ML20077D341

Objections to Applicant 830711 Draft Affidavit of Nondisclosure & Protective Order Governing Access to Security Plan Info.Proposed Restricted Time Schedule Makes Proper Review Difficult.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20077D341
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	07/22/1983
From:	Runkle J JOINT INTERVENORS - SHEARON HARRIS
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8307260483
Download: ML20077D341 (11)

Text

p . . 7

':, .-~

..> :m , L',' .

'/ si, _ y -

~

u to  %

_ ' P .e b THE CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA, #D 1

,. y 307 Grenville Road, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 * '4 /[f' /'

(919) 942 7935 or 9421080 (24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) fI' July 22, 1953 In the Matter of CAROLINA POWER i LIGHT COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NC EASTERN MUNICIPAL 50-401 OL POWER AGENCY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)

JOINT INTERVENOR'S OBJECTIONS TO APPLICANTS' PROTECTIVE ORDER AND AFFIDAVIT OF NON-DISCLOSURE The Board's Memorandum and Order of June 17, 1983, establishe the leSal framework for the review of the Shearon Harris Security Plan. Applicants submitted a draf t Affidavit of Non-disclosure

~

and Protective Order Governing Access to Security Plan Informatie which we received on July 11, 1983 The Applicants discussed th'-

l '

Affidavit and Protective Order with us on July 13 and we receive' l

the final proposed material 'on July 19 This restricted time schedule has made it difficult for us to review the documents and contact our experts (one who is out of town for several weeks?

m8 However, we wish to facilitate this matter and also respect the No'8 oo vacation plans of other participants.

m2 . .

n" We do not feel that legal arguments are warranted or even gt The Diablo Canyon decision, which all h

m<

relevant at this juncture.

parties have agreed sets the legal fracework for this matter, lea-

• " ample discretion to the Board to decide these matters on the basis T)S o3

/

p b.4 PaSe 2--July 22 of common sense and what will work in a practical sense. The Applicants and Intervenors are very close to agreement in this matter, our first objective is to protect the public from physical intrusion into the operating power plant. Secondly we cannot allow the Harris Security Plan to f all into the hands of unsecure parties or those individuals we are trying to protect agains .

We have found the Applicants willing to cooperate in scheduling, providing secretarial support, and the like. We request that the Board review our objections and other considerations in regards to the Affidavit of Non-disclosure and the Protective Order and modify them slightly in order to meet our practical considerations.

1. In the Protective Order on page 2, section 4, please fill in the blank space with the following: Debbie Ussery-Baumrucker.

She resides at 107 W. Main Street Apt. E, Carrboro, NC 27510.

Her phone number is 919/967-8581.

4

2. In the Board's Memorandum and Order, Early Ray Bleacher is qualified to have access to the overall Shearon Harris Security Plan. We also realize that the' Board on page 6 of that order permitted only one expert to review that part of the Plan which he is qualified for. Applicants reiterated this position on page 2, section 3, of their Protective Order. We would like the Board to reconsider this preliminary decision as it hampers our full review of the Plan. We are using a team of experts, some of which are more expert in some fields than are others. If we use our s

.5 y O -

PaSe 3--July 22 expert on communications, Tuggle, then our expert, Bleacher, is not-permitted to review that part. A security plan should be an inter-connecting document which has a sum greater than any of- the

-parts. Our overall reviewer needs to be able to review all of the sections of the plan to determine how one part fits into the other and how the different systems work. Of course, he will not review the c'ommunications section, for example, in as much detail as.the sections where there is no other expert. It is his job review the overall plan and.as the Bqard said in its order "we do not mean that we expect Mr. Bleacher to understand all arpects of the plan without any assistance." We feel that our experts, in addition to those supplied by the Applicants, would better provide us with a review of the plan. Mr. Bleacher also needs to look at the entire plan to determine if the other experts are receiving all.the material they need to. assess their narrower field of review.

3. Counsel for.Intervenors should be permitted a brief review of.

t the entire plan before_the experts begin their in-depth review l

l' to determine the structure and physical lay-out of the plan.

I Th'e primary. reason for this initial review is to determine L

! legally if every regulation under 10 CFR 73, et al., is even mentioned in the Plan. Counsel does not have the technical

, competance, and not even the desire, to review the Plan in detail to determine its sufficiency under the regulations or whether the system will tork in the real world. However, Counsel does have the technical competance to compare the Plan to the regulatic In addition, Counsel needs to look at the entire plan to determins

i f .

Page 4--July 22 if the Experts are getting all the section(s) they are to review and whether a section is overly " sanitized." Leaving the Protective Order, in regards to Counsel, on a need to know basis will only keep this proceeding bogged down as the Board will necessarily.need to rule on whether Counsel needs to know.

Let us remind the Board that the Appeal Board in the Diablo Canvon decision permitted Counsel to review the entire plan in that instance (5 NRC 1398, at 1406, in ruling (4)(c)).

4._We_are satisfied with the stricture on reviewing all protected materials at the offices of the Applicants in Raleigh, but require a security-related walk-through of the Shearon Harris site for our experts at this initial stage of the review (with others in the future as needed). This would entail a 6 to 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> tour at the site lead by the Applicants' security experts. This walk-through would allow our experts to get a feel for the layout

'M"g.

~ of the site and have a reality check to determine if Applicants can do what they say they can do. Each of our primary experts,

' y :,

2

- Mr. Maples and.Mr. Bleacher,. expressed disbelief that any review

.x of the plan would not include a real world comparison with the actual site. We realize that many of the security systens

- will not be finalized until close to the fuel loading dates, but even at this point our experts would find a ton; beneficial to

3 '

-their review. Otherwise, the entire review of the security plan is only on paper and the question becomes have the Applicants presented good paper rather than will the security plan actually ,

protect the public. One example, and one can no doubt think up

4 W ,

Page 5--July 22 countless others, is if a security guard would need to get from Point A to Point 3 in X minutes. This could be possible on paper but in the real world, the guard would have to go up-hill and ther around the containment buildings and physically cannot do so within 2X minutes. A detailed review without a reality check might not turn up some potentially 51 aring flaws in the Plan.

5 Donald Henke, President of Safequards International (P.O. Box 96, Fayetteville, NC 28302, 919/483-1807), Juss requested a reviet of any work product, including reports to Counsel, produced by members of his firm. This would include our experts, Bleacher, Tug 5 1 e, and Stevens. Mr. Henke's request is a reasonable one and; is done solely to protect the reputation and integrity of his corporation, which after all, provides professional services and

. experts in the field of security systems. Although not qualified by the Board as having the technical competance to review the pl:

- t,7h)[ for the reason that we did not proffer him as an expert, Mr. Henk is competant to keep the material safe and secure. We have attached copies of Mr. Henke's last two sets of Orders to Active

g. cs.,s Duty for Training (dated 2/24/82 and 6/2/83). We would draw.the'

""~

Board's attention to the circled part S ving i Mr. Henke's security clearance as secret (final). An individual with that classifica

'should be permitted to review work product of others even dealing

~ "N with protected information, especially since scurity plans are 21 not classified. If Applicants are willing to have the secretari@

we or our experts provide access to some of.the protected informa then' surely Mr. Henke 's review of his firm's work product would n jeapordize the integrity of the plan.

( .

'e Page 6--July 22

6. It was almost half-way into the negotiation session between Applicants and Counsel for Intervenors when Applicants revealed that only a " sanitized" version of the plan would be offered for review. Their rationale is that the " sanitized" version is inherent in the Diablo Canyon decision. We disagree in that sanitizing the plan would only delay this proceeding by getting

~

the Board involved in determinin5 just how sanitized a section can be. Our experts should have access to the entire Flan in order to determine its adequacy. To give an example to illustrate possible differences between our positions, Dr. Quarles and Dr.

Johnson discussed the combinations to locks in their comments to the Diablo Canyon decision. Surely our experts have no desire to review actual combinations but we might need to know what types of locks they are (for strength and tamper-proof attributes),

how they open- (tine may be of the essence and a five-di S it lock, two key lock, or combination needing two operators would surely

- slow time down), and the exact locations. It is taken for Eranted that any terrorist grcup, for example, will have almost all of 6

- the inside inf ormation due to inside help and it seems only fair that our experts have similar information in order to review the plan. ' Sanitizing the plan will cause delay. We do not have confidence that the Applicants will be able to make the p' roper decisions on the relevancy of certain " gory details" to the overall adequacy of the plan.

7. We are still concerned about leaving our work product at the.

Applicants'. offices although we see the need for keeping the

Lv 4

] '

Page 7--July 22 information in the Security Plan secret. As an attorney, I am extremely leery of leaving trial preparation material in the

' hands of the opposin5 party. The Applicants suggested that the file cabinet in which the material is stored have two locks, one for their use and the other for our protection. This goes part of the way in solvin5 the problem. We suggest the following language in the Protective Order, " Applicants or Staff shall not review any work-product or other materials prepared by Intervenor Experts or Counsel without prior approval by the Board or Interve Counsel." We hope this'will never become a problem but we would like our notes, reports, and the like adequately protected.

It is our intent to beSin the review of the Security-Plan by two of. our experts on August 8,1983, at the Applicants' Rales office. That is the only time we can schedule Mr. Bleacher as he has commitments for the remainder of August and into Septembe)

I" t ,

Mr. Maples is having minor sur5ery near the end of August and .

needs to have his review finished as early as possible. The l

l f-only determinition the Board needs to make before that time is L

' section.3 above,-access of the entire plan by Counsel. We

'would appreciate an emSLyruling on our other objections, especia Mr. Beacher's access to the' entire plan, soon in. order to keep this matter moving.

We are trying ,to f acilitate this matter. We cannot afford

(

to bring trivial disputes to the Board's attention although'we

'will do so if it means doing a full review of the Security Plar.,

l We would like it understood that time allowances will have to '

~

~

s c

Page 8--July 22 made in order to schedule Counsel and his secretary to spend tine'in the Applicants' offices in Raleigh. We are sending this to a modified: service list similar to the one applicants used in their July 15, 1983, letter to the Board which~ contained the ' final proposed Affidavit of Non-disclosure and Protective Order. We are sending copies of this filing, plus the proposed Order and Affidavit, to our experts. We will not do this in future filings in this matter without notification.

Respectfully submitted, Fohn D. Runkle Attorney-at-Law Counsel for Joint Intervenors Dated-this 22nd day of July, 1983 l

i l

I '

Attachments ,

L Service List 9

m- ,

1 ATTACHMENT 1 DEP ARTM ENT OF T HE ARMY OF FICE OF THE ADJUT ANT GENERALADMINISTRATION C U.S. ARMY RESERVE COMPONENTS ST. LOUIS, MD 63132 PERSONNEL AND 24 FEB 83-AGUZ-OP-235-C ORDERS T-02-304606 522 56 7281 CPT 48 ESP IN DONALD ARTHUR HENKE USAR CCN GP RE 704 FAIRFIELD ROAD NC 28303 F AYETT EV IL LE 6-FORADT, TRAINING (ACT) FOR THE PERIOD SHOWNc

-- - YGU ARE ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY UNL ESS SOON ER R ELEASED OR EXTENI Af ENT ERED UPON COMPLETION BY PROPER AUTHORITY, OF THE PERIOD OFYOU WILL - RETURN TO THE PLACE AND BE RELEASED FROM SUCH DUTY.

PERIOD: 12 DAYS PLUS ALLOWABLE'. TRAVEL TIME REPORT T O: HQ SUPPORT ACTIVITY USAINSCOM FT MEADE MD 20755 06 J LN 83 -

REPORTING DATE: BETWEEN 0730 I AFM-S E 080FOD-I 0'FT HRMEADE S MD 20755 ATT ACHED TO: HQ'INSCOM ATTN (COUNTERP ART MOBILIZATION TRAINING)

PURPOSE: SPEC RSCH PROJ P AYMENT BY' FT KNOX F 6 AO. 0VTY IN C IVILI A ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS:C ALL 1-800-325-4988 IF YOUOER AREREQ UNABLEPERTO ARCOMPLY 623-105,.

- ATTIRE DIRECTED.WITH THIS ORDER. V EHICLE RENT AL NOT' AUTH.AG FWD TO CDR RCPAC ATTN: '

-

• TO S15014. P IPL: MS1151A . HOR: SAME AS SNL $68)

FOR ARMY USE: AUTH: ADT-10 USC 672(D)683( A) (1)

ACCT CLAS: 2132070 ) (2199- 11-7300 $226) P3281.3 - s n000A n- ) V 5 i ' 2 2(oAXB S23185

) ( 1199 SEX: M

~

(1210- 1 (2572- P EBD: 10 APR 67 WTY CL: SECRET ]

PPN: NA COMP: USAR TYTR: 100

-  ; ' DOR: 01 NOV 72 SITE: 700247 t J ', ~

cFORMAT: 260 p.xx RONALD W. ZELTMA N

• ,* * * *

• BRIGADIER GENERAL, USA

• • .OFFI TA G, CI AL

• RCPA *C* C OMM ANDI NG

• 4*.* ****

e -

" DISTRIBUTION: 1A

[ HQ INSCOM ATTN I AFM-SFOD-I FT MEADE MD 20755 6A i-PACKET

. - - - . . . -. ~ .h L

s a

,n-

,- . , . - - . - , - . - - . . , - , . . . . - . . ~ , , , . . - , . , . -

_q

/

' ATTACEMENT 2_ e DEPARTMENT GF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE ADJUT ANT GENERAL U.S. ARMY RESERVE COMPGNENTS SI. LOUIS, MOPERSONNEL 63132 AND ADMINISTRATION CEN 02 JUN 83 AGUZ-OP-0235-C ORDERS T-0 6- 31753 6 522 56 7261 CPT IN 48 ESP 5G DONALD ART HUR HENKE USAR CON GP RE 704 F AIRFIELD ROAD NC 28303 F AY ET T EV ILLE

( A DT ) FCR THE PERIOD SHOWN.

YOU ARE ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY ADT, FOR TRAININGUNLESS SOONER R ELEASE ADT UPCN COMPLETION OF THE PERIOD OFBY PROPER AUTHORITY, YOU hlLL RE AND BE RELEASED FROM SUCH DUTY.

PE RI OD : 13 DAYS PLUS ALLOWABLE TRAVEL TIME (RAO) -

REPORT TO: BLDG 310 RESERVE AFFAIRS OFFICE FT PICKETT VA 23824 REPORTING DATE: 8 ETW EEN 0730 & 0800 HRS 14 AUG 83 ATTACHED TO: UNIT TNG DIR USALOGC FT PICKETT V A 23824 ADVANCE, IF AUTH PURPOSE: LOGEX PSYOP OFF (MOBIL IZAT ION TRAINING)

ADDIT ION AL INS TR UC TI ONS:CAL PAYMENT BY FT LEE L 1-800-325-49 IF YOU ARE UNABLE 88 FEAO.

WILL BE CHARGE 0 TO S44055.

TO LOMPL Y WITH THI$aDROER. SREAK IN TVL OER REO PER TIME TO/FM HOR AR 623-105, FWDNOT AUTH TO CDR TLXT383 WITHOUT RCPAC AT TN:PRIOR WRITTFt1 APVL.AGUI-P Ah-E. VEHICLE RENT AL ' NOT A

. ... SUPPORT... L s741

~

FOR ARMY USE: AUTH: ADT-10 USC 672(D )683( A) (1)

ACCT CLAS: 2132070 11-7300 P3281.4000F(FXAG 1"' :. e$1398)(12sn-

)(1199- v- s44 top (1210- ) (25T2- 1 (2199- $146) (2119- 5 CTY DL: SECRbT tFIN AL) _sd PPN: NA APR 67 SEX:

COMP: USAR PE8D: 10 TYTR: ADI 'I An 500 00R: 01 NOV 72 SITE: 100358 HOR: SAME AS SNL FORMAT: 260 I RONALD k. ZELTMAN

• • • • • • • BRIGADIER GENERAL, USA

• TAG, RCP AC* COMMANDING

• OFFICI AL

• bN i 0NUkLOGCFT PICKETT VA 23824 CDR, USA LUGISTIC CNTR ATTN: ATCL-DRR FT LEE VA 23801 TRADOC ATTN: ATPL-PR FT MONROE VA 23651 CDR, PACK ET 6 A e

e

0' .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of this filing were served to the following Modified Service List (Security Contentions) on this N day of ,19,$3 by deposit in the United States

)

mail, first class postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery, to the following:

2-James L. Kelley Richard E. Jones Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Vice President and Senior Counsc US Huclear Regulatory Commission Carolina Power & Light Company

' Washington, D.C. 20355 PO Box 1551 Raleigh,'NC 27602 Glenn O.. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Huclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. James H. Carpenter

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Huclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20355 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

f r-f:*

/

Charles-A. Barth.

1 Myron Karman John D. Runkle

- Office of Executive Legal Director Attorney-at-Law US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Counsel for Joint Intervenors Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

(Security Contentions) l Ruthanne G. Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission Washington, D.C. 20555 Thomas A. Baxter John H. O'Neill, Jr.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

. . - _ , . . ___