ML19323G655
| ML19323G655 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1980 |
| From: | Blake E METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006060423 | |
| Download: ML19323G655 (7) | |
Text
Lic 5/7/80 o
o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOQ E COIUu M NDENCF BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD-3 Docmgg h.
- /
In the Matter of
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Docket No. 50-289 62 819g
~;;
)
(Restart) 0/ticeof thes,((![7 i
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
- A8f
/
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
B S
c m
STATUS REPORT OF LICENSEE AND SHOLLY IN RESPONSE TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON SHOLLY MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS BY LICENSEE TO CONTENTION 16 INTERROGATORIES At the direction of the Board by its Memorandum and Order of April 21, 1980, Licensee and intervenor Sholly met on April 30 and May 6, 1980 in order to work out a discovery arrangement on Sholly Contention 16.
Licensee and Mr. Sholly concur on the following as a result of those meetings:
1.
Areas of Agreement.
Both parties agree that:
(i) the scope of Contention 16 is the threat to Unit 1 security posed by an insider the potential for which is enhanced by greater numbers of l
persons present at Unit 2 doing recovery work; (ii)
Unit 1 personnel (including employees, contractor personnel or security personnel) are not included among those posing an insider threat to Unit l's security within the meaning of Contention 16; (iii) the normal work force at Unit 2 similarly is not included; 8006060 M G
(iv) The problem addressed by Contention 16 is with the larger numbers of people at Unit 2 as a result of the recovery work, including employees, contractor personnel or security personnel; (v) the time of importance is as of and following the restart date for Unit 1; (vi) the Diablo Canyon decision (ALAB-410) governs the disclosure of proprietary information, and under the terms of that decision, Mr. Sholly is not an expert in security equipment or security matters, generally; and (vii) an insider for Unit 1 security purposes is one who gains authorized access to Unit 1 from Unit 2 and, once inside, uses his position to threaten security at Unit 1.
2.
Areas of Disagreement.
Licensee and Mr. Sholly do not agree on:
(i) the aspects of the Unit 1 security plan in issue.
Licensee would limit the scope of the plan at issue to the barrier between Units 1 and 2, whereas Mr.
Sholly maintains that other elements of the security plan are relevant to Contention 16, such as Unit 1 vital area security.
Mr. Sholly would agree to Licensee's view only if Licensee is able to state that personnel assigned to Unit 2 to work on recovery will not be given access directly to Unit 1 from Unit 2 at the time I
of restart of Unit 1 and thereafter so long as recovery is underway at Unit 2; and (ii) the adequacy of Licensee's proffered response to Interrogatory 16-009.
Licensee and Mr. Sholly also concur on the following disposition of Mr. Sholly's Contention 16 interrogatories.
Interrogatories16-008 (a) through (e), (g) and (i) -
Licensee will provide no response because the intervenors have no qualified expert and the information requested is proprietary.
Licensee reserves its objections as to relevancy.
Interrogatory 16-008 (f) - Licensee will provide the minimum staffing requirement.
Interrogatory 16-008(h) - Licensee will provide its audit methodology.
Interrogatory 16-009 - The parties did not resolve their disagreement on this interrogatory.
Interrogatory 16-010 - Licensee will respond to the extent this information is not proprietary, while reserving its objection to the relevancy of this interrogatory.
Interrogatory 16-011 - Licensee will provide no response because the intervenors have no qualified expert and the information requested is proprietary.
Licensee reserves its objections as to relevancy.
Interrogatory 16-012 - Licensee will respond to the extent this information is not proprietary, reserving it's objection to the relevancy of this interrogatory.
Interrogatory 16-013 - Licensee will respond to the extent this information is not 'roprietary, reserving its objection to the relevancy of this interroga..*v.
Interrogatory 16-014 - Licensee will respond by making available copies of correspondence with NRC to the extent this information is not proprietary, while reserving its objection to the relevancy of this interrogatory.
Interrogatory 16-015 - Licensee will respond by making available copies of non-proprietary training program documents, m
while reserving its objection to the relevancy of this interrogatory.
Mr. Sholly has authorized Licensee to state that he has reviewed this Status Report and concurs in its contents.
Respectfully submitted, I
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE f
ed, By Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.
Counsel for Licensee Dated:
May 7, 1980.
t
+
d
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of l
).
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
) Docket No, 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No, 11
)_
' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Status Report of Licensee and Sholly in Response to Memorandum and Order on Sholly Motion to Compel Answers by Licensee to Contention 16 Interrogatories" were served mpon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit j
in the United States mil, postage prepaid, this 7th day of May, 1980',
M4 &,Z.
Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.
Dated:
May 7, 1980, l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Ivan W.
Smith, Esquire John A.
Levin, Esquire Chairman Assistant Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm.
Board Panel Post Office Box 3265 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Karin W.
Carter, Esquire
~
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Attorney. General Atomic ' Safety and Licensing 505 Executive House Board Panel 101 South Second Street "881 West Outer Ridge Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37839 John E.
Minnich Dr. Little W.
Little Chairman, Dauphin County Board Atomic Safety and Licensing of Commissioners Board Panel Dauphin County Courthouse 5000 Hermitage Drive Front and Market Streets Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 James R.
Tourtellotte, Esquire Walter W.
Cohen, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Consumer Advocate Director Of fice of Consumer Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Washington, D.
C.
20555 Harri'sburg, Pennsylvania '17127 Docketing and Service Section Jordan D.
Cunningham, Esquire Office of the Secretary Attorney for Newberry Township U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission T.M.I.
Steering Committee Washington, D. C.
20555 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
. Theodore A.
Adler, Esquire Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Post Office Box 1547 Attorney for the Union of ConcernG Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Scientists Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street,- N. W.,
Suite 506 Washington, D. C.
20006~
i Steven C.
Sholly 304 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Gail Bradford Holly S. Keck Legislation Chairman Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York 245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 Karin P.
Shelden, Esquire Attorney for People Against Nuclear Energy Sheldon, Harmon &. Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N. W.,
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Robert Q. Pollard Chesapeake Energy Alliance 609 Montpelier Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Chauncey Kepford Judith H. Johnrud Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue.
State College, Pennsylvania 1680; Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terre.ce Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Majorie M. Aamodt R.
D.
5 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 9
1 0
m--
--