|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20210B8491999-07-21021 July 1999 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w),for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 to Reduce Amount of Insurance for Unit to $50 Million for Onsite Property Damage Coverage ML20206D4141999-04-20020 April 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App R,Section III.G.2 Re Enclosure of Cable & Equipment & Associated non-safety Related Circuits of One Redundant Train in Fire Barrier Having 1-hour Rating ML20206T7211999-02-11011 February 1999 Memorandum & Order (CLI-99-02).* Denies C George Request for Intervention & Dismisses Subpart M License Transfer Proceeding.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990211 ML20198A5111998-12-11011 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rulemaking Details Collaborative Efforts in That Rule Interjects Change ML20154G2941998-09-17017 September 1998 Transcript of 980917 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re License Transfer of TMI-1 from Gpu Nuclear,Inc to Amergen. Pp 1-41 ML20199J0121997-11-20020 November 1997 Comment on Pr 10CFR50 Re Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommisioning Nuclear Power Reactors.Three Mile Island Alert Invokes Comments of P Bradford,Former NRC Member ML20148R7581997-06-30030 June 1997 Comment on NRC Proposed Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, Control Rod Insertion Problems. Licensee References Proposed Generic Communication, Control Rod Insertion, & Ltrs & 961022 from B&W Owners Group ML20078H0431995-02-0101 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Lowpower Operations for Nuclear Reactors ML20077E8231994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rev to NRC NPP License Renewal Rule ML20149E2021994-04-20020 April 1994 R Gary Statement Re 10 Mile Rule Under Director'S Decision DD-94-03,dtd 940331 for Tmi.Urges Commissioners to Engage in Reconsideration of Author Petition ML20065Q0671994-04-0707 April 1994 Principal Deficiencies in Director'S Decision 94-03 Re Pica Request Under 10CFR2.206 ML20058A5491993-11-17017 November 1993 Exemption from Requirements in 10CFR50.120 to Establish, Implement & Maintain Training Programs,Using Sys Approach to Training,For Catorgories of Personnel Listed in 10CFR50.120 ML20059J5171993-09-30030 September 1993 Transcript of 930923 Meeting of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-130.Related Documentation Encl ML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20065J3731992-12-18018 December 1992 Affidavit of Gj Giangi Responding to of R Gary Requesting Action by NRC Per 10CFR2.206 ML20198E5581992-12-0101 December 1992 Transcript of Briefing by TMI-2 Advisory Panel on 921201 in Rockville,Md ML20210D7291992-06-15015 June 1992 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR70.24 Re Criticality Accident Requirements for SNM Storage Areas at Facility Containing U Enriched to Less than 3% in U-235 Isotope ML20079E2181991-09-30030 September 1991 Submits Comments on NRC Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 23, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure. Informs That Util Endorses Comments Submitted by NUMARC ML20066J3031991-01-28028 January 1991 Comment Supporting SECY-90-347, Regulatory Impact Survey Rept ML20059P0531990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal ML20059N5941990-10-0404 October 1990 Transcript of 900928 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Studies of Cancer in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities, Including TMI ML20055F4411990-06-28028 June 1990 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-55 Re Revs to FSAR ML20248J1891989-10-0606 October 1989 Order.* Grants Intervenors 891004 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence.Response Requested No Later That 891020.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 891006 ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E9181989-09-13013 September 1989 Order.* Requests NRC to Explain Purpose of 890911 Fr Notice on Proposed Amend to Applicant License,Revising Tech Specs Re Disposal of Accident Generated Water & Effects on ASLB Findings,By 890929.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890913 ML20247G0361989-07-26026 July 1989 Transcript of Oral Argument on 890726 in Bethesda,Md Re Disposal of accident-generated Water.Pp 1-65.Supporting Info Encl ML20247B7781989-07-18018 July 1989 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Encl Gpu 890607 & 0628 Ltrs to NRC & Commonwealth of Pa,Respectively.W/Svc List ML20245D3651989-06-20020 June 1989 Notice of Oral Argument.* Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from ASLB 890202 Initial Decision Authorizing OL Amend,Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890620 ML20245A5621989-06-14014 June 1989 Order.* Advises That Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from Board 890202 Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Authorizing OL Amend Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890614 ML20247F3151989-05-22022 May 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal by Joint Intervenors Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert.* Appeal Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Identify Errors in Fact & Law Subj to Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246Q2971989-05-15015 May 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20246J6081989-05-12012 May 1989 Licensee Brief in Reply to Joint Intervenors Appeal from Final Initial Decision.* ASLB 890203 Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Re Deleting Prohibition on Disposal of accident- Generated Water Should Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247D2761989-04-20020 April 1989 Transcript of 890420 Briefing in Rockville,Md on Status of TMI-2 Cleanup Activities.Pp 1-51.Related Info Encl ML20244C0361989-04-13013 April 1989 Order.* Commission Finds That ASLB Decision Resolving All Relevant Matters in Favor of Licensee & Granting Application for OL Amend,Should Become Effective Immediately.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890413 ML20245A8381989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 890413 Meeting in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-79.Supporting Info Encl ML20245A2961989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of 890413 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Affirmation/Discussion & Vote ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248D7211989-04-0404 April 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Intervenors Application for Stay Denied Due to Failure to Lack of Demonstrated Irreparable Injury & Any Showing of Certainty That Intervenors Will Prevail on Merits of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890404 ML20247A4671989-03-23023 March 1989 Correction Notice.* Advises That Date of 891203 Appearing in Text of Commission 890322 Order Incorrect.Date Should Be 871203.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890323 ML20246M2611989-03-22022 March 1989 Order.* Advises That Commission Currently Considering Question of Effectiveness,Pending Appellate Review of Final Initial Decision in Case Issued by ASLB in LBP-89-07. Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890322 ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2641989-03-0202 March 1989 Notice of Aslab Reconstitution.* TS Moore,Chairman,Cn Kohl & Ha Wilber,Members.Served on 890303.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2161989-02-25025 February 1989 Changes & Corrections to Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Three Mile Island Alert Documents Submitted on 890221.* Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-21
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235N1621989-02-20020 February 1989 Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Dtd 890202.* Licensee Would Not Be Harmed by Granting of Stay ML20205D8451988-10-24024 October 1988 Licensee Motion to Strike Portions of Proposed Testimony of Kz Morgan.* Proposed Testimony Should Be Ruled to Be Not Admissible as Evidence in Upcoming Hearing.Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc Encl.W/Copyrighted Matl ML20205D6801988-10-20020 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Notification to Parties That Kz Morgan Apps to Testimony Should Be Accepted as Exhibits.* Apps Listed.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20155G9981988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Reconsideration of Part of Judge Order (880927) Re Limited Appearance Statements by Public.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G9921988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion to Submit Witness Testimony as Evidence W/O cross-exam at Hearing in Lancaster.* Requests That Cw Huver Testimony Be Accepted as Evidence ML20151S0261988-07-28028 July 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Notification of Typo in Bid Procurement Document.* Explanation for Change in Document Inadequate.W/Svc List ML20196G7801988-06-23023 June 1988 Motion of NRC Staff for Leave to File Response Out of Time.* Encl NRC Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition Delayed Due to Equipment Problems ML20196G9051988-06-23023 June 1988 NRC Staff Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition.* Motion Should Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue Before ASLB or to Be Litigated.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196B5091988-06-20020 June 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Motion or Summary Disposition on Contentions 1-4,5d,6 & 8.* Affidavits of Kz Morgan,R Piccioni,L Kosarek & C Huver & Supporting Documentation Encl ML20154E2301988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* ML20154E2081988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition on Alternatives (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* Motion Should Be Granted Based on Licensee Meeting Burden of Showing That Alternatives Not Superior to Licensee Proposal ML20154E3491988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contention 5d).* ML20154E2851988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in Part & 6 on Chemicals).* ML20154E3251988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 5d.* Motion Should Be Granted in Licensee Favor ML20154E2681988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b in Part & 6 (Chemicals).* Licensee Entitled to Decision in Favor on Contentions & Motion Should Be Granted ML20154E1631988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in part,4c & 4d).* Lists Matl Facts for Which No Genuine Issue Exists ML20154E1281988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b (in part),4c & 4d.* Requests That Motion for Summary Disposition Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists to Be Heard Re Contentions ML20154E1761988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition.* Requests Ample Notice Should Board Decide to Deny Summary in Part or in Whole ML20151E9491988-04-0707 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenor Motion for Order on Production of Info on Disposal Sys Installation & Testing.* Intervenor 880330 Motion Should Be Denied Due to Insufficient Legal Basis.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150F9821988-04-0101 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenors Motion to Compel Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied on Basis That Licensee Responded Fully to Discovery Request.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148P3931988-03-30030 March 1988 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion to Request That Presiding Judge Order Gpu Nuclear to Provide Addl Info & Clarify Intentions to Install Test & Conduct Experiments W/Evaporator Prior to Hearings.* ML20196D2801988-02-12012 February 1988 NRC Staff Response to Motion by TMI Alert/Susquehanna Valley Alliance for Extension of Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196D3541988-02-10010 February 1988 Licensee Response Opposing Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Intervenor Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery.* Joint Intervenors Failed to Show Good Cause for Extension of Time for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148D4661988-01-19019 January 1988 Licensee Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order.* Board Requested to Clarify 880105 Order Consistent W/ Discussed Description of Board Jurisdiction & Scope of Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236N9081987-11-0505 November 1987 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement & for Termination of Proceeding.* Termination of Proceeding Should Be Granted ML20235F3651987-09-23023 September 1987 Util Response Opposing NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Response Opposing Protective Order Guarding Confidentiality of Document Re Methodology of Bechtel Internal Audit Group ML20235B3911987-09-18018 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Staff Requests Short Extension of Time Until 870925 to File Responses to Pending Petitions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235F4401987-09-18018 September 1987 Util Supplemental Response to NRC Staff First Request for Admissions.* Util Objects to Request as Vague in Not Specifying Time Frame or Defining Proprietary, Pecuniary.... W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20238E6001987-09-0404 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Protective Order Should Be Rescinded & Presiding Officer Should Take Further Action as Deemed Appropriate.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20238E6391987-09-0303 September 1987 Commonwealth of PA Statement in Support of Request for Hearing & Petition to Participate as Interested State.* Susquehanna Valley Alliance 870728 Request for Hearing, Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20237J9931987-08-12012 August 1987 Joint Gpu & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Order Will Resolve Discovery Dispute ML20237K0431987-08-11011 August 1987 Gpu Response Opposing Parks Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.* Exhibits & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236P1871987-08-0505 August 1987 Formal Response of Rd Parks to Subpoena Duces Tecum of Gpu &/Or,In Alternative,Motion to Quash/Modify Subpoena Due to Privileged Info.* Documents Are Communications Protected by Atty/Client Privilege.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E7101987-07-28028 July 1987 Joint General Public Utils Nuclear Corp & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Adoption & Signature of Encl Proposed Order Requested ML20216J7871987-06-29029 June 1987 Opposition of Gpu Nuclear Corp to Aamodt Motion for Reconsideration.* Motion Asserts Board Did Not Consider Important Evidence on Leakage at TMI-2.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D2311987-06-23023 June 1987 Response of Jg Herbein to Aamodt Request for Review & Motion for Reconsideration.* Opportunity for Comment Should Come After NRC Has Made Recommendations to Commission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215J8981987-06-19019 June 1987 Response of Numerous Employees to Aamodt Request to File Comments on Recommended Decision.* Numerous Employees Do Not Agree W/Aamodt That Recommended Decision Is Greatly in Error.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215K2121987-06-17017 June 1987 (Motion for reconsideration,870610).* Corrections to Pages 3 & 4 Listed ML20215J7551987-06-15015 June 1987 Gpu Response to Motion to Quash Subpoena.* Dept of Labor 870601 Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on D Feinberg Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc 1992-12-30
[Table view] |
Text
Aug st 19, 1977 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
PHYSICAL SEARCHES AT ) Docket No. PRM i h h NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS )
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING On February 24, 1977, the Commission published in the Federal Register amendments to its regulations setting forth requirements for the physical protection of nuclear power reactors. 42 Fed.
Reg. 10836. Among these requirements is the obligation imposed by 10 CFR 573.55 (d) (1) that at all points of personnel access to the protected area " searches of all individuals be made" and that the " search function for detection of firearms, explosives, and incendiary devices shall be conducted either by a physical search or by use of equipment capable of detecting such devices."
Petitioners Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company believe that a requirement for a " pat-down" physical search is unnecessary in view of the other protective measures required, the absence of such a requirement for other (and more sensitive) facilities, and the serious problems which the physical search requirement imposes. On the other hand , " pat-down" physical searches should be permitted in any case where security personnel are suspicious about an individual and signs should be posted that individu,als entering a protected area may be subject to search.
1479 ;51 7910ggv72 7
9 I. ACCESS CONTROLS OTHER THAN PHYSICAL SEARCH REQUIREMENT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION Section 73.55(d) establishes numerous requirements for the nuc?'ar power plant physical security plan, in addition to the physical search requirement, which provide more than adequate control over access to the protected areas of the plant. These include:
- 1. Control of all personnel and ve' cle access points;
- 2. Identification of all individuals;
- 3. Check of authorization for all individuals; 4.
Search ef all individuals by metal, explo-sives and incendiary detectors, if available.
- 5. Isolation of individual controlling admission to protected area within bullet-resisting structure;
- 6. Search of all hand-carried packages:
- 7. Check of all deliveries into protected area for identification and authorization;
- 8. Search of all deliveries into protected area;
- 9. Search of all vehicles (except in emergency) prior to entry into protected area;
- 10. Escort of all vehicles (except designated licensee vehicles) in protected area;
- 11. Restriction of designated licensee vehicles to protected area except for operational, maintenance, repair, security and emergency purposes; ]4Jg}
- 12. Positive licensec ;ontrol over all designated licensee vehicles;
- 13. Numbered picture badge system for all persons authorized access to protected areas without escort;
- 14. Escort required for individuals not authorized to enter protected area without escort;
- 15. Individuals requiring escort must register name, date, time, purpose of visit, employment application, citizenship and name of individual being visited;
- 16. Access to vital areas limited to authorized individuals requiring access.
- 17. Positive control of personnel and vehicle access to vital areas;
- 18. Special badges for vital area access;
- 19. Protection by locks and active intrusion alarms of unoccupied vital areas;
- 20. Reactor containment doors and hatches to be alarmed and locked;
- 21. Positive access control to reactor containment when frequent access required;
- 22. Control of keys, locks, combinations and related equipment;
- 23. Change of key, lock combination or related -
equipmenc on evidence of its comprcmise; 1479 ;53
- 24. Change of keys, locks, ccmbinations or related equipment on termination of employee having access thereto.
Wholly apart from the extent and adequacy of these measures, it must also be kept in mind that sabotage of a reactor sufficient to cause.significant public harm would be a most complicated act to complete, that light water reactor fuel is not a candidate for strategic T.aterial diversion, and that spent fuel is an unlikely target for sa.otage.
MTR-7022, Brennan et al., The Threat to Licensed Nuclear Facilities (MITRE Corp. 1975), pp. 114-118.
The NRC has also proposed tha+ personnel security program be instituted which would require, .. tar alia, that cer-tain individuals involved in the operation of licensed nuclear power reactors receive authorization frcm NRC for access to or control of special nuclear material, 42 Fed.
Reg. 14880 (March 17, 1977). As the Commission observes in the statemenc of consideration accompanying the proposed rule, "in che opinion of tne Commission, experience has shown thac [ clearance) programs do substantially reduce the risk of such [" insider"] conspiracies." Petitioners support the preposed rule to the extent that it vould require the lower level clearance for licensee employees. Certainly, if such a clearance program is adopted, searches ought not to be required fer persens with clearances. This would be consistent with NRC's proposed " Performance Oriented 1479 354
Safeguards Requirements", 42 Fed. Reg. 34310 (July 5, 19 77) ,
S73.46 (d) (4) , which exempts from the search requirement ERDA couriers and licensee employees with NRC or ERDA clearances.
Certainly, any requirements which require searches of cleared personnel are totally unnecessary.
Modifying the rule to explicitly permit physical searches on suspicion and to inform all individuals prior to entering c protected area that they may be searched would also lend further assurance to the security program.
II. OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES WITH RESPONSIBIL. TTY OVER FACILITIES MORE SENSITIVE THAN NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS DO NOT REQUIRE PHYSICAL SEARCHES AS PART OF THEIR SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.
Nuclear power reactors are by no means the most sensitive facilities operated or licensed by the Federal Government.
Nuclear weapons storage areas, military nuclear research facilities and many military bases would seem to have a greater need for physical security protection than commercial nuclear reactors. Even the anti-hijacking precautions in effect for all commercial airlines would appear to need measures at least as strict as those for nuclear power plants. Yet in none of these cases do government regulations require a physical search.
The security requirements for nuclear weapons are governed by Department of Defense Directive No. 5210.41,
" Security Criteria and Standards for Protecting Nuclear We apo ns (Septemher 10, 1976). This directive applies to all Defense Department components having responsibility for 1479 355
the protection of nuclear weapons. Enclosure 3 to Directive No. 5210.41 sets forth the criteria and Standards for Protecting Nuclear Weapons. Section F, Entry and Access Control, governs entry into Exclusive Areas (defined as a designated area in which one or more nuclear weapons are located) and Limited Areas (areas surrounding Exclusion Areas) and requires:
- 1. entry control to assure positive identification, including as a minimum
- a. controlled picture badge system;
- b. formal entry control rosters;
- c. visitor escort system, and
- d. a duress system (a system whereby the security personnel can be covertly informed of a situation of duress).
- 2. limitation of entry to authorized personnel, including either personnel security clearance for those authorized entry or surveillance by a designated escort for persons without clearance.
- 3. provisions for rapid entry during actual respense or exercises.
No requirement exists for physical searches, even when nuclear weapons are involved.
The U.S. Army nuclear weapons security precedures simi arly do not require physical searches. Army Regulatica AR 50-5 (eff. September 1, 1976) provides for a badge syste.7.,
1479 556
entry control rosters, a visitor control system and a duress system. Unescorted entrance to Limited and Exclusion Areas is restricted to cleared individuals with an escort system for persons without clearances. However, cven for uncleared (but escorted) persons having access to nuclear weapons, no physical search is required.
Security -regulations in other defense related areas also have no requirement for physical searches. The Energy Research and Development Administration procedures are set forth in ERDA Manual Chapter 2000. Specifically, ERDA Manual Appendix 2401, Physical Protection of Classified Matter and Informaticn, makes no mention of physical searches.
Defense Cepartment regulations used for the security of naval shipyard construction (including naval nuclear construction) require no physical searches. See DOD 5220.22-M, " Industrial Security Manual for Safeguarding Classified Information",
and CGD 5220.22-R, " Industrial Security Regulation."
Ncnmilitary security programs similarly do not require physical searches. To deter potential hi-Jackers, the Federal Aviation Administration in 1972 adopted 14 CFR S121.538, " Aircraft Security." This regulation requires that each carrier adept A screening system, acceptable to the Administra-tion, that is designed to prevent or deter the carriage aboard its aircraft of any explosive or incendiary device er weapon. . . .
To cur kncwledge, no carrier has adopted. nor has the FAA required,
~
a screening system which requires physical search.
1479 357
Thus, our investigation of physical security requirements for activities with a sensitivity comparable to, or greater than, nuclear pcwer reactors discloses no examples where physical searches are required III. THE PHYSICAL SEARCH REQUIREMENT CAUSES NEEDLEf>S PROBLEMS TO LICENSEES REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT IT A number of practical problems have already surfaced in the short time since the Commission-mandated physical search require-ments has been implemented. Other problems can be expected over the next several months.
Scme plant personnel and their unions have made known their feeling that a physical search is highly distasteful, personally offensive, and in violation of individual rights. In at least one case of which we are aware, the employee refused to submit to a physical search. As a result, the utility felt obliged to place the employee on leave of absence without pay until such time as another position in the company could be found where the employee would not be subject to physical search. The employee has retained a lawyer and is investigating the possibility of legal action agains the utility. Several unions ha',e protested and at lease one has asserted that the new physical search requirement constitutes a change in working conditions recuiring a negotiated settlement.
The problem of women empicyees and visitors is particu-larly troubleseme. Although mest utility guard ferces may include scme women, there is no assurance that a woman guard would be at every entrance at any time that a woman e.Toloves
~ 1479 TSB
or visitor might appear. In the absence of a woman guard, the physical search, and the woman's entry, would have to be delayed until a woman guard was obtained. In some instances, this might result in a significant delay in order to have a woman guard report to the plant.
The likelihood of a substantial delay in processing people through the security system is likely with the onset of colder weather and the need for encering personnel to remove their coats, jackets and sweaters, so that those items can be searched prior to the physical search of the individual.
Significan delays may be involved in processing large numbers of people, particularly during outages when a significant increase in the number of workers coming on-site can be expected. This added time may result in additional costs to the utility in terms of reduced productivity or requests for additional compensation. Larger guard forces may also be required in an attempt to reduce the delay.
IV. CONCLUSICN As shown above, the physical search requirement imposed by the Commission is unique. In the perspective of the risks of industrial sabotage accepted by American society and the precautions taken in connection with those risks, the Commission's physical search requirement appears excessive and unreasonable.
Other government agencies with respcnsibility over activities of equal or greater sensitivity and susceptability to industrial or other sabotage do not require a physical search as a part of their iA79 559
security plans. And there is no known parallel to such require-ment in connection with other private activities involving perhaps larger risks to society. Other measures required by the Com-mission give adequate assurance that a nuclear power reactor is properly protected. Finally, the present requirements are causing and will continue to cause problems to the utilities which must implement those requirements. We therefore respectfully request that the Commission modify its physical search requirement to read as follows:
The licensee shall control all points of personnel and vehicle access into a protected area. Identi-fication and search of all individuals shall be made and authorization shall be checked at such points. The licensee shall cost signs at such points informing Individuals that they may be subject to physical search prior to entering a protected area. The search function for detection of firearms, explosives and incendiary devices shall be conducted [either by a physical search or] by use of equipcent capable of detecting such devices, to the extent such ecuipment is reasonably available. The licensee may conduct a physical searen of an indisidual if deemed necessary or appropriate. The individual responsible ~for the last access control function (controlling admis-sion to the protected area) shall be isolated within a bullet-resisting structure as described in paragraph (c) (6) of this section to assure their ability to respond or to summon assistance.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE i \ .
b~ b ,l -
By _' - -
erald Charnoff Jpy E. Silberg
Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 331-4100 Dated: August 19, 1977 1479 300
l
. as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of )
PHYSICAL SEARCHES AT ) Docket No. PRM lD-)-
NUCLEAR POWF,R REACTORS )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is tc certiy that copies of the foregoing " Petition for Rule Making" and " Memorandum In Support of Proposed Rule Making" were mailed, first class, postage prepaid, this 19th day of August, 1977, to the following:
Mr. Edson Case Docketing and Service Section Acting Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of Nuclear Reactor Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 General Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
/ ,
o
,fw*., ! lQ, y e
Jay /E. Silberg i !
( -
e 1479 361}}