ML20044D360
| ML20044D360 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 05/19/1993 |
| From: | Sides R UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Higdon J NRC |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR21546, FRN-58FR58804, RULE-PR-73 AE81-1-028, AE81-1-27, AE81-1-28, NUDOCS 9305190043 | |
| Download: ML20044D360 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _-_.
v..
Ms. Judy Higdon Mail stop 4E4-WFN United States Regulatory Commision Washington,D.C 20555
- Judy, Being an armed nuclear officer for the past nine years, I am concerned with the N.R.C's proposal to re-evaluate the Design Basis Threat.(0.B.T.)
Since I have been in the nuclear field for nine years I would like to use those years for comparative purposes.
Justlike anything that life deals out, things are on the rise; public violence, Domestic violence, Armed criminal actions, etc.
These include several differant types of violence, Rape, Roberies, Car-jacking, and murders just to name a few.
If a person stops to think for a minute just how bad things are getting, think of this, a woman shot her child in her home just because he changed the channel on the television.
With violence on the rise at such an alarming rate, I am concerned with the N.R.C's definition of the D.B.T. and the threat that the D.B.T. would be decreased because tus utilities war.t to save operating expenses.
If the D.B.T. were to be decreased I am afraid that the liklihood of a terrorist attack would be much greater because everyone knows that the easier a target looks, the more tempting it is to take advantage of the vulnerability.
With the utilities cutting back on security force members, I fear that they are setting themselves, the american population, and myself (especially since I am a defender) for a very big fall; for what? MONEY.
I feel that there are several places that cutbacks can be utilized-waste is a big one, but lowering the D.D.T. which means reducing the number of defenders at Nuclear facilities and the responsibilities of those defenders is NOT a valid option.
Our job is to protect the Nuclear facilities from Radiological sabotage-preventing a part 100 release, therefore protecting the population; which is not just numbers on someone's tally sheet. They are Americans-my wife,.
my children, and everyone else's families that would be affected. People who do not even know what Design Basis Threat means or stands for.
(Page One) 00 h
9305190043 930519
-(Cont)
Please do not let a tragedy of this magnitude take place, if anything INCREASE the D.B.T. to a more realistic higher number and take into consideration that just three terrorists would not attack a nuclear facility with 38 special revolvers roaming around not knowing what their target or mission is going to be.
I feel that the only defense against a well planned armed attack from a highly trained terrorist group is to have a highly trained tactical response team in place. I think that it is better to be ready when an attack happens than to wait untill an undermanned Nuclear facility is hit with everything a terrorist group has and loses a majority of the -
security force in the first two minutes and then loses all of the safety equipment at the facility causing a part 100 release.
]
Your consideration to my thoughts and comments herein would be greatly appreciated.
i Verf~~SThcerely Yours, l
,, C [ ?
i
- rd'~a'ff it Randy G Sides Nuclear Security Officer Callaway Nuclear Plant l
t i
-i i
i i
i
.1 a
1
x Ns
'-x N.
'N.
l
~.,
u
/ /
]
.f
~
05 s
f' y) v)
/
' %,h,' x
~~- n e'
4 s'
NJ ' 4 8.[..
A
,v
\\,v C
sn,sq g
%[ )
\\
6{de s
i);y
\\
s
[Q;g9 o
k'o k \\'y $
m
$y Q3
/
g h~
\\'
\\
w\\ M
/
h.
,~
(t
/
k [\\ s 3
3 A
- cd M Q g('4 T
4 R
~_s
~
-