ML19270F896
| ML19270F896 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1979 |
| From: | Ketchen E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19270F895 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904030011 | |
| Download: ML19270F896 (20) | |
Text
h.
J UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA
!;UCLEAR REGULATORY CC"l1ISS!0N BEFORE THE ATO: TIC SAFETY A::D LICt.NSING 00ARD In the !'atter of
)
}
DUKE PC'.!ER CC"PANY
)
Docket No. 70-2623
)
( Amendment to "aterials License
)
57,ti-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage at cGuire Nuclear Station I;RC STAFF RESPONSE TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
STATE'1ENTOFCONTENTIONSINACCORDANCEWITHTt1p LICENSING ECARD'S ORDER OF FE3RUARY 16, 19797 Succmary of Staff Position Contentions 3, 4 and 6, if revised in accordance with this pleading would state acceptable contentions within the bounds of 10 CFR 52.714.
Contan-tions 1-2, S, 7 do not meet the Connission requirement for a basis for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity.
Introduction and Backcround On August 21, 1978, pursuant to the Commission's notice of opportunity for public participation in the proposed NRC licensing action for amend-ment to license No. SNM-1773, NRDC filed a timely petition for
" Notice of Conference '.lith Counsel For NRDC Appli ant and NRC Staff
( Februa ry 16, 1979)."
790403099
' leave to intervene (43 FM. ".;g 3?n06).
On Octol>er 6, 1978,.10C t i l e.f a state.ent of contentions 1/ The Applicant genarally respon. fed at the hearing held in Charlotte, '.' orth Carolina on Tuesday, October 24, l H3 and the Staf f s resgnse in this proceeding tc hte was that contained at the October 24, 1973 hearing in Charlotte, North Carolina.S/ Applicant filed its response to I; ROC's statement of contentions on October 23, 1973.3l Cn February 16, 1979 the Atoiaic Safety and 1.icansing Boarl directed NNDC to provide an objective state: rent of issues with the argument and explana-tory matter expunged in order to expedite the proceeding on a reasonable basis.4/ The Staff was directed to prepare written response to these statenents of issues setting forth the Staf f's position with regard to each of NROC's restated contentions together with the underlying rea-sonicq.
The Applicant was allowed to file any further pleading it felt necessary.
The parties were also requested to confer arong themselves and to exchange draf ts of the above-described pleadings or responses as soon as possible.
l/
" Natural Resources Defense Council Statement of Contentions,"
October 6,1979.
2]
Tr. 121-131.
3/
" Applicant's Response to Natural Resources Defense Council State-nent of Contentions " October 23, 1979.
-4/
" Notice of Conference wi th Counsel for NRDC, Applicant and NRC Staf f (Februa ry 16, 1979)."
The Appeal Board, by its order of February 13, 1979, admitted NRDC as an intervenor as a matter of discretion based on the stipulation of the parties in the proceeding entared on Feb rua ry 12, 1979.
Duke Power Company ( Amendnent to 'faterials License SN.'i-1773 -- Transportation of C ent Fuel frem Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage of "cGuire Nuclear Station), Order, February 13, 1979.
. Discussion A nu.cber of the contentions proposed by N'lDC appear to enc a,, ass bro 3d legal and/or policy consideration nore pertinent to the establist ant of a uaste management program than to the particular details of this specific licensing acti:n. l'any of these concerns have been definitively Jdecssed by the Comaission or should core appropriately be pursued in another fo rum.
The Nuclear llegulatory Commission (NRC or Cecnission) Staff (Staff) believes that this observation is borne out, in pa'rt, by the fact that the contentions proposed by NRDC (at least in their original fonn) eere essentially the sane as contentions advanced by NROC in another spent fuel transshipment proceeding involving the Dresden and Quad Cities f acil i ties.1/ The Atomic Safety and 1.icensing Appeal Board has, arned that such " carry-over" cont ntions should receive particularly careful scru tiny. 2/ These and other factors have led the Staff to include the following discussion of certain legal or policy considerations which should govern consideration of the contentions.
It's fonnal statement of position wi th regard to each contention then follows.
1/
" Natural Resources Defense Council and Citizens for a Better Environ-nent's Statement of Contentions," December 6, 1978.
Coronwealth Edison Co., el al. (Anendment to Operating Licenses) Docket Nos. 50-237, 50-2 9, 50-254, 50-265.
2]
See Duquesne Licht Company (Peaver Valley Power Station Unit No.1)
ALAS-109, 6 AEC 243, 246 (1976).
s=
. is a general precept, contentions must fall.,ithin the scope of the applicati'n described in the Federal Register notice of opportunity for public participation,1/ and be set forth with a particularized basis and specificity per the requirenents of 10 CFR !2.711(b) and applicable Cormission case law.2/
8efore granting a petition to intervene, the Board mus t determine that I
there is "at least one relevant contention set forth with reasonable basis and some specificity assigned for it." /
1/
" Opportunity for Public Participation in Proposed f1RC Licensing Action for Amendment to Materia!s License SNM-1773 for Oconee t;uclear Station Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage at McGuire t!uclear Station" (" Notice of Hearing") (43 Fed. Reg. 32905).
"The proposed amend: ent would authorize the receipt and storage of Oconee fluclear Station spent fuel at the McGuire facility in accc-dance with the licensee's application for amendnent dated March 9, 1978. Activities for which additional authorization is sought involve receipt, possession, inspecticn and sturage of spent nrclear fuel from the licensee's Oconee fluclear Facility in Oconee County, 5.C., at the licensee's McGuire facility located in Mecklenburg County, N.C., including transport of the Oconee spent fuel by truck between the two sites."
2/
See, e.g., Beaver Valley, suora, 6 AEC at 245; Northern Sta tes
~
Power Comoany (Prairie Island, Unit Nos.1 and 2), ALAS-107, 6 AEC 188,194 (1973), aff 'd, BPI v. Atomic Enercy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Ci".1974).
3_/
Northern States Power Comoany (Prairie Island, Units 1 and 2)
ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188,194 (1973), af f'd, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241 (1973),
aff'd, BPI v. Atomic Enercy Comnission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C.
Ci r. 1974).
A ajor rear.on for requiring the articulation of specificity and basis is to help assure that other parties are not on sufficient notice of., hat they will have to defend against,1/ and to ensure that the hearing process is invoked solely for the resolution of concrete issues. I This is espec' ally true in a proceeding for '.hich a hearing is not nandatory. I With regard to environrental contentions, the now familiar " rule of renon" must be applied.A/ As the D.C. Circuit stated NPDC v. "orton: E/
There is reason for concluding that NEPA.tas not meant to require detailed discussion of the environmental effects of " alternatives" put forward in cceents when these effects cannot be readily ascertained and the alternatives are deened only remote and speculative possibilities, in view of basic changes required in statutes and policies of other agencies--
making them available, if at all, only af ter protracted debate and litigation not neaningfully compatible with the time-frame of the needs to which the underlying proposal 's addressed.
1/
Philadel onia Electric Company (Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3),
ALAB-216,8AEC13,20(1974).
_2]
ohiladelchia Electric Cocoany (Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3),
CLI-73-10, 6 AEC 173,174 (1973); Beaver Valley, suora.
3/
Cf. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Ccnoany (Zimmer Nuclear Station),
ALAS-305, 3 NRC 8, 12 (1976); Gulf States Utilities (River Bend Uni ts 1 and 2) ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 n.10 (1974).
~4/
See NROC v. fiorton, 458 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir.1972); See most recently Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41, 48-49 (1978).
2/
458 F.2d at 83'-38.
See also:
Public Service and Gas Cemeany and Atlantic Ci ty :lectric Ccmpany (Hope Creek Generating Station, Uni ts 1 and 27 ALAB-518, Slip. Op., pp. 51-53 (January 12,1979).
The Unitej Sta tes CJpec: e Court recently rade the folloaing obser.a tion in connection with the assertion of contentions arising under the ::ational Invircrmnt11 Policy "c'. ('iEPA) in !RC proceedings:1/
"...while it is true that : EPA places upon an agency the obligatian to consider every significant aspect of the envircnnental impact of a proposed action, it is still inc-tent upon intervenors who wish to participate to structure their participation so that it is meaningful, so that it alerts the agency to the intervenors' position and contentions.
In this regard, the Supr:ne Court further stated that a petitioner's ccc.cnts "aust be significant enough to step over a th'reshold requirenent of na terial i ty....
The cc:rment cannot."erely state that a particular nistake ;as nade, it must show why the mistake was of possible signifi-cance in the results."
Consideration of ;RDC's contentions must also be dealt with in the con-text of environmental case law and Comnission regulations which provide that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared where there is no Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human envi ronmen t. 3_/
-1/
Vermont Yankee !!uclear Power Corooration v. NRCC, et al., 435 U.S.
519, 55 L. Ed. 2d 460, 485 (1978).
-~
2/
Id., quoting from Portland Cement Assn. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 394 (D.C. Cir.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 921 (1974).
3_/
10 CFR 551.5(c); and 10 CFR !51.5(d)(3) and (4).
Cf. Public Service and Gas Cencany and Atlantic City Electric Comoany'THope Creek
'ienerating Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAS-518, Slip. Op., pp. 51-53 (January 12,1979), (Remote and speculative environmental impacts need not be considered).
The.*g,2eai 3aard has had the occasion to discuss the sc;pe of the is%:s cognizable by a licensing board presiding over another fom of licencing action inte:.ded to aneliorat2 a perceived shartage of spent fuel storge capacity.1/ The appeal Board therein took note of the fact that there was no need to duplicate the review afforded the plant at the operating license stage.
The Appeal Coard stated:
"Nothing in NEPA or in those judicial decisions to thich our attention has been directed dictates th3t the sam,e ground be wholly axplored in connection with a proposed anendment to those 10-year operating licenses.
'h th e r,
it seems manifest to us that all that need be under-taken is a consideration of whether the a~endment itsel f would bring about significant environnental consequences beyond those previously assessed and, if so, whether those consequences (to the extent unavoidable) would be suf ficient on bala mentapplication."gretorequireadenialofthearend-In a Federal Register I:otice published on Septenber 16, 1975,3/ the Comission announced its intent to prepare a generic environmental impact statenent on the handling and storage of spent light water power reactor fuel (Spent Fuel GEIS).
The Cotraission detemined that licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage
-1/
Nortnern States Power Comcany (Prairie Island Units 1 and 2),
ALAS-455, 7 NRC 41 (19/8) (spent fuel pool expansion).
2_/
Prairie Island, suora, 7 NRC at 46, n. 4
_3_/
Notice of " Intent to Prepare Generic Environmental Impact State-rent on Handling and Storage of Spent Light '.later Power Reactor Fuel." 40 F.R. 42801.
The Staff issued a Draf t Spent Fuel GEIS (NUREG-0404) in March,1978.
capac i ty >n;old not N defarre.i pon.fing c upietion of the Gi S gi m its considera tion of cert iin speci fied factors.1/
Reviewing 'aDC's restit eent of cententions2/ in light of the above con-siderations, the Staff is s itisfied that it contains at imist one accept-able contention (Contention 3.c and 3.d. ind Contention 4.a.) so as to wet the contention requirenent of 10 CFR *2./14.
The Sta f f's posi tion s
on the co tentions follows.
-1/
Broadly stated, these factors are:
(1) the utility of this type of action : night be dependent on a sepirate licensing action; (2) other available alternatives might l'e foreclosed; (3) impacts could not be adequately assessed in the context of an individual pro-ceeding without overlooking cumulative i," pacts; (4) technical issues might arise which could not be resolved in the context of the indi-vidual proceeding; and (5) a deferral or severe restriction on this type of action would substantially hann the public interest.
2/
In response to the I icensing Board's order of February 16, 1979, by letter of February 23, 1979, NRDC Counsel (received ltarch 1, 1979) furnished Staf f Counsel with a revised version of the tiRDC contentions,
_S_TM E"F N_T C.F. PO S_I f ! ON_
Contention 1 This contention seeks the introduction of a policy issue expressly decided to the contrary by the Cormission and is, therefore, inadnissible in this proceeding.
The contention asserts that the proposed action is a connit-irent to a program which precedes the completion of separate progrannatic i Tact state ents to be prepared by MRC and, apparently, t'he Department of Energy (DOE).
As noted above, the Commission has explicitly determined that licensing actions of the type proposed need not await completion of the Commission's spent fuel GEIS.2_/ It should be noted that such a deferral was earlier requested by the IIRDC and others in a letter to the Connission, dated T!ay 20,1975, and specifically rejected by the Commission in its GEIS Notice. With regard to the further assertion that the instant applica-tion must 3dditionally avait some document to be prepared by DOE, the Staff observes that NRDC cites no legal authority to support such a proposition and the Staff knows of none.
/
Unless otherwise indicated the NRC Staff's response is based on the consideration of "NRDC Draft Restatement of Contentions" received under cover letter of February 23, 1979.
Contentions 1-7 of NRDC's Statement of Contentions of October 6,1978 (and as revised by NRDC's restatement of contentions on February 23,1979) are similar to Contentions 1 through 7 of "'!atural Resources Defense Council And Citizens For A Better Environment's Statame.it of Contentions,"
dated December 6,1978 in Commonwealth Edison Com3any (Dresden Station, Units 2 and 3, and Quad Cities Station, Units 1 and 2),
Docket Nos. 50-237; 50-249; 50-254; 50-265.
~2/
GEIS Notice; accord, Prairie Island, suora; Portland General Electric Comoany, et al.
( froja n Nuciea r PTantT, TSP-/ -ac, o CE, 4/
(1973).
Contcation :10. 1, as raiud, asserts that apprcval of the proposed action would bias the final decisicn on t,hether to approve the generic spent fuel storage program, including at-reactor options at plant sites.
There is no basis to support the claim that approval of the instant application iculd " forestall" development of generally available alterna-tives in other licensing actions afi:ed at alleviiting a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity.
Indeed, in its GEIS %tice the Cccaission came to a contrary general conclusion with respect to its consideration of nuch the sa.ne facto <.1/
The Staff endorsed the Commission's conclusion that this factor wculd not forestall development of available alternatives in cor.nection with this transshipnent application.
See Environnental Impact Appraisal Related to Spent Fuel Storage of Oconee Spent Fuel at licGuire Tiuclear Station-Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool, Duke Power Company, Docket flo. 70-2623, Decenbar 1978 (McGuire/Oconee EIA).
Accordingly, this contention is inadmissible in this proceeding.
Contention 2 This contention, as revised, simply asserts without ore chit the proposed action is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment vhich requires the preparation of an 1/
See discussion suora at pp. 7-8, and n.1, p. 8.
environment 11 i.npact statement pursuant to NEPA.1/ Accordingly, it is inadnissible in this proceeiling.
Intervenor has read the Board's t' arch 13, 1979 Order too literally. We believe this contention on its face is unacceptable.
It lacks specificity.
It lacks a supporting basis.
It does not ccme near the requirenents of 10CFR!2.714(b).!
Aside frcm this point, however, the m:estion raised is the ulti: rate 1e al finding that must be made by the Licensing 30ard in this case, given ene Staff position in this case that the proposed action is not a rajor Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human er.viron-ment.
See,10 CFR 551.5(c); McGuire/0conee EIA.
The Comnission does not autonatically require preparation of an environ-mental impact statement in actions such as the instant one.
Remote and speculative impacts from a proposed action are not sufficient to trigger
_1]
National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. !4332.
2_/
Prairie Island, ALAB-107, supra; aff'd, BPI v. Atonic Enercy Com-mission, supra. E, Zimmer, ALAB-305, supra, River 3end, ALAB-183, suora.
the requird: cent for an environaental inpact sta te:Jent.1/ Cather, the Ccmaission contemplates that such a licensing action involving mattars that do not significantly affect the quality of the human envircrnent sculd be accceplished by an environaental impact appraisal.
10 CFR 551.5(c) and 551.5(d); see, "cGuire/Oconee EIA.
Contention 3, This contention alleges that there has been no adequate an'alysis of certain described alternatives to the proposed action.
There is a growing indication from the Appeal Board and sone licensing boards that no consideration of alternatives is required under NEPA in connection with applications for the modification of spent fuel pools, another fora of action designed to ameliorate the shortage of spent fuel storage capaci ty.2_/ Even assuming there is some cbligation to consider alternatives to the proposed action from an environmental standpoint, 1/
Cf. Public Service Electric and Gas Comoany and Atlantic City Cccoany (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-518, Slip. Op., pp. 51-53 (January 12, 1979).
2_/
Prairie Island, supra, 7 NRC, at 46, n. 4; Ducuesne Licht Comoany, et al. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1 - SfP3, LBP-78-16, T NiiC 811, 817 (1978), aff'd_ (without opinion but with agreement on legal deteminations). :_AB-484, 7 NRC 984 (1978); Trojan, suora, Slip 0o. at 58.
such alternatives cost, ncnetheless, pass sone threshold test of reaun-ableness.1/
l20C's revised statement of contentions presents no basis to believe that Contentions 3.a. and 3.b. are reasonable, let alone preferable, alterna-tives to the instint action.
It is also lacking in specificity.
"cre-over, TiRDC's proposed Contentions 3.a. and 3.b. are unacceptable in this proceeding because the natters sought to be raised deal with Coke's discretionary manageoent and business prerogatives which it may exercise while cperating under the validly held Oconee operating licenses.
Conse-quently, Contentions 3.a. and 3.b., in the context raised by NRDC, are beyond the scope of this proceeding.3_/
It is beyond the scope of the application for amendment to SN:1-1773.2/
The alternative suggested by Contention 3.c., deals with expanding the spent fuel pool capacity at the Oconee facility.
Suggested Contention 3.d.
constitutes an assertion that the licensee has not fully utilized existing storage capacity of its Oconee spent fuel pools.4/
~1/
See, e.g., T;RDC v. !'orton, supra, 458 F.2d at 837; Moce Creek, supra, SlTp. Op., pp. 51-53, 2_/
Prairie Island, suora, p. 6, n 4
("...all that need be undertaken is a consiaeration of whether the amendment itself would '-ing about signi ficant envi ronmental consequences...").
3_/
Prcirie Island, suora.
4/
On February 2,1979, Duke Power Company applied for an amendment to its Oconee operating license to pennit the expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity from 336 to 750 storage locations for the Oconee Units 1 and 2 common pool.
" Notice of Proposed Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licoses " for the O.arcn o_Nuc}ej.r) conee 4
Station, Units Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
(44 red. neq.12303,.
,i
-. C
' cations 3.c. and 3.d. are in substance adequate contentions for this preceeding in light of Duke's application for a :nni :nt to axpand the capacity of the Oconee spent fuel pool.1/ Accordingly, the Staff will agree to language siinilar to the following:
"The tiRC Staff and the Applicant have not adequataly considered that the expansion of the Oconee spent fuel pool, prnposed in Duke's application of February 2,1979 to expand the spent fuel storage capacity at the Oconee facility, will nake the proposed action to transport and store Oconea spent nuclear fuel in the TtcGuire Unit I spent fuel pool unnecessary."
Presumably, Duke will undertake the Oconee spent fuel pool expansion if authorized by the Ccnnission to do so.
Contention 4 Part a. of the contention claims that the proposed action would increase radiation exposure to workers and the public beyond what is ALARA, other-wise achievable by on-site expansion of spent fuel pool storage capacity.
Significantly, there is no claim that the proposed action would result in either personnel or general population exposure in excess of the pamiss-ible regulatory limits prescribed in 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR 350.34(a)
(specifically, Appendix I thereof).
1/
Ibid., p. 13
- n. 4.
Contention 4.b. is unacceptable in the fom proposed by *.90C on Febru-ary 23, 1979.
It clearly lacks specificity and particularization.
In part, Contention 4.b. as set forth in *?DC's statrent of cantantions of October 6, 1978 1ets the Co-aission requirecents of 10 CFR !2.714(b).
Accordingly, Contention 4 in its present fom does not meet Conaission requirements for a reasonably specific basis, i
ilithin the context of these connants, houaver, the Staff would have no objection to the following statement of Contention 4.a.:
Contention 4.a. - The proposed action increases the exposure to radiation of workers and the general public beyond what is ALARA in that ALARA can be achieved by on-site expansion of spent fuel pool storage capacity at each plant site. Construc-tion, licensing, and operation of another, separate spent fuel pool at the Oconee facility site is econcmically and technically feasible and will be capable of meeting Duke's needs for addi-tional storage capacity in the time frame specified by Duke and is ALARA.
Within the context of these comments, however, the NRC Staff would have no objection to the following Contention 4.b., provided it were particu-larized and made specific (not only in words but in quantitative tems) ds follows:
Contention 4.b.
The residual health risks which renain even if the present NRC 'gulations on exposures to workers are met are major costs of tne proposed action which tip the balance against the proposed action.
The residual health risks and major costs which remain are specifically identified as follows:
- IS -
1.
2.
3.
4.
etc.
Contention S This contention questions the licensee's desire to maintain a full core discharge reserve capacity at the Oconee facility spent fuel pool as one reason underlying the proposed action.
There is no regulatory require-ment for or for that matter against such a practice although the Staff s
generally favors such a practice because it provides operating flexibility to licensees.
Otherwise, the contention is unduly vague, lacks adequate specificity, and appears to seek the introduction of an issue under NEPA which presupposes that a cost-benefit analysis must be perfonned.
The contention otherwise runs afoul of the threshold test of reasonableness (ma te ri ali ty).
Accordingly, Contention 5 should not be admitted as an issue in these proceedings.
Contention 6 The NRC Staff will agree to Contention 6, as revised, if modified to read substantially as follows:
.1
. Contention 6 Shiprent of spent fuel from Ocnnee to cGuire will be vulnerable to sabotage or other malevolent acts and this represents a serious risk to public health and safety.
Centention 7 Part a. of this contention asserts that the licensee has failed to subait an Environmental Report (ER).
The Staff's answer to this is in the nature of a demurrer.
NRDC cites no legal authority for the allegation tnat an ER must acccmpany applications such as the instant one, and there is none.
NEPA is a requirement placed on an agency. / The Staff has met that requirenent. The Staff has obtained the information it deems neces-sary to perform its environmental evaluation of the proposed action.
The Staff has issued its environmental impact appraisal and will proffer it at the hearing.
In these circumstances, NRDC's assertions raises no legal or factual issue that must be met at a hearing.
1/
Greene County Plannino Board v. Federal Power Commission 455 F.2d.
412, 419-20 (2d Cir. 1972) (citing Calvert Cliffs Coordinatina Commi ttee v. AEC, 449 F2d 796 (D.C. Cir. 1975)).
. Contention 7.b. sirply does not state a contentinn within the eaning of 10 CFR 52.714 requiring specificity and particularization of inues susceptible to a reasonable degree of proof at a heiring.
Contenti]n 7.b.
appears to be either critique of Duke Power Cc:gany's application or questicas in the nature of discovery questions, but not a contention that can be dealt with in a neaningful way by proof at a hearing.
Parties are entitled to knew what they must defend against at the hearing.1/ Conten-tion 7.b. is, therefore, unacceptable.
Accordingly, Contention 7 is not an appropriate contention admissible in this proceeding.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Staff believes that NRDC has met the conten-tion requirement of 10 CFR 52.714 with its assertion of at least one,
acceptable contention, Contention 3.c. and 3.d., Contention 4, and Contention 6, if revised in accordance with the Staff's comments.
The Staff's position on the balance of the contentions is as set forth.
Respectfully subaitted, C[dwa bbt f
G.
Ketchen Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 8th day of March, 1979.
1/
Peach Bottom, suora, ALAB-216, 8 AEC, at 20.
UNITED STATES OF X' ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0:011SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING P.0ARD In the Matter of
)
)
CUKE POWER CC:OANY
)
Cocket ';o. 70-2623
)
( Amendment to Materials License
)
5:,M-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage )
at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE CCUNCIL, INC. STATEMENT OF CONTENTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LICENSING COARD'S ORDER OF FEBRUARY 16, 19791/" dated March 8,1979, ia the above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the following, by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 8th day of March,1979.
- Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Ms. Brenda Bes t Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Carolina Action U.S. Nuclear Requlatory Ccnnission 1740 E. Independence Blvd.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Charlotte, North Carolina 23205 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Director Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Sodega Marine Laboratory Natural Resources Defense Council University of California 917 - 15th Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 247 Washington, D. C.
20005 Bodega Bay, California 94923 tr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Shelley Blum, Esq.
W. L. Porter, Esq.
418 Law Building Associate General Counsel 730 East Trade Street Legal Cepartment Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Cebevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036
~~1/ " Notice of Conference With Counsel For NRDC Applicant and NRC Staff (February 16, 1979)."
-z.
- Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Mr. Geoffrey 0 ven Little U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com1ission P. O. Box 2501
as hington, D.C.
20555 Davidson College Davidson, N.C.
28036
- Atonic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission
'Jashington, D. C.
20555
- Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission h'ashington, D. C.
20555
'Ir. Jesse L. Riley, President Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Pla:e Charlotte, North Carolina 23207 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General State of South Carolira 2600 3ull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201
/,ClAdA:s.9,l, Cl)~'c,N y A
l' i
L L
Edward G. Ketchen Counsel for NRC Staff