ML19256E336
| ML19256E336 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1979 |
| From: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Bell N, Rosolie E AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256E337 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911020114 | |
| Download: ML19256E336 (7) | |
Text
g TtC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COF. MISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL tLECTRIC COMPANY,
)
)
(Control Guilding)
)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES OF EUGENE ROSOLIE AND NINA BELL, DATED AUGUST 27, 1979 Attached hereto is the Affidavit of Charles E. Gaskin setting forth the NRC Staff's responses to the interrogatories of Eugene Rosolie and Nina Bell (Intervenors), filed on August 27, 1979.
Interrogatory 1 relates to a security incident at the Surry Nuclear Plant which has no apparent relevance to the captioned proceeding or to the pro-posed modifications to the Trojan Control Building. The Staff has, never-theless, provided a response to interrogatory 1 in order to provide inform _ation which Intervenors assert is necessary before they will be willing to stipulate to the dismissal of Consolidated Intervenors'. contention 1 and Coalition for Safe Power's contention 18. The filing of a Staff response to Intervenors' interrogatory 1 may not be taken as either an explicit or implicit admission by the Staff that the Surry incident has any relevance or relationship to security at Trojan or the Trojan Control Building modifications which are the subject of the captioned proceeding.
Nor does the filing of this response imply any Staff agreement that questions related to the Surry incident may be properly posed in the captioned proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, b
fI h
. u.p e p a
. or ay e f
'CAunspl for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 12th day of September, 1979 7011 Ogg h Y.g
UlflTED STATES OF AMERICA flUCLEAR REGULATIO!! C0iGISSION BEFORE THE ATO:4IC SAFETY AND LICEliSING B0AhD In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLA!!D GEllERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY )
Docket flo. 50-344 Ef AL (Control Building)
)
(Trojan 11ucle'ar Plant)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES E. GASKIl4 STATE OF MARYLArlD
)
SS COUllTY OF M0!1TG0MERY )
I, Charles E. Gaskin, being duly sworn, depose and state:
1.
I am a Reactor Safeguards Analyst, in tne Reactor Safeguards Licensing Branch, Division of Operating Reactors, U. S. Iluclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555, with responsibility for physical security of designated operating nuclear power plants.
2.
I have prepared tne statement of Professional Qualifications attached hereto, and, if called upon, would testify as set forth therein.
3.
As part of my duties as a Reactor Safeguards Analyst, I am the current security review team leader for the Trojan Nuclear Plant Security Plan (Mr. William Ross transferred July 1,1979).
I am currently involved in reviewing amendments to the approved security plan.
4.
I have prepared this affidavit and responded (attached) to the inter-rogatories presented by Eugene Rosalie August 27, 1979 and hereby certify that the attached response is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
q:>
.l-r j
~/
i-a t-1:
harles E. Gaskin Subscribed ano sworn to bet ore r.:e 1
this 7 "aaysof Septer. der,1979 hI
~. )- r /.
v.
- ] >. '
t flotary Public h
My Commission Expires:
</
/
/','f P
I,
" Interrogatory 1 Several months ago there was an incident of industrial sabotage at the Surry fluclear Power Plant.
In relation to that incident, please provide the folicwing information which is not addressed in the Affidavit of William J. Ross, dated August 10, 1979:
a)
Typq of work being performed at the Surry plant when the incident occurred.
b)
Status of the worker (s) who admitted to the sabotage, i.e. their particular job, type of access.
c)
The differences, both physical and administrative, between security at Surry and Trojan.
d)
Who on the fiRC Staff was responsible for reviewing the Surry security plans.
Provide all information or documents which contain NRC c.
Staff evaluation of the Surry security plan.
Specifically, documents which state that such plan is adequate or inade-quate.
Response
a)
The following work was being performed at the Surry Nuclear Plant when the incident occurred:
1) fuel rack and fuel assembly dimensional interference testing.
2) steam generator replacement.
~
3) routine maintenance associated with the shut-down.
b)
The workers who admitted to the incident had the following status:
they were VEPC0 employees, they were operator-trainees, they had been cleared for unescorted access based upon AflSI 18.17 Paragraph 4.2 (attached),
they were on the access list for that arca.
c)
Both the Trojan and the Ecrry sxurity plans have been an, roved as n
meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55 and each follows the' general b
format suggested by the fiRC. There are some administrative and
\\
implementation differences however.
-2 d)
The person on the f1RC Staff who was responsible for reviewing the Surry Nuclear Plant Security Plan was and is Fr. Charles E. Gaskin.
e)
Documents pertaining to the security plan review are considered proprietary information under 10 CFR 2.790(d).
Consequently, this information is withheld from public disclosure, however the letter transmitting the license admendment which incorporates the Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2 Physical Security Plan into the license can be made available and is attached. This document summarizes the conclusions reached by the NRC reviewers as to the acceptability of the Surry Power Station Security Plan.
Interrogatory 2 Section 4.2.2 of PGE-1020 states that explosives will be used on-site. Please state vhere in the Ross Affidavit this situation is addressed.
If it is not addressed please expla.in why?
Is it the I;RC Staff view that explosives on-site pose no security proSlems?
Response
i You appear to have misread Section 4.2.2 of PGE-1020.
That section explic-itely states that explosives are excluded in the modification.
It is assumed that is the reason the use of explosives was not addressed in the Ross Affi-davit. However, while it is the liRC Staff's view that explosives on-site do pose a security problem, efforts are made to prevent contraband explosives from entering the site and efforts are made to control those explosives that may be necessary to be used on-site. This was considered.by Mr. Ross during the review of the Trojan Nuclear Plant Security Plan.
\\1@
ANSI 18.17 Para. 4.3 1
i
\\.
i l
l l
'.3 F:mployee Screening. Procedures shall be '
4 employed for making a determination of the ar-ceptability of candidates for nuclear plant em-ployment and the continuing acceptability of employees with regard to their trustworthiness.
These procedures sl.all include, as a minimum, he following provisions:
O (1) an investigation, either prior to em-ployment or prior to assignment to a position allowing acceu without escori, to disclose ad-serse character traits that might bear on his abilities or motisation to discharge hi> duties in a rerponsible manner (2) examination by a licensed pocinn i.-t or physinan...r other p. n..n profes-n.nally tra med to ident/y aberra nt behavmr. cither prior to em-ployment or prior to assignment to a position l
allowing access without escort, for the purpose; of observing and disqualifying persons t displaying inaications of emotional instability such that there is reasonable doubt the person could discharge his duties in a competent man-ner (3) continued observation of all emplo. sees and appropriate corrective measures by respon-sible supervisors for indications of aberrant behavior of personnel in the cou rse of per-formance of their duties.
?
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS CHARLES E. GASKIll My name is Charles E. Gaskin.
I am a Reactor Safeguards Analyst in the Reactor Safeguards Licensing Branch, Division of Operating Reactors, since May 1979.
I have had 19 years experience in the security and law enforcement fields with the U. S. !!avy, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Departaent of Justice and the !!uclear Regulatory Comaission.
In the capacity of a Reactor Safeguards Analyst I am responsible for managing and performing re-views of site physical security plans developea to protect against industrial sabotage and against seizure and tneft of special nuclear materials.
I am the team leader responsiole for the review of the Trojan Physical Security Plan.
Prior to +
nsferring to the fluclear Regulatory Co; mission I provided technical perational support in law enforcement for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Wnile in the position of project manager with that organization I gainea experience in the positive operational side of security and participated in the establishment of security regulations for the DEA.
I also developed equipment and techniques for surveillance purposes.
While at the CIA I was a technical security off cer with overseas experience in both physical as well as technical security.
I developed.and implemented security systems and programs.
While in the U. S. Navy I was with the Naval Security Group and was involved in communications security.
My educational qualifications consist of a B. S. in Electronics Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology with additional technical and management training related to my professional career.
I am a member of theIEEE and participate in the uriting of engineering standaras for the 1.austry.
I am also associated with a law enforcement organization which endeavors to bring an increased professionalism to law enforcement through training and the application of technology.