ML19254D671
| ML19254D671 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1979 |
| From: | Mcgarry J, Porter W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910290326 | |
| Download: ML19254D671 (7) | |
Text
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMLS We$t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
)
Decket No. 70-2623 g ' _
(Amendment to Materials
)
License SNM-1773 for Oconee
)
(
'O' qh"d' Nuclear Station Spent Fuel
)
,ff, e
Transportation &nd Storage at )
de r
,gp, p McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
/
50 APPLICANT'S OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR
.a CESG'S PETITION TO COMPEL APPLICANT
'5
/
TO RESFOND TO INTERVENOR'S DISCOVERY REGARDING CASE 3 CASK DROP OJ Ga October 2, 1979 Intervenor CESG filed a Petition to Compel Applicant to Respond to Intervenor's Discovery Re-garding Case 3 Cask Drop.
Tha following serves as Applicant's response thereto.
The essence of CESC's Petitior. 3-LP.mt Applicant has allegedly provided conflicting positions in the record with regard to the absor; tion of energy in the case 3 cask drop 1/
scenario.-
CESG argues that such a circumstance warrants clarification and that it has sought discovery of Applicant to rectify this alleged conflict.
Applicant informed CESG of its position that the record had been closed on the cask 1,/
Applicant has reviewed the record and does not agree that there is a conflict.
Applicant submits that the record speaks for itself and that CESG's characterization of such can be adequately treated in proposed findings and should not be a matter for further discovery and elaboration of the record.
1223 309 7910200 OM
- drop contention, and thus, discovery at this late date was inappropriate.
As a result of Applicant's response, CESG filed the instant Petition seeking the Board to " compel Appli-cant to answer fully and completely CESG's discovery requests as they are stated".
To put this matter into perspective it is necessary to recount the development of CESG's cask drop contention.
Such was raised for the first time on September 4, 1979, in testi-mony CESG prefiled with the Board and parties.
At the hearing on September 11, 1979, both the Staff and Applicant argued that because of the lateness of the contention and the failure to show good cause, the proposed contention was inappropriate and should be dismissed.
The Board deemed that a potential health and safety question could be associated with the cask drop contention and thus, despite the lateness and failure of showing of good cause, permitted the contention.
However, the Board made several observations with respect to the cask drop contention, which observations bear directly on the instant petition.
Specifically, the Board on several occasions noted that inasmuch as CESG was familiar with the subject matter of the cask drop contention, it should be fully competent to -
present its direct case and to conduct cross examination.
(Tr. 4358-59; see also Tr. 4352-53).
The Board held that any prolonging of the matter was unwarranted.
See Tr. 4354 wherein the Board stated:
1223 310
, " CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Mr. Riley is being given lenience in not asserting a contention in a timely fashion, though he has been spared the necessity of showing the five points of tardy filing which, to be tech-nical, we could probably require.
We don't wish to be technical.
Having according him that right, we're not going to keep dragging that thing on.
I made that statement yesterday and today."
Continuing, the Board at Tr. 4358 stated that:
"We're tired of the pyramiding.
We think it's in-efficient.
We think it's getting to the point of unfairness.
"So we're not going to do any more pyramiding for the information, supplying of data or witnesses."
See also Tr. 4498.
It is Applicant's position that the matter of the cask drop has been fully explored on the record and that the dis-covery that CESG now seeks falls into the category of pro-longing the proceeding, contrary to the Board's above-refer-enced statements.
Applicant would also note that the discovery could have been cbtained months ago or at the very least, could have been the subject of cross-examination in the September 1979 hearings.
Inasmuch as CESG has failed to take advantage of either of those options, it should not now be permitted a third bite at the apple.
With respect to the three matters upon which CESG seeks discovery, Item A pertains to the rail cask.
Applicant ob-jected at the September hearings to cross-examination on the rail cask as being beyond the scope of the proceeding.
CESG acknowledged it had "no problem" with Applicant's objection with respect to the rail cask and that indeed, it was aban-1223 3II
doning specific reference to that matter.
Tr. 4217-18.
Later in the September hearings, the Board sustained Applicant's objections concerning the rail cask.
Tr. 4374.
Accordingly, Applicant maintains that this matter is outside the scope of the hearing.
Applicant wou;l note that whether a rail cask would fall into the spent fuel pool is immaterial inasmuch as Applicant has stated that for purposes of this proceeding, 2/
~
such a cask wil.i not be used.
What is important is whether a trusk cask will fall into spent fuel pool and this matter has been fully treated.
With respect to Item B, Applicant provided the dimension drawing requested which indeed does show the exact location of the weir gate slots.
See Applicant's letter of September 21, 1979 which is set forth as attachment 2 to CESG's Petition.
Applicant would note that if information concerning the weir gate was such a " critical matter", as suggested by CESG, such should have been pursued by CESG at an earlier date and not as an afterthought.
With respect to Item C, information pertaining to the rail cask was not provided for the reasons set forth above in discussion of Item A.
As to the 25-ton truck cask, the matter of criticality consequences was discussed at the hearing.
See Tr. 4427-4457.
So postured, the discovery question should be 1223 312
-2/
CESG's reference to use of rail casks at Catawba has no bearing on this proceeding.
While the Board has broadened the scope of inquiry so as to include Catawba, such in-quiry is limited to the spent fuel storage options Appli-cant will exercise with respect to that facility.
As to the particulars of a selected option, including a cask drop analysis, s.an will be the subject of subsequent NRC review.
. viewed as a further attempt to cross-examine Applicant's position.
Such a course of action comes too late and is con-trary to the above-referenced pronouncements of the Board.
For the above stated reasons, Applicant submits that CESG's Petition should be denied.
Respectfully submitted 4 N
pt g"
/
J. Michael McGarry, III Of Counsel:
William L.
Porter, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Duke Power Company October 17, 1979 O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TH2 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)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that. copies of " Applicant's opposition to Intervenor CESG's Petition to Compel Applicant to Respond to Intervenor's Discovery Regarding Case 3 Cask Drop", dated in the above captioned matter have bcan served October 17, 1979 upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 17th day of October.
Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Mr. Jesse L. Riley Atomic Safety and Licensing President Carolina Environmental Study Board U.sS. Nuclear Regulatory Group 854 Henley Place Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Mr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
Edward G. Ketchen, Esq.
Director Counsel for NRC Regulatory Bodega Marine Laboratory Staff University of California Office of the Executive Legal P. O. Box 247 Bodega Bay, California 94924 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C.
20555 Board William L. Porter, Esq.
U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Associate General Counsel
- Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Duke Power Company Post Office Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 1223 314
s
. Richard P. Wilson Chairman, Atomic Safety and As31stant Attorney General Licensing Board Panel State of South Carolina U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory 2600 Bull Street Commission Columbia, South Carolina Washington, D. C.
20555 29201 Mr. Chase R.
Stephens David S. Fleischaker, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section Natural Resources Defense Office of the' Secretary Council U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 1735 Eye Street, N.W.
Commission Suite 709 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20006 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D. C.
20555
'Nh3 c
g/ J. MichaelMcGapry,II{/
.