ML19250B450

Transcript of 791022 Public Meeting in Washington,Dc Re Approval of Continuation of Pat Down Searches.Pp 1-17

ML19250B450
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/22/1979
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7910310117
Download: ML19250B450 (17)

Text

!

=..

P003 Gun e

N U CLEA R R E GU L ATO R'f CO MMISSI O N l

[

I i

i IN THE MATTER OF:

1 PUBLIC '4EETING DISCUSSION & APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF MT DOWN SEARCH

~

(

\\

~

- ~..

n...

a Place. _ Washington, D.

C.,,.,__.,

Date. Monday, 22 October 1979 P ag e s 1-17 884 013

% ocono:

(202) 047 37C0 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.

(

OfficialReponers 4M. North Capitol Street 79to310 (i

. Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE-DAILY 23

CR7826 1

\\L DISCLADIER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of rhe United States Nuclear Regularory Commission held on Monday, 22 October 1979 in the Commissions 's offices at 1717 H Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.

The meeting was open to public attendance and cbservation.

This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

The transcript 2.s 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.

No pleading or other paper may be filed' with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contain-herein, except as the Commission may authorize.

884 014

m

R7826 2

I 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i

I 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

3 l

i I

PUBLIC MEETING 4

l l

DISCUSSION & APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF PAT.DOWN SEARCH 5l i

6 I

i 7li l

Room 1130 1717 H Street, N. W.

8!

I Washington, D. C.

i 9:

Monday, 22 October 1979 i

10 i

j The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 4:00 p.m.

11 '

l BEFORE:

i 12 !

l DR. JOSEPH M.

HENDRIE, Chairman l

i 13 PETER A. BRADFORD, Co:.missicner 14 l

JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner j

15 I

PRESENT:

16 Messrs. Bickwit, Evans, Gossick, Miller, Purple, and Snyder.

i 17 i

18 l

19 20 j i

21 I

22 I

23 2'

P84 015 d

Federal Reporters, Inc.

t 25 l

3 5,0 1 0 1

..,c BWH i

PR0 CEED INGS 2

(4: 0C p.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let's go ahead.

The Commission 4

meets now on the discussion of the dat down search.

Soma 5

Commissioners are not aole to be with us, ou t pleasa go a

sheao.

/

Md. GaSSICK:

Theik you, Jr. Chairman.

You will 3

recall in July, July 31, this year, the Commission changao v

the aate from August I to No v e moe r 1 of the part of 73-55 13 calling for the pat down search business.

.ie have a paper 11 cefore you,

'9-590, which Mr. Purple will bri e fly ou tlin?,

12 and Bue Evans is here to adcress some of the aspects of it, 13 which of course N153 is now managing unJer the transf er of 14 the safeguards responsibility from clRR to NMSS.

la

'lR. PURPLE:

This is the fiftn extension of this 15 particular requirement.

Generally the paper, as I am sure ie you k now, recommends an extansion to November 1 of 1980, and 13 the basis is generally the same as had oesn presented in l>

earlier pepers for the earlier extensions, end that is, it 2]

was tied basically to a decision of the Material Access 21 Autnorization Program.

Since July, there ha ve oeen some new 22 de va l opme n ts, and I would like to at least pa ss those on to 23 remind you of them.

24 First as a part or as a result of some of the 25 Commission's deliberations on tne Material Access 884 016

> 01 02 4

S.ir' I

Autnorization Program, it appears tna t there is now 2

considerabl/ more douot about whether we eve r would nave one 3

for nuclear reactors because of certain legal factors ana 4

concerns.

And, in f ac t, as I understand it, the a

Commissioners hac def erred consideration of the Ma terial 5

Access Autnorization Program for now for reactors.

In addition, NM55 nas undertaxen as part of th31r 4

3 inheriteu responsibility now for safaguarding nuclear 9

reactor a detailed study of alternative metnods for 13 protection agsinst the inside r, including a systematic li review of 1 of the ways in which you coula go aoout ooing 12 thi We've mentioned that study in the paper.

It is a 13 stuoy that is expected to go well oeyond Novemoe r 1 of next 14 year, but af ter considerabla discuss.cn amongst the staff, 15 we decided that that seemed to ce too long a time to 1.)

recommend an extension of pat down and concluded that we il would have snough inf ormation from this NMS5 study to make 13 sensible recommendations to the Commissioners in time to be il consi stent with the Navember 1,

1930, extension.

23 The other new thing that helps to justify an 21 ext 3nsion of this time is that as a direct result of the 22 incident at Surry, we now have new controls in place to 23 tighten acc.3 ss to vit al areas.

The controls right now are 24 in tae form of an I&E Bulleting tightening uo the 23 requirements -- ac tually not tightening them up -- it is R84 017

> 01 J3 5

3Wd I

reiterating what we had in mind wnen the rule was issued in 2

the first place and trying to make them e ffective.

2. t the 3

sama time we are preparing the rule, ' proposed rule, m ak ing 4

changes that Nould incorpo, 'te these tightened cequirements 5

into reaulations -- that rule changes in the final a

concurrence chain right now, ano it should oe up shortly.

I So.there are some new cevelopnents since the July 3

3xtension.

I think the only final remark I would like to s

mak? is to point out that even with an extension until 13 Novem ber 1,

what we have in mind is that oy that time we can 11 make some kind of reasoned, sensiole decision on what to ao 12 acout this wnole suoject and have a final plan and en 13 app. oval, assuming that that final plan acesn't involve pat 14 down searches.

I nope you recognize that du ring the 1;

impla mentation of whatever plan we come up with next 15 November, there will be a need to extend pat down s? arches 1e further until whatever progrem is decidea upon and is put 13 into place.

1/

So I don't want to leave the impression tha t it 20 will all be over with by November 1 of 1980 if this 21 recommendation is approved.

22 CO MMIS3IONER AHEARNE:

You are saying tha t one 23 would either cancel or extend again?

24 MR. PURPLE:

I think that's right.

If the 23 decision for pat down 'seerches are what you need, tnen you 884 018

5 01 04 5

3/iH I

don't do anything, and then they go into eff ect.

But 2

oarring that d ec is io n, then whatever program is recommencec 3

would take a certain amount of time to get organized end put 4

into place.

Curing the i nte ri m, you would have to as part 5

of that action or that announcement, there would have to os a further extension oassa on whatever tnat plan was.

And I

tae alternatives there could range anywhere f rom a two montn 3

to - two year acditional extension.

/

'H.

EVAN52

.ihat we have in mina woulc oa a IJ propo sed craf t rule on this on :Jovemoer 1.

Of course, it 11 has to go through the comment period and so on, and that is 12 where your time comes in.

If we co not go with pat down, 13 tnen of course you have to go through tnat entire comment 14 period and then go to final rule, and that is a process that Id prooa bly is going to take four to six months.

15

'4.7.

PURPLE:

But dvans is preparing to descrios I,

the contract effort that they are ge tting started on this 13 month.

In acdition, it was my understancing that tnere was 19 some interest in getting an historical perspective on the 2]

question of pat down searches and, in a sense, how did we 21 get to wnere we are right now, ana how cid it all get 24 started.

And to that end, since NMS5 recently inherited 23 reactors with respect to safeguards, Octh Jim Miller and 24 Mike Cotanus are here and can hopefully answer any questions 25 you all may have.

R84 019

5 01 J5

/

s

3PM I

cat 4IS3IONER AHEARNE:

I woula sopreciate an 2

explanation of why we got here and why aid we concluce tnat 3

was e good ide a, anc then af ter we conc 1,uded that, way we didn' t put it into effect.

3 M7. '4 I LLER :

Let me give you a little bit.

/ihan a

we scartec in '73, we reviewed some six representative

/

fecilitias.

?!e loo %ed at a threat lavel which has oss..

5 described meny times to you as a bank roccer type external 9

threat.

The Commission then directe J us to implement a 10 threat which is the one tnat is now i n 73-55, and in 11 i mp le me ntin, that threat, Section O of 73-55 was changed to ld indicate that a search function for tne cetection of fire 13 arms, explosives, and incindiary devices shall ce conducted 14 eitner by p.tysical search or by use of equipment capaole of la detec ting such devices.

15 The Commission was brie f ed by Mr. Surnett and some Is of the others as to the capacility of equipment to ce tect 13 e xp lo sive s.

Before that briefing, ne had de terminea thac 11 the aquipment was not capable of detecting all types of 20 explosives.

There fore, we went to the pat cown search in an 21 e f for t to eliminate that type of material from entering the 22 facility.

23 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE:

That description would say 24 it is independent of whether or not there is a clearance 23 rule?

N \\

984 020

5 01 06 3

m

.3aH i

'J R. MILLER :

The :learance rule was one more step 2

in indicating the trustworthiness and reliacility of 3

individuals, coth as relatea -- we feel that if you can

?

de t a r mine trustwortniness, tnen the regular empicyees, tnose a

people that you know are trus tworthy, and have a program to look at reliaoility, that would oe enougn.

a

/

CO MMISS ICJER AMEAA.IE:

You are saying that your 3

conclusion n ad been that clearance woula eliminate the need for ?at down as far as the employees were concerneo?

10

.tR. MI LLER :

Correct.

11 00 WMISS IOiiER AHEAR:lE:

And in the aosence of a le clearance rule, you would think tne pat do'<n was necessary.

i3 Is tnat correct?

14 MR. MI LLER :

Yes, cecause of the capacility of the 15 i ns tr umen ta t ion.

13 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE:

The basic reason for the il constant def erral was the lack of reaching a decision on the 13 clearance rule ?

19 MR. MILLER:

That's rignt.

23 COVMISSIONER AHEARNE:

NMSS's position was that 21 pat down was necessary?

22 MR. EVANS:

No, I am not sure that is totally 23 correct.

T think NMSS at least today, and s ince we weren't 24 involved in the policy aspects of this in tne past, it is a 20 li ttle hard to say.-

There was no reel policy position, out P84 021

i 01 Si 9

3.in 1

as of today, the position is that se believe clearances ao 2

provide an increase in the essurance level in terms of 3

protection agrins t insider problems oy employees.

4 dawever, if we are to ce consistent with tne position tha t the Commission has taken in tne upgrade rule

?

on fuel cycle facilities, that is not the only thing that woula be reTrired in terms of assuring prctection against an 3

insider.

This is where we decided we ~ cht to go one step 9-further then has oeen cone in the pact, to look at all of 10 the alternatives outside of the clearance area that can ce 11 used to protect against an insicer and to take a systematic 12 100% at their cost eff ectiveness in terms of the various 13 trade offs of all of the options we have availaole to us, 14 and there are about 10 or 12 options that we feel need to ce 15 looked at in order to ma%e tha t determina tion.

13 So I guess that is a qualified yes/no rosponse to 1/

your question, Commissioner.

13 CO MM ISS IG A ER AHEr.RNE:

It sort of souncs like the 19 answer is that since you didn't participate in making the 20 polic y, you would prefer not to take a position at the 21 present time on whether or not --

22 MR. EVAJS:

,1e would like to take a systematic at 23 the i ssue.

Yes, sir.

24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Let me ask Mr. $urne tt his 25 profe ssional judgment.

884 022

5 01 08 10

.3NH I

MR. BURdETT:

(Inauciole), but at the same time, the proolem that

~.tr.

Mille r :utlines is a re al problem, and i

I am looking for vicole alternatives.

This paper is saying 4

that we neea aoout a year to present some viaole o

alternatives to the Commission, but NMS3 has no cualms aoout a

going on record that we would obviously f avor a pet cown as i

the aosolute last resort.

I don't tnink we are in a 3

.cosition to counsel.

COMMISSIONER AHEAD;!E:

Nhat are your reasons 10 against pat oown?

11

'4R. BUR.iETT :

In tne briefing that was given acout 12 a veer and a half ago,.it is true that the equipment of the 13 mar'.c3 t today to detec t explosives is only partially At the same time, a pat down is only partially 14 eff3 tive.,

13 e ff ec tive.

I am not convinced that the trade off between 15 the pat down and the degree between the two is properly la balanced at this point.

13 CHAIRMAN W:NDRIE:

Let me t hrow a remark or two in 1) here, Jonn.

In the course of consioering this over the time 20 it has been oefore the Commission, and it has been here 21 f r eq u ently, it came up soon af ter Peter and I got here I 24 think in '74, I have heard over that time from a numoer of 23 opera ting organizations and operators --- I heve concluded 24 that whatever advantage you have of pat oown searches of 23 regular employees of the plant, considering that you are not P84 023

5 01 09

.1 34H I

going to have oy any atter or means 100 percent assurance 2

in ?rotection against explosive material being smuggled in, 3

that whatever plus you get for securi ty f roia tha t is going 4

to be f ar outweigned by the enormous resentment which 5

responsible regular employee s and ope rators f eel as oeing ---

3 that they feel aoout being patted down coming in and out of

/

the plant.

3 I think it is counter proauctive ooth to security for that reeson and to the overall safe operation of the is plant.

I tain k it is going to tend to drive out of 11 employment in operating plants precisely those responsiole 12 and conscientious people that you wan t to have in there, 13 who are not going to put up with a morning and evening 14 indignity on the daily basis of being subjected to an 15 5xplicit expre ssion of distrust by the operating 15 organization anc the NRC, and they are required to raise 1/

hands, spread legs, and get -ulled over by a guard member.

la I have concluded that it is a cum idea on coth of 19 those counts, de have been looking f or ways to deal with 20 the mandate the Commission laid down, in my view a trifle 21 precipitously and without careful thought in '73, adopting 12 73-55's prescription for a reactor threat level.

And I 23 haven't found anything in recent encounters on this suoject 24 in staff papers and other discussions to change my mind a 23 whi t -- tha t it is a bad bargain from both a security and a 884 024

> 01 10 12

.,3 /iH I

safety stanapoint.

2 00 T4ISS IONER 3 RAD. ORD:

Are you seying the threat 3

level is ill considered or that what is trouolesomA is tne 4

threats that result from th3 pat down searches?

a CHAIRMAN HENORIE:

I think in terms of what we 5

know aoout likely security threats to reactor plants, that the threat level with regard to the insicer is ju-t 3

overdrawn and in turn has led to assertment of th' measures 9

tnat verge o:'. being counter-proauctive.

And the pet down 1) search, becausa of its uniquely personal aspect, is the one 11 where this seems to oe really, to just come into total 12 colli sion with what yorf want to achieve.

13 Other measures -- if you nave a portal there, and I+

it is sniffing -- a chemical sniffer metal cetector, we go 15 through that kind of thing at airports, and it doesn't 15 manage to injure us, our psyches, and indeed I thin.< the 17 employees at plants may matter abouc having to go single 18 file through these things, but it is an impersonal pie;e of 19 machinery, and they will go through them all right.

2J But the pat down cusiness is pretty rough.

I 21 think our own inspectors who get patted down when they visit 22 plants, some of them feel it themselves, and there is no 23 question in my mind from the type of response I have hac 24 f rom operating organizations and operators that it is not 25 it is a bad buy.

884 025

50 11 13

2'lH i

CO MMISSIONER AHEARN E Jo we inteno in this stud /

2 you are star ting to oe examining these other ai ternatives in 3

tne sense of other equipment, or are you relcoking at the 4

learance r'lle?

a MR. EVANS:

No, sir.

We ar e tal'<ing aoout security components and hardwere and proceci es.

We a.e no a

/

talking about the clearance rule.

3

• COMMISSIOilER AHEARNE:

What leads you to celieve tnat you will -- wnen is tne study supposea to be started?

10 Md. EVAJS:

Any da y,

11 COMMISSIONER.\\HEARNE:

It is out of RFP?

12 MR. EVANS:

It will be going to tne lab.

13 C0'.tMISS IONER AHEARNE:

So you expect it to De --

14 MR. EVANS:

It will oe releassd and set to go, as la I say, any day now.

They will oe starting --

15 CO MMISS IONER AHEARNE:

When is it seneduled to be I,

compl et ed ?

la MR. EVANS:

The final completion is the first 1/

quarter of the next fiscal year, fiscal year '81.

Howe ve r, 2]

we will ce through ---

21 COMMISSIOJER AHEARNE:

Is it f air to conc 1; de -- I 22 am in fe rring -- is it f air to conclude chat you believe that 23 y]u will from this study fina other mechanisms to use 24 inste ad of the pat down, so that the position you would 25 expec t to oe in when you say we would be ready by next 984 026

5 01 12 14

.3J.i i

lov? 1ber, is that you would ce concluding the re would be an 2

alternative approach?

3 U.

EVANS:

Yes, sir.

t j

3

/

8 9

IJ 11 12 13 14 la

\\

1h

/

Os 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 2a 984 027

15

) u2 01 j ld'i;n 1

Col.i..t I SS IO.!Ed AM EAH.J E :

Why co you have confidence 2

vou can get tnere?

3

.t d. EVAa5:

"le have several stud!cs already undernasen tnat are snowing al terna tives that look to be o

r rui tru l tnings tnat work into the area or functional zoning o

and tea:a zoning and area zoning, tnings 1ike t ha t, Inat I 7

Inin: can bigger aividends ana not cause the c;via 1 berties ty pa s o f problems anc res entment type of preolems that we e

v get f rota pa t cown, iO Cai?.ISS IONEi< AH E ARNE :

That co e sn ' t souna like you 11 aould Le constructing 30/eening equipment?

12

..ia. EVMiS :

. lo.

I cian't mean to say we were la going to he.ve screening equioment.

14 C01MISSI0 dss AHEARNE:

Is tne study looking a t 15 screening equipment?

1o Mk. EVA.1S:

fes, sir.

And they are looking even 17 at things like animals that can datect le CO:.114I SS ION EH AHE ARN E:

Logs.

Yes, I know.

Iv MR. EVAdS:

"le are looking a t the full range of 20 al terna tive s.

21 CHAIR:U:! HENCRIE:

I t is my understanding, for 22 w ha tever people -~ co rrect me if I am wrong, but it i s my 23 understanding tna t the regular employees who work in tho se 24 government places where nuclear weapons are assemblea aric 25 kept are not patted in ano out regularly.

P34 028

16

> O2 02 a

l d a.i i

CO.h t I SS IO.4 E.1 AHEAHrE:

iney do have clear an ce.

2

.v. d. E/AuS Yes, sir.

3 Go,4.4 I c6 ION Ed AHEAhnE:

Those were my questions.

CHAIR.;Aa HEJURIE:

Okay.

o CO 14 I db IO.iER An EAR.4 5 :

I will act on tnis ;onignt.

O CE.ilHln AJ H..ud I: s All rign;.

~

,1ha t ao we have by day of ac tions?

i o

G.

CHI L.s

ourself, Commissioner Brauforc and Kennecy; two approvals, one cisa pproval,

?!e n eea to hear v

10 f rom Mr. Ahearne anc Gilinsky.

Il CHAIR.aAit HEaudIE:

All rignt.

12 Vic will ce bac.< toc.o rrow.

See if you can 13 encourage him to a c t on the paper.

Either we need to co.'e 14 to a place where we can have an affirmation one way or ib ano ther, or I am going to have to schedule another meeting to and force it to a vote a t the table.

17 I guess witn tnree of us h'ere we will want to lo thin 4 accut some of the things said here.

ly COMMI5SIO;isd SRACFGRU I woulun't propose to 20 filiouster in any case s even if for some reason we only had 21 t he three vo te s, I would want to affirm.

22 CHAIRMA:4 HENDRIE:

I wouldn't at the coment know 23 wnetner you or I woula ce filibustering.

24 (Laugnter.)

25 COMMISS IONER BRADFORD:

You can't filibuster this 984 029

P00R ORGINAL j i S.at I

one.

e CH A l d.d. : H e.4 uM I d :

As a carting snot, I guess I a

will a s.< --

4 Co.>.i.115S IciiE.4 3R Aurad.U :

I will think again acou t o

it.

o CHAIR.iA.4 nd..uR I E :

If you nad scratch your henc i

over it; this one ha s been arc une a long time, anc it ha s a

scme verj mean aspects to i t.

y Fell, okay.

That covers thi s.

10

J d. B I C.s',1 IT

.tr. Chairman, I just wanted to say 11 one tning acout tne clearance rule.

You are rignt ir saying 12 t ha t this office naa some legal proolems sich a calying i t to 13 reac tors, bu t tne Commi ssion hasn't necessarily f oreclosed 14 going in that direction.

In And our legal opinion is --

we are soliciting lo opinions from tne various de.cartments on that legal opinion.

4,3, 17 At leest one party has some problems with it.

16

( W he reu pon, at 4: 20 p.m. the hearing was ly acjournea.)

20 x

x x

21 22 23 24 25 934 033