ML19296C075

Response in Opposition to Licensee 800121 Motion to Clarify or Modify Second Special Prehearing Conference Order Re Contention 16.Licensee Failed to Demonstrate Why Adequacy of Security Issue Should Be Narrowed.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19296C075
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	01/23/1980
From:	Sholly S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19296C076	List: ML19296C075 ML19296C078
References
NUDOCS 8002250181
Download: ML19296C075 (5)

Text

~

. t i, ,

N % ,

y %s v I-d af .~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $ 9 ~,sG3p '4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 &Q99;5ghV 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA P CD ,

s In the Matter of MEIROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Doc

)

s art (Three Mile Island, Unit 1)

INTERVENOR STEVEN C. SHOLLY RESPONSE TO LICENSEE MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY SECOND SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER, DATED 1/21/80 Licensee has filed a motion with the Board which requests that the Board " clarify" or " modify" its Order regarding the acceptance of Intervenor Steven C.

Sholly Contention #16. This Intervenor cited four areas within the Commi.ssion's August 9, 1979 Order which -

supported the admission of Contentton #16. Licensee mischaractertzes the reason listed as (4) on page 5 of Intervenor's AMENDMENI TO PEIITION TO INTERVENE IN RESPONSE TO THE REPORTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE ISLAND, as solely relating

, to emergency planning, while the quoted reason clearly states "... recognized defletencies in emergency plans

• and station operattna crocedures." (emphasis added).

Clearly, security procedures are station operating procedures.

=

8002 2 50 / $/

e, h

[

Secondly, Licensee would apparently (from the statement at the bottom of page 1 of the Motion to Clarify or Modify) have the Board and other parties to this proceeding believe ~

that security matters have nothing to do with " management  :

capabilities". NUREG-0616 at page 46 states most clearly that " . . . safe operation of the plant ts a direct function of I

the effectiveness of Ilcensee administrative controls." '

Plant internal security most certainly has a bearing on the safe operation of the plant and is , therefore, clearly related to the question of internal security.

Netther of these points has to do with the issue at hand, but are pointed out only to show Licensee is attempting l to twtst not only this Interve: or's language, but the language .

of this Board and the Commission for Licensee's self-serving ~

purpcras. The only reason advanced by Licensee for the Board to "clarlfy" or " modify" its Order is that litigation  !

of Contention #16 could result in proprietary problems during

• discovery and the evidentiary hearings. Such problems I;ve ,

been successfully dealt with before and will continue to )

be dealt with successfully in the future. -' i This is no good

}

' reason for the . Board to restrict the scope of the Contention :l as it has been admttted. .

Licensee seeks to have Content 2on.#16 restricted solely to the threat to Unit I security from ongoing activittes at Unit 2. While this facet of the Contention is important, .

f f

0

9 equally important, 12 not more important, is the general inadequacy of security at Unit 1 itself. The accident at Unit 2 has made it abundantly clear that sabotage could easily take place at either Unit 1 or Unit 2. NRC has recognized this fact, "The occurrence of several apparent operator errors at TMI tend to high-light the vulnerability of nuclear reactors to insider actions. While in this case, these actions were apparently due to errors in judgment, the same actions could be initiated as an overt act of sabotage."

SOURCE: " Project Priorities for Safeguards Standards Branch" contained in a memo from A.L.

Eiss to R.G. Smith, dated 4/20/79, available in the -

Harris burg LPDR.

The Kemeny Commission also recognized this fact, pointing out in the Staff Summary document, used as the basis for Contention #16, that the LASL study of security at TMI found that " . . . successful sabotage can be performed at either Unit 1 or Unit 2." The Summary document also stated that. "..._before the accident, plant security complied with 10l CFR 73 and was protected from external attack, but that there was not adequate protection against sabotage by an insider. The same situation exists today except that protection from external attack has been enhanced." A 1976 study for

~

the NRC done by Sandia Laboratories cites as a problem with  ;

security at nuclear power plants an, ... excessive dependence

.s Id perimeter security to provide sabotage protection ...".

The accident at Unit 2 both hiehltahts security problems at TMI and makes them worse due to the large numbers of personnel at the island involved in ongoing operations at Unit 2. This contention is limited in scope in that it does not attempt to address the actual security problems at Untt 2, but rather seeks to litigate the adecuaev af sacurity yt Unit 1 and the adecuaev af measures taken by Licensee a gjtcure that activities g Unit 2 d2 n g affect tha safe cueration of Unit 1. The Board correctly took note of this in its Order. Licensee has advanced nothing, other than the dLfficulty of dealing with proprietary information in a public hearing, which suggests that the scope of Contention #16 .

should be narrowed. Intervenor therefore respectfully urges the Board to deny Licensee's Motion to Clarify or Modify Second Special Prehearing Conference Order. .

t Respectfully submitted, 1

Steven C.~Sholly l 304 South Mark Street  !

Mechantes burg , PA 17055  :

h--717-766-1857  :

w--717-566-3237 -

566-3238 -

DATED: 23 January 1980 )

i

i.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND L*. CENSING EOARD In the Matter of )

) Doc METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY s art (Three Mlle Island, Unit 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that single copies of INTERVENOR STEVEN C. SHOLLY RESPONSE TO LICENSEE MOTION TO CLARIFY OR -MODIFY SECOND SPECIAL PPIHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER, DATED 1/21/80, were hand delivered to the Three Mlle Island Observation Center on the 2 day of January 1980, addressed to the Attention of Mr. John Wilson, for service tc, parties in this proceeding in accordance with Licensee's service provisions , and malled, postage prepald, to Ivan W. Smith, Esquire, Chatrmaa, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, on the W day of January 1980 (in order to ensure receipt with time limit- specified by 10 CFR 2, which may {

f in this case not be possible utilizing Licensee's service j

.provistons). .

Steven C.. Sholly i

.