ML22230A189
| ML22230A189 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/04/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780504 | |
| Download: ML22230A189 (1) | |
Text
RETU,. 10 SECRHARIA1 RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING SECY-73-210 -
PETITION FOR RULEMAKING REGARDING PAT-DOWN PHYSICAL SEARCHES Place - Washington, D. C.
Date -
Thursday, 4 May 1978 Pages 1 -
39 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reponers 444 Nor~h Capi tol Street Washington, O.C. 20001 NATlONWlDE COVERAGE* DAILY Teiephor. e:
(202 ) 347-3700
(
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on May 4, 1978
.in the Commission 1s offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been revie\\*1ed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any sta*ternent or arg~1ment
- contained he*rein, except as the Commission may authorize.
ERC 7338 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 NUCLEAR REGULATOR COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SECY-78-210 -
PETITION FOR RULEMAKING REGARDING PAT-DOWN PHYSICAL SEARCHES Room 1130 1717 H Street, N. w.
Washington, D. C.
Thursday, May 4, 1978 The meeting convened at 9:45 a.m., Chairman Joseph M. Hendrie presiding.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman Peter A. Bradford Richard T. Kennedy
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 Agenda Item:
Confirmation of Agenda*
Presentation by Mr. Jones C O N T E N T S 3
4 2
.e 2
3 4
3 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Please come to order.
The Commission for various reasons is meeting only once this week.
That is today.
But we intend to compensate 5
for that by meeting at length, I notice.
6 The first subject on the agenda this morning would 7
be for me to ask you if you would join me in voting to hear today the following items on short notice, necessarily.
These are items that are on the agenda.
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 The first one is affirmation of SECY-A-78-35 being struck.
All right, delete that.
Discussion of the first item, then, would be discussion of amended wording.in Section 201(a) (1) of the Energy Reorganization Act.
That is on this afternoon.
Could I have a vote?
(Chorus of "Ayes.")
So ordered.
18 19 Secondly, affirmation of an order denying a petition in connection with the GESMO proceedings.
It is on 20 the agenda this morning at the end of the morning.
May I have 21 a vote?
22 (Chorus of "Ayes.")
23 So ordered.
24 And finally, at the end of the afternoon, a dis-Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 cussion of the original statement of reasons.
All in favor?
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 4
(Chorus of "Ayes.")
Thank you very much.
So ordered.
MR. KENNEDY:
That is not for reasons; just the discussion.
'CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Thank you.
It occurred to me that perhaps "all in favor" was not a terminology I cared to use.
MR. BRADFORD:
All willing to put up with?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Willing to put up with would be a good deal more accurate.
Okay, now, for this morning's work., we are to hear first some matters on a petition for rulemaking regarding pat-down searches, again one of the Commission's favorite subjects, one we haven't had the opportunity to hear about for at least hours and perhaps even days.
Lee, I welcome the staff.
Please go ahead and do whatever --
MR. GOSSICK:
Okay, Mr. Chairman.
As I indicated, we are here to discuss the proposal for an effective rule change involving this subject.
And in response to the petition that is before you, Mr. Jones will present the paper.
MR. JONES:
I give you a little background as to how we got to this situation and then present the recom-mendations and the alternatives in the paper.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--al Reporters, Inc.
25 5
In February of 1977, NCFR-7355 was published as an effective rule.
And this required among other things, and I quote, identification and search of all individuals shall be made and authorization shall be checked at such points.
That is protected area access points.
The search function for detection of firearms, explosives, and incendiary devices shall be conducted either by a physical search or by use of equipment capable of detecting such devices.*
In implementing this requirement, we recognized that there are effective metal detectors, but there are limitations on explosive detectors.
The staff position in the early phase of this implementation was a random pat-down search of all individuals entering the protected area at levels of 5, 10 and 20 percent, depending on whether the plant had no instrumental detector -- that would be 20 percent had only a metal detector -- that would be 10 percent or had both detectors, and that would be 5 percent.
As you are aware, there was a strong negative reaction to this approach which occurred in several ways:
a court injunction, letters to the Commission, letters to Congressmen.
And on August 22, we received the petition for rulemaking from Wisconsin Electric and others to eliminate the physical search requirement from 7355 except with cause.
MR. BRADFORD:
Was the court injunction actually
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--ral Reporters, Inc.
25 6
granted?
MR. JONES:
No.
It was sought, but it was not granted.
The petition for rulemaking did not eliminate the instrument search.
That would have been retained.
The petition was to eliminate the physical search required for all persons, employees, visitors, and everybody.
That was noticed in the Federal Register of September 15 for comment.
During the comment period, the Commission considere and approved an amendment to 7355 which would delay imple-mentation of the pat-down searches for regular on-site employees until August 24, 1978, unless the Commission directed otherwise prior to that date.
Pat-down searches for other than regular employees were not delayed.
Public comment period on the petition ended in October, and we received many comments.
In general, employees, unions and utilities were opposed to pat-down searches.
They stated they were degrading, implying a lack of trust of employees, it was possible infringement of constitutional rights, and it was inconsistent that employees be searched because they didn't have to smuggle anything in anyway.
Some employees and others stated that visitors still should be searched, but employees should not.
MR. BRADFORD:
What do you mean they didn't have
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 to smuggle anything in anyway?
MR. JONES:
They could commit sabotage without smuggling anything in.
MR. BRADFORD:
That's reassuring.
7 MR.. JONES:
The insider knew enough about the plant that he didn't have to smuggle anything in.
That was one of the positions.
Other interested persons and groups expressed other opinions to the effect that a thorough search should be made of everyone entering the plant site regardless of who they were.
These comments were presented to the Commission MR. CASE:
Were there any comments that said visitors should not be pat-down searched?
MR. JONES:
There were a few comments that indicated pat-down searches were not effective, and nobody should be searched, but not very many.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Not many visitors replied to the --
MR. JONES:
That's right.
MR. CASE:
But there is at least one comment that he did indicate that said "employees, no; visitors, yes."
MR. JONES:
There were some people who stated that it was not necessary to search employees, but visitors should be searched.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l O _
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--al Reporters, Inc.
25 These comments were presented to the Commission in SECY-77-578 with a recommendation to delay action on the petition until the ongoing assessment of the value and impact and alternatives to pat-down searches could be com-pleted.
8 At that time, in.November, the Commission approved a 3-month delay in acting on the petition and approved interim search procedures to be used.
These procedures that were approved at the time were that all persons would be searched with metal and explosive detectors.
Licensee employees not regularly employed at the site would be given random pat-down searches on the 5, 10 and 20 percent basis.
MR. CASE:
First, let me make it clear that no regular employees under this interim procedure receive a pat-down search.
MR. JONES:
That's right.
MR. KENNEDY:
No regular employees.
MR. JONES:
That is right.
MR. KENNEDY:
Just contractor type employees.
MR. CASE:
Then, you get into a variation.
If they visit the site on an average of once a week, they are considered to be a regular employee.
And it is only those who come infrequently, including visitors, that receive any kind of a pat-down search.
And there is a difference
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 between --
MR. KENNEDY:
Including the senior management of the company?
MR. CASE:
If he infrequently visits the plant, yes.
9 MR. JONES:
These were the interim procedures that were --
MR. KENNEDY:
There is something anomalous about the president of the company getting a pat-down search, but okay.
MR. JONES:
That's the way the interim procedures were set up and approved at the time the delay was announced in the Federal Register.
Regular employees and everybody else would be subject to pat-down search for cause and all other persons MR. KENNEDY:
For cause?
MR. JONES:
Cause.
If there is a suspicion.
That's what I mean by "for cause.'
MR. CASE:
Well, it's more than a suspicion.
MR. JONES:
There is a phrase there, a legal phrase, that you have a reasonable belief.
MR. CASE:
There are rather strict. legal require-ments that apply to cause, and they have to be met.
It isn't a mere suspicion.
MR. JONES:
No, it is a reasonable belief, and
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
..;ce--al Reporters, Inc.
25 there are some words that prevent infringements of the constitutional rights of.search.
They are in the paper, in enclosure H to the present paper that you have.
10 All other persons other than the regular employees and the nonregular employees were subject to pat-down search for these interim procedures.
MR. CASE:
I.e. visitors.
MR. JONES:
I.e. visitors, right.
The assessment of the value and effectiveness of pat-down searches has been completed.
Staff has relied on opinions solicited from persons who have had experience with such searches, and these opinions are included in the staff paper in enclosures C, D and E.
The consensus of these opinions is that routine pat-down searches would not provide high assurance detection of concealed explosives, although such searches may have some deterrent value.
In general, they stated that pat-down searches conducted for cause would be expected to be more effective than routine searches.
You now have section MR. CASE:
What was their view on random?
MR. JONES:
Well, random search is a type of routin search.
A random routine search is MR. CASE:
Isn't there one in there that says random searches have value?
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 11 MR. JONES:
Yes, random routine search is somewhat more effective than a 100 percent routine search.
There is gradations.
And the randomness of the search provides 2 things:
1, the person being searched never knows when he is going to be searched.
And 2, the searcher doesn't get tired of searching everybody.
So that gives the random routine search a slight edge if you will.
You now have SECY 78-210 which presents recommen-dations for your consideration with regard to the petition, the petition on which you delayed action last November.
As stated in the paper, there are 3 alternatives available to the Commission.
The paper states there are 4 alternatives, but that is a typographical error, there are only 3.
The first is to implement the search requirement using pat-~own searches for all personnel to supplement the instrument searches.
This would mean a denial of the petition and a return to a procedure such as the original staff position of random searches for all individuals.
It could also mean 100 percent search of everybody going into the plant.
The second alternative is to delay action on the
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 petition and continue implementation of the search require-ment in accordance with the procedures now being used that we just discussed until such time as suitable alternatives have been developed.
If such alternatives such as the material access authorization program now under consideration have not been implemented by August 24 or a reasonable time thereafter, 12 the random physical search of all persons would be reinstated.
MR. CASE:
But basically, that position is con-tinue as we are -- pat-down visitors, no pat-down of regular employees, until at least August 24 which was the implementati n date of this regulation.
Then, take another look at it, see where we are with alternatives, including particularly the clearance program or whatever the right words are.
It is in effect, continue as we are in a holding pattern to see how alternatives develop in the future.
MR. JONES:
As of August 24, 1978, according to the regulation as written, we would have to return to physical searches of all employees.
MR. CASE:
Unless subsequent with decision.
MR. JONES:
Yes, unless the Commission made a specific decision to extend that delay or to do away with searches or some other approach.
The third alternative is to accept the concept of the petition and revise the regulation to eliminate the
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--al Reporters, Inc.
25 13 requirement for physical search except where there is a reasonable belief that such a search is necessary.
And that would mean elimination of the search for everybody, including visitors except for cause.
INE, NMSS and SD have concluded on the basis of the opinions that we have received that as a supplement to instrument search, pat-down searches conducted on a basis other than for cause do not contribute significantly to the overall effectiveness of protection against sabotage of a nuclear power plant.
We also note that there is a strong negative psychological or personal reaction to pat-down searches, especially on the part of employees.
MR. CASE:
But we are not proposing to continue to search employees so that is somewhat of a red herring.
MR. JONES:
That is correct; we are not proposing to --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's get the position out here.
MR. JONES:
The eliminations.of pat-down searches as supplement to the instrument search, therefore, would not decrease the level of protection significantly.
These offices therefore, are recommending alternative 3.
That is, accept-ing the concept of the petition which would eliminate pat-down searches except for cause, except possibly as a
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
- 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--al Reporters, Inc.
25 14 compensatory measure if instruments had not been installed or were inoperable.
This would eliminate pat-down searches for every-body, including visitors.
NRR does not agree with this conclusion and recommendation.
I think Ed could probably better state his case than I.
Thank you.
MR. CASE:
Well, as Ralph has indicated, we recom-ment alternative 2 which is continuance of the pattern that we are in now subject to reexamination on or before August 24, 19 78; and the basis for th.is position is we grant as we have that pat-down searches are not the end all be all.
They are but one link in the chain of protecting with high assurance against industrial sabotage.
Sometime ago, we had a discussion on the effective-ness of explosive detectors.
That, too, is not the end all or be all.
There are limitations to that.
We believe it is the sum 0£ these individual elements that provide us the high assurance.
And without the pat-down search, particularly for visitors and nonregular employees, there is some doubt in our mind whether we continue to have that high assurance.
With regard to pat-down searches in particular, the arguments that have been raised against it are that it is degrading to employees and has a counter safety
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 implication by at least giving a perception of nontrust of the employee and, therefore, an implication that his safety performance might suffer because of that.
15 I think the path that we are on now takes care of that problem because there is no search except for cause of employees.
So the major, if not only, disadvantage of pat-down searches has been removed in the present framework.
Everybody believes that pat-down searches has some value.
It is a question of degree, how much value.
I don't believe there is anybody who says it has no value at all.
If you remove its negative attirbutes yet continue its positive attributes, we think that is the course to stay on.
And that's what we recommend.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, when we discussed the pat downs before and the sorts of displays that accompanied this paper from assorted experts and law enforcement agencies and so on and confirmed that, there was a feeling that on a routine basis, it was simply not an effective measure.
And particularly by the time you scaled down to 5 percent or 10 percent, it becomes a procedure whose. annoyance value and irritation value exceeds whatever residual benefit may accrue in the security sense.
I think there is no question that one would want to retain in the regulations a search for cause.
You need that as back-up for the portal equipment in any case.
And
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--al Reporters, Inc.
25 16 having people on notice that there may be a search, if there is some reason for suspicion, appropriate reason for sus-picion, is --
I think we discussed this at some length back when we put a stop temporarily on the pat-down searches for regular employees Waiting a decision on this petition for whatever may come of the clearance program rulemaking procedure postpones things until a time when either we will have passed the August 24 deadline or so close to it that things*will have just tightened up and reasonable implementation is not --
times are not available.
So it seems to me that the issue is in fact ripe.
I see no reason to postpone it in order to see what becomes of clearances.
What was proposed or what is proposed here where the portal equipment is not in place, is on order?
MR. JONES:
The regulation requires that
- well, there is nothing in the regulation about when it is on order.
But the regulation requires that the security system be maintained in operable condition and compensatory measures will be employed when it is not in operable condition.
I assume that NRR would consider pat-down searches as compensatory measure if they don't have the instruments, but I think that is up to MR. CASE:
I'm not sure I would have that authority
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 17 under the way the proposal would be worded.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The interim situation is that that is explicit.
MR. CASE:
You have,to have an either/or.
What is the interim situation if you don't have an explosive detector right now?
MR. MILLER:
Ten percent search.
MR. KENNEDY:
If you don't have the equipment and you don't have pat-down searches, what are the other alter-natives?
In other words, how is -- I think that is the question -- compliance achieved?
MR. MILLER:
There are, of course, Mr. Kennedy, other alternatives such as change rooms, something like that.
MR. CASE:
They are not a viable interim.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If one were to proceed on the recommendation of the petition, is there need for language to cover the case where the mechanical equipment is not yet in place or down the line on order?
MR. JONES:
Well, I think NRR could by license condition require that, that pat-down searches be donducted until they have the instruments.
I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
He says he worries about his authority to do that if the proposed language were adopted.
- MR. JONES:
Well, the-language in the regulation
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i Ace-al Reporters, Inc.
25 18 also requires compensatory measures when the system is not effective.
MR. CASE:
But we are in a peculiar situation where compliance overall with this regulation is not required until August.
But, and I forget the exact words in the regulation, you have to do what you can now.
In other words, you are excused untilthat date if it is a question of buying stuff and it will take some time to get this.
I have another situation I have got to face somewhere, somehow, 34 percent of the licensees now operative, operating plants, have not even committed to buy an explosive detector.
They refuse to do it.
MR. BRADFORD:
Why is that?
Because they don't think it will work?
MR. CASE:
No, I think it is fair to say it's because of the indecision of this Commission where there has not been complete evidence of backing up the staff who is trying to implement this regulation in the field.
MR. KENNEDY:
That's not exactly accurate.
We have had some question about pat-down searches.
We have had questions about other issues.
It seems to me MR. CASE:
Commissioner Kennedy, I grant you that, but that indecision has been, I believe, by 'the licensees transferred to other.issues.
It is my perception.
MR. KENNEDY:
Perhaps we can convince them that
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 19 that was a misapplication.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
How many licensees has the staff completed a.. review of plans and agreed with the licensee on a security system so that the licensee might be aksed to put in an order for the equipment as some confidence that the equi~ment he would order would meet the staff's requirements?
MR. CASE:
First, let me ask how many have done it.
MR. MILLER:
The ones that are complete are about
- 16.
MR. CASE:
Although the final paper work --
MR. MILLER:
Although the final paperwork is not done, we have gone back to them for the Phase 2 reviews and have completed the reviews.
MR. CASE:
Further in response to that question, Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And about 16 out of how many operating plants?
MR. MILLER:
53 sites.
We do it on a site basis, not plant basis.
MR. CASE:, *rn.further response, Mr. Chairman, we have a staff position. It is a staff position by another name.
What do you call those?
MR. MILLER:
Review guidelines.
MR. CASE:
Which indicates the specific models
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 l l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--ral Reporters, Inc.
25 of explosive detectors that are acceptable to the staff.
And there are 3 or 4?
MR. MILLER:
3 or 4.
MR. CASE:
So I don't believe there is any indecision on the industry's part on what the staff would accept.* for explosive detectors.
20 MR. MINOGUE:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out the regulations now require equipment.
There is no indecision in the regulations.
They explicitly require equipment.
MR. KENNEDY:
And I would add that I don't know that the Commission -- I can't recall a case in which the Corrm1ission has.suggested it had serious question about equipment.
I don't think that question has ever come up that I can recall.
MR. GOLLER:
To that extent, I think it is impor-1 tant for everyone to recognize we are not talking about eliminating pat-down searches per se.
We are talking about eliminating supplemental pat-down searches, supplemental to
- mechanical equipment.
The mechanical equipment is either not present or not operable.
Then, the pat-down searches become effective.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, as you read the present rule and as it would stand if the proposition made in this paper were accepted, if you have any doubt about NRR's
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 r-2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 authority to require pat-down searches or whatever other measures they might think appropriate, when the portal equipment either was not available or not operative.
21 MR. JONES:
I think NRR could probably answer that better than we would.
I personally would have no MR. CASE:
Where is that particular word, Ralph?
MR. JONES:
On the search, you mean?
MR. CASE:
How would that section read?
MR. MINOGUE:
Pages 6 and 7.
MR. CASE:
I hear a lawyer back there.
I think it is probably a better question for him.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Licensees shall control all points *that the FOO*personnel and so on and so on.
Identi-fication and search shall be made.
Search shall be conducted by use of equipment capable of detecting such devices, referring to firearms, explosives and incendiary devices.
Licensee shall conduct a physical search to supplement the instrument search of any individual entering a protected area if there is a reasonable belief that this additional search may be necessary to prevent the introduction of fire-arms, explosives or incendiary devices, et cetera, et cetera.
MR. CASE:
If I read that sentence, it says --
MR. KENNEDY:
There should be another sentence.
MR. CASE:
a supplemental or a reasonable belief.
If I read that to say if he hasn't got an instrument,
2
')..,
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--ral Reporters, Inc.
25 22 he can be required to have a pat-down search, I think I can also read it to say even though he has got an instrument, he can be required to have a pat-down search.
MR. KENNEDY:
I assumed that is what was meant.
MR. CASE:
I don't believe that. It means for cause, for.a specific cause.
MR. KENNEDY:
That's right.
The second thing.
That's what it meant.
It did not include that first.
There ought to be another sentence in here after the sentence which says, "The.search function for detection of firearms," et.cetera, shall be conducted by use of equip-ment capable of detecting such devices.
Should such ec:i:_uipment not be available, alternative means must be provided to assure detection, et cetera.
MR. JONES:
In paragraph G-1 of the present 7355, it requires that the licensee shall develop and employ com-pensatory measures, including equipment, additional security personnel and specific procedures, to assure that the effectiveness of the security system is not reduced by failure or other contingency affecting the operation of security-related equipment.
MR. CASE:
You are supposed to read this new section to say I can't pat-down search.
I can't use an overall section to override that.
Otherwise, I could over-ride it all the time.
I think., But I am getting quite --
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
'i9 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--al Reporters, Inc.
25 23 MR. KENNEDY:
You can only override it in the event that other measures were not available.
MR. MINOGUE:
I see no reason not to add the sentence Commissioner Kennedy suggests.
It clarifies.
You would have the authority in that specific situation right in that clause.
I see no reason not to put that in.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right, would you attempt to put the words down on your piece of paper so we can record them here, or is the reporter able to read that back?
MR. KENNEDY:
I wasn't attempting to draft the language, but only to give it sense.
It seems to me that the lawyers ought to draft precise language and if everyone is agreed that that is the appropriate course, circulate it to us.
MR. CASE:
Well, I would agree it would help the particular problem I have where people have not ordered or have on hand explosive detectors.
MR. KENNEDY:
That is all it was intended to deal with, not the larger question.
MR. BRADFORD:
When you talk about appearances.of indecision being involved, how do you square that with what I understand to be NRR 's recommendation which is essentially continuation of the present situation?
Or won't that con-tinue your inability problem as well?
MR. CASE:
Probably.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I
19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--al Reporters, Inc.
25 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it makes it much worse since it means on this particular issue clearly a Commission decision pending as we march down towards the 24th of August.
People then face the fact that the deadline comes closer and decisions are to be made by this body and they haven't been made, they have been delayed.
MR. KENNEDY:
It would seem quite as reasonable I
to suspect that if you were going to continue pat-down searche, we might consider discontinuance of some of the other requirements which would seem redundant.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I really think the issue is ripe.
And if I could --
MR. BRADFORD:
I have a couple more questions before I vote anyway.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
MR. BRADFORD:
I understand we had a great deal of discontent with the pat-down searches when it applied to everyone.
I haven't sensed there is a continuing wave of discontent with the procedures that are in fa6t~in place now.
Am I wrong about that?
MR. CASE:
I haven't sensed such continuing wave.
It would seem to me if it would come, it would come from the visitors.
And as the Chairman pointed out, they don't have a focal point for making --
.e 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--ral Reporters, Inc.
25 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Visitors are not well organized to communicate their views.
MR. KENNEDY:
You might ask all the utility presidents their view.
MR. JONES:
Those, we do get.
MR. KENNEDY:
You do get them?
What did they say?
MR. JONES:
They didn't like it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me reach out into the audience and sampie an industry view.
Don, would you make a comment about whether the visitor pat-down search is well recieved or an annoyance or DR. KNUTH:
First, I have to disqualify myself that I am not a member of a particular group in this area.
We did file a letter yesterday being considered at the Albuquer-que meeting which relates to this issue.
At that time, we were not aware that the Commission was even holding a meeting on pat-down searches.
But from our perspective, the utilities that I have been dealing with, which is 24, we feel that search requirements should be extended to include contractor or the position for employees should include contractor personnel, whether it be Westing-house or CE, that is in the plant every day.
From a visitors' standpoint, our perspective is that a person entering the vital areas that visitors should receive some sort of search.
Perhaps pat down is appropriate.
2 3
4 5,
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--al Reporters, Inc.
25 26 For those who are going in only to the protective
./
area and has an escort with him at all times, we see no value in putting him through a 100 percent pat-down search or 100 percent instrument search for that matter.
We do see value in putting him through a metal detector which we are really concerned about a person being in a protected area which is being escorted having a wepon concealed on him.
But if he is under escort, we see little value in the time and effort for conducting an explosive search of such an individual who is under constant escort. It is just time consuming and a total waste of time.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Thank you.
In going back to Dr. Knuth, I interrupted something you were going to say, Ralph.
MR. JONES:
I don't recall what it was.
MR. CASE:
It is fair to say I feel more com-fort-'-ih---.that position than that that is being advocated by the rest of the staff.
Because as I understood what Dr. Knuth said, he sees some value in pat-down searches of visitors going into vital areas if they are unescorted.
DR. KNUTH:
Yes, my feeling is that if one recog-nizes there is a deterrent value, some selective, random, pat-down search would be of value, from a deterrent standpoint.
I But we aren't firmly convinced that a person being searched 100 percent, as a visitor receiving 100 percent search, is
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--ral Reporters, Inc.
25 27 little additional comfort.
But if you* recognize a deterrent value, yes, some random, pat-down search or instrument search is appropriate.
MR. KENNEDY:
Pat-down search or instrument search?
DR. KNUTH:
Yes.
MR. KENNEDY:
Would you suggest that these are.
alternatives, one to the other, that if --
DR. KNUTH:
Yes.
MR. KENNEDY:
there were instrument searches, you would not suggest also pat-down searches?
DR. KNUTH:
That's correct.
Our feeling is in a.
letter we sent to the Commission yesterday in enclosure B, I can read it to you if you like.
Recognizing the deterrent value, we consider, (a) persons granted unescorted access to the protected area and all persons granted access to the vital areas will be searched either upon entering the protected area by either:
- 1.
Equipment using both metal and exp.J..osive detectors; or
- 2.
Equipment for detection of metal which is weapons and a random physical search on the order of 10 percen,;
and (b)
Persons required to have escorts in the protected area need be searched only by use of a metal
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--al Reporters, Inc.
25 28 detector.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Peter, you had other points.
r.'I..R. BRADFORD:
Ed, if you were on a witness stand and alternative 3 were implemented and you were asked then whether in your judgment an adequate level of protection was being provided -- I shouldn't say "adequate"; whatever the formulation.in the regulations is to that?
how.would you respond MR. CASE:
Well, I would rather Jim answer that because he has been out and approved some of.the plans and may in some cases be called to the witness stand.
MR. MILLER:
I have talked to the team leaders, the people that are.actually doing the reviews.
It is not a clear-cut yes. or no answer that there is high assurance protection against the insiders. It deals more on a site-by-site basis and the rest of the physical security system on site.
For example, some sites have.bought the Mercedes access control systems.
They have very good screening programs under ANSI 1817 for their employees.
They have bery rigid control as to who goes in the vital area and why and how long he is in there and what he is doing in there.
For those licensees, if I were called on the stand, I think I could say it would add very little.
There are other licensees who have, but the very minimum who in our
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 29 judgment are walking the side of the fence, that this little increment might throw them one way or the other.
For those licensees and those sites, I would have to say that it adds enough that I would then say it is a good idea.
MR. BRADFORD:
But without it, you would say that they were not --
MR. MILLER:
Without it, I would lean toward it the other way, that's right.
MR. GOSSICK:
Notwithstanding what the experts say about the value.
MR. MILLER:
Notwithstanding what the experts say about the value *.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In this area as in a number of others in the safeguards and security area, one comes to a highly subjective set of judgments.
MR. MILLER:
Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And there seem to be few, if any, quantitative tests that can be made to have some objective standards to work toward.
And the opinions of experts run:all over the map, I see.
It is a value judgment and so forth.
MR. BRADFORD:
I may not have a full appreciation of the geographies.
Are a protected area and a vital area the same thing?
MR. MILLER:
No.
A protected area begins at the
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--al Reporters, Inc.
25 30 fence, the 8-foot fence, that surrounds the site. Vital areas as we define them are those areas in which only in that area, an individual could cause a release of -- a radiological release of any value.
MR. CASE:
Safety equipment, vital safety equip-ment, is inside the vital area.
MR. BRADFORD:
And the regulation currently pro-vides for searches of people going into the protected area or the vital area?
MR. MILLER:
Protected area.
There could be many vital areas in a given plant. It is not economical.
MR. KENNEDY:
There are other restrictions on the vital area.
MR. MILLER:
There are other restrictions on the vital area such as access.
MR. CASE:
But what Jim is saying is where the access control that ~ome licensees have proposed are provided which meats the minimal requirements of the regulations still is on the minimal side.
And in those instances, that he feels a larg.er increment towards ligh assurance of the pat-down search.
MR. MILLER:
That's right.
MR. BRADFORD:
What you are saying is that even if somebody is in the plant that you would have time that you would have confidence that even if somebody were to get
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 31 by and get into the protected area, what you are saying is you are still confident they wouldn't get into the vital area.
MR. MILLER:
That's right.
MR. BRADFORD:
What are the obstacles to moving the search requirement from the protected area to the vital area?
MR. CASE:
Formidable.
Because then you have to have --
MR. MILLER:
Too many vital areas.
MR. BRADFORD:
Even though you have other access controls at all the vital areas.
MR. MILLER:
There are still too many of them.
The access controls are things like card keys.
MR. CASE:
And they aren't 100 percent assurance either.
Again, it is a combination of things that add up.
MR. BRADFORD:
Corne back for a minute to the escort requirement.
Most visitors, I take it, are escorted once they get into the protected area.
MR. MILLER:
All visitors.
There are procedures for granting unescorted access which each plant has so that *a "visitor" could be granted unescorted access.
But most visitors are excortea..
MR. KENNEDY:
But not in vital areas.
All visitors would be escorted in vital areas.
MR.. MILLER:
That's right.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
, Ace--ral Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BRADFORD:
But not in protected areas?
MR. MILLER:
Not necessarily.
An example might be the Coke vendor who comes in to bring Cokes into the machines.
MR. GOSSICK:
And that would be through special arrangement with that guy.
MR. BRADFORD:
To the extent that visitors are escorted, is it correct to say that you then don't have too much to worry about in terms of explosives?
MR. MILLER:
Well, when I look at the overall threat, the threat of several external and an internal, if that visitor were bringing material in to someone, then I still have that problem.
There are many places in a plant that contraband can be hidden.
32 MR. BRADFORD:
It wouldn't be a matter of actually
~,
setting the explosive up, but leaving it for someone else?
MR. MILLER:
Bringing it in, that's right.
Now, there are other ways of bringing it in.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Gee, that's odd.
If you had a guy on the plant staff who is going to be there every day who is going to put it on the pipe and set the fuse on it and he doesn't get pat-down searched coming in, it is a mighty peculiar set of saboteurs who are going to assign the trans-portation task to a.guy who may in fact run right spang into
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--al Reporters, Inc.
25 the pat-down search.
That's true.
I'd be fairly cheerful if I thought the potential range of saboteuring groups contained that kind of intellect or were limited to it.
33 MR. CASE:
Well, it has been said in this business once you know all of the defenses, you can always find a way around them.
That is true.
You try to block as many as you can.
MR. KENNEDY:
An important statement, I would add that ought to be underlined in the record of this meeting.
MR. CASE:
You are trying to make it difficult, but not impossible.
CHAIR.~N HENDRIE:
We would like to make it im-possible, but that is not practical in the real world.
One does what one judges to be reasonable and prudent, and that is as good as you can do.
MR. BRADFORD:
Am I misstating the proposition that if I say that, first of all, there isn't a great clamor for change in the existing situation?
And secondly, that if we make the change that is being advocated, we would be creating a *situation in which the NRR people who then are the ones who go on to witness stands and are cross examined about these programs would have to indicate that there was in some cases less than adequate protections being afforded?
MR. CASE:
I think that would be my capsule of the
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 Ace---al Reporters, Inc.
25 34 situation.
MR. KENNEDY:
That is only if the licensee doesn't take other measures.
It is not necessary you have this measure.
There are other options which you can pursue.
There fore, it is not the absence of this particular measure which creates that situation.
It is the absence of a measure, only one of which is this one.
MR. CASE:
And then, sir, you have to consider the practicality and costs of the other measures that would compensate, of course.
MR. KENNEDY:
Always.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Other commentary.
MR. BRADFORD:
Is the licensee now precluded from making a choice among those other measures?
I guess what you are saying is that he is.
He can have those other measures, but he still has to have some form of search as well.
MR. CASE:
Now for visitors, yes.
MR. BRADFORD:
So to the extent there is an area of difficulty, it is with those licensees MR. CASE:
No, no.
Let me put it this way:
with the way the regulation is written now, I believe -- correct me if I am wrong -- if there were high enough assurance without pat-down for visitors, the regulation itself would not require that there be such pat-down searches, and we
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--al Reporters, Inc.
25 and we could get on the stand and say without the visitor pat-down search, it still provides high assurance.
35 MR. BRADFORD:
Okay.
And what you are saying is that in fact there are some situations now in which you would be prepared to do that.
MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
MR. JONES:
I would point out that the present regulation does not require physical search.
MR. CASE:-
-I think that's what we just said.
MR. JONES:
It requires physical search or use of equipment. capable of detecting such devices.
And it has been an interpretation of that regulation --
MR. CASE:
Now, I think with this change, in order to get that high assurance, we would have to go back on, for instance, the vital equipment and say, "fix that up, fellow,"
because under these new wordings, we could not use that "or" alternative and go to the pat-down search supplement.
So, indeed, this takes away some of the flexibility fo the regulation as ~tis presently written.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't understand that at all.
MR. CASE:
Well, if you go with 'this change, if a person, if a licensee, has the instruments, I cannot by the way the words are written require, them to also have, for example, a random search of visitors.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
True.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--ral Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. _CASE:
Now, Mr. Miller or one of bis heam leaders looks at the overall security program with the, for instance, access control that that particular licensee pro-vides and the other measures.
He concludes that it does not add up to high assurance. Subjective.
Nevertheless, that is his conclusion.
He is stuck.
He can't say, "Go to this visitor pat-down, and that will put me in a position where I can ful-fill the requirements of the regulation."
He just has to say, "Unless you get this high-falutin' access control, I can't make that conclusion."
MR. KENNEDY:
If we added a sentence along the lines of t~at which I suggested, that problem will no longer exist.
MR. CASE:
No, that would only take care of the situation where he didn't have the instruments.
I am postu-lating one where he has the instruments, and he has an access control system minimally meeting the specific requirements of the regulation, but not enough for the team leader --
_MR. KENNEDY:
I don't understand that at all.
I am completely lost in what you are telling me now.
MR. CASE:
All right, I will start over again.
The regulations require a conclusion that there be high assurance against the threat level.
The regulations require a number of specific measures to meet this high
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--al Reporters, Inc.
25 assurance.
MR. KENNEDY:
Yes.
MR. CASE:
Presently included -- they don't have to do all of them.
They only have to do those that add up to high assurance.
There is an arsenal of things that can be done.
He picks and chooses and says, "This is it," and we look at it, "Yes, it meets; no, it doesn't meet."
37 Now, I want to have a hypothetical situation where the licensee proposes to have the instrumentations there.
He has got an explosive detector and a metal detector.
He has access control system, but it is not a computer-driven system; it is a word-of-mouth system.
So although it is an access control system, there are better access control systems that cost more money and time.
MR. KENNEDY:
Always.
MR. CASE:
The regulation is as modified by this proposal -- part of the hypothesis.
One of Mr. Miller's team leaders looks at the features proposed.
He says, "I'm sorry, Mr. Licensee, it does not add up to high assurance in my judgment."
That's what we pay him to do.
That is his job, to make that judgment.
MR. KENNEDY:
Yes.
MR. CASE:
With the regulation as proposed, he could not ask the licensee or suggest the licensee supplement
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-al Reporters, Inc.
25 these various things that add up by a pat-down search of visitors because the regulations prohibit that.
MR. KENNEDY:
Yes.
38 MR. CASE:
His alternative, then, is to s_ay, "Get this high-falutin' access control system," as an example.
MR. KENNEDY:
That assumes that is the only other way to get at it.
MR. CASE:
Right.
The point I am making is you are taking away by this regulation change one of the alter-natives that he now has.
MR. KENNEDY:
Oh, all right.
I understand what you are saying.
MR. CASE:
So it is decreasing the flexibility.
MR. KENNEDY:
I know what you are saying.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.* I don't perceive the matter to be as ripe as it ought to be.
I think the Commission ought to decide this matte~ in the near term.
But I do not believe it will go this morning.
And I am not even going to ask for a division of the house on the matter.
We have another item that I would like to get on to, and I want.to stay on the morning's schedule with some rigor.
So I am going to say thank you very much on this item.
We will take about a minute break to allow people
_}J
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--ral Reporters, Inc.
25 to stretch and other staff members to come to the table.
And I will get up and stretch for a minute.
Then, we will proceed with the. next meeting.
(Whereupon, at 10:33 a.m., the meeting was adjourned. )
39