ML19282D095
| ML19282D095 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1979 |
| From: | Cochran T, Roisman A, Tamplin A National Resources Defense Council |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905140079 | |
| Download: ML19282D095 (32) | |
Text
,,y i
DTC"PL*P& rpm)3g 2
h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(..
L'
/
s In The Matter Of
)
)
DUKE PCWER COMPANY
) Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment to Materials License,SNM-1773 )
for Oconee Nuclear Station Spent Fuel
)
Transportation and Storage at McGuire
)
Nuclear Station)
)
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL ANSWERS TO APPLICANT'S INTERROGATORIES 1.
No decision has been made on the extent or nature of our participation at an evidentiary hearing.
2.
Yes.
"NRDC Findings on the Alleged Need For Acquisition or Construction of an Away From Reactor Spent Fuel Storage Facility," by Dimitri Rotow, March 26, 1979; _
" Analysis of Space Available for Storage of Spent Fuel at Existing Operating Reactor Sites," NRDC, July 1978; " Nuclear Waste:
Too Much Too Soon," by Thomas B. Cochran and Arthur R. Tamplin.
3.
No witnesses have been identified by us.
4.
No decision has been made.
5.
- Yes, a.
No.
Applicant has a right to file the material.
b.
We have not identified erroneous facts.
7905140cp;"9 '
c
s' 2
c.
Yes.
There is no data on protective measures (Section 17.0) and insufficient data to support the following conclusions (Duke Power Company, McGuire Nuclear Station, Information Supporting Storage of Oconee Spent Fuel at McGuire, March 9, 1978):
Quantities of radioactivity released in airborne and liquid effluent streams will.be well below applicable criteria and personnel exposures will be minimal.
It is anticioated that any radioactive material that is released from the site will not affect the health and safety of the public.
[p.
8-1, emphasis added.]
Duke has considered constructing an independent spent fuel storage facility which could be built at an existing Duke nuclear site or another site for receipt of spent f.cl beginning in 1983.
This alternative is currently judged undesirable for adding fuel storage capability because of the large commitment of resources required.
(p. 18-1.]
Storage expansion of the Unit 1 and 2 storage pool would also recuire use of high density storage racks.
To accomplish this, all fuel would have to be moved elsewhere, the pool drained and decontam-inated, existing racks removed, and new racks installed.
Since space for interim storage of the fuel in the Oconee 1 and 2 pool is not available this option is not considered viable.
If no action is taken by Duke, Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3 would be forced to shut down during 1980.
This shutdown would be necessary due to full. spent fuel pools making further fuel discharge from the reactors impcasible.
The economic penalty for such action is obviously enormous and unacceptable.
3 The cost of replacement power by fossil fuel plants on the Duke system would be several hundred thousand dollars per day in 1980, if the power was available.
If purchased outside the Duke system, the cost would be even greater.
Therefora, it is considered that ceasing operation of the Oconee reactors due to insufficient spent fuel storage is not in the interest of Duke or its customers.
[p. 18-2, emphasis added.]
Further articulation of the specific data we feel is needed is set forth in our requests for data and admissions to the Applicant (NRDC Request to Applicant and Staff for Admissions, dated April 2, 1979).
\\
6.
No.
Object to "if not,.:hy not" on the ground that it is immaterial to this proceeding.
7.
Yes, but we did not attempt to identify each part of it with wh'ich we take exception.
a.
No.
The Staff has the right to publish what it wants in an EIA.
b.
Facts are facts, they cannot be erroneously stated or they would not be facts.
The problem with the NRC-EIA so far as " facts" are concerned is not those acts of commission but those acts of omission.
The principal omission is that the EIA does not consi-c.
der the relevant fact that no AFR exists and that such a facility would require action on the part of Congress.
Such Congressional action is not certain.
Without Congressional action, AFR facili-ties are highly speculative - with the limited.. exception of the G.E.
Morris facility, no private industry wants to store spent fuel.
4 Moreover, DOE has stated that AFR does not appear to represent the best choice for utilities (see DOE /ET-0055,
- p. ES-1 and p. 3).
In short, by omission, the NRC/EIA does not assess the preferred alternative to the present action.
d.
See the answer to c above.
Any method employed that does not consider all relevant information is in error, e.
See c above.
f.
See c above.
Moreover, the EIA presents no evidence to support the assumption that some mechanism for the management of spent fuel short of at-reactor-storage will evolve within the life time of the reactors in questien.
8.
Yes, but we did not attempt to identify each part of it with which we take exception.
- a. No.
The Staff has the right to publish what it wants in the ER.
- b. Again facts are facts and cannot be erroneously stated and maintain the status of facts.
- c. The principal omission is that the staff has not ade-quately evaluated the consequences of industrial sabotage.
The shipping casks are vulnerable to the current NRC threat character-ization for industrial sabotage against nuclear power reactors and facilities handling strategic quantities of SNM, as contained in 10 CFR 73 (See NUREG-0254, p.
B-1, 2).
This represents a serious risk because credible threats can cause the release of significant quantities of gaseous and volatile fission products and in the more populated areas can cause serious health consequences and land con-tamination.
The probability that these threats, considered credible, will be realized is highly uncertain, however, the NRC and the intelligence community can provide no assurance of
t 4a deteceion of these threats prior to an attempted malevolent act.
d.
The methodology is inadequate because it did not analyze all the pertinent information.
e.
See above answers.
f.
- 1) Letter of Feb.
2, 1979, from William O.
- Parker, Jr.,
to Harold R.
Denton, with Attachment 1,
" Proposed Techni-cal Specification Revision".
- 2) " Environmental Impact Appraisal Related to Spent Fuel Storage of Oconee Spent Fuel at McGuire Nuclear Station -
Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool", Docket No. 70-2623, USNRC Dec. 1978.
- 3) " Generic Environmental Assessment on Transporta-tion of Radioactive Materials Near or Through a Large Densely Populated Area", Preliminary Report, Ducharme, et al., SANDIA Lab., SAND 77-1927.
- 4) Proposed Final Environmental Statement, Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program, WASH-1535, USAEC, Dec. 1974, Vol. VI, pp. VI. 38-53 through VI. 38-85.
- 5) " Domestic Safeguards", USNRC, NUREG-0524, Jan. 1979.
- 6) Letter of April 13, 1978 to Senator John Glenn from Thomas B. Cochran and enclosures.
- 7) Numerous documents related to the health effects of ionizing radiation, in particular those cited in NRDC's sub-missions to NRC associated with NRDC's Petition to Amend 19 CFR 20.101 - Exposure of Individuals to Radiation in Restricted Areas (Pending)
5 9.
No.
Object to "if not, why not" on the ground that it is immaterial to the proceeding.
- 10. Yes, at the time of the prehearing conference the NRDC attorney met with attorneys for and representatives of some of the intervenors.
The substance of the meeting was privileged discussion of trial strategy and tactics.
At that time NRDC does not remember discussing consolidation.
11.
Thomas B.
Cochran, Arthur R. Tamplin, Dimitri
[~},
Rotow, Anthony Z.
Roisman.
12-15.
The proposed program is a DOE proposal to build away-from-reactor storage capability for the nuclear industry.
The details are contained in an October 1977, DOE press release, the DOE draf t impact statements on that proposal '
(Storage of U.S.
Spent Power Reactor Fuel, DOE /EIS-0015-D, August 1978; Suppleme,nt, DOE /EIS-0015-DS, December 1978; Preliminary Estimates of the Charge for Spent-Fuel Storage and Disposal Services, DOE /ET-0055, July 1978; Charge for Spent Fuel Storage, DOE /EIS-0041-D, December 1978), and the DOE legislative proposal sent to Congress on creation of a re-volving fund for construction of an AFR.
TFe proposed action is to transship spent fuel from Oconee to McGuire.
To have independent value, that trans-shipment would have to be capable of solving the spent fuel storage problem without depending upon use of another interim
6 measure.
Solving the spent fuel storage problem means having storage space sufficient to receive all spent fuel to be generated by the reactor (in this case Oconee) between now and when the spent fuel can be disposed of in a permanent repository.
The earliest date for such a repository is, in our judgment, not until the mid-to late 1990s.
Prior to that time, Oconee will need another spent fuel storage solution.
The present transshipment is merely a short-term solution waiting for that long-term solution.
The long-term solution which transshipment encourages is construction of an AFR.
The solutions which will tend to be foreclosed by transshipment are maximum compaction and re-racking at both Oconee and McGuire and construction of new spent fuel storage capability at Oconee.
In our view, the solution to spent fuel storage problems other than by plant shutdown is influence,,d primarily by technology and economics.
The cost of building a new spent fuel storage pool at Oconee is a fixed dollar amount.
If the utility transships before it adopts that option, then the cost of at-reactor storage becomes the cost of trans-shipment plus the cost of the new pool.
In addition, the failure to move now to expand at-reactor storage with a new pool creates an apparent "need" for the AFR.
In addition, the McGuire pools are not radioactive.
They could be modified or expanded now without any of the risks identified by the Staff in the EIS for Oconee where changes are made to a pool which has already had spent fuel in it.
Allowing Oconee spent fuel to go into the McGuire spent fuel pool inhibits the
'aximum utilization of at-reactor storage for McGuire spent m
fuel at McGuire.
7 16.
Do not know.
17.
The Commission regulations and policy statement cited do contemplate that in appropriate circumstances trans-portation of spent fuel will be allowed.
18.
The proposed activity is not consistent with the Commission regulations because of the reasons identified in our contentions.
For further details, see our answer to the Staff interrogatories.
19.
Do not know.
20.
We have no direct knowledge.
21.
We understand that off-site shipment of spent fuel has occurred from reactors to West Valley, Morris, and from H.B.
Robinson to another reactor.
We have no direct knowledge beyond what is available in public documents regarding those facilities.
22.
Only to the extent mentioned in 21.
~
23.
Yes.
Do not know.
24.
The impact statements prepared in conjunction with the proposed program and referenced in answer to Questions 12-15
8 include consideration of some alternatives.
The alternative of compaction (all kinds) has been used or sought to be used.
We do not know which plants beyond what is available in Federal Register notices of application.
Transshipment has been used at H.B. Robinson ano sought with respect to the Dresden/ Quad-Cities reactors.
25.
Yes, provided that such consideration is conditioned upon analysis of the five factors listed in the Federal Register notice.
Yes.
26.
See answer to Questions 12-15.
27.
Because unless it has such independent value approval of the proposed action would constitute an illega1 segmentation of a coraprehensive program for solution to the spent fuel storage problem.
28.
The statute is NEPA, particularly Section 102 (A),
(B), (C), (D), and (E), and the regulation is 10 CFR Part 51, SS 51.40 and 51.41.
29.
No.
All steps taken to alleviate the problem prior to a programmatic decision will tend to increase the total econcmic costs of the final solution.
o 9
30.
The problem is the absnece of a permanent waste repository for spent fuel coupled with continued creation of the spent fuel and the absence of existing storage capacity at reactors to store this spent fuel on an interim basis.
None in particular.
31.
See answer to Questions 12-15.
32.
Expansion of at-reactor storage to handle the lifetime spent fuel to be generated by the reactor.
Shutdown or substantially reduced use of the reactor to assure that spent fuel that needs to be discharged during the lifetime of the reactor can be stored at the site assuming no expansion or limited expansion is accomplished.
33.
We have insufficient data to answer this question since it presupposes selection of Oconee or another site for permanent waste disposal and we believe such selection is premature at this time.
Letter to the President of the United States from Anthony Z.
Roisman, dated March 26, 1979; " Nuclear Waste: Too Much Too Soon," by Thomas B. Cochran and Arthur R.
Tamplin; Report to the President by the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management, March 1979; Testimony of Anthony Z.
Roisman and Arthur R.
Tamplin before the Subccmmittee on Nuclear Regulation, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, June 14, 1978.
9
10 34.
The question is semantic.
Permanent shutdown of Oconce for instance is not an " interim" solution.
The present situation appears to be extremely uncertain, given the recent reracking application for Oconee, but in general, short of permanent plant shutdown or restricted use to the limits of available storage, all solutions are potentially interim except actual expansion of spent fuel capacity at the Oconee to handle the lifetime spent fuel to be discharged.
We do not use " interim" to refer to prior to permanent waste disposal, but to refer to prior to finding a comprehensive and programmatic
~
solution to the problem of what to do with spent fuel, if any, generated by reactors, prior to implementation of a permanent waste disposal solution.
35.
The proper area of inquiry is identified in our contentions.
It includes the tendency to foreclose storage options at both Oconee and McGuire.
We are not familiar with
~
the McGuire Part 50 proceeding.
36.
The time period bewteen now and when spent fuel capacity at McGuire and Oconee will be filled.
37.
The final decision is the conclusion of tb.
process of deciding what to do about the spent fuel storage problem.
It could be made by one or more of the following:
9 11 a.
DOE b.
NRC c.
Congress d.
State and local governmental bodies e.
Courts f.
Citizens in violent or non-violent protests.
38.
We have no idea.
39.
See Answer to Questions 12-15.
~
40.
See answer to Questions 12-15.
41.
See answer to Questions 12-15.
42-43.
Transshipment will not have independent utility but will require completion of some further spent fuel storage action before continu'Ed operation of Oconee can be assured until a p manent waste disposal facility is available.
The use of the McGuire pool now, before the maximum possible re-racking has occurred, will make such reracking in the future more expensive and more dangerous.
The expenditure of funds to transship Oconee fuel now, rather than irmediately beginning to increase at-reactor storage at Oconee by further reracking and building an additional storage pool at Oconee, will result in an economic cost which will tend to significantly foreclose the use of such options in preference to an AFR in the future.
12 44a.
We object.
Disagreement with NRC policy in this proceeding is not material b.
We do not know precisely what the proposed licensing action is designed to provide, but it has the effect of creating an artificial "need" for an AFR and that effect is similarly created by the Commonwealth proposal.
45.
We object.
This question does not make sense, because "in this regard" is too vague.
46.
Yes, but they would probably be illegal and would probably all bias the final decision.
Allowing the plants to run out of storage space, including loss of an FCR, would not bias the final decision and is not an action or solution.
There is reason to believe that if the government decisionmaking on this issue, particularly at DOE and NRC, were less" concerned with finding the non-existent justification for an AFR and
~~
merely let the facts speak for themselves in the programmatic impact statements,' a decision on what solution to adopt would occur before any shutdowns were required due to inaction.
47.
The studies, if properly conducted, will comprise the comprehensive body of information required to be assembled prior to taking a major federal action.
Because of the existence of jurisdictional uncertainties between DOE and NRC, both are doing programmatic studies which if done properly would cover the same subject areas but from different perspectives.
The
13 DOE /EIS-0015-D and Supplement and NUREG-0404 are intended to address the basic proposal and alternatives to it as well as safety, environmental impacts and the factors listed specifi-cally in Section 102 (2) (C) and (E) of NEPA.
DOE /ET-0055 and DOE /EIS-0041-D are both addressing the economic cost of one possible solution to the spent fuel storage problem --
i.e.,
a government-owned AFR.
DOE /EIS-0040-D discusses the return of foreign spent fuel to the United States for storage which was a part of the original DOE proposed action announced in October 1977.
48.
The studies must comply with NEPA with respect to the proposed action.
Once that is done, a decision can be made based on the information provided in the studies and licensing actions may proceed which are consistent with that decision.
We have not prepared a list of specific determin-ations which must be made before a decision on the proposed action.
Our resources compel us to be more reactive.
Our comments on the draft EISs is the only detailed statement we have prepared of the deficiencies we found in those documents.
49.
The answer would depend upon whether we believe the studies were legally and factually sufficient, whether we believed the decision was legally and factually correct and what conditions if any were imposed on the use of the transshipment alternative.
It is not clear what is meant by "a viable one."
14 50.
The only legal position we have developed is spelled out in the papers filed in this proceeding and our letter to NRC requesting creation of programmatic review for spent fuel storage and a halt in decisions on spent fuel storage applications until completion of the review.
51.
At this time we do not intend to raise other matters beyond those in Contentions 3, 4,
5 and 6.
The method for disposal of the contention depends upon the development of the record on the other contentions.
It would appear at this time that once the record on those contentions is developed, the resolution of contentions would be based on legal argument.
But that is only a tentative conclusion.
52.
No.
We feel that the' Commission merely stated that one or the other might be sufficient, not that an EIA woul'd be sufficient in any cases, much less this case.
53.
The full range of environmental impacts and econo-mic and other costs and benefits must be analyzed without any preconceived notion that the proposed action is preferable to any alternative or that the scope of inquiry is limited by the announcement of a spent fuel storage policy by DOE prior to completion of the programmatic study.
weme
-mw
,me
15 54.
They are required by law and common sense.
55.
They are equally important.
56.
Within the limits of our resources, we have.
" Nuclear Waste: Too Much Too Soon," by Thomas B. Cochran and Arthur R.
Tamplin; Statement of Anthony Z.
Roisman and S.
Jacob Scherr on Behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council Before the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs Concerning Storage of Domestic and Foreign Spent Nuclear Fuels, submitted January 26, 1979.
57.
The decision-making process is designed to produce the best course of action based on all of the relevant consid-erations.
There is nothing to describe in detail.
58.
NEPA and the Administration Procedure Act.
59.
See answer to 56.
60.
Assuming that, due to inherent technological limitations, a nuclear plant is incapable of being used for specific peaks, we intend that its use as a base load peak unit be considered on a last on, first off basis.
Thus, if Duke projects that its base load needs can be met without using Oconee at any time, Oconee is not to be used and is only to be used when the base load is projected to require it,
16 allowing sufficient lead time to bring Oconee on line.
61.
We have insufficient data to answer the question.
That is why we urge more thorough consideration of it here.
62.
Yes:
Power Plant Performance: Nuclear and Coal Capacity Factors and Econcmics, by Charles Komanoff, Council on Economic Priorities, 1976 Nuclear Plant Performance / Update: Data Throuch December 30, 1976, by Charles Komanoff and Nancy A. Boxer of Komanoff Energy Associates, Council on Economic Priorities, 1977.
Nuclear Plant Performance Update: Data Throuah December 1977, by Charles Komanoff, Komanoff Energy Associates, 1978.
A Comparison of Nuclear and Coal Costs, by Charles Komanoff, Komanoff Energy Associates, presented as testimo'ny before the State of New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, October 9, 1978.
Statistical Analysis of Nuclear and Coal Power Plant Performance, by Christoph Hohenemser and Robert Goble, special issue of SIPI Scope of the Scientists Institute for Public Information, Vol. VI, No.
4, July / August 1978.
The Economic and Social Costs of Coal and Nuclear Electric Generation: A Framework for Assessment and Illustrative Calculations for the Coal and Nuclear Fuel Cycles, by Barrager, Judd, and Norta, Stanford Research Institute, Review Draft, July 14, 1975.
he up-mew..
17 Cost Comparison Between Base-Load Coal-Fired and Nuclear Plants in the Midterm Future (1985-2015), by Doan L. Phung, Institute for Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, September 1976.
63.
No.
We do not maintain a position on this point at this time.
64.
Only in general.
We have no studies or supporting documentation.
Our general conclusion is that both are environmentally undesirable and should be avoided as much as possible by greater use of energy conservation and solar energy.
65.
No.
See 34.
66.
We do not know.
67.
No.
There is no detail to explain.
68-69.
No.
We consider it speculative until the party with the burden of proof demonstrates how the figures were derived, what criteria were used for selecting the pros-pective supplier, including lead time allowed for arrangements, the availability of non-conventional. energy supply options, such as a more vigorcus implementation of available energy conservation and solar energy including utility financing of
18 these options, the extent to which purchase power costs are dictated by voluntary arrangements between utilities, arrangements subject to regulation and thus to regulatory change, arrangements subject to legislation and thus to legislative change.
70.
We contend that there is insufficient data pro-vided in this record to answer this question.
71.
As a general rule only those "technicological" methods that are protective of the public health and safety are acceptable.
72.
The doe states that there will be benefits to at-reactor storage:
There is considerable DOE interest in minimizing AFR storage requirements and shipments by encour-aging the use of at-reactor storage by further densification and/or expansion.
It is assumed that there would be economic and other advantages to the utilities of keeping their spent fuel at their own reactor sites rather than shipping it to interim AFR storage basins. (DOE /ET-00 5 5, July 1978, p.
3) 73.
Yes, a permanent storage facility for nuclear wastes is an absolute necessity.
However, when such a facility will become available is indeterminent.
We have no opinion concerning the licensing of transportation to this facility.
?^
19 74.
This is a strange question.
We only propose that the Oconee fuel be stored at the reactor site until an acceptable system of radioactive waste disposal is demonstrated.
This could mean that the life time fuel requirements would have to be stored on-site for a period greater than the useful life of the reactor.
We have not done an analysis sufficient to answer questions a g.
75.
This is a totally " iffy" question.
There is no information in evidence to support the proposition that an approved off-site disposal area will be available by 1983 or even 1993.
76.
On-site storage is the least unacceptable alterna-tive to a demonstrated safe means of ultimate disposal.
77.
The risks of routine, accidental and intentional (sabotage) releases of radioactivity.
78.
To some extent time and distance would be related to the risk.
79.
Any risk that is not associated with a commensurate benefit is unacceptable.
80.
See 79 above.
81.
The ALARA requirement of the NRC regulations.
82.
We have not.
(See answer to 72 and 73 above.)
20 83.
We have not made estimates but the entire cask could be breached.
84.
We have not made estimates.
85.
So long as it is not associated with a commensurate benefit.
86.
See answer to 85 above.
87.
See answer to 86 above.
88.
Yes.
(a) We are not challenging the regulations.
(b) The public will be exposed.
With no commensurate benefit, it is unacceptable.
89.
Yes.
(a) We are not challenging the regulations.
(b) See answer to 88 (b) above.
90.
Yes.
(a) We are not challenging the regulations.
(b) See answer to 88 (b) above.
91.
We have made no assessment.
21 92.
We have not. This is the responsibility of the NRC staff and the applicant.
93.
Any unanticipated release of radioactivity.
94.
We made no such analysis.
95.
See answer to 94 above.
96.
See answer to 94 above.
97.
We are not challenging the regulations.
98.
We are not challenging the regulations.
99.
We are not challenging the regulations.
100-103. See answer to 94 above.
104.
We assumed no sabotage scenario.
105.
We made no assessment.
106.
See answer to 104 above.
107.
Expand the existing spent fuel storage pools at the Oconee site to their maximum capacity using state-of-the-art compaction techniques, including, for example, use of high density
22 racks made of neutron absorbing materials (poison racks).
Then, further expand the storage capability at the site by expand-ing the pools themselves and constructing new pools, not necessar-ily adjacent to the existing pools.
108-109.
See answer to 107 above.
110-112.
We have made no such analysis.
113.
See answer to 107 above.
114-116.
We have made no such analysis.
117.
Yes.
These plans do not include the best state-of-the-art nor include expanding the pools (see 107 above).
118.
We do not consider this to be a reasonable hypothe-sis.
In applications for pool compaction that we have seen, the completion times are only 3 to 6 months.
119.
The alternative we are suggesting requires the storage of spent fuel on site until an acceptable means of radioactive waste disposal has been developed.
120.
No.
The exposure that we are concerned with relates to routine, accidental and intentional (sabotage) release of radio-activity.
23 121.
Yes 122.
We do not represent any person in this proceeding as an attorney.
We appear in this proceeding on our own behalf.
Our membership includes persons living in the vicinity of this plant and people throughout the U.S. who do not consider it appropriate to expose workers, who are also members of the public, to exposures in excess of ALARA.
123.
ALARA is As Low As Reasonably Achievable.
ALARA requires the balancing of risk-cost-benefit.
the NRC regulations indicate this.
124.
No.
125.
We assert no specific value.
126.
We have made no such analysis.
127.
We have made no such analysis.
128.
It seems possible because two shipments will be regtired.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that the waste dispos-al problem will be resolved during the lifetime of the McGuire facility.
Thus, this will just represent an additional step.
24 129.
It seems reasonable to so assume.
See answer to 128 above.
130.
Yes.
We have made no such analysis.
131.
We have made no such analysis.
132.
We have made no such analysis.
133.
See answer to 132.
134.
It is quite possible unless it is shown by the applicant through = risk-cost-benefit analysis to ALARA.
We are not challenging the regulations.
135.
We have made no such analysis.
136.
Yes.
137.
We have made no such analysis.
138.
Yes.
139-140.
We have made no such analysis.
141.
Yes, until it is demonstrated by a risk-cost-bene-fit analysis to be ALARA.
~
25 142.
The induction of cancer and genetic effects in the exposed population.
The 1972 BEIR Report of the NAS-NRC.
143-147.
Yes, but we have not made an analysis o the effects.
148.
ALARA requires a risk-cost-benefit analysis.
We are not challenging the regulations.
149.
Not determined at this time.
150.
We have made no such analysis.
151.
We have done no legal research on this issue.
152-167.
NRDC does net contend that the 1-core discharge capacity standard is a necessary standard for either environ-mental or health and safety reasons.
NRDC has done no analysis in this respect.
168.
We are maintaining that applicant has provided no data from which we can assess whether it has a security plan or needs one.
Our own dat.= suggest that the danger of sabotage or malevolent acts against shipped spent fuel is real and cred-ible.
It also suggests that an intentional release of radioactivity
26 from a cask is credible and will cause substantial doses of radiation to the public, particularly if done in a heavily populated area.
Similarly, the threat of such a release would be a substantial motivation to pay a ransom, release prisoners or submit to similar extortions.
Unless there is an improved cask design or secutiy protection sufficient to hold off an attack, the shipments should not be allowed.
169.
The NRC regulations and the Atomic Energy Act require that a proposed action not be permitted unless there is adequate protection for the public health and safety.
The situatior, described in the previous answer indicates that on this record the proposed action does not provide that degree of safety.
170.
Read it today for the first time.
No.
It relates to accidents and we are concerned with intentional acts and their prevention.
171.
A little.
It is not exempted from security pre-cautions.
It is at best exempted from the equivalents of Part 73 which are not stated to be the definitive safety considera-tions related to sabotage of nuclear wasto in transit.
172.
No.
We object to "if not, why not" as being irrele-vant to this proceeding.
We are not challenging the validity of 10 CFR S 73.6.
27 173.
Yes.
High explosive technology is available to saboterna.
We have made no analysis.
174.
We have made no such analysis.
175.
Yes.
176.
Probably not.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS B.
COCHRAN, PH.D.
City of Washington
)) ss:
District of Columbia )
I, Thomas B.
Cochran, Ph.D., hereby depose and say:
- 1. I am employed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 917 15th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
20005.
2.
I am primarily responsible for answers to the NRC Staff's interrogatories relating to NRDC's Contentions 3c&d, 5 and 6.
All information contained in those answers is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
30 8G Thomas B.
Cochran, Ph.D.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of April 1979.
/
Notary Public
/ff3
.f.rg L>s Jaa a M
a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In The Matter Of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment to Materials License SUM-1773 )
for Oconee Nuclear Station Spent Fuel
)
Transportation and Storage at McGuire
)
Nuclear Station)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF' ARTHUR R.
TAMPLIN, PH.D.
City of Washington
)) ss:
District of Columbia
)
I, Arthur R.
- Tamplin, Ph.D.,
hereby depose and say:
1.
I am employed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 917 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.
2.
I am primarily responsible for answers to the Applicant's Interrogatories 7, 8,71-121, 123-150, 152-167, and 173-176.
All information contained in those answers is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
adasan V
'hamplin, Ph.D.
Arthur R.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of April 1979 a.
,, Notary Public e
m sm age 1=. :a. wa
.=
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF ANTHONY Z.
ROISMAN, ESO.
City of Washington
)) ss:
District of Columbia )
I, Anthony Z.
Roisman, Esq., hereby depose and say:
1.
I am employed by the Natural Resources Defense
- Council, In.,
917 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20005.
2.
I am primarily responsible for answers to the Applicant's Interrogatories 1-6, 9-71, 122, 151, 168-172.
All information contained in those answers is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
9^~1 L"
g i 'I
( 1,,
Anthony Z.
isman
/
N)
/>
s-
', g \\ l lI l ' ,<
Subscribed and sworn to before me
(';'l U '
p.
i this 16th day of April 1979.
)
.f. 1 50 f. s YW&
Notary Public
[/
" :-: =:ca r.;u 2 ;.dr E im
=*
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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 " Natural Resources Defense Council Answers to Applicant's Interrogatories",
dated April 16, 1979 in the above captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 16th day of April, 1979.
Marshall I. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Jesse L.
Riley Chairman, Atomic Safety and President Licensing Board Carolina Environmental Study U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Group Commission 854 Henley Place Washington, D.C.
20555 Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Dr. Emmeth A. Leubke Edward G.
Ketchen, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Counsel for NRC Regulatory Board Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Legal Commission Director Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Cadet H.
Hand, Jr.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Director Bodega Marine Laboratory William L.
Porter, Esq.
of California Associate General Counsel P.O.
Box 247 Duke Power Company Bodega Bay, California 94923 P.O.
Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina Shelly Blum, Esq.
18242 418 Law Building Richard P. Wilson 730 East Trade Street Assistant Attorney General Charlotte, North Carolina State of South Carolina 28202 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201
'r Anthony Z.
Roisman, Esq.
Chairman, Stomic Safety and Natural Resources Defense Licensing Board Panel Council U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 917 15th Street, N.W.
Commission Washington, D.C.
20005 Washington, D.C.
20555 Brenda Best Chairman, Atomic Safety and Carolina Action Licensing Appeal Board 1740 E.
Independence Blvd.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Charlotte, North Carolina Commission 28205 Washington, D.C.
20555 Chuck Gaddy, Chairperson Mr. Chase R.
Stephens Davidson PIRG Docketing and Service Section P.O.
Box 2501 Office of the Secretary Davidson College U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Davidson, North Carolina Commission 28036 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. David R.
Belk Safe Energy Alliance 1707 Lombardy Circle Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 Arthur R.
Tamplin, Ph.D.
,