ML19269D444
| ML19269D444 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1979 |
| From: | Roisman A National Resources Defense Council |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906040065 | |
| Download: ML19269D444 (6) | |
Text
-
pcoor gg S
e g27 $73 > h
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y
,, p
/g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w
ICCC DOCLM'I ROZ'
'd In The Matter Of
)
)
D M P M R COMP m
) Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment to Operating License SNM-1773 )
for Transportation of Oconee Nuclear
)
Station Spent Fuel and Storage at
)
McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL MOTION TC COMPEL APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO ADMISSIONS On April 2, 1979, NRDC filed, pursuant to S 2.742, requests for admissions to the Applicant.
On April 17, Applicant mailed its response to those requests and in the response denied certain admissions and refused to answer others.
The purpose of this motion is to conpel the Applicant to answer the admissions or to present a substantively sufficient denial.
The structure of S 2.742 contemplates the use of admissions as evidentiary material in the proceeding.
Sub-section (c) specifically authorizes their use as evidence.
To this end, subsection (b) carefu.'ly describes the precise procedure which must be followed when a party intends to object to an admission.
Specifically, an admission is deemed made unless the party serves:
either (1) a sworn statement denying specifically the relevant matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he can neither truthfully admit nor deny them, or (2) written objections on the ground that some or all of the matters involved are privileged or 2258 197 790604006,f C
2 irrelevant or that the request is otherwise improper in whole or in part.
Furthermore, any denial must be limited to that portion of the admission to which it is applicable and the rest of the admission must be treated as admitted.
Applicant's objections meet none of these tests.
First, none of the objections fit into category (2) since the materiality and relevance of the requested admissions are indisputable.
Second, none of the objections qualify under category (1) because they are not under oath nor is there a detailed and legitimate statement of why the admission can neither be accepted or denied.
- Third, some of the stated objections relate to only a portion of the admission, but Applicant purports to deny the entire admission.
Applicant denies Admission 5, but its stated reason is not sworn to, does not address the entire admission, and is substantially incomprehensible.
The requested admission related to the total cost of interim spent fuel handling, assuming no AFR prior to 1995 and addressing two alternatives to transshipment -- (1) expand mxisting pool capacity at Oconee or (2) build an additional pool at Oconee.
Applicant's denial refers to " expanding Oconee stcrage by an AFR [i.e., by an away from reactor facility]" (brackets added), a suggestion not included in the admission.
Even if we assume Applicant meant to refer to building an additional pool at Oconee (not considered an AFR in the technical language), its denial does not address the ecmparison of expanded spent fuel storage capacity in the existing pool as compared to transshipment.
Finally, the 2258 198
3 Applicant's denial only refers to the cost of the transshipment; but of course if there is no AFR by 1995, given the present and planned capacity of the combined Oconee and McGuire spent fuel pools, there will be an additional cost which will have to be incurred to expand at-reactor storage at either Oconee or McGuire or both.
We therefore urge that the Applicant be directed to respond to Admission 5 by either admitting it or admitting those portions which it does not deny and denying specifically the portions with which it disagrees.
Applicant objects to Admission 7 but its objection is more in the nature of'a denial.
Of course, without a sworn statement disclosing the basis for the assertion that no casks are available -- particularly what Applicant means by "available"
-- the objection / denial is legally insufficient.
Applicant should be required to provide a legally sufficient response to the admission.
Applicant objects to Admission 8 but on a basis which ignores the facts stated in the admission.
If, as stated, at-reactor storage at Oconee and McGuire is sufficient for a life-time's worth of spent fuel, then there will not be a need for shipment to an interim AFR prior to shipment to a permanent waste repository.
Such an additional storage capability would be required under the Applicant's present plans absent the availability of a permanent waste repository in the late 1980s or early 1990s.
While the unsupported and unsworn assertion 2258 199
~
4 regarding McGuire, if correct, may make lifetime storage at McGuire under the terms of the admission not possible, this is certainly not true for Oconee.
Applicant should be directed to specifically admit or deny each portion of the admission as stated.
As to Admissions 10 and 11, Applicant refuses to answer them because it does not wish to locate and examine readily available public documents.
We do not believe that this is a justification, particularly since these are precisely the kinds of documents which we have been requested to produce by the Applicant in their discovery.
Applicant's denial of Admission 12, like many others of its denials is an unsupported and unsworn assertion which does nothing to advance the prehearing knowledge in this case.
Applicant should be required to provide a fuller and more useful response.
For all the reasons stated, we urge the Board to require Applicant to answer.the admissions as required by S 2.742.
Respectfully submitted, jf AnthonyZ4bRbbdman Natural Resources Defense Council 917 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202)737-5000 Dated:
April 25, 1979 2258 200
,b S
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
g T
hF 1
In The Matter Of
)
E
)
4 W
DUKE POWER' COMPANY
) Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment to Operating License SNM-1773 )
for Transportation of Oconee Nuclear
)
Station Spent Fuel and Storage at
)
McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 7 hereby certify that copies of NRDC MOTION TO COMPEL APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO ADMISSIONS were mailed today, April 25, 1979, to the persons on the attached service list, except that Mr. McGarry's copy was delivered by hand.
W jf Anthony O R ksman 2258 201
cxu.=mu x..
cu.uu, -.-
Shelley Blum, Esq.
Atmli: Safety md Licensing 418 Im m4 m g M Panel n
730 East Trade Street U.S. thsclear Pegulatory Ca:m.
Charlot*a, Ncrth Carolina 28202 Washingt::n, D.C. 20555 Dr. D:reth A. Luebke Chuck Gaddy A*mir Safety and Licensing NC PIRG Board Davidsen College U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccr:m.
Davidson, N.C.
28036 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Dir.
William Iarry Porter Bodega Marine LaboratcLm(
Associate General Counsel P. O. Box 247 Duke Pe=2r CcrM Bodega Bay, California 94923 422 S. Church Street Charlotte, N.C.
28242 Richard K. Boefling, Esq.
Donald R. Belk Office of Executive legal Dir.
Safe Energy Allirice U.S. Nuclear Pegulatcry Ccm.
4937 T*nm Drive Washingtcn, D.C. 20555 Charlotte, N.C.
28210 Ja: Ins M. McGarry, III, Esq.
Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esq.
Debevoise & Liberran 1200 17th Street, hv Washingtem, D.C.
20036 Office of the Secre*Amr Ibcketing & Servico Section U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccm.
Washingt n, D.C. 20555 Richard P. Wilsen, Esq.
Assistant At* q General 2600 Bull S*Jeet Colt =bia, South Carolina 29201 Jesse L. Riley Carolina Enviru ren+A Study 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolira 28207 Brerda Best 2258 202 c^ro11na ^cti=
305 East Chapel Hill Street Durham, North Carolira 27702 m **
- M m
4 O