ML20099M481
| ML20099M481 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1985 |
| From: | Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART |
| To: | Johnson E, Kelley J, Palladino N Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#185-192 OL-4, NUDOCS 8503250254 | |
| Download: ML20099M481 (9) | |
Text
-
f-KIRKPATRICK $ LOCKHART 4
1900 M SnEET. N.W.
E,,J i O TASMNOToN D.C.200M US W ONEBO m W MACE t
som*, MA OHN TmWHOIS OSD 45 Lase e17)97S5ese
= ""' "'" %5 7 22 P 1 ;51 i.m ax=u. Avewui a
Tmacoma osD call m n mn 005)3/44112 March 22, 1985'
~
ise Ouvu suaano PITT50UROM, PA 15222 WRffMS DESCT ORAL m Hill 1954NO 202/452-7011 By Hand Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Commissioner James K. Asselstine Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Commissioner Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 James L. Kelley, Esquire, Chairman Ms. Elizabeth B. Johnson Mr. Glenn O.
Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Long Island Lighting Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant),
Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 Dear Members of the Commission and Members of the Kelley Licensing Board:
The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention the need for clarification of safeguards requirements pertaining to Shoreham security matters.
This need for clarification arises because LILCO has stated that, in its opinion, two recent filings by Suffolk County and the State of New York contained safeguards data, but were not so marked.1/
l M
Suffolk County has received a March 20, 1985 " Memorandum" from Donald P.
Irwin, counsel for LILCO, to the addresses of this letter and counsel for New York State and the NRC Staff.
This " Memorandum" highlights the need for the l
(footnote continued) h DR O
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Members of the Commission and Members of the Kelley Licensing Board March 22, 1985 Page 2 I.
Background to the Immediate Situation On Friday, March 15, 1985, Suffolk County and the State of New York #iled a pleading with the Kelley Licensing Board which adgpessed security issues which the Board had asked to be briefed.-
Attached to this County / State pleading was an affidavit of Suffolk County police officers.
On March 18, 1985, Suffolk County and the State of New York filed with the Commission a response to LILCOjp Petition for Review of the security portions of ALAB-800.-
Attached to that response was the same Suffolk County police affidavit, an affidavit of two New York State police officials, and other affidavits.
On March 19, 1985, Suffolk County's ccunsel received a telephone call from LILCO's counsel, who expressed the view that the affidavit attached to the March 15 pleading, several of the affidavits to the March 18 filing, and much of the March 18 filing itself contained safeguards information.
LILCO's counsel suggested in particular that statements concerning the vulnerability of Shoreham's alternate AC power system to the Part 73 threat should have been safeguarded.
Accordingly, LILCO's counsel asked us to restrict distribution of those pleadings to persons authorized to have access to safeguards data.
Suffolk County's counsel disagreed that any portions of the !! arch 15 or March 18 County / State filings contained safeguards data.
However, notwithstanding this disagreement, we felt that until the situation was clarified, it would be in all parties' interests that those materials were treated as safeguards data..Thus, on March 19, we orally requested the Commission (via Mr. Clements), the Licensing Board (via Judge Kelley's secretary), the Staff, the State of New York, and others authorized to have access to safeguards data, to treat both (footnote continued from previous page) clarification requested by Suffolk County.
Suffolk County and State of New York Reply Memorandum to NRC Staff and LILCO Response Dated March 12, 1985.
d!
Response of Suffolk County and the State of New York to LILCO's Petition for Review of ALAB-800.
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Members of.the Commission and Members of the Kelley Licensing Board March 22, 1985' Page 3 f
i l
filings as containing safeguards data.
Other persons to whom those pleadings were.sent were contacted and asked to return the l
documents without copying or reading them.
We have had full cooperation and thus expect the " retrieval" effort to be 100 percent successful.4/
- l II.
The Need for Clarification There-is an immediate need for clarification of the safeguards rules which are to be applied in the Shoreham l
proceeding.
LILCO's assertion that the March 15 and 18 filings
~
contain safeguarded data is clearly wrong under existing NRC pronouncements.5/
Indeed, as set forth below,-the Commission itself has released Shoreham data which contained much of the same information which was contained in the County / State filings.
Suffolk County does not argue for either1more i
restrictive or less restrictive sa'feguards requirements.
We ask conly for a straight-forward, plainly understood clarification regarding application of the safguards rules, so that persons 8I Contrary to Mr.-Irwin's statement (March 20 memorandum, at 2), all persons to whom the March 15 and 18 pleadings were sent, including Mr. Jay Dunkleburger, had been contacted as of March 20.
This fact would have been made known to counsel for LILCO if counsel for the County had been given an opportunity to review LILCO's March 20 memorandum before its release.
5! -LILCO goes so far as to assert that the Affidavit of Gregory C.' Minor, attached to the March 18 filing, contains safeguards data.
See March 20 " Memorandum," at 2.
Mr. Minor discusses only the location of the alternate AC power equipment and presents his technical reasons for believing such equipment falls within the Part 73 definiton of " vital equipment."
Given the findings made by the Miller Board, which are published as part of the Board's October 29, 1984 Initial Decision, the Appeal Board's discussion in ALAB-800, and the documents released by the NRC on February 7, 1985, it is frivolous for LILCO to assert that the Minor Affidavit contains safeguards data.
s
- i.,. --.,- -,
i J
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1
l
' Members of the Commission and Members of the Kelley Licensing Board March 22, 1985 Page 4 attempting to comply with the rules can proceed confidently.
We set forth below information pertinent to this request.
The County has consistently-taken the position that the best course to follow in security-related matters is to treat all materials as containing safeguards information.6/
However, by Order dated February 7, 1985, the Commission ruTed that almost all materials pertaining to security in the Miller Board proceeding were not to be accorded safeguards status.
See NRC Order Directing Release of Materials Previously Categorized as
' Safeguards Information, February 7, 1985.7/
In light of this 5[
For. example, in the spring of 1983, the County and LILCO exchanged letters pertaining to security issues.
The County took the position that the letters contained safeguards information.
LILCO disagreed, and elicited the Staff's support to "desafeguard" the letters.
This situation compelled the County-to file a " Request for l
Board Ruling Whether Documents are to be Treated as Safeguards'Information," dated March 25, 1983.
LILCO and the Staff argued against any finding that the documents contained safeguards information.
See LILCO's Response to Suffolk County " Request for Board Ruling Whether Documents are to be Treated as Safeguards Information,"
March 30, 1983; NRC Staff's Response to Suffolk County
" Request for Board Ruling Whether Documents are to be Treated as Safeguards Information," April 4, 1983.
l l
Similarly, daring the Miller Board proceeding, the County
(.
again took the-position that all security-related matters were best treated as safeguards data.
For example, at a September 14 conference before the Miller Board, the County questioned whether some non-safeguarded NRC Staff correspondence regarding security matters should have l
been safeguarded.
The Board agreed with the County that l
the materials should have been safeguarded.
See September 14 Tr. at S-253 thru S-256.
1!
Indeed, even the materials the Miller Board had expressly determined to contain safeguards data on September 14, 1984 (see note 6, supra) were released by the Commission on February 7.
l l
i I
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Members of the Commission
+
and Members of the Kelley Licensing Board March 22, 1985 Page 5 Commission action, it is clear that no part of the March 15 and 18 filings can possibly be considereH to contain safeguards data.
By its February 7, Order, the Commission released many documents which had previously been treated as containing safeguards data.
Indeed, the Commission released data which set forth the County and State position that the alternate AC power system at Shoreham was not adequately protected and was highly vulnerable to design basis attackers.
For example, among the data released by the Commission were detailed information concerning the precise location of the alternate AC power equipment.
See February 7 Order, Document 1, at 4-5, 12, 19.
Further, the Commission released data from the County / State
. security contentions, including the following allegations of the County and State:
a)
LILCO's security organization is inadequately staffed and trained to protect the alternate AC power equipment.
(Contention 1).
b)
The new AC power configuration adds new targets for potential sabotage, "the 69 KV switchyard and the gas turbine, the EMD diesels, the fueling truck for the EMD diesels, the power lines for.the EMD diesels power and the gas turbine power, and the nonemergency switch gear room."
(Contention 1).
c)
"The new EMD diesels and gas turbine and the associated equipment represent new points of attack.
d)
"The elements of the proposed AC power configuration are exposed, visible, and substantially more vulnerable to attack and destruction than the originally proposd sources of emergency AC power."
(Contention 4).
e)
"Under the new AC power configuration, the prior levels of protection are severely reduced.
The security plan has not been revised to take into account such reduction, and therefore the probability of a sabotage-induced LOCA is much greater now than it was given the original plant configuration."
(Contention 4).
f)
"During low power operation of the Shoreham plant, the proposed alternate AC power system would be vulnerable to the design basis threat defined in 10 CFR S 73.1.
The system could be rendered inoperable by external elements of the design
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Members of the Commission and Members of the Kelley Licensing Board March 22, 1985 Page 6 basis threat (by use of such weapons as mortars and other accurate, highly destructive weapons which would be available to the design basis threat) without such elements even having to enter the protected area.
In contrast, disabling the originally proposed onsite emergency AC power sources would require access to protected areas and to vital areas."
(Contention 5).
g)
Parts (b)(i)-(vii) of Contention 1 set forth various other security deficiencies, including:
the lack of a protected area or isolation zone or detection equipment for the gas turbine; lack of alarm or card reader controls on doors of the nonemergency switch gear room; deficient protection for power lines; and lack of access controls for the EMD diesels, the gas turbine and their associated equipment.
In view of the_ materials released by the Commission on February 7, it is clear that the March 15 and 18 filings contain no safeguards information.
Those pleadings contain no details of the security plan for the Shoreham site, and none of the information set forth in those filings was derived from having had access to any safeguarded information.
Rather, the materials set forth in those pleadings rely solely upon:
the location of the alternate AC power equipment, a matter which the NRC itself has declared not to be safeguarded; the vulnerability of the equipment to attackers who do not even need to enter the protected area, which again was material released by the l
Commission on February 7; and data pertaining to the existence of malevolent groups in the New York /Long Island area, which data j
were not derived at all from the Shoreham proceeding and which l
clearly are in the public domain.8/
l Suffolk County and the State of New York therefore request the Commission and/or the Kelley Board, as appropriate, to provide guidance regarding the treatment of security-related materials.
As noted above, Suffolk County has taken the position in the past that it is appropriate to treat all matters related to security at the Shoreham plant as safeguards data.
By such a l
blanket treatment, there is no chance that sensitive data will be released.
Accordingly, we would not object to the imposition of such a rule.
However, given the February 7 Order of the Commission, it is clear that a less rigorous standard has been 8/
See for example, the attached March 13, 1985 Newsday article about bombings in the Long Island area.
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Members of the Commission
^
and Members of the Kelley Licensing Board March 22, 1985 Page 7 adopted by the Commission.
Without further guidance, the situation will remain confused, leading to the kind of disagreement which was experienced on March 19.
In view of the foregoing, we request the Commission and/or the Kelley Board to issue appropriate guidance at the earliest possible time.
Sincerely yours, W
W W
Lawrence Coe Lanpher LCL:me Enclosure cc:
- Fabian-G. Palomino, Esq.
- William Clements
- Robert Perlis, Esq.
- Donald Irwin, Esq.
- Via Federal Express
- By Hand I
i l
l l
l i
+.
- 7 Are Charged in Area Bombingh i
By Robert E. Kessler Seven people, including five arrested in the When and Where D.. --.
Cisvsland area last year, were charged yesteniay Bombing incidents involved in the federal charges against seven alleged members 4
with bombing 10 buildings in the metropolitan area.
and unsuccessfully attempting to bomb an 11th.
of the United Freedom Front "These were acts of terroriam," Raymond
Dearie,
. luumen _
g g
, y;gqg the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District, said in
.;,, ;.., j
,s 7". J j h ja ennouncing the indictmenta. "They were not impul-
- h g.,
...,r 3 $
cively committed, but were the product of careful pitaning by mtelligent peeple who chose to send
- g--
5!,
t f
their message by the vehicles of dynamite, destruc-M M *); %8,) # M
.$+q,.T,,.' hry 3
~
3
- ,W.M n ti
- n end mayhem."
The seven were described as members of the
- @,.%.Q,_
United Freedom Front, a group that grew out of a
... ' ' 4 3^
l New England prison-reform movement of the late gsM so0M 19603 but eventually turned to bank robberies to WESTCHESTER
~"
f'y
)
cupport its members and bombings to accomplish ita A
political goals, according to sources familiar with its ectivities and court records.
ERONXO'~~'
i left at the scene of each bombing was a commu-7GL ISEM.
nique from the United Freedom Front stating that
~
.r the bombs had been planted to protest U.S. involve-j g
r l
ment in Central America, the making of military g
equipment used in Central America or apartheid in I
SUFFOLK South Africa.
MA ATT N 5g i
The buildings that were extensively damaged by NASSAU g
I blasta that occurred between December,1982, and g
o September,1984, were Navy omces in East Meadow i
i OUEENS l
end Whitestone, Army omces in Uniondale and the OO 8
l Bronx, a South African Airways omce in Elmont, a l
F
)
General Electric Co. aeronautical research omce in BROO LYN M
__ # O l
Melville, a Motorola Inc. office in Whitestone, and 2 1
IBM offices and a Union Carbide Corp. office in Wectchester. The bomb that failed to explode was
-c:f>,
fiund at a Honeywell Inc. ofIice in long Island City.
f, r, m.-
t Kenneth Walton, deputy assistant director in
~ >
i chargs of the New York FBI office, said that "it
. i __ y,,
0
%' g ;
g w s only by the grace of God" that people were l
not irdured at some of the bombings. In the East SOURCE Federal Coun Recordd d 'N,, *a Me dow bombing, for exarnple, he said, a warning m s.r unemse m.em e i
cell gave only 20 minutes to evacuate a crowded including the casing of' buildings, the planting of of plot to free his brother, George, from priso building at noon.
bombs and self-criticism sessions at which the the Each of the seven was indicted on one count of Welton said there was no evidence linking the success or the failure of the action was discussed. conspiracy and 11 counta in connection with a bo sev:n to any other bombings, but he said there The codes were not sophisticated but did require ing or an attempted bombing. They face up to 115 i
was a similarity in the language of the communi-much unraveling, the sources said. For example, years in prison, if convicted.
ques left by the United Freedom Front and three events in the diaries were, at times, dated as occur-Five of thoes indicted were in custody yesterday.
cther groups that took responsibility for bombings ring "bj.d" or "aj.d." This atood for "before Jackson's They were: Richard Charles William en ths East Coast.
Dearie said that the key information leading death" or "after Jackson's death,
" according to the awaiting trial for the murder of New Jersey State sources.
to the indictmenta came through the decoding by Several of those indicted had previously be-trooper Philip I4 monaco; Raymond Luc I4vasseur, cused kept.
longed to a group called the Sam MelvilleJona.
38, who is in prison in Maine, awaiting trial on bank FBI agents of extensive secret diaries that the ac-u than Jackson unit. Melville was a radical killed robbery charges; Patricia Helen Gros, 30,14vas-Sour (en familiar with the case said that when during the Attica prison rebellion, and Jackson seur's wife, who is in a Cleveland jail, awaiting sen-tencing after conviction for haboring a fugitive, her FBI agenta arrested the five, they seized 1,060 pages killed by police in California in Au was of gritten ;natyripl, qetpi.li,ng t)p,grpyp'g pguyillry. 3970. xhile.trying. ta lidnap.a. judges as. gust, husband; Jaan Karl Imaman,36, who is in jail in part....................--Continued on Page 21
- nas been a stalwart symbol cf continuity for Oyster 11ay. And'if A$ c~15 g
(/l'.
/
,f tid:rs have their wry, the structure, which is on the N;tional Register t>f,
+
r v. ;[,h,' f
,y.mY_ _j.]; '
ims-- s ]% 9 {
- k.p; 4'
g' gj Historic Plac:c, will be preserved for anoth r century cr m:re. Th2 congrega-
'e A
-:cr; ti:n has started a driva to raise the money to ' repair cnd restore tha building.-
"We're delighted to restore o building representing one of the few re-ja.(!
7
,8 6 a
a
{(
p f,1 maining examples of Stick architecture," the pastor, Richard Reifanyder, I i said,"but we era can contm,'re really doing this to make sure that a community ofworship-s
- , '.{
g, ue here.
g.,
?' 'f'.'
3 p
,. - -. : - ---i h'
~
dj At $175,000, the project will cost 109 times more than the original price i
. k dN for the whole church, $1,600. According to Robert MacKay, chairman of the g%af" p h-Town of Oyster Bay Landmarks Commission, that was an extravagant sum p:
O g.-
.y J
i 4 Mj,i.
for a 19th Century church.
>,.r 2 - m -
0
.#, 7,..;f. 4,'
"In the 1870s, Iong Island was a pretty sleepy, backward place, nothing
_;, d r._,
t
.. L;.M more than a rural agrarian stretch,"MacKay said. "To find a church like th
< w
(
P h if in the latest vogue, the latest style, you have to wonder why they did P
h*
m f,
Ji L
~~
g -
i 7
EhEE DE
-l.,
=j j,p.(gp' p,f ei ;
The church was designed by J. Cleveland Cady, one of the foremost exponents of the Stick style, notable for its exposed beams. Cady also de-i i /m' I
Sh - :
y' rafHistory.ed the Metropolitan Opera House and the American Museum of Nat si
>$. W: ' h..hn.a -
.._.A, q
. (
/..
g,J..
i l
4 l
,a 4
. 4a The Stick style was short.liu:d, lasting only through the end of the h,.__
.Q 3, ;8 N<
- n. 4 1870s when a new interest in more rounded shapes and shingles developed,
- m i
g a-
'. 3 Lt f *'
'~
'er fronts at that time," he said. "The Stick style was a reaction to the MacKay said. " Architectural styles were like a series of fast-moving weath-f f*M.3 i
b
. p i
W1N 'A 'M..
Renaissance revival of architecture and l
[
i
+
)
k dT
,S i.% movement. The movement believed in bart of the ' truth in architecture' i
h-g g
L a
uildings expressing themselves :(
j r
right through their skins."
i j
i nd
'4R -
b q
Originally, the church was festooned with dozens of finials, elaborately g 4
w-
- W
=
s,
.2 s
carved wooden decorations which dotted the rooftop. Only two or three ga
- "*=8*
)
Pastor Richard Reifsnyder inside First Presbyterian Church, built in 1873 remain, and the church plans to restore as many as possible, said Walter m
Rabe, a parishioner involved in the project.
Seven Are Charged in Area Bombings l l
-Continued from Page 3 An attorney for Williams, Lynn notation that "it looks possible for ning and aircraft and aerospace ctr '.
Mr.asachusetts awaiting trial-in the Stewart, said she had not seen the in-sure."
(center]."
1 cttempted murder of Massachusetts dictment yet but said that one of the A powerful bomb inside a briefcase
'Ibe material also contained descrip.
I state troopers; and Barbara Curzi,27, counts involved the bombing of a exploded Aug. 22, causing extensive tions of roads, banks and phone booths Imaman's wife, who is in a Cleveland Union Carbide building that " caused damage to the office building minutes in the area and the notation,"33 min-jail, awaiting trial on charges of har-no loss oflife. Compare that with Bho-after more than 200 people were evac-utes to Whitestone Bridge."
boring a fugitive, her husband.
pal. Who are the real terrorista?"
usted.
Two are fugitives. They are Thomas Other pages contained descriptions No one was injured in the 11:25 a.m.
of IBM Corp. plants in upstate Harri-Manning,38, who is also being sought U.S.: P1ans Detail e=9lo ion in a e cond-floor stairwaii or aan. d tatiins ro d r ta==. parkins l
La Lamonaco's death, and his wife, the four-story building on Route 110 lots, lighting, entrances, security mea-l Cr.rol Ann Manning,29, who is wet-Melville Bombing that houses an oflice of General Elec-sures and shrubbery that could be j
ed f:r bank robbery.
The seven persons indicted yester-tric Co.'s aeronautical research group. used for " concealment."
An attorney for levasseur, James day kept carefully detailed records of One notebook entry, dated Aug.1, One notebook section is titled,
~Bushill, called the FBI's interpreta-their activities, according to federal read: "GE at end of pretty short corri- " general procedure" and includes 17 to
- ti:n cf the seized written material"ri-authorities.
dor - straight out of elevator... steps on how to make a bomb. On dicuhus" and said he had filed mo-Copies of the records, which were looks good, better place would be right the page of typed bomb instructions tiins to forbid its use in court on obtained by Newsday, detail, for in staircase-unlocked dra [ doors) all is the handwritten notation: " Don't grounds thatit was seizedunder a de-example, the layout of the Hunting-[ around.- right against GE wall -
. rush,. don't work.when. fatigued-
. pctive,sehfchf saMahl *,
7 " (top Quadrangle, in, pf,ejvill,e and,.,a' this 'offi' e(iidreospace'sti iteg[c 'plap'ddi'rpf.S:i,,"g*
7 'I.',i
- ,-[
j, c
t
~
-=
- ---------- - - ~~~~~~ ~ ~,-
f
?..--.
-