ML20100B749
| ML20100B749 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1985 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Asselstine J, Kelley J, Palladino N Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#185-264 OL-4, NUDOCS 8503280552 | |
| Download: ML20100B749 (3) | |
Text
,
.. ]
HUNTON & WILLIAMS 707 EAST MAIN STAggt P.O. Box 535.%
a HIC H M ON D, V15tOINI A 20212 age sama avg %yg aooo st==sys.vn=,4 avswuc. = w mtw w oma, wtw v onn,o,ys eo on,9230 TC LED-onet 2'2 9 9o 8200 804 788 S@ MAR 27 A10:03 watwasofoe o C. 20o36 ea>o.
vatsa-o=c aos es sasoo TgggewoNe r,a st v aoimia ma,sa to*ta TWX 710 956 006#
e e a f mu,toi=o e o som ios
=4ctio*. wont canov== assoa e o som sees
' ' " ' " ' ' " ' " * * * ~ * ' ' '
,~.!.C'i..of7,l?.1 FFICr OF SECRETARY ING & SERVICf.
1 ve~~===
-- u <o o
,.u
,s....
March 26, 1985 9AANCH
.,,0.,u,.,l,,,; ;',, 3,,,,
.o.,c-..
.......o..
, e a.-o ~ e.,,. 2, a,,,
........,,.o,,,,, a mo s o N
."']
8357 24566.000003 v e u.-o-c ro 3 2.,,,
+ = ~o o...cv o,.m,so
.o. 7...
v Nunzio J.
Palladino, Chairmaa Commissioner James K.
Asselstine Commissioner Frederick M.
Bernthal Commissioner Thomas M.
Roberts BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Commissioner Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 James L. Kelley, Esquire, Chairman Dr. Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station):
Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 (Low Power Remand-Security)
Dear Members of the Commission and Members of the Kelley Licensing Board:
Suffolk County's letter of March 22 requests " clarification" of standards for protection of information about physical security at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, in light of Suffolk Coun-ty's filings of March 15 and 18 and LILCO's reaction to them.
LILCO agrees that attention to security standards in this proceed-ing is needed but feels that existing standards are clear and that a simple admonition to observe them is more in order than any
" clarification" of them.
8503280552 850326 PDR ADOCK 05000322
()
O PDR wy
'9 F
'I
& :4
~
- HUNToN & WILLIAMS The reason LILCO requested that Suffolk County treat its
~ March:15 and 18 filings as Safeguards Information is that they contain, among others, the following elements:
- 1.
.The specification of alleged potential sabotage targets, along with some detail about their characteristics and locations; 2.
The assertion that these targets are both essential to safe shutdown of the plant and unusually. vulnerable; 3.
The assertion that groups interested in and capable of organized sabotage exist; and 4.
The assertion that such groups are especially interested in targets perceived as being unusally vulnerable.
The gist of Suf folk County's filings is that whatever the
" ambient" likelihood of occurrence of a sabotage event at Shoreham may be, that risk is heightened because of the assertedly enhanced vulnerability of the plant's low power configuration, in combina-tion with the predatory characteristics of potential saSoteurs.
LILCO's concern is that publication of that two-part theory in some detail by Suf folk County -- whatever the objective vulnera-bility of the site to sabotage -- itself heightens the likelihood of a sabotage attempt, under Suffolk County's own theory about-the behavior patterns of potential terrorists.
Suf folk County suggests that each of the elements of its papers had been publicly available previously.
Whether or not that may be literally true (and LILCO expresses no view on that matter here) is not dispositives the information was never previ-ously assembled in one place, or organized for present purposes.
LILCO believes that the assembly of information so as to create a "roadmap" for creation of safeguards threats -- whether that "roadmap" is accurate or not -- is potentially as harmful as any specific t hnical detail about an acknowledged component of vital equipment.
1 1/
Suf folk County's letter itself is suf ficiently explicit that prudence would suggest treating it also as Safeguards Information.
LILCO emphatically would not agree that that let-ter's remaining in the potentially public domain legitimizes further specific public discussion of the merits of low-power security issues at Shoreham.
i t
'w-i--e-
e-e---,,--wwwmm
=-..rwm o eww v m n,m-,,
w w w-ww----w w w n w-
--m yw,,
i qg HITNTON & WILLIAMS Information pnce published is very hard, and often impossi-to retract.2 For this reason, it makes far more sense to
- ble, start with a very protective rule in a proceeding where Safeguards Information, by any definition, is clearly involved, with informa-tion being declassified later, than to leave the parties to their own devices and run the inevitable risk of compromise or outright disclosure of Safeguards Information at some point along the way.
In the previous proceedings before the " Miller Board" all information and pleadings of anything other than an obviously min-isterial nature not bearing on the factual merits of the security case were treated as Safeguards Information.
That rule was reaf-firmed at the February 28, 1985 Conference of Counsel in the cur-rent proceeding, Tr. 3191-95, after Suffolk County had inquired about its applicability.
LILCO's view is that the current rule, resting on the Miller Board's standing order of non-disclosure --
remains the appropriate "when in doubt, protect" (Tr. 3195) one.
All that is necessary is for the parties to continue to ob-serve the rule and to resolve all doubts or ambiguities in favor of protection.
Yours very trul',
o mW Donald P.
Irwin Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company 91/730 cc:
Robert G.
Perlis, Esq.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq.
Mr. William Clements (Docketing and Service Section)
I i
2/
In this regard, as LILCO indicated in its March 20 Memo-randum, LILCO has no complaints about the cooperation it received from Suf folk County once the County was notified of LILCO's concerns.
Had LILCO not received, and evaluated, the information before other parties received it, however, such cooperation would have been, in all probability, moot.
(
-.__._--__..__.,_-___.m.__
___.__.g..
-