ML19224D739
| ML19224D739 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1979 |
| From: | Mcgarry J DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19224D737 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907160235 | |
| Download: ML19224D739 (4) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 70-2623 (Amendment to Materials License
)
SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage
)
at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
STATEMENT OF HATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHERE THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE TO BE HEARD RESPECTING INTERVENOR, CAROLINA ACTION 1.
Applicant's license amendment application seeks a near-term solution to the lack of present spent fuel storage space at Oconee.
(License Amendment Applica-tion, March 9, 1978, Section 1.2; Environmental Impact Appraisal (EI_A_) Section 1.0).
A 2.
Under present conditions, Applicant will lose full core discharge capability at the Oconee Station in 1979 and will be unable to operate the Oconee Station in early 1981.
( Apolicant's Resconse to NRDC Interrogatories #5, 6,
' & 8, Merch 27, 1979).
3.
Transportation of Oconee spent fuel to McGuire will provide continued operation of Oconee until 1983 with full core discharge capability and unitl 1985 without such capability.
(Applicant's Resconse to CESG's Interro-gatory 26, October 26, 1973; Resconse to NRDC Inte r ro-gatory 615, March 27, 1979).
35 /
L'7
,0 7907160 Cdiy
9 4.
Independent spent fuel storage installation at Oconee or elsewhere would require at least five years to complete.
(EIA at 52).
5.
Installation of poison racks at Oconee is not feasible before loss of full core reserve or termination of operation.
( Applicant's Response to NRDC's Interrogatory
- 24, May 7, 1979).
6.
Applicant filed an application to rerack Oconee Units 1 &
2 spent fuel pocl with non-poison racks on February 2, 1979. (NRC S*_aff's Response to NRDC's Request for_
Admissions #1, April 17, 1979).
7.
If Applicant's application for reracking Oconee is approved in a timely fashion and Applicant proceeds with this option, resa~ve storage space created will be exhausted in 1982 or 1983 depending on whether a full core reserve discharge capability is retained.
(Apolicant's Response to NRDC's Request for Admission
- 1, April 17, 1979).
8.
Carolina Action has made no studies or conducted any research with respect to any of the alternatives or proposed action; has not contacted any groups or individuals with respect to any of its contentions; and is not planning to present testimony or call wit-nesses with respect to Contentions 1(a), (b), (c).
(Carolina Action' Response to Applicant's Interroga-tories, 310-70).
l)b f
7 351 a
9.
Carolina Action is seeking to establish its case through cross-examination.
(Id. #24, 4 2, 59).
- 10. The EIA concludes that the " environmental impacts associated wich the proposed action would constitute a negligible impact to the public". (EIA at 50-57).
- 11. Carolina Action does not take issue with any NRC determination regarding the proposed action nor with Applicant's documentation.
(Carol'_na Ac~__sn's Response to Applicant's Interrocatories, #1-5).
- 12. Transportation of spent fuel from Oconee has been considered in previous licensing proceedings.
(Dconee FES, March 1972, III(E) and VI(B)).
- 13. Environmental impacts associated with transportation of spent fuel was the subject of NRC generic rule-making.
(10 CFR S51.20(g), Table S-4 ).
14. Since the operation of Oconee numerous shipments of spent fuel have been made from Oconee.
(Applicant's Response to CESG Interrocatory #44, December 8, 1978).
15 Carolina Action maintains that no increase in radiation exposure is permissible.
(Carolina Action Response to Applicant's Interrocatories #76, 77 & 78).
- 16. Carolina Action has not conducted any stadies or under-taken any research with re rc to Conte ntion 2.
Id. #81, r
117-120, 128 (mislabled 127).
357 21)9
- 17. Carolina Action submits that it doas not intend to raise
" matters" outside the scope of its cc-tentions 1 and 2 with respect to its contention 3.
(Id. #136).
- 18. Carolina Action states that its Contention 4 has been consolidated with Contention 1 of PIRG and as such, Carolina Action will present no testimony with respect to this contention.
(Id. #139-145).
- 19. Carolina Action asserts that Applicant must have an emergency plan that can respond to accidents that may result during the course of the actual transportation of Oconee spent fuel to McGuire.
(Id. #155).
- 20. Carolina Action's Centention 4 is based upon the results of a North Carolina radiological emergsncy test performed in Wilmington, and a 1977 freight train derailment in Rockingham, North Carolina.
(Id. #138, 156).
Carolina Action does not provide any basis for concluding that the Wilmington test or the Rockingham incident suggests that North Carclina is unprepared to handle transportation related accidents involving spent fuel.
Respectfully submitted,/
r.
j g
/
,l'
((
&% M v//
Michael McGarr,y, III vu.
/
Of counsel:
Willia.m L.
Porter, Esq.] bb Associate General Counsel Duke Power Company May 21, 1979}}