ML20052G801

Response to ASLB 820413 Questions Re Security Contention 23 & Motion for Further Proceedings as Listed & for Order Enjoining Util & Southern Security Svcs,Inc from Harassment of MD Hines or Tp Poole.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20052G801
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	05/10/1982
From:	Guild R PALMETTO ALLIANCE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8205190009
Download: ML20052G801 (8)

Text

-

ccLETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'82 g 17 m M3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

{." .

In the Matter of )

)

DUKE F0WER COMPANY, e_t al. ) Docket No. 50-413 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, 1 Units 1 and 2) )

PALMETTO ALLIANCE RESPONSE TO BOARD QUESTIONS AND MOTION REGARDING SECURITY' CONTENTION NO. 23 In its Order dated April 13, 1982, the Licensing Board noted Palmetto Alliance's expression of desire to further pursue its Contention No. 23 regarding inadequate security planning at the facility.

Palmetto Contention No. 23 reads in full:

Catawba should not be licensed to operate until the Applicants L. have developed and demonstrated an adequate security plan which g complies with 10 CFR 73.55. Th ; JR does not give adequate assur-i..

ance that all regulatory = e v v ts have been or will be met I prior to operation. . See F$AR, p.15-61, Regulatory Guide 1.17, Rev. 1.

In its. March 5,1982, Memorandum and Order the Board had properly 3 observed that, "an itnervenor cannot reasonably be requirec to advance specific contentions about a securii:y plan he'has never seen," and . agreed with the Applicants that "the security plan is protected under the~ Commis-

, 'sion's regulations (10 CFR 2.790), and is not available for inspection."

Order at pp. 37-38. The Board then asked Palmetto to inform them of~its  !

desire to proceed, " subject to the kinds of conditions we have indicated, i h

^

B205190009 ' 920510 - E PDR~ADOCK 05000413 0 PDR-

.- L -- .  ; - . - . . - .-.--,..,.:... .-- - . - . ,

r If it wishes to proceed, we will then hear from the other parties and consider what further procedures are appropriate." M , pp. 38-39.

Palmetto Alliance responded:

Intervenor Palmetto Alliance infonns the Board of its decision to pursue its contention that the Applicants' securit/

plan is inadequate reserving its right to comment on the appropriateness of further procedures.

Palmetto Alliance and Carolina Environmental Study Group Responses and Objections to Order Following Prehearing Conference, p. 20.

The Board now directs Palmetto Alliance to respond to the following l questions, failing which its contention is to be dismissed with prejudice:

1 j 1. Have you secured the services of a qualified security I plan expert? If you have, submit a statement of that person's qualifications and experience to the Board and parties.-

2. If you have no expert at this time, when and how'do you plan to obtain one?

3. Is ti.c protective order entered in the~ Diablo' Canyon case acceptable to you?

Order of April 13~,.1982,.pp. 2-3 By direction'of the Licensing Board Chairman, upon'the'. request of counsel for Palmetto Alliance by telephone April 29,.1982, the~ time for l

l service'of responses was extended until May 10','l982. Palmetto. Alliance f

i answers as follows:

1 'nd a 2. Yes;-

i Michael D. Hines Rt. 6,' Box'612:

Mooresville, N.C. ~ 28115 2

r i

Employed from December 5,1978, until December 23, 1981, as Security Specialist, Central and Secondary Access Station Operator and Security Officer by Southern Security Services, Inc., P.O. Box 811',

Cornelius, N.C. 28031~ at Duke Power Company's McGuire Nuclear Station.

Thomas P. Poole Rt. 7, Box 646' '

Mooresville, N.C. 28115 Employed from October 20, 1980, until September 8, 1981, as Security Officer or Guard hy Southern Security Services,-Inc., P.O.

j Box 811, Cornelius, N.C. 28031 at Duke Power Company's McGuire Nuclear Station.

Messers Hines and Poole have . agreed to voluntarily assist the Licens--

4 ing Board and Palmetto Alliance in the investigation and proof of Contention No.'23 'and other concerns regarding deficiencies in Applicants' security planning. As Duke observed in its Response to Contentions Filed hy Palmetto Alliance, at p. 78, its experience at its Oconee and McGuire nuclear facilities in security planning is evidence of the adequacy'of its planning at Catawba. Intervenor asserts that the personal knowledge, training and experience of these former security workers at Duke's McGuire Nuclear Station provides the appropriate and necessary expertise to assist' the' Board and this Intervenor in the' litigation'of' Contention'23 'or other 1

security issues. .

Palmetto Alliance objects to the requirement that it obtain the'ser-vices of "a qualified security plan expert," Order of March 5,= 1982, if that term is understood-to require greater' qualifications or' experience than already secured by Intervenor either through its members, staff and 3

ri

?

1 counsel or through Messers Hines and Poole. Palmetto is infomed and believes that more "fomal" expertise in nuclear power plant security plans is available solely, as a practical matter, to the owners of nuclear plants, by whom they are employed.

3. Palmetto Alliance objects to the tems of the protective order and affidavit of'non-disclosure annexed therein as infringing its rights of Free Speech as protected by the First Amendment and constituting an impemissible prior restraint by government on'the exercise of such rights, for~ the reasons stated by Comissioner Bradford, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon ~ Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2), CLI-80-24,.11 NRC 775 at 779 (1980), As urged by the Comissioner the reach of such a protective order should extend no further than the " protected infomation gained through participa-tion in this proceeding," Id, at p. 780, and not to " protected in-fomation' that I recieve by any means whatever." Affidavit of Non-- i disclosure p. 3. -

Fundamentally Palmetto Alliance objects to participation'in a secret process'by'an agency of government whose charge is protection of the public. In this party's view the Comission's recently promul -

gated regulations, Protection of Unclassified Saf.eguards Infomation, i

46'FR 51718 (October 22,.1981): are impemissably vague and overboard, serve to chill the legitimate exercise of free speech and the right of petition by intervenors and protect the operators of nuclear power plants more from the ire of an infomed public which learns of their raisdeeds

! than from any real threats to security. Palmetto Alliance wants no secrets 4

I l

! ~~

l from' Duke Power Company which'it would be bound to hide.

The experience of Messers Hines and Poole are illustrative of the role of such " secrecy" rules in protecting Duke more than the public. Tom'

'i Poole was declared persona non grata by Duke, and consequently fired by I Southern Security, after embarassing Duke by following the rules while his superiors urged him to ignore them. He complained to the NRC, sought their protection, and was fired the next month. Mike Hines was harassed, demoted and fired when he dared to maintain his friendship with Tom Poole.

Each man has knowledge of serious inadequacies in Duke's security plan and its implementation at McGuire but the secrecy rules serve to chill-l their free discussion of what they know. Each man fears further rerisals and retaliation by Duke against them, their families and other present and former security workers. They ask the protection of this Board so-l they may speak freely.

1

Palmetto Alliance wishes to pursue its claim that Duke's security plan is inadequate. It accepts the obvious observation'that it can not~

frame a specific criticism of a plan which it has not seen. It is l prepared to undertake an analysis of Duke's plan for Catawba ~, with the help of Hines and Poole and the Board's support, in order to narrow and particularize its contentions. However, Palmetto Alliance is nct pre-pared to be sworn to secrecy; and therefore, seeks access only to such

" sanitized" portions of the security plan and related' materials as contain l

no " safeguards infomation" or other information protected .against public disclosure. Alternately, or as otherwise necessary, Intervenor asks the' Board itself to pursue this security issue pursuant to itsf. general'sua I

5

. ,,- , ,_. y - --- - - - - , , , - - , .+

- -_n-- - ----,----- ---- ---

/

sponte authority, as necessary for'a proper decision in the proceeding, by taking such action as hearing testimony in camera from Hines, Poole' and ,

other present and former security workers willing to present evidence of serious inadequacies but whose identities must for now remain confidential,and retaining its own expert security consultants to examine Duke's plan and other security documents as may be needed.

For the foregoing reasons, Intervenor Palmetto Alliance hereby moves the Board enter an order directing further proceedings on' Contention 23, as herein described, and an order strictly enjoining Duke Power Company,-

Southern Security Services,'Inc., and any person acting in concert with them, from any and all acts of harassment, intimidation or reprisal directed against Michael D. Hines, Thomas P. Poole or any other person'as a result of such person's cooperation in this matter.

Respectfully submitted, t s

~, $ b Robbrt Guild 314. Pall Mall g

Columbia, S.C. 29201 Attorney for Palmetto Alliance f -

l 6

rI UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0?f11SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket No. 50-413

) 50-414 (CatawbaNuclearStation, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Palmetto Alliance Response To Board Questions and Motion Regarding Security Contention No. 23 in the above captioned matters, have been served upon the following by i deposit in the United States mail this 10 th day of May , 1982.

James L. Kelley, Chairman George E. Johnson, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal i Board Panel Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan William L. Porter, Esq.

Union Carbide Corporation Albert V, Carr, Jr. , Esq.

P.O. Box Y Ellen T. Ruff, Esq. '

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Duke Power Company P.O. Box 33189 Dr. Richard R. Foster Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 P.O. Box 4263 Sunriver, Oregon 97701 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Chainoan State of South Carolina ,

Atomic Safety and Licensing P.O. Box 11549

, Board Panel Columbia, South Carolina 29211 l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Comission l-Washington, D.C. 20555

ri s

1 Chairman Jesse L. Riley Atomic Safety and Licensing 854 Henley Place Appeal Board Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Scott Stucky Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Station i Henry A. Presler U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Comission '

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Washington, D.C. 20555 Environmental Coalition 943 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.

Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

\ en Robbrt Su Nd Attorney for Palmetto Alliance l

l l