ML19275A460
| ML19275A460 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1979 |
| From: | Roisman A National Resources Defense Council |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19275A461 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910040465 | |
| Download: ML19275A460 (3) | |
Text
'
<1 I?!
S NRC PUBLIC DCCUMEST ROOM
$In 4
g; 7 $i-h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
=
- ? h [ h
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6
Icinfg
)
In The Matter Of
)'
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
)
Dkt. No. 70-2623 (Amendment to Operating License SNM-1773
)
for Oconee Spent Fuel Transportation and
)
Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
)
Before The Nuclear Regulatory. Commissioners )
)
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL OPPOSITION TO STAFF MOTION FOR INTERIM PROTECTIVE ORDER The single
- point which we wish to stress in this opposition is that to grant the staff the relief requested is to reward them for unconscionable conduct which has materially affected the schedu-ling for this hearing.
On August 7, 1979, the ASLB ruled that because the routes for waste shipments were essentially known and because the shipments themselves would be open and obvious, the public interest in open hearings outweighed any public interest in keeping the small por-tion of the routes not publicly known a secret. (Transcript 3237-38).
It also ruled that a stay of 30 days would be granted which the Board carefully noted expired " prior to September 10th, when we resume the hearings." (Tr. 3238).
}098 )[3 On August 9th, the Board and the parties discussed the matter e'hestateofSouth again and NRDC (Tr. 3818), CESG (Tr. 3819) an l o 040 $(ss;-
c,
~
Carolina (Tr. 3819) indicated that an early decision by the staff on whether to appeal was essential to orderly and timely conclusion of the hearing.
The Board noted that it assumed it was the intent of the staff to seek an early decision on this issue. (Tr. 3821).
Nonetheless the staff did not file the request for a stay and directed certification until September 4 leaving the ASLAB two days to decide whether to grant an interim stay.
There is no conceivable briefing and decision schedule which would not postpone resolution of the transportation issue until after the conclusion of the hearings now scheduled for the week of Septem-ber 10th.
Given' the interest of the parties' in the transportation safeguards - NRDC's concern with whether merely shifting the route will substantially reduce the sabotage risk, CESG concern with consequences of sabotage and South Carolina's general concern with safeguards - the staff request for a stay, if granted, would force yet another hearing ~and at least a several month delay in completion of the hearing. */
Surely the Commissioners must be able to take action which demonstrates sufficient outrage at the staff conduct that it is a stern warning to the staff to conduct itself with some efficiency and diligence when the interests of other parties are involved.
Despite the staff efforts to make the underlying disclosure issue appear to be significant in fact it is of little consequence.
1098 1/4 j/
Another hearing imposes on the intervenors substantial addi-tional costs for another hearing and imposes on applicant further delay in the decision.
As the record of this case reveals, the issues turn in part on the availability of and timing of decisions on the options for spent fuel handling.
A further stay at this time could interfere with a crucial date for decision by the appli-cant on spent fuel handling by postponing the ASLB decision until after December, 1979.
See NREC submission of September 7, 1979, on scheduling of spent fuel option decisions.
~3-The disclosure of the sma11' portion of the route not yet known is irrelevant since any concerted effort to sabotage a shipment would begin by following the clearly marked truck.
The identifi-cation of the route is not security relevant information.
Tne route's relevance is to keep the spent fuel away from population concentrations where a sabotage threat is more dangerous.
Thus the provisions of S 2.790 (d) are inapplicable because we are not dealing with security rel'ated data in merely identifying a route to be taken by a clearly marked truck carrying spent fuel.
The staff and applicants should focus on real safeguards improvements, like armed guards on all shipments, armed escorts and foolproof communication systems, not secrecy.
The ASLB here correctly observed that the fullest disclosure of information. relevant to nuclear power is in the public inter-est.
Nothing is more important to the concerned public than.to know where and when thAy may be subject to exposure to nuclear materials.
To keep the routes secr'et is to force discussion of the s'afety'and adequacy of the routes into secret hearings.
At least in this case that public concern overrides the spurious safeguards benefit alleged to accrue from keeping spent fuel shipping routes secret.
The staff request for a stay should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, 1098 1/5 L.
m.%
Date: September 7, 1979 hnthony Z. 3c/, /
t tsman Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc 1725 I Street, N.W.
- 600 Washington, D.C.
20006