ML22271A094
| ML22271A094 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/21/1979 |
| From: | Dircks W Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | Commissioners NRC/OCM |
| References | |
| SECY-79-345 | |
| Download: ML22271A094 (5) | |
Text
May 21, 1979 SECY-79-345 COMMISSIONER ACTION For:
From:
Thru:
Subject:
Purpose:
Background:
Contact:
J. G. Part1ow Ext. 74043 The Commissioners William J. Dircks, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety ~~~ards Executive Director for Operationif
/
CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING PAST EVENTS OF THEFT OR DIVERSION OF SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES OF STRATEGIC SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL (SSNM)*
To provide a proposed general statement describing the Commission's present position on the question of whether or not any theft or ~iv~rsion of signj-ficant amounts of SSNM has occurred in the past.
SECY-78-632 developed a set of general statements to be used in describing staff conclusions on theft and diversion.
These statements were generally forward-looking in that the judgments and conclusions therein are based upon today's safeguards program involving the licensing review, inspection, and evaluation of physical security systems and material control and accounting programs for licensed activities as well as a general program of intelligence/threat information assessment.
By SECY memorandum of February 9, 1979, the staff was requested to develop a general statement about past events which reflects a Commission position based upon information presently avail able.
In addition, the SECY memo of February 9 indicated that the proposed statements contained in SECY-78-632 should be reworded to avoid a "no loss" statement (which the proposed Case #1 statement seemed to allow)
- A significant quantity of SSNM is defined for safeguards purposes as 5 Kg or more of U-235 contained in highly enriched uranium (HEU), or Z-"Kg or more of. either pl~tonium or U-233.
The Commissioners
Background:
( con I t.)
Discuss ion:
* even if NRC does not know how the loss occurred.
The staff has reviewed this statement and recorTJTiends that it not be changed.
The point of this statement is that NRC can reach an overall judgment of "no (real) loss 11
, notwithstanding the presence of an Inventory Difference (be it an accounting loss or gain).
The staff proposes the use of the following general statements about past SSNM theft or diversion.
As in the case of the forward-looking statements in SECY-78-632, statements concerning any specific facility would also include any summary information which is pertinent to that particular case.
As an example, the following statement makes specific reference to the matter of NUMEC in the mid-1960s:
11The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 allowed and encouraged civilian peaceful uses of Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) although private ownership of such material was not permitted until 1964.
From 1954 through 1967, private facilities operated almost exclusively with government-owned materials under government contract and operating license for health, safety, and radiological protection with the AEC.
During this early period of possession of SNM in privately-owned facilities, the AEC did not impose its own safeguards procedures on private contractors.
Instead, the AEC had concluded that the physical protection and accountability controls which licensees, as prudent businessmen, would maintain over SNM because of the financial consequences of its loss or damage, and the severe criminal penalties for unlawful diversion, were adequate to protect the national interest.
In 1968, as more privately-owned materials began to accumulate, responsibility for licensing and inspecting private facilities was reassigned within the AEC from the General Manager to the Director of Regulation.
The AEC issued rules for improved material control and accounting in 1967 and rules for the physical protection of strategic special nuclear material in-transit and at fixed sites in 1969 and 1970, res pee ti ve l y.
Additional requirements aimed at improving the quality and accuracy of SSNM accountability were promulgated in 1971, 1973 and 1975.
Physical security systems were further improved oy license conditions in 1972, and expanded by new rules in 1973.
Site-specific license conditions were
The Co1TJ11issioners Discussion:
* imposed to correct deficiencies identified during facility assessments made by NRC teams in 1976.
Beginning in mid-1977, a systematic, comprehensive evaluation of the entire safeguards program at licensed SSNM facilities was initiated. These assessments, which are nearing completion, have resulted in still further safeguards improvements.
The rules for improved SSNM accountability and physical security which were issued in 1973 and implemented during 1974 contained key elements in the program to protect against an insider threat.
New requirements for personnel and material searches, surveillance of material handling areas, two-man work rules, increased frequency of SSNM inventory measurements, and limits on accounting uncertainty are examples of elements introduced to counter a covert attempt at theft or diversion.
In retrospect, the safeguards program at licensed facilities between 1954 and 1974, although considerably improved during the latter part of this period, was not sufficient to adequately protect against the possibility of theft or diversion of significant quantities of SSNM by a knowledgeable insider. Although the NRC is not aware of any facts establishing such acts during this period, the absence of a complete and comprehensive physical security system to prevent theft or diversion, coupled with the presence of some large Inventory Differences (which of themselves are indetenninant as conclusive evidence of accountability)*
reported during that period result in the conclusion that a covert theft or diversion could have been success-ful. Although the NRC and AEC/Regulatory had no responsibility for safeguards at the NUMEC facility, the matter of SSNM accountability at the NUMEC facility in the mid-1960s is, in the NRC's view, consistent with this general conclusion regarding SSNM safeguards at licensed facilities prior to 1974.
Based upon all infonnation available to the Co1TJ11ission at the present time, there is no conclusive evidence that a theft or diversion of a significant amount of SSNM either did or did not take place at the NUMEC facility.
- For additional information on Inventory Difference, see "Report on Strategic Special Nuclear Material Inventory Differences", NUREG-0350, August 1977.
The Corrrnissioners Discussion:
(con't.)
.. As a result of the significant program improvements which were initiated at licensed facilities in 1974, the NRC has, since its formation in early 1975, become increasingly confident in the adequacy of safeguards at licensed SSNM facilities. Since 1974, an upgrade in designing safeguards requirements, inspecting and evaluating facilities for compliance and effectiveness, and the establishment of a structure for threat information assessment has also contributed to an increased confidence in the Corrmission's ability to evaluate safeguards adequacy and make judgments concerning SSNM accountability.
Despite these improvements, the reporting of some large Inventory Differences since 1974, when taken together with the inherent measurement uncertainties associated with nuclear materials accounting, pre-cludes any absolute statement concerning the capability of the safeguards system to account for all SSNM based upon confirming evidence from the accounting system.
The possible successful theft or diversion of SSNM, therefore, cannot be conclusively ruled out.
Nevertheless, AEC/NRC investigations or evaluations of all large Inventory Differences occurring since 1974 have not identified any facts establishing (other than the Inventory Differences which of themselves are incon-clusive) that any significant quantity of SSNM has been stolen or diverted. These investigations and evaluations have examined the physical security systems and the material control systems as well as Inventory Differences occurring within the material accounting system.
Notwithstanding the lack of confirming evidence through absolute accountability, and based upon information presently available, it is the NRC's judgment that the overall safeguards programs which have been established at licensed facilities since 1974 have been effective in preventing the theft or diversion of any significant quantity of SSNM.
In surrmary, based upon (1) all information supplied to NRC concerning safeguards and accounting at licensed facilities for activities prior to 1968, and (2) all information presently available to the NRC for safeguards and accounting since the AEC/Regulatory (now NRC) assumed that responsibility in 1968, the NRC has not identified any fact establishing that any significant quantity of SSNM has ever been stolen or diverted from a licensed facility. However, the absence of comprehensive physical security systems to protect against theft or diversion prior to 1974, together with the presence of some large
f' The Convnissioners Discussion:
(con't.)
Reconvnendation:
Coordination: Inventory Differences reported prior to that time, result in the conclusion that a covert theft or diversion attempt could have been successful.
During 1974, greatly improved safeguards systems were implemented to protect against and detect acts of theft or diversion. Although the NRC is not aware of any facts establishing the occurrence of such acts since 1974, the continued presence of some large Inventory Differences indicates that the possibility of theft or diversion cannot be conclusively ruled out.
Nevertheless, it is the NRC's judgment that the overall safeguards programs which have been established at licensed facilities since 1974 have been effective in preventing the theft or diversion of any significant quantity of SSNM.
11 That the Convnission approve this paper as representing the present NRC position on the question of whether or not any theft or diversion of significant amounts of SSNM has occurred in the past.
IE and MPA have concurred in this paper.
ELD has no legal objection.
kc:.~I William J. Dircks, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Co111T1issioners 1 comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Sec re ta ry by c. o. b. _Monday, June 4, 1979.
Corrmission Staff Office convnents, if any, should be submitted to the Cornnissioners NLT May 29, 1979, with an infonnation copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical ~eview and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when co1T1Tients may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION Convnissioners Cammi s s ion Sta ff Off"ices Exec Dir for Operations Regional Offices ACRS Secretariat