ML19209A250
| ML19209A250 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 09/06/1979 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910030226 | |
| Download: ML19209A250 (3) | |
Text
]
n NRC P' UBLIC' DOCUMENT RC' N Of / g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
g
~
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 40 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman d
/f Dr. John H. Buck g
Michael C. Farrar In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment to Materials License
)
SNM-1773 -- Transportation of
)
Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear
)
Station for Storage at McGuire
)
Nuclear Station)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER September 6, 1979 On August 7, 1979, the Licensing Board orally denied the request of the NRC staff that certain information per-taining to staff-approved routes for the proposed shipment of spent fuel between the Oconee and McGuire nuclear facil-ities be withheld from public disclosure.
One of the grounds assigned for the denial was that the routing information in question had already been made public and, additionally, had been the subject of direct and cross-examination in this pro-ceeding (as well as alluded to in limited appearance state-ments) (Tr. 3237).
1087 144 1
7910080 61 '
b
_2-To provide the staff with an opportunity to seek appel-late relief, the Board, noting that the hearing would not be resumed until September 10, stayed the effectiveness of its ruling for 30 days --
i.e.,
until September 6 (Tr. 3238).
Rather than promptly endeavoring to obtain that relief, the staff sat back until September 4.
On that date, it filed with us (1) a motion for directed certification; and (2) a request for an interim protective order pending a ruling on the motion.
The motion and the allied request for interim relief come far too late and present too little.
The time to have brought.the matter to us was within days af ter the Licensing Board ruled -- rather than on the eve of the expiration of the 30 day stay period and less than a week before the re-sumption of the hearing next Monday.1!
Beyond that, the staff compounded its delinquency by failing to address ade-quately the Licensing Board's finding that the routing information is already in the public domain. 2/
On that score, we have been referred simply to the unparticularized
_1/
By waiting until the last minute, the staff deprived the other parties of a reasonable opportunity to address the merits of the request for interim relief.
~~2/
It is axiomatic that confidential treatment is not to be accorded information previously made public.
See Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Sta-tion, Unit No. 1), ALAB-327, 3 NRC 408, 416-17 (1976).
1087 145
~
. denial of staff counsel below that such is the case.
That is manifestly not enough to warrant our taking the extra-ordinary step which the staff asks of us.
Accordingly, we decline to grant the request for an interim protective order.
Because the transportation routes are to be considered at the hearing next week, the motion for directed certification therefore becomes moot and is denied as such.
An opinion elaborating upon our reasons for these actions will be filed later. 1/
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD bm b)
C. J p Bishop V
Secr(emry to the Appeal Board
_3/
As we understand it, what is involved here are the al-ternative transportation corridors which, according to the staff, the applicant should be allowed to employ in moving the spent fuel from Oconee to McGuire.
(Presum-ably, the hearing next week will go into the impact attendant upon the use of each of those corridors.)
What is not involved is the precise route (among those which will be available to the applicant) of any partic-ular shipment taking place at any specific time.
That information obviously is not now in the public domain and there is ample reason why it should not be made public in the future.
We shall deal with this matter at greater length in our forthccming opinion.
1087 146