciated at that meeting 11 and we hope to give you the exact recommendations on how to 12 move ahead. I have back-up material on it. Some of the things 13 that should be done, define the roles and objectives of 14 material control and accounting, recommend goals, assess 15 existing regulatory base and capabilities in light of these 16 goals, provide direction for development.
17 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: Is material accounting 18 emerging as an important part of our program? There was some 19 tendency, I think, in the past to emphasize physical security 20 to *the disadvantage of materials accounting.
21 MR. BURNETT: Both are important, and we need an 22 integrated approach.
23 MR. SMITH: I think the thrust of the report will be 24 to specify those areas in which we perhaps ought to make Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 changes in our licensing requirements, or our regulations with 1
11 regard to material control and accounting. In other words, is there anything we should be doing differently in the area 2
of material accounting and control.
3 MR. BURNETT: Both long term and short term, by the 4
way.
5 (Slide) 6 If I can move to program area B now, formulate and 7
implement regulations. In this area our objective is to 8
work on and to draft or revise regulations, assess public 9
10 comment, and issue regulations.
11 (Slide)
Plate 10, in this area it was hard to find any 12 number of categories to put these projects in, short of 13 exactly the number of projects. So you will notice that I 14 vary from the briefing format and only list the actual 15 16 projects.
Some that I would like to call to your attention is, 17 number one, physical protection of nuclear power reactors, 18 19 the SD/NRR project. As you know, much of it has been completed. The only outstanding issue is the pat-down search, 20 and that is still on schedule as you all were advised.
21 The second one, which **is your upgrade physical 22 protection in transit, will be coming to you in February.
23 24 Upgrade guard force- is another important one. And if I .. could Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 jump to the bottom four, these four have already be.en forwarded
12 to the Cornmiss.ion for action.
2 (Slide) 3 To move on to area C, develop guidance and standards 4
for licensees. In tnis area we attempt to clarify our 5
objectives, and peformance criteria. And also we provide infor-6 mation and technology and methods that can be* used by 7
licensees. I __ think
- both of these _will be bettere defined if 8
we go to the actual programs. Most of this effort is being 9
carried o*n by SD.
10 (Slide) 11 It is done in conjunction with other offices, but 12 SD has most of the action, except for the final billett there, 13 which is a National Bureau of Standards study. All of these 14 documents are given to the licensee in an attempt to help him 15 design his ~ystems and regulations and procedures. The 16 quantity that you see here does not represent that 17 exact number of papers. There are many papers and guidance 18 and standards being developed, or guides, and these are generic 11 19 the subjects that a~e b~~ng looked at.
20 (SLide) 21 Program area D. Develop effectiveness evaluation 22 methods. Generally this is known as modeling within NRC.
23 The objective is to produce criteria that is repeatable, that 24 Ace-Federal Reponers, Inc.
removes the subjective judgments from our inspections and 25 evaluations.
13 (Slide)
The first four projects are the research efforts.
2 Number one is the research effort 1 as reported to you 3
--- 4 5
earlier. the others follow suit. Number 2 is there, number 3, transportation, is there, and number 4- is there. As you know, the Commission has tagged 1 and 4 for further review.
6 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: These are what, basically 7
computer models?
8 MR. BURNETT: They are both. I think that Research 9
10 could best_ .answer any real specifics you have on that, 11 Commissioner Glinsky. But they are both computer and also 12 other pieces of paper that could be used in evaluation.
Would you like to say anything in addition to that Frank?
13 14 MR. ARSENAULT: I don't understand the thrust of 15 the question.
16 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: Is the objective to build some 17 kind of computer model that evaluates protection of the site?
18 MR. ARSENAULT: The objective of the evaluation 19 methods, and they are methods, which include the use of 20 models, the major thrust is not to develop the model. The objective of thse projects is to codify the methods used 21 22 in the evaluation of safeguard systems curing the course of 23 the regulatory process, both the licensing and the inspection.
24 We would expect tha~ the methods would also be useful to Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 licensees in the design process. The thrust of the project is
14 to codify the methods used in evaluation, to supply objective 2 or authoritatively derived data to support the judgments made 3 in the evaluation, and to provide automated or systemitized, 4 systematic, procedures for following through with the 5 evaluation process.
6 MR. HALLER: And it includes computer models.
7 MR. ARSENAULT: It does includ modeling, most notably 8 in modeling the safegaurd systems under study. The principal 9 value of thsee systematic evaluation methods will be the 10 capability to communicate both the process and the basis for the 11 judgments, both subjective and otherwise, made in the evaluation 12 process.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Can you do a for instance?
14 MR. ARSENAULT: I can do many of them. I am not 15 sure exactly what you want.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Pick your favorite.
17 MR. ARSENAULT: Do you mean give an example of the 18 activities that would be pursued in evaluationg a safeguard 19 system?
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes.
21 MR. SMITH: Example of the model.
22 MR. ARSENAULT: If we were going to evaluate the 23 protection system at a nuclear power reactor to protect against 24 sabotage, the fdirst step would be to model the facifity Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
.and its ?a.feguard system by collecting that data, and a very
15 useful technique for that is the use of the interactive computer graphics. You can actually place the physical plant lay-out 2
into the computer and display it~ The virtue of that technique 3
is you have an interactive terminal so you can then locate 4
the safeguard mechanisms that exist in the plant on that plant 5
6 lay-out . . You can also plot physically the potential paths to be taken by adversaries within the plant. And there are 7
lograrithms and techniques for allowing you to determine 8
9 what the interaction between the adversary and the plant syste~
10 would be . . That is, what detection mechanisms are involved.
11 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: What would this allow the 12 licensing people to do that they*couldn't otherwise do?
13 MR. ARSENAULT: The modeling capability, together 14 with procedures for its use, would allow them to use uniform 15 methods for determining which adversary actions were to be 16 examined in the course of the licensing review, and a uniform 17 format for the production of the data on which they make their 18 judgments. This would be an advantage.
19 MR. HALLER: It also requires you to make subjective 20 judgments at certain points, because there are human factors 21 involved which are not quantif*iable in the sense of engineering,
- 22 and it will give one a chance t~make se~sitivity studies of 23 variations in human behaviour and to settle on codified ways 24 of handling human behaviour, so everyone does it the same Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 way.
16 MR. BURNETT: We will hit this in detail when we 2
come back to discuss, as you directed, projects 1 and 3.
3 MR. HALLER: We are planning a briefing in early 4 February of some staff, both here and some Congressional staff.
5 We would be glad to accommodate you at that time.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Codify, I think I just 7 realized, I was having trouble, codify in your terminology 8
doesn't mean what it would be to a lawyer. Codify means put in,o 9 a computer code?
10 MR. HALLER: It means that one can explore the effect of 11 a particular parameter, whether it be human or engineering, 12 and determine that this is the way we are going to treat that.
13 Just as one has to determine what the adversary force is, 14 you codify that by saying this is the size of the adversary 15 force. You have to codify that this is the way the guard 16 force will respond in such and such a situation.
17 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: What does that have to do with 18 interacting terminals?
19 MR. HALLER: It allows you to make sensitivity studie 20 very quickly to determine how it affects the matter, among 21 other things.
I 1- MR. ARSENAULT: The f*act that the computer terminals 22 23 are interactive has its principal value both in the 24 research.and design-. The licensee.would want to use one Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 for design purposes. The licensing reviewer requires the
17 interactivity aspect of the modeling capability to a much lesser extent. It appears to us right now he would still welcom 2
that flexibility, so he could explore the variations as in the 3
various things he has to review. It is* possible if one 4
could standardize both the plant and the requirements and the 5
6 adversary characteristics and postulated threats, that the interactive capability would be totally irrelevant to the 7
licensing procedure.
8 MR. HALLER: I think that might come some years 9
10 down the way, when we have had enough experience to say if you 11 meet this set of requirements you are all right. I don't think 12 we know that yet. I think we will have to go through a period 13 of several_ years of trying to understand what these requirements 14 should really be.
15 MR. BURNETT: I would like to callyour attention 16 to the last item there, assessment of existing techniques. We 17 have taken at least one of RES' outputs, in addition to some 18 other techniques that were developed in NMSS, and we are 19 putting them into the field in a test format under our 20 control.
21 (Slide) 22 Program area E, licensing review. I don't think I 23 need to say a whole lot about this. You can see the categories 24 we are involved with new facilities, changes in old Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 facilities' security plans, export-import, and implementation
18 of new or revised regulations. There_ are many projects 2 going on in this area.
3 ( Slide) 4 This package has a typo, physical protection of 5 nuclear reactors I show as NRR, and there is an extensive 6 effort being done in I&E to support them as well as the 7 *National Laboratory. That *was a *typo, my faµlt.
8 I call this one to your attention although for anoth r 9 reason, this ls the.current round of evaluations at all of the 10 facilities and NRR hopes to complete that effort by August 11 of '78.. It is still on time, I am told.
12 The contingency planning, which is the second item 13 there, I call to your .attention because you are scheduled tog t 14 a briefing on that, I believe, next week.
15 Dropping down to the last one, import-export, 16 a paper has come to you recently asking for guidance 17 having to do with f6reign physical security plans.
18 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: When did that come up?
19 I haven't seen it yet.
20 "MR. GOSSICK: I stil+ have it. I just got it 21 this morning.
22 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: So it ought to be up pretty 23 soon?
24 MR. GOSSICK: Yes.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BURNETT: Okay. I don't see anything else on tha
19 sheet, unless the Commissioners do.
2 (Slide) 3 F, environmental impact analyses from a safeguard 4 point of view. As you know, this is becoming an increasingly 5 -interesting area. Although GESMO is now over, we have been 6 asked to_ look at additional safeguard impa*cts for both new 7 facilities and renewals.
- ---------------------~----~
8 OMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What are those additional 9 requests you have? Can you be,more specific?
10 MR. BURNETT: Like we are starting to look at 11 spent fuel storage facilities. Is it a benefit from a 12 safeguards point of view to guard those facilities? If that
- 13 14 15 is done, then we have to look at it from an environmental impact viewpoint also. This has been COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
levied on us Isn't there some sort of
- 16. environmental review undertaken in connection with the 17 licensing of the extension?
18 MR. SMITH: You mean in the renewals?
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes.
'~
20 MR. SMITH: That is true.
21 MR. BURNETT: And also on the other fuel cycle 22 facilities.
- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc:
COMMISSIONE~ KENNEDY:
independent of it?
Is this part of that, or 25 MR. BURNETT: This is part of it.
- 20 MR. SMITH: He is taking about the safeguards input into those evaluations.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: All right. It is not an 3
independent one. All right.
1-
- 4 MR. BURNETT: No. This is new.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I would not have been 6
surprised if the answer would have been the other way.
7 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: YOu are covering th~ entire 8
line of safeguards matters here, not just the fuel cycle?
9 10 MR. BUR~ETT: That is correct, everything. Some 11 of this, as that area shows, is NRR and SD, as well as; us.
12 I will hit the GESMO thing in particular. As you
- 13 14 15 know, it was decided to go with the technical report, that is currently scheduled to be sent to you for review in February. We are hoping to hold to that date.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Excuse me. You covered one 17 of these. You said, I *think you used the words that there 18 were several or at least some of these environmental impacts 19 of significant licensee actions. What others are there?
~
- 20 MR. BURNETT: There are others.
VOICE: Air transportation, and our input into 21 spent fuel storage.
22
- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
,.VOICE: There is a generic statement being worked on for fuel- storage too; we are working on that, MR. BURNETT: That one just started.
25
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: This is the longer term fuel 2 storage?
3 MR. BURNETT: YES, sir.
-- 4 5
COMMISSIONER- KENNEDY:
MR. BURNETT: (Slide)
Okay. Thank you.
Program area G,* Evaluate, 6 Inspect and Enforce. As you can see, our objectives are 7 to conduct inspectio,ns and investigations to determ;Lne 8 licensee compliance with safeguard requirements, evaluate the 9 adequacy of these systems, and obtain the necessary corrective 10 actions, which is the enforcement area.
11 (Slide) 12 Next, specifically in~pect, evaluate, inform and 13 enforce is an IE function and they support all shipments, 14 fuel cycles, and reactors in this function. They also have 15 laboratory support when needed. They have an annual budget 16 to look at certain samples and things like this. Also the 17 comprehensive evaluation program has looked at four 18 facilities, one has been sent to the Commission, which is the 19 Wood River report. There are three more that are going 20 through the final phases of writing right now, and the 21 *remaining facilities should be taken up almost immediately one* by one.
22 We started with the facilities that had been 23 identified as somewhat weaker than the others, you know, to 24 hit them first.
Ace-Federal Reponers, Inc.
25 VOICE: Where does the Wood River report stand now?
7 22 MR. BURNETT: At the Commission briefing for Wood 2 River, the Commissioners asked two questions, one having to 3 do with the manpower devoted to this effort, and the
--- 4 5
second question is escaping me.
VOICE:
Norm, do you remember it?
It had to do with the source scrap.
6 MR. BURNETT: Going into Wood River. That has been 7 completed. In addition, we are rewriting the letter that 8 was in that package going to Udall and that letter is in the 9 coordination chain and the EDO has brought interest to the 10 area, and it will be provided to you rapidly.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What does that mean?
12 Can you quantify that?
13 MR. GOSSICK: In 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> I will have some real 14 problems with this on the staff.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That is a very precise 16 quantification.
17 MR. BURNETT: Okay. That* definitely recognizes 18 interest in the subject.
19 And development of advanced inspection and evaluatio 20 techniques. As you know, both offices are working on 21 that, RES, NMSS and.IE.
22 (Slide).
23 Program area H, Contingency operations, to be 24 sure that proper steps are taken within NRC and within the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 appropriate Federal, state and local agencies. This
23 involves threat assessment, national level planning, which is 2
also covered in the briefing thatyou will be getting next 3
week, and assistance to licensees in determining contingency
--- 4 5
plans.
(Slide) 6 Next, the projects that are being pursued in 7
support of th;i._s area. Heaqguarter_s plan again keeps showing 8
up. I know you are not completely aware of what that is. *But 9
there is an extensive briefing scheduled for you on this.
10 My office is pursuing interagency agreements 11 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: What is it?
12 MR. BURNETT: It is a contingency plan to give
- 13 14 15 guiddance to all of the different elements of NRC in how to conduct themselves, what has to be covered, should we have an incident, and what type of information will be availabl, 16 how we operate on it, and how we keep running. It is an 17 extensive briefing. I don't think there is anything else on thi 18 sheet that should be discussed, unless you all have an 19 interest.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let me ask you about some of the,.
21 threat assessment information sources. Some of these sources 22 obviously run to classified sources, and are not appropriate 23 for discussion here. But could you make any sort of summary, 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. general summary statement about how well situated we seem to 25 be on information sources and so on?
24 MR. BURNETT: Yes, sir. We are getting better. Wear 2 negotiating treaties, I mean agreements with 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Treaties may be the right 4 word.
5 MR. BURNETT: That may have slipped out.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: And they may indeed be 7 subject to ratification.
8 MR. BURNETT: I am attempting to hit the major 9 suppliers of intelligence information with agreements, that 10 being the fBI, CIA, NSA, and so on. Our interest there is 11 to both develop a data base that we can get long-range 12 planning on, what are the trneds*in threats, and, two, an 13 immediate action should we uncover a situation that puts 14 one of our facilities in peril.
15 Now should that*happen, that information is 16 evaluated and put into the IAT for evaluation, and at that poin 17 NRC actions are discussed.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What is the nature of the 19 evaluation?
20 MR. BURNETT: THe immediacy of the threat and 21 the extent of the threat.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:** It i-s- not in the accepted 23 term -- or is it -- an intelligence evaluation?
24 MR. BURNETT: It is an intelligence evaluation as
~ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 it would affect nuclear facilities. I think that is somewhat
25 different than the broad connotation of intelligence.
2 MR. GOSSICK: Mr. Chairman, this is an area we have 3
had some discussions on before, and I have :.had Mr. Dirks workin 4
in this general area. In fact, he has chaired what we call 5
an Intelligence Coordinating Group,* that keeps track of our 6
various interests in this area. As you are well aware, we 7
have other interests that. have to _do with the export non-8 proliferation areas wheu::e the receipent is primarily in 9
another channel. But it is an area where we need to come to you 10 and talk to you about as to exactly some of the additional 11 things we may or may not wish to do, seek some policy 12 guidance from you in this area, as well as clarifying, I think,
- 13 14 15 what has to be admitted is less than a precise definition of responsibilities within the staff.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
16 MR. BURNETT: In that same vein, if I could extent 17 this a minute longer, we have experienced some difficulties 18 from time to time in dealing with other organizations, getting 19 what we felt we neeq, and it is hard to pinpoint the exact 20 reasoning, but there is some concern about our availability 21 through the FOIA process. They have some hesitancy and we 22 are tackling that as it comes up. I wouldn't have a specific 23 thing to bring to you at this time.
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: You are talking about 25 classified information?
26 MR. BURNETT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: WHich is exempted from FOIA.
2 MR. BURNETT: The trouble is it is hard when :
3 intelligence is passed, a lot of times it is not clear 4
whether it is classified or not. We have to go*back to them to 5
get further clarification, and it is just a continual exchange 6
back and forth, and they say "Damn it, I would have been better 7
off if I hadn't given you this." It just makes it a little 8
hard. But as I say, I don't have a specific thing to bring 9
10 to you for_ action at this time. I just wanted to let you know 11 about it.
12 (Slide) 13 To move on to _international coordination, this one I 14 think you are very much up-to-date on, because IP gave their 15 briefing last week. Many of the things that they are 16 working on we are working on also and supporting them.
17 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: What is this bilateral infer-18 mation exchange?
19 MR. BURNETT: These are simply meetings that we 20 have with foreign countries, to come in and just talk more or less informally. There is a continual exchange, what are we 21 22 doing, what is our experience here, wna~ has been the acceptanc of this role by our licensees, that type of information.
23 24 The vis~ts have dropped off lately. DUring the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 summer they seem to peak. Nobody wants to come to Washington
27 in the winter. It is around Cherry Blossom time.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY! Do you find this provides 3 II a useful input, or is it mostly advice to others?
1_ - 4 MR. BURNET~: Oh, no, I think it is useful. I have 511 personally met with several delegations. No, I think it is 6 II a useful exchange.
7 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: Is this mostly on physical BIi security, or does it cover other subjects?
9 MR. BURNETT: It is mostly on physical security, 10 II if I had to answer that straight. Recently we have integrated 11 II the inspection side into it. In the past they have said how 12 II do you insure this is happening, so I asked I&E to get
- 13 II involved in this.
14 There is also some materials *consideration.
COMMISSIONER GLINSKY:
15 II wth other countries, not with IAEA?
When you say bilateral, this s 16 MR. BURNETT: That is correct, direct with other 1711 countries. That is why we did single it out.
18 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: What is our relationship to 19 II SAGSI?
20 II MR. BURNETT: I would direct that question to Mr.
21 II Page, who I think can answer that fully.
22 MR. PAGE: There is an interagency committee consistirg
- 23 II of DOE, ACDA and the Department of State, and NRC, that 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
considers the items for the agenda of SAGSI and provides 25 to Dr. Bennett, who is the U.S. representative to that.
28 We meet periodically, when information is provided by Dr.
2 Bennett to us to look at. So it is more of a technical 3 advisory type of committee.
4 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: You are advising him, rather 5
than instructing him?
6 MR. PAGE: Yes, sir.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: From whom does he get his 8
instructions?
9 MR. PAGE: He works directly for IAEA.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Sohe doesn't get instructions?
11 doesn't get instructions from the MR. PAGE: He 12 U.S. Government at all. He is an IAEA employee, but he does 13 ask for technical advice on topics that come up.
14 (Slide) 15 MR. BURNETT: The next package shows the individual 16 projects supporting this program. You will notice the 17 areas that are being pursued. I don't plan on discussing 18 any of these.
19 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: COuld you say a word about 20 the subsidiary arrangements? Who works those out on the 21 U.S. side?
22 MR. BURNETT: The same gentleman you were talking 23 to.
24 MR. PAGE: Again this is an interagency group heade Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 by the Department of State that has been developing the
29 subsidiary arrangements over the past year. We have met 2
in Vienna, a couple of times in this country. At our last 3
meeting in Vienna in November we 4
COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: We are members of this group?
5 MR. PAGE: We are members of this_group. It is 6
headed up by the Department of State, but the same agencies, 7
ACDA, Department of Energy and us are members. We have gotten 8
the subsidiary arrangements developed to the point now where 9
we are fairly close to agreement, but we have not gotten a 10 formal response back from IAEA as a result of our last 11 meeting. But we think most of the issues are fairly close to 12 being completed to the satisfaction of the interagency group, 13 and as soon as we get some response back from IAEA, we will 14 bring it up for review by the Commission.
15 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: COuld you--explain* the 16 difference between a subsidiary arrangement and facilities 17 attachment?
18 MR. PAGE: "'.es. Of course there is the basic 19 US-IAEA agreement which the Board of Governors approved in 20 September '76. After you have the basic agreement which 21 sets forth the basic elements for application of safeguards 22 iri this country, there are subsidiary arrangements which 23 sepll out the detailed requirements that will be applied. The 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. detailed requirements are not plant-specific. The facility 25 attachments are used to set forth what requirements will
30 apply on a plant-by-plant basis. So the facility attachments are in effect part of the subsidiary arrangements. There is 2
a general part of the subsidiary arran~ements and then there are 3
--- 4 5
specific requirements that apply to each fa~ility.
COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: So, in other words, every IAEA agreement of this kind has subsidiary arrangements arid 6
facility attachments?
7 MR. PAGE: Yes, sir.
8 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: Thank you.
9 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Onward.
11 MR. BURNETT: I* will pause a moment to see if the 12 Commissioners have any furhter questions.
- 13 14 15 (Slide)
Information systems, the new program area*.
Develop, operate and maintain information systems which 16 provide for collection and dissemination of information.
17 I don't think we have to dwell on that too much.
18 (Slide) 19 The projects that are being pursued in support of 20 this. I guess the major thing we should discuss here is the difference between the ISIS program and the work being carried 21 on by the first billet, which is** the Oak Ridge effort.
22
- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reponers, Inc.
We currently are a subscriber to *the Oak Ridge effort.
COMMISSIDNER GLINSKY: Didn't that have a 25 different name earlier?
31 MR. SMITH: I think he has it there, NMIS.
2 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: Weren't there a lot of 3 II problems with that system being way behind?
- 4 5 II system.
6 MR. BURNETT: There are a lot of problems with that I just queried it two days ago to see what came back.
and i t was interesting But we are a subscriber to that 711 system presently at about $660,000 a year.
8 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: What do we get out of it?
9 MR. BURNETT: That is a very good question, and I 10 II asked the very same question. I asked for a study to be run on 11 II how often we go to it and what we get out of it, because 1211 my experience with- it last week was less than perfect.
- 13 14 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: - Do we put anything into it?
MR. BURNETT: We require that licensees put in it.
II I don't think NRC goes directly to it. I want to check with 16 Ii I&E. Do you have any direct inputs into it?
17 VOICE: We use it.
18 MR. BURNETT: We require that things go through 19 II it through our regulatory process, but we ourselves are 20 II not an inputer.
21 MR. HALLER: That is my understanding.
22 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY~- We have been asking about
- 2311 the usefulness of this system for the last three years at 24 II any rate-.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
MR. PAGE: One problem with the system is that the 25
32 1 basic reports used to go to the Oak Rid§e operations office 2 for taking the information from the forms submitted by licensees 3 and put in in a form to go into the computer. The computer 4 is presently operate~ by Union Carbide. The Department of 5 Energy recently decided the transcribing of the information 6 to put it in a form ready for the computer should also be 7 done by Union Carbide people. So we think improvements will s show up now with this being done. DOE just did not have 9 enough staff working on it.in Oak Ridge, but by using a 10 contractor.they will.
11 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: This has been going on a long 12 time. What would we do with this system if it were working
,f
- 13 14 15 right?
MR. PAGE:
shipper receivers.
The information is useful to identify We have given to the computer certain 16 things where the alarms go o-ff. If the shipper and receiver 17 measurements differ by a certain amount, the alarms go off and 18 we request certain reports. It is useful to give an index 19 of transactions, so inspectors will have this information 20 available before they go to make an inspection so as to 21 simplify the auditing of the records.
22 There are problems in the system, because there are 23 errors in it, which we are trying to solve right now. The 24 system is designed-to be useful, but there are some problems Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 right now that limit its usefulness.
33 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: Does DOE use the system?
2 MR. PAGE: Yes, they do.
3 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: Is it basically their system 4 that we have tacked onto?
5 MR. PAGE: It was the old AEC system. In about 1970 6 or 1971 when the Director of Regulation started separate 7 budgeting, we were given an assigned pro rata contribution, 8 I think about one-third of the operation of the system, either 9 30 or 40 percent. So we have been continuing to work with it 10 since that time.
11 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: Why can't all of this just 12 be fixed up rapidly?
~
- 13 14 15 MR. PAGE: It is a matter of staff resources and devoting the time to it. And we are attempting to do that.
XOMMISSIONER GLINSKY: Don't they have 25 or 30 16 people down there working on it?
17 MR. PAGE: There was a problem when it was assigned t 18 the Oak Ridge operations office, because those people who*
19 were assigned to transcribe the information from the forms 20 to_the computer were assigned other functions, and the forms 21 would stack up. Now, with giving the information to Union 22 Carbide to do directly, we think* the system will work much
- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
better.
MR. PEDERSON: At one time we were going to get out of the system, and it was going to be replaced by ISIS.
25
34 What is the evolutionary length of that process? We are 2 still throwing money into this to try to patch it up.
3 MR. BURNETT: The evolutionary process is being 4 slowed down somewhat. As you know, project 7 was identified 5 by the Commission for further information, and that is the 6 ISIS support. If we could get ISIS up to speed, which would 7 take one to two years of development effort, there would 8 probably be about a three-year crossover, where we would get 9 our information into ISIS and turn the Oak Ridge system off .
10 . MR. PAGE: The .ilformation we are getting out of 11 NMIS is on transactions and material in the hands of 12 licensees. ISIS would be a comprehensive safeguards system
- 13 14 15 that would contain information on physical security, information pertaining to license applications, information on inspections, et cetera. This is a small part of what ISIS would do.
16 MR. PEDERSON: ISIS would replace this?
17 MR. PAGE: It would replace it in the long run.
18 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: Who runs the Oak Ridge 19 system, the office or the laboratory?
20 MR. PAGE: Union Carbide operates the system under 21 instructions from the Oak Ridge Operations Office, which in 22 turn takes their instructions fr*om the Division of Safeguards 23 and Security at headquarters DOE.
24 (Slide) -
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BURNETT: The next program area to be taken up
35 is Planning. Coordinate safeguards staff and contractual 211 resources.* This is an effort that has just started in the 3 past six montJ::i.s. There was an initial effort called STAR,
--- 4 but in November Mr. Gossick expanded it and further substantiate 511 the base o.f STAR into what it should and should not do. So 611 it is becoming functional. Of course*you are starting to see lllthat resulting in the financial picture we painted you last 8 time.
9 (Slide) 10 Also the integrated safeguards plan was assigned to 11 our 0ffice back in May. It is hoped to have that out 12 within the next month. It is kind of a snapshot in time of whatlal
- 13 14 15 of the offices are doing.
but it is much more detailed.
It is a lot like this briefing, COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Presumably that will be 16 in a sense, as you describe it at least, sort of an inventory, 17 or, as you say, a snapshot in time of what is in place 18 and ongoing?
19 MR. BURNETT: Yes, sir.
~
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I suppose from there it will 21 go on to look to the future?
22 MR. SMITH: Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: - In the nature of a genuine pla 24 for what ought to be done by all of the offices?
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BURNETT: Yes. In what we were requested for in
36 the document that requested this be done, it was a snapshot in 2 time. But it is obvious.any problems illuminated in that snap-3 shot would have to be dealt with.
4 MR. GOSSICK: I think our primary emphasis when we 5 started out on this was to try to gather together in one 6 package what everything was that was going on, pretty much as 7 Bob said this morning. But we were principally concerned with, 8 one, overlaps, conflicts between responsibilities within the 9 staff, and gaps in the effort that should be covered. It has 10 been a fair struggle to get it pulled together, but I think 11 we are getting there.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:* Thank you.
13 (Slide) 14 MR. BURNETT: This is a listing of proposed papers 15 that will be coming before you. All of these are January, so 16 you are going to see one of the two of us is going to be very 17 busy.
18 The first one is to get out the remaining projects th t 19 were both identified by the staff and by the Commission in 20 the budget presentation and the projects supporting that 21 money.
22 The last one, number **seven,- we - have Congressional 23 interest in *. We were asked by Congress to look at the 24 overlap that existed between NMSS and I&E and to formulate--
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Refresh my memory. When'
37 were we asked to do that?
2 MR. BURNETT: I have an action item out of your 3 office, Lee.
- 4 5
6 MR. GOSSICK:
MR. BURNETT:
Udall, I believe.
Which is this? I am sorry.
It is number 7. It came out of 7 MR. GOSSICK: There is a requirement in one of the 8 conference reports which requires us to provide to the 9 Congress a statement with regard to the either overlap or 10 not of functions between the safeguards operation and our 11 inspection and enforcement.
12 MR. BURNETT:* By January 31 of this year. And I&E 13 and Safeguards are working dilligently on an interface 14 agreement. We now have it at a point that it is very very 15 close to being mutually acceptable by both teams and 16 it will be consumated in support of this effort.
17 (Slide) 18 Again, number eight is pat-down, number 12 materials 19 control, number 13, deadly force, scheduled for March. I 20 will mention in passing that that is coming up again, this 21 is an I&E effort now. MNSS and I&E coordinated the first 22 one, we are still coordinating it, but*they now have the 23 lead in this area, and they are shooting for an April release.
24 COMMISSIDNER GLINSKY: That will cover what period Are-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 of time? The six months and older?
38 l MR. BURNETT: Correct. Because you know there is 2 j;the classification that it will *be downgraded after six months.
311But in addition to that, low-enriched will be released on this
- - 4 llnext time around, low~enriched inventory differences.
5 6
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: When was that decided?
MR. BURNETT: I&E?
7 MR. HALLER: I didn't hear the question.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Bob suggests that low-enriched 911data is going to be released in the next round of releases.
10 III was just wondering what is the genesis of that decision?
11 MR. HALLER: There have been requests in the past 1211for the low-enriched uranium data. If we are able to overcome
- 13IIPOSsible proprietary problems which licensees might have with 1411this data, we see no reason why it should not be released.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I am not questioning it.
16 MR. GOSSICK: It was a point Mr. Dingell came down 1711On pretty hard. DOE didn't make up their mind if they were 1811*going to release it or not.
19 MR. SMITH: My understanding is they are not.
20 MR. HALLER: The purpose of the report is to 21 II provide a status report in the same sense some of the other 2211rainbow books provide a status riport.--So it would include
- 23llinspection reports as well.
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
II you want that as well.
So in the interest of completeness, 25 MR. GOSSICK: It is from the cut-off of the previous
39 report, which is what, September 6?
2 MR. HALLER: That's right. It will cover the next 3 one-year period.
4 (Slide) 5 MR. BURNETT: There is a typo here again. I must 6 keep apologizing for this. Number 23, nonpower reactor study, 7 that is an NRR effort. I am not exactly sure how that got 8 put in.
9 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: What is happening on that?
10 MR. BURNETT: I have some words on it, but, Jim, 11 would you like to answer that?
12 MR. MILLER: We have a group now looking at all BO-
,{
a
- 13 14 15 some nonpower reactors. Essentially they are grouping them as to those that we feel need physical security and the level to which th~t physical security should be maintained.
16 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: These are reactors using 17 highly enriched uranium?
18 MR. MILLER: That's right.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Only highly enriched?
20 MR. MILLER: We go down to the Triga fuels.
21 COMMISSIONER GALINSKY: You are trying to categorize t e 22 use in some way?
- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
MR. MILLER: Thatis what is going on right now. We will be looking at-the physical protection provided now and wha 25 we believe should be provided in the future.
40 (Slide) 2 MR. BURNETT: This outlines the papers that have 3 been sent to the Commission on which the staff is awaiting 4 guidance.
5 MR. SMITH: e have received the guidance on the Chica o 6 one.
7 MR. BURNETT: I was going to*hit the Chicago one.
8 You will be seeing a lot as that develops.
9 As you know, Mr. Smith and myself will be going 10 to Chicago Friday for further meetings with the mayor and 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Can you give us a breif update l2 on where things stand at the moment, as to what you are going 13 to do in Chicago?
14 MR. SMITH: When we initially went out there, 15 the mayor expressed a great deal of concern about the 16 shipment of HEU through his airport and also through the 17 surrounding area. And we jointly agreed that we would~-first 18 of all, we expressed to the mayor based on our review that 19 we didn't see any problems, if I can put it that way, but 20 we jointly ~greed we would review the situation and give him 21 a quick but intense fix on the matter of HEU, not only 22 fr.om the standpoint of security, but also from the standpoint 23 of heal th and safety. That was back in December.
24 - I Then in another meeting it appeared that there Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 were some changes in what the mayor's staff wanted in terms of
41 1 the scope of the study. At least-it looked to us as if they 2 were really asking us then to not only look at HEU, but the 3 total shipment of radioactive material.
4 At that point we began to see how we could address 5 this particular issue if indeed we could do it. As it turns 6 out, there was an environmental impact statement that had 7 been working and is in the final form and has gone out 8 on the shipment of radioactive material by air and other modes.
9 It appeared to us then we could go back to the mayor with a 10 proposal . . One, we would do the quick study as we initially 11 kboth agreed to. Two, we think that the final impact statement 12 answers the bulk of their questions on radioactive materials.
13 And, three, we would like to invite the _mayor to perhaps 14 participate as an ad hoc member -- or his staff -- on another 15 study that Sandia is doing on the shipment of radioactive 16 materials in densely urban areas such as New York City, where 17 you have to contend with high buildings if you had an accident.
18 So the meeting Friday with the mauor at 10:30 is 19 to make that proposal to him, and hope that will satisfy 20 their concerns, so we can -come to some final decision on the 21 issuance of licenses for shipping HEU out of that airport.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY=-- If t:ne mayor says yes' he i
23 would be delighted to have his staff somehow participate as an 24 ad hoc member, what-ever you were s:uggesting, what about*
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 New York? Are they going to get involved, too?
42 MR. SMITH: At this point in time, no.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I am talking about this Sandia 3 thing.
4 VOICE: Naw York is already represented on the 5 ad hoc committee.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I assumed if they weren't, the 7 would be as soon as they found out *Chicago was.
8 MR. SMITH: So that is where we are on that.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Thank you.*
10 *MR. BURNETT: That completes the briefing on 11 safeguards.
12 CHAIRMAN 'flENDRIE: Questions? Discussion?
13 COMMISSIOENR GLINSKY: This gives me an idea of the 14 flow of papers through the system, and there is just an 15 enormous number of them. But I do. want to walk away from 16 here with a feeling of what we ar.e trying to do and how 17 well we are succeeding ..
18 I wonder if you could in some brief way indicate 19 what you think about that.
20 MR. BURNETT: Well, I think you know what we are 21 trying to do. We are trying to bring all necessary security 22 to* the facilities,* both to protect them from threat as we 23 see it, and protect the public and also imping on human rights a 24 little as possible.- Whether we are being totally successful, Are-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 I think we are.
43 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: I don't mean some grand 2
objective, but_ I mean are we in the midst of a major upgrade, 3
are we going to change things significantly, will we be 4
moving to stricter materials accounting, or are we pretty much 5 there and tidying it up?
6 \
MR. SMITH: Let me talk about that in terms of 7
physical security and materials accounting and control.
8 As Bob said, Ithink in the area of physcial security 9
we are reaching a point that is very significant and that is 10 how far we* go in terms of the upgrade rul.e. Most of the 11 comments that we have received back, of course, from the 12 licensees imply that if the upgarde rule were implemented the 13 way it is presently written and were published --
14 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: You are talking about the I
I *- 15 reactor rule now?
16 MR. SMITH: No, I am talking about the fuel cycle.
17 They see it then being a question of whether or not they 18 wish to continue to be in the business and whether or.not this 19 kind of business ought to be one*that is run by the Federal 20 Government.
21 COrA.MISSIONER GLINSKY: They are really working on 22 *-
government material.
23 MR. SMITH: That. is true.
24 1 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: This is what you see to be 25 the bottom line of all of this?
44 MR. SMITH: That's right. The bottom line, as I 2 read some of the comments from many of the licensees, is that 3 they feel that if these regulations are put into effect, it
--- 4 5
forces them to move into a mode of paramilitary type organizatio surrounding these facilities, and, secondly, they question 6 whether or not they want-to be ~n that kind of business.
7 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: So it isn't just a matter of 8 money?
9 MR. SMITH: No, it is not a matter of money. It is 10 a matter of civil liberties, it is a matter of concern about 11 having people walking around with submachine guns and something I
12 happens, someone accidently gets shot.
13 So I think in the area of physcial security for our 14 licensed facilities we are at a crucial point here. And that 15 is why, frankly, it is taking us sometime with*the upgrade 16 rule to get our own thoughts together as to what to propose 17 to you.
18 MR. BURNETT: I have here some specific questions 19 asked by the public, and I can run down them for your interest.
20 The threat level, is it based on soiid 21 information. Alot -of the licensees see the threat level as 22 identified too hi~h~
23 Second, measures for protection against internal 24 -
conspiracy, what is our reasoning, our justification for this.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Uncertainty as to the extent to which clearances
45 will be credited towards internal conspiracy.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You mean as an offset ,to 3 threat?
4 MR. BURNETT: Yes, sir.
5 MR. SMITH: Tha.t is a very crucial one with the 6 licensees. Their feeling is if you are concerned about two 7 people inside, both of whom have clearances, and they happen 8 to get together, where does it end?
9 MR. BURNETT: International shipments, thsi is the 10 transportation problem, are we requiring too much for it to be 11 economically supportable by .the one or two major shippers 12 that we have, in light of the few shipments.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Are they telling us or asking 14 us? I would suppose they would be telling us.
15 MR. BURNETT: They are telling us at this point.
16 They are saying that they don't think it is economically viable 17 to ask them to do that, and one in particular has said 18 that they would.not complain at all if the government took 19 over the transportation ..
- 20 .Possible conflict between Federal, state and 21 local laws.
22 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY :** The ~government does ship 23 most of it?
24 MR. BURNETT: Yes, DOE does.*
Ace-Federal Aeponers, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: There is just a small fraction
46
- that_is privately owned and privately moved.
2 MR. BURNETT: Approximately 20 shipments a year, 3 give or take.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: There must be more than 20 5 a year.
6 MR. BURNETT: Of category 1 materials. There are 7 a lot of shipments in categories 2 and 3. In fact, I just saw i 8 some paper that there are about 5,000 of those. I am referring 9 to only category 1 .
10 . COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: Which is the strategic quantit es 11 of highly enriched uranium or plutonium?
12 MR. BURNETT: Correct~
13 Possible conflict between Federal, state and local 14 law enforcement concerning the weapons and the use of the 15 private guard. They are saying that each person has to react 16 to their state laws concerning this and it is not clear to them 17 even with the guidance that the Commission gave them what will 18 happen in possible litigation.
19 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: How have the owners of this 20 material reacted? Are they willing to pay the cost of improved 21 safeguards?
22 MR. BURNETT: It has **varied~- Alot of the facilities, 23 of course, are going to pass it on, because they are 24 involved* in the DOE chain. The others, I am not sure I
- can Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 answer you specifically.
47 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: Isn't 95 percent of the 2 material DOE owned?
3 MR. BURNETT: Yes, sir. And you know through the 4 upgrade rule developrr_ient process we will be coming before the 5 Commission and suggesting changes and we will answer that 6 question more specifically.
7 MR. SMITH: There are other companies that are privat 8 companies working in the area *of research, say on plutonium 9 and other materials that would be affected by these upgrade 10 rules. I t is those companies who say in order to stay in 11 this kind of business that the threat out there is so great 12 that you are going to push us to* have, if you will, para-13 military organizations and so on, and we then are going 14 to have to re-examine whether or not this is the kind of busines 15 we think we ought to be in.
16 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: It is not necessarily that 17 the threat is out there, it is this is the kind of margin of 18 safety we.would like to have.
19 MR. SMITH: Either way. They ask us is that threat, 20 why have you raised it at this level? How safe is safe enough?
21 All of the questions that we get, of course, from Congressionals 22 MR. BURNETT: Universities *are particularly concerned 23 in your category 2s and 3s.
24 MR. SMITH: To sum up, it is for these reasons, Are-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Commissioner, that I think we are approaching a very cruc.ial
48 point with the upgrade rule.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Is DOE fully aware, currently 3 aware, of just where you.are in your systems design?
4 MR. SMITH: You mean in terms of the upgrade rule?
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes.
6 MR. SMITH: Yes. In fact, DOE has expressed to us, 7 especially General Giller, who is -now gone, - their real a concern and reservations, particularly in the area of 9 clearances and internal conspiracy and the trade-offs there.
10 They feel that that is above and beyond what the joint NRC-11 ERDA task force would have called for *.
12 So there is a feeling*on the part of some individuals
?
-~
- 13 14 15 t:hat the upgrade rule, if you will, goes beyond what they feel is necessary .
MR. SHAPAR: One of the main items of Congressional 16 concern as reflected in hearings within the last year or so_
17 have been questions revolving around *the comparability of the 18 DOE, then ERDA, efforts in this area and our own.
19 MR. SMITH: I think *in general we are doing rather 20 well in the area of physical security. The question is how 21 far we want to go to improve it.
22 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY:** Have-*we *advanced significantly 23 from where we were a year ago?
24 MR. SMITH: I think so, with the comprehensive Ace-Federal Reponers, Inc.
25 evaluation efforts going on on the part of I&E and MNSS,
49 I think yes, definitely.
2 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: Is the security of these 3 facilities a good deal better than *it was say a year ag6?
4 At least say of the weaker ones?
5 MR. SMITH: Yes, I think so.
6 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: I mean taken as a whole.-
7 MR. SMITH: Taken as a whole, I- think so.
a The other area, materials accounting and control, 9 of course a very crucial thing there for us is what the 10 Materials Accounting and Control Task Force report is going 11 to come out with. Because we know, you know, at the present 12 level of technology, that we are not doing as good a job in 13 that area as we would like to. do. The question is what else 14 can we do to make sure these inventory differences are as small 15 as humanly possible, or technically possible.
16 For instance, whether or not we should be using the 17 whole LEMUF concept, the carbon f1lter technique, or some other 18 technique. Is there some other appraoch we ought to be 19 using here? That is still evolving.
20 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: It would be nice if the basic 21 numbers themselves were right to begin with. I think we have 22 had some problems with that.
23 I am just saying it isn't just the inventory differences, * +- is -just having the basic numbers right. , We 24 l ...
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 -had some problems, for example at NFS, where the basic numbers
50 1 were just not accurate. And the fact that the inventory 2 differences were small in the other direction just didn't 3 mean very much. We couldn't take any comfort from that.
i~-- 4 MR. BURNE':CT: You might discuss the international 5 area that we are working on.
6 MR. SMITH: Go ahead.
7 MR. BURNETT: I think the Commissioners are totally 8 aware of the international safeguards picture, our attempt 9 to upgrade.the IAEA and somermf the problems we are running 10 into there~
11 MR. SMITH: We have been working with international 12 program to -- International Programs and MNSS have been 13 working together with State and ACTA on an action plan, what 14 could we do to assist IAEA in upgrading their capability for 15 timely detection.
16 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: I guess we are a participant 17 in the development of this plan?
18 MR. SMITH: Right. It will come to you. It is 19 still back and forth.
20 MR. BURNETT: It shows up on the list due to come 21 to you.
22 MR. SMITH: So I think the next year, in summary, 23 is a very crucial year for us in the area of safeguards, not 24 only from the standpoint of the licensees, but the perception Are-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 of the Congress and the people as to how good a job we are doing
51 and whether we are doing enough.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's go back a-minute to the 3 question of comparability between safeguards measures, in 4 particular _the physical security measures at NRC-licensed 5 facilities, and as contrasted to whatever may be the 6 *corresponding government facilities, DOE facilities. Are our 7 standards higher or lower or in the middle?
8 MR. BURNET: IT is very hard to answer that they are 9 higher or lower or in the middle. We feel we have comparability 10 There are higher and lower on each side, and at some 11 facilities they have a platoon of people outside that 12 they can call upon, where at no*facilities do we have that.
13 We do have, however, local law enforcement responses.
14 As far as direct equipment, we are, I think, maybe slightly 15 ahead of them in that area. But we do have comparability.
16 MR. SMITH: I think one big area at least that has 17 been pointed out, as you know, by GAO as at least what they 18 consider a fundamental difference between the two in the 19 area of physical security is this question of deadly force.
20 DOE implies, or says it has given its guards the authority 21 to shoot to kill. And of course we have not done that.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:*- It rs- my understanding we 23 could not, even if we wanted to.
24 MR. SMI~H: Of course. But I think in the area of Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 physical security, that is really the only' thing that one
52 can point to. Other than that, I think ours is as good.
2 COMMISSIONER GLINSKY: Is it really clear that they ar 3 on a different legal footing?
-- 4 5
6 MR. - BURNETT : Our development, in working on this paper that will be corning up to you, it is not clear that they are on such a strong foundation. In fact, their guidance 7 to their guards is only to apply necessary force to hold off 8* an attack.
9 MR. SMITH: This was a subject of some discussion, I 10 think, in the hearing before Congressman Dingell in which it 11 was raised.
12 In materials accounting and control, I think at least 13 up until recently we have felt we would have a difficult time, 14 frankly, licensing DOE facilities, that our criteria are 15 more rigorous.
16 MR. BURNETT: In fact they have let a contract to 17 EGG to come and study our system for possible implementation in 18 their facilities~
19 MR .. SMITH: So if you put the two together, materials 20 accounting and physical security 21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: They are also in the process 22 of developing and installing in "more th-an one of their 23 facilities, my understanding is, online real time accounting 24 and control systems, at least as a test.
Are-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BURNETT: True_. As you know, we have a project
53 in that area, too.
2 MR. SMITH:* One of our *licensees, GE, at Wilmington, 3 we have been working with them very closely, and that is where 4 they are keying off of.
5 MR. SHAPAR: I think it is fair to say maybe the 6 perception of the Congressional- Cornrni ttees is perhaps they would 7 not have the same degree of confidence that the safeguards 8 are indeed comparable as between DOE and us. That was my 9 perception of the question; they perhaps don't have that degree 10 of confidence.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: They think the DOE facilities, 12 being government facilities, are *likely to be better protected?
13 MR. SHAPAR: Yes. That was my perception when I left 14 the hearings.
15 MR. GOSSICK: That wasn't the trust of the GAO report 16 though.
17 MR. SHAPAR: I am referring strictly to the hearings 18 before Dingell.
19 MR. BURNETT: In some specific areas they do have 20 more blood on the scene, for instance.
21 MR. STROIBER: As a former prosecutor of people 22 for use of deadly force, I would*- like to say the GAO report is 23 wrong in that respect, that there is no legal difference 24 between the ability-- of say ERDA guards and the state or local Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 officials in the use of deadly force. I think that will probably
54 come out in the report also.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But does that extend as 3 well to private guards?
I __ _
4 MR. STROIBER: I think there is a slight difference, 5 but I think that doesn '-t end up being important when you 6 consider all of the factors the guard has to face in deciding 7 whether or not to pull the trigger.
8 MR. SHAPAR: I think DOE has maintained tnere is 9 a legal distinction. The question is are they on that sound 10 a legal footing and I think the answer is no.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Any more questions or discussion?
12 (No response) 13 Well, thank you very much.
14 (Where upon, at 11:25 a.m. the briefing was 15 concluded.)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25