ML20085L260
| ML20085L260 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Neely Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 06/21/1995 |
| From: | Guilday P Neely Research Reactor, ATLANTA, GA, GEORGIA, STATE OF |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#295-16836 REN, NUDOCS 9506280393 | |
| Download: ML20085L260 (11) | |
Text
LJUN21'95 11:42 81hisucrArar4ciourun r. 0/ o f jf,7B4 00CKETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AIUIRICA NUf'Lns RSGULhTORY COHNISSION '95 JLN 21 P4 :03 Connissioners:
0FFICE OF SECRETARY Ivan Soldin, Chairman 00CKEilHG & SERllCE Kenneth C. Rogers BRANCH shirley A. Jackson
)
In the Matter of )
)
GEORGIA INSTITUTE )
OF TECHNOLOGY ) Docket No. 50-160-Ren Atlanta, Georgia )
)
Georgia Tech Research )
Reactor )
)
Renewal of License No. R-97 )
s GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY'S RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER'S ORDER ISSUING HOUSEKEEPING STAY i
June 21, 1995 PATRICIA GUILDAY Assistant Attorney General 40 Capitol square SW Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300 J Counsel for Georgia Institute of 1 Technology
)
9506280393 950621 ADOCK 05000160 PDR Q PDR [p@ ,
~
iJbH21.'95 11i42 STATE DEPARTMEhi 0F LAA.
'r, i/of l
-l 1
i June 21, 1995 ;
UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA 3
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY C00eGSSION Commissioners:
Ivan Soldin, Chairman Kenneth C.~ Rogers Shirley A. Jackson 1
-) ,
In the Matter of )
) i GEORGIA INSTITUTE )
0F TECHNOLOGY ) Docket No. 50-160-Ren Atlanta, Georgia )
)
1 Georgia Tech Research )
) l Reactor
) l Renewal of License No. R-97 )
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY'S I RESPONSE TO COMMISSION'S ORDER IREUING HOUsurEEDING STAY l
l Georgia Institute of Technology (" Georgia Tech") hereby responds to the Comission's Order Issuing Housekeeping Stay filed on June 9, 1995. The Commission has requested Georgia Tech to respond to three questions. )
Georgia Tech states that its administration has decided to remove the nuclear fuel in its research reactor before.the Olympics, which will be held in July 1996, and to replace the fuel after the Olympics are concluded. Georgia Tech believes that this decision renders moot GANE's concerns about security at the facility during the Olympics. Because this Comission, J the Board or GANE may not agree with this conclusion, Georgia Tech has responded fully to the commission's questions.
I l
__ l
'. O' O '
aun gj n 11:43 U nit utrnr m M ur Lnn i 1
I As a part of its response to these questions Georgia Tech l i
has attached the following: l Exhibit 1: Georgians Against Nuclear Energy Discovery From l
NRC and Georgia Tech through Interrogatory, Production of Documents and Request to Enter and Inspect; '
Exhibit 2: Affidavit of Robert Lang, Chairman of Olympic village Security and member of the Olympic Security Group. ,
- 1. A crotective order would not satisfactorily addream j licanmen's and staff's concerns about GANE havino access to Georaia Tech's security documents.
1 The Licensing Board found that Georgians Against Nuclear Energy ("GANE") had standing to intervene in this renewal l
proceeding and admitted GANE's contention 5, which concerned l security at the Georgia Tech Research Reactor. Georgia Tech has moved the Commission for an order staying discovery on the security issue. In response, the Commission has requested Georgia Tech and the staff to address the question as to whether a protective order would satisfactorily resolve Georgia l 1
Tech's and the staff's concerns about permitting GANE access to Georgia Tech's security documents.
Georgia Tech submits to this Commission that its concerns about security at its research reactor facility cannot be addressed satisfactorily by a protective order, regardless of how such a protective order may be worded. Georgia Tech would l initially bring to the Commission's attention the scope of discovery intended by GANE on the security issue. The 2-
JJUN21'95 11:43 STATE DEPARIMEhi ur i.AA P. 9/3I discovery which has been served by GANE on Georgia Tech seeks specific details concerning the existing security plan and the plan which will be in effect during the Olympics. See, GANE Discovery, attached as Ex. 1.
GANE is. dedicated to the singular objective of bringing about an and to the use of nuclear energy'in this country. The group, by its own admission, is composed of individuals who, rightfully or wrongfully, are ardently and vocally hostile to very existence of the Georgia Tech nuclear facility. It is common knowledge that similar groups in the past have made attempts to disrupt the operation of nuclear facilities around the country, sometimes using violent or illegal methods.
While Georgia Tech is not contending that GANE, either as a group or by actions of its individual members, have in the past or will in the future engage in similar activities, it would ;
note that several of its members who have joined in this matter are members of Green Peace, a group known for its violent propensities. (See, affidavits of Kishi Animashaun, Angela Brown, Scott Brown, Ira Camp, Ginger Dollar, Case Edwards, Dana Smith, Daniel Salmond, Margaret Smith, Helen swain, Brian k
Beneke,.Lynn Cumiskey, Michael Tetler, Robert Johnson, and Alvin Lenoir, filed in support of GANE's petition to intervene.) Georgia Tech does not contend that its nuclear reactor has at any time been targeted by such anti-nuclear groups. It does contend, however, that GANE has no means of assuring to Georgia Tech, the Board, or this Commission that :
the specifics of its security plan will not be accidentally or
JUN 21' 95 11:44 di Ait nranno ur t.$a r,tu/
intentionally divulged to individuals who harbor a desire to disrupt or terminate operation of its nuclear facility.
No protective order entered by the Board or the Commission can provide a guarantee that security information will not be leaked to improper parties. Such a protective order could limit production of information to GANE members or agents, such as experts, or to those individuals identified by the Board or this Commission as possessing a justifiable "need-to-know." I basis. However, the consequences of a violation of that l confidentiality requirement could be disastrous to Georgia Tech, the surrounding campue, or to the public at large. It could have serious consequences on the status of any research being conducted at the facility. No monetary or injunctive sanctions entered against GANE could make up for any harm to or disruption of the nuclear facility by individuals intent upon i such activity.
Georgia Tech has even more serious concerns about divulging ;
information concerning security to be in place at the facility during the Olympic games scheduled for July 1996. Georgia Tech would not: initially that GANE's contentions and the Board's Order concerning olympic security presume, first, that there is ,
in effect at the present time a security plan for the Olympics; second, that Georgia Tech, which is the only entity over which the Board and Commission have authority, has independent and absolute control over the security measures for the Georgia Tech campus which will be in effect during the Olympics; and, three, that GANE and/or the Board is an appropriate party to be
.s.
. - ~
QuN EL 90 n :44 Onn w vernr.mcm ur " r. > n i
. making such security decisions. All.three of these >
1 presumptions are incorrect.
' Formulation of an Olympic security plan-is the j
~
responsibility of a group of agencies and experts specially chosen for this' extremely important function. Intervention by l l
the Board, either'by its ultimate ruling or by a preliminary ,
i i
discovery order, will have serious consequences on the overall success of the committee faced with ensuring the safety of Olympic athletes, staff, and dignitaries and of members of the f I
public who will attend the Olympic events. ;
Georgia Tech has attached to this Supplemental Memorandum the affidavit of Robert Lang. Mr. Lang is Director of Security j
at' Georgia Tech. Mr. Lang is chaiman of the cometittee to
' which has been delegated by the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games ("ACOG") the responsibility for security of the f Olympic Village, which is located on the Georgia Tech campus !
and is where the Olympic athletes will be housed before and during the Games. He.is also a member of the Olympic Security Group, the entity charged with designing and implementing security plans for all Olympic events.
Mr. Lang describes in his affidavit the confidential nature of the work of both groups, the current status of the work of these groups, and the dangers which he believes would result from disclosure of any security plan, whether for the nuclear reactor or otherwise, which will be in place during the ]
l Olympics. Mr. Lang emphasizes that security at the Georgia 4
Tech nuclear facility is an integral part of a much larger
- , m Juitit .n. Inc ' a m s t u re.w u vr 1,
' olympic security plan. It is not a subject about which GANE nor the Board has any experience. Forced disclosure concerning preliminary security plans could adversely affect the development and implementation of the overall Olympic security plan. More importantly, disclosure to a non-secure, potentially hostile group such as GANE could have consequences beyond those which GANE or the Board may foresee.
Regardless of what assurances GANE may make concerning maintaining the confidentiality of information disclosed to them by Georgia Tach in this proceeding, individuals and groups, both foreign and domestic, can be assumed to have an interest in such information and to be willing to take whatever steps necessary to gain such information. Disclosure of :
sensitive security information to anyone other than those specifically identified by the groups responsible for Olympic security means the inability of those groups to control such information and the uses to which it could potentially be put.
Finally, ACOG has determined that Olympic security is best left in the hands of those with the requisite level of experience in this field. To permit intervention by GANE experts or the Board in the process of developing and implementing Olympic security plans would interject into this process the opinions of third parties whom ACOG has not selected, investigated, or cleared as being appropriate participants in this process.
For the above reasons, Georgia Tech must respond to the Commission's question in the negative. GANE is a group of individuals who are dedicated to the cessation of all uses of
~
a vit c1 4 ::o o m i:. v e r nro c.no vr n* r . i ;, J .
J j
l nuclear energy in this country. Its members cannot be subjected to a security clearance and background check. Some of its members admit to membership in other organizations which j l
are known to use violent means to accomplish their goals. No protective order can be drafted which would assure that security infomation divulged to any GANE member or expert would be used only for legitimate purposes related to this license renewal proceeding or that such information would not be leaked, whether or not intentionally, to the press or to terrorist individuals or groups whose objective is to duplicate in Atlanta the tragic events which occurred during the Olympic Games in Munich.
- 2. How much time would the licensen nand to remnve the fumi from its research reactor. monnmina the C 4 salon were ultimately to aaree with GANE that such rWaoval were necessary to aneure oublic hemith and mafety durina the 01vmoic numme?
Georgia Tech states that it believes that the fuel could be removed from its nuclear reactor within two to three weeks after approval of the removal and provision of a cask by the Department of Energy. Georgia Tech has been in communication with the Department of Energy and has been informed that a cask should be available in the near future and well before the Olympics in July 1996.
cinic ur.rnr,w.r.at ur unn r , 1 -, 0 Juli 41 VD l l MO
- 3. To what arrant la 10 C.F.R. I 50.13 relevant to the 14 kalihaM of staf f
- a anti licannae's succeedina on the marits of the " security" issuel Georgia Tech stands on the targument included with respect ;
to this issue in its Notice of Appeal filed May 11, 1995.
Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL J. BOWERS 174567 Attorney General
.% % iN2J kjis:1 Ja . , N DENNIS R. DUNN V T34098 Senior Assistant Attorney General l
}#rbij W/h a P TRICIA GUILDA? f./ 315113 !
Assistant Attorney General l PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO:
PATRICIA GUILDAY Assistant Attorney General Georgia Department of Law 40 Capitol Square, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300 1
l l
.g.
STAic utirAr.nero or w r, m, JUN 2r ' 95 .11:46)
- DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REQUIATORY C099tISSION . % JJN 21 P4 :03 Coasnissioners: OF?lCE OF SECRETARY 00CKEilNr, & EERVICE Ivan Seldin, Chairman gg4HGH }
Kenneth C. Rogers Shirley A. Jackson .
)
In the Matter of )
)
GEORGIA INSTITUTE )
OF TECHNOLOGY ) Docket No. 50-160-Ren Atlanta, Georgia )
)
Georgia Tech Research )
Reactor )
)
Renewal of License No R-97 )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Georgia 'f Tech's n===== to t' -tami s e order r--ii4 - u~i- '- stav -
have been served upon the following persons by U.S. Mail, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirement of 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.712:
Office of Commission Glenn Carroll Appellate Adjudication Georgians Against Nuclear U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Energy Commission P.O. Box 8574 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atlanta Georgia 30306 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nucl6ar Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 washington, D.C. 20555 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Susan S. Chidakel, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
wo ci - c ti;*o cin a vr.rnt.. cn. .c .ni, r..oJ.
Administrative Judge Peter S. Lam Atomic Safety And Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 This 22 day of Lea. , 1995.
fn2nS AJ 2h $)A _s PATRICIA GUILDAY 9 Assistant Attorney General l
l 1
i l
1 1
l l
2-