ML19253C638
| ML19253C638 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1979 |
| From: | Fleischaker D FLEISCHAKER, D.S., National Resources Defense Council |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912060608 | |
| Download: ML19253C638 (7) | |
Text
-
MIf@s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.q, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
'fj g **$tY
.\\
BEFORE THE COMMISSION 319Z3
"; 1%& y
-2
)
8 In The Matter Of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
)
(Amendment to Operating License
)
SNM-1773 for Oconee Spent Fuel
)
Docket No. 70-2623 Transportation and Storage at
)
McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
)
)
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSIONERS' ORDER OF NOVEMBER 2, 1979 On November 5, 1979, the Commission notified the parties to this proceeding that the routing information for the trans-shipment of spent nuclear fuel fram Oconee Nuclear Station to McGuire Nuclear Station would be examined in camera as an aid to deternining whether a permanent pro-tective order should be granted, barring the public disclosure of that information.
The Commission invited counsel to execute affidavits of non-disclosure, so that they might be provided the routing information, and to provide comments on previously undisclosed routing information.
NRDC has declined the invitation to execute the affi-davit of non-disclosure because, in our view, examination of the protected information is not necessary.-1/
The record 1/
NRDC has not tudied the affidavit and so takes no position on vi. ether i".s terms are acceptable.
1506 100 7912060bC C.
I
. already reveals that most of the route is nublic and that part which is " secret" can be easily discovered.
The Com-mission should deny the NRC Staff's petition for review and let stand the Licensing Board's ruling denying the request for a protective order.
A brief review of the record will show why that is the case.
A.
Most of the approved route for trans-snipment is already public knowledge.
The Environmental Impact Appraisal
("EIA" ), (December, 1978) actually maps most of the route.
EIA, Figure 2-6 at 9.
Counsel for the Applicant has stated that the approved routes are the same as those mapped in the EIA except for the by-pass around Charlotte, North Carolina.
TR 3046.
The number of alternatives for by-passing ~ Charlotte are limited and discovery of those alternatives would not be difficult.
Shipments must be during the day and the size and identification of the trucks would make them easy targets to follow.
Large numoer of shipments must be made in a limited amount of time.
Further, discovery and publication of the alternative routes is likely to be aided by the high media interest in this proceeding.
B.
The Licensing Board denied the request for a pro-tective order for the following reasons:
1506 101
t
. 1.
The route has been widely publicized in both South Carolina and North Carolina.
It has been made a part of the public record in this proceeding as the subject of direct and cross-examination, as well as limited appear-ance statements.
2.
The vehicles transporting the spent fuel are large and plainly marked.
Transportation would not be " performed in a stealthy or surreptitious manner."
(TR 3237)
As the Commission's primary fact finder, deference should be accorded the Licensing Board's findings.
Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Bailey Generating Station, Nuclear-1), ALAB-303, 2 NRC 858, 867 (1975).
That is par-ticularly true here because the Licensing Board is uniquely positioned to gauge (1) the publicity that has attended the routing issue; and (2) the public interest in discovering the trans-shipment routes.
In contrast to the Licensing Board, the Commission is far removed from the scene and therefore can have only a superficial feel for these matters.
C.
The factors cited above are dispositive of the question of whether a protective order should be granted in this case.
There is no reason to reach the broader policy 1506 102
9
. issue:
whether routing is a safeguards consideration.
However, should the Commission choose co reach that issue, NRDC submits that routing is not a safeguards consideration.
Nothing in the current regulations requires routing to be kept confidential.
Neither 10 CFR 2.790 (the general regulations regarding the availability of official records) nor 10 CFR 73.37, 44 Fed. Reg. 34467 (the interim regula-tions specifying the security measures and safeguards procedures necessary to protect nuclear materials in transit) require that routing be kept secret.
Security measures identified in the interim regulations relate to armed guards, communications systems, cask specifications, etc.
The concern for routing expressed in the interim regulations is that shipments be kept away from highly populated areas.
There is no requirement that routing information be kept secret.
There are strong public arguments for disclosing routing information.
The public has the right to know where and when it may be exposed to nuclear material.
The public should be allowed to participate in routing decisions.
That right is compromised where the routes are kept secret.
These considerations outweigh the marginal benefits gained by classifying trans-shipment routing as protected informa-tion.
The record in this proceeding demonstrates that even 1506 103
_5-though classified " secret," routing information can be and is likely to be discovered and made public information.
Wherefore, for the reasons set forth above, NRDC re-queste that the petition for review be DENIED.
Respectfully submitted, M
NNS Af David S. Fleischaker, Esq.
COUNSEL TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
1735 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 709 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 638-6070 NOVEMBER 30, 1979 1506 104
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION
)
In The Matter Of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
)
(Amendment to Operating License
)
SNM-1773 for Oconee Spent Fuel
)
Docket No. 70-2623 Transportation and Storage at
)
McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 30th day of November, 1979, I have served copies of *?m foregoing NATURAL RE-SOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSIONERS' ORDER OF NOVEMBER 2, 1979, mailing them through the U.S. Mails, first-class, postage prepaid.
Marshall E. Miller Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.,
James Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Director Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esq.
Bodega Marine Laboratory Debevoise and Liberman P.O. Box 247 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Bodega Bay, California 94923 Washington, D.C.
20036 1506 105
. Richard K. Hoefling, Esq.
Joseph Hendrie, Chairman Office of Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory William Larry Porter Commission Associate General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Richard Kennedy, Commissioner Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard P. Wilson Washington, D.C.
20555 Assistant Attorney General 2600 Bull Street Alan S.
Rosenthal, Esq.
C(lumbia, South Carolina 29201 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Jesse L.
Riley U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Carolina Environmental Commission Study Group Washington, D.C.
20555 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Chuck Gaddy Appeal Board North Carolina Public U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Interest Research Group Commission Davidson College Washington, D.C.
20555 Davidson, North Carolina 28036 Michael Farrar, Esq.
Secretary of the Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission ATTN:
Docketing and Washington, D.C.
20555 Service Section M(AM N
$ MAMW David S. Fleischaker, Esq.
1506 106