ML19289F290

Applicants Interrogatories to Nrdc,Per ASLB 790223 Order, & Requests to Provide Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19289F290
Person / Time
Site:	07002623
Issue date:	03/28/1979
From:	Mcgarry J DUKE POWER CO.
To:
References
NUDOCS 7906070170
Download: ML19289F290 (36)

Text

'

NRC pun ma, gg

[

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA hh NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'e In the Matter of

)

)

.j DUKE POWER COMPANY

)

4ad '

)

Docket No. 70-2623 (Amendment to Materials

)

License SNM-1773 for Oconee

)

Nuclear Station Spent Fuel

)

Transportation and Storage

)

at McGuire Nuclear Station)

)

APPLICANT'S INTERROGATORIES TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (NRDC) AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE Pursuant to the Licensing Board's Order of February 23, 1979 and 10 CFR SS2.740b and 2.741, Applicant serves the following interrogatories and requests to produce on NRDC to be answered under oath or affirmation.

Each answer should include all pertinent knowledge in the possession of all officers, directors, or members of your organization as well as pertinent information possessed by any advisor, consultant, agent, employee or counsel.

These interrogatories and requests to produce shall be continuing, and, if after answering or responding, additional information or documents are obtained which render prior responses incorrect or no longer true, please update the answer and response with such additional inf orma-tion.

The term " document" shall include, without limitation, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs or other data known to or in your possession, custody or control.

In the event any document requested in these interrogatories has been destroyed or is unavailable, describe in detail the reasons therefore} n

, With respect to requests for documents, for those documents that are public information and readily obtainable from public sources, an identification of those documents will suffice. With respect to the remaining documents which Applicant requasts to be produced, if such are voluminous, Applicant is amenable to inspecting them at your place of business and making copies at that time. If such a course is satisfactory, a list of the documents at tnis time would be appropriate. GENERAL

1. Do you plan to present direct testimony at the eviden-tiary hearing?

If not, please specify in detail the n'ature of your participaticn. If so, please answer the following: (a) State the name, business and resident address, and experience and educational background of each person expected to be called as witness at the evidentiary hearing; (b) With respect to each person named in response to interrogatory 1(a), state the subject matter on which that person is expected to testify; and (c) With respect to each person named in response to interrogatory 1(a), state; (1) which conten-tio n ( s ) will be addressed, (2) the substance of that person's testimony and (3) what you expect the testimony to prove. 2232 294

~ , 2. Have you or any of the witnesses you intend to call at the upcoming evidentiary hearing, conducted any studies with regard to any of your contentions? If the research and/or studies are not in written form, please describe in detail the nature of such research and/or study. (a) Specify the specific contention to which such research and/or study applies. (b) List the specific references used to support such research and/or study. (c) Provide copies of such research and/or studies.

3. Have any of the witnesses you intend to call in this proceeding ever testified, be it before a local, state or federal entity (including Congress), with regard to the subject matter you anticipate they will concern themselves with?

If so, p aase provide a copy of testimony, indicating the proceeding involved and state whe:her such witnesses were permitted to testify as qualified witnesses.

4. Do you intend to introduce any documentary evidence during the upcoming hearing?

If so, please list the documents you intend to introduce and specify which contention each supports. Also provide a copy of each document you intend to introduce. 5. Have you reviewed Applicant's March 9, 1978 Applica-tion for License to Store Oconee Nuclear Station Fuel 2232 295

. at McGuire Nuclear Station? If not, why not? If so, please answer the following as they relate to any of your contentions: a. Do you object to any of the material contained therein? b. Are any facts contained therein erroneously stated? c. Has any pertinent information been omitted? d. Is there any error in the methodology employed? e. If any of the answers to items a - d above is affirmative, please state with specificity, making reference to the particular section or subsection as the case may be, that material with which you tak.e issue and the reason why you take issue. f. Please set forth the material upon which you - rely as supporting your objection, including any analysis you have performed or caused to De performed in this regard. 6. Have you reviewed Applicant's responses to NRC Staff's questions concerning the subject Application? If not, why not? If so, please answer the following as they relate to any of your contentions: a. Do you object to any of the material contained therein? b. Are any facts contained therein erroneously stated? c. Has any pertinent information been omitted? 2232 296

. d. Is there any error in the methodology employed? e. If any of the answers to items a - d above is affirmative, please state with specificity that material with which you take issue and the reason why you take issue. f. Please set forth the material upon which you rely as supporting your objection, including any analysis you have performed or caused to be performed in this regard. 7. Have you reviewed the NRC Staf f's Environmental Impact Appraisal issued in this case in December 1978? If not, why not? If so, please answer the following as they relate to any of your contentions: a. Do.you object to any of the material contained ther ein? b. Are any facts conta.ined thereia erroneously stated? c. Has any pertinent informatiot, been omitted? d. Is there any error in the methodology employed? e. If any of the answers to items a - d above is arfirmative, please state with specificity, making reference to the particular section or subsection as the case may be, that material with which you take issue and the reason why you take issue. f. Please set forth the material upon which you rely as supporting your objection, including any analysis you have performed or caused to be performed in this regard. 2232 297

. 8. Have you reviewed the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report issued in this case in January 1979? If not, why not? If so, please answer the following as they relate to any of your contentions: a. Do you object to any of the material contained therein? b. Are any facts contained therein erroneously stated? c. Has any pertinent information been omitted? d. Is there any error in the methodology employed? e. If any of the answers to items a - d above is affirmative, please state with specificity, making reference to the particular section or subsection as the case may be, that material with which you take issue and the reason why you take issue. f. Please set forth the material upon which you rely as supporting your objection, including any analysis you have performed or caused to ce performed in this regard. Have you reviewed the NRC Staff's Errata of February 13, 9. 1979? If not, why not? If so, please answer the following as they relate to any of your contentions: a. Do you object to any of the material contained therein? b. Are any facts contained therein erroneously stated? c. Has any pertinent information been omitted? 2232 298

- d. If any of the answers to items a - c above is atfirmative, please state with specificity that material with which you take issue and the reason why you take issue. e. Please set forth the material upon which you rely as supporting your objection, including any analysis you have performed or caused to ce performed in this regard. 10. Have you met with any of the other intervening parties to this proceeding. If so, please list the dates of the meetings and the substance of discussions making specific reference to consideration, if any, that was given to consolidation. 11. Please list all individuals who assisted in the prepara-tion of the response to these interrogatories. Contention 1 12. What is the " proposed program" you refer to? 13. Please set forth the necessary basis which supports your position that there is a " proposed progr am" and provide a copy of the " proposed program". 14. Explain how the proposed action is "a step" in the proposed program? 15. Does the proposed program make specific reference to the proposed action? If so, please identify wherein such reference is contained. 2232 299

, 16. Does the Oconee operating license provide for the trans-portation of spent fuel off-site? If not, please ex-plain and provide supporting basis. 17. Doer, the Commission presently contemplate transportation of spent fuel? If not, please explain (a) the relevance of Table S-4 to 10 CFR S51.20 (g), (b) Part 71 to 10 CFR, and (c) the Commission's reference to this mode in 40 Fed. Reg. 42801 (1975). 18. If answer to Interrogatory 16 or 17 is affirmative, is not tne proposed activity consistent therewith? If not, please explain and provide supporting basis. 19. Is the proposed activity within the parameters of Table S-4? If not, please explain and provide supporting basis. 20. To your knowledge has Applicant made off-site shipments of spent fuel from the Oconee facility? 21. To your knowledge, have off-site shipments of spent fuel been made from any past or presently operating nuclear reactor? If so, please identify reactor and amount of spent fuel transported. 22. Are you familiar with Carolinc Power and Light Company's transshipment of spent fuel from its Robinson plant to its Brunswick plant? 23. Does the U.S. military produce spent fuel and other radioactive waste? If so, coes the U.S. military store all spent fuel and all other radioactive waste 2232.00

- on-site? If not, how long has the military shipped its nuclear waste off-sitei Do you know the average distance traveled? What is the source of your informa-tion to this response? 24. Does the " proposed program" consider alternative means of storing spent fuel? If so, what alternatives does the " proposed program" take into consideration? Have any of these alternatives been utilized or sought to be utilized? If so, please identify. 25. Has the Commission approved the appropriateness of considering, on an individual basis, the utili-zation of various spent fuel storage options, including expansion of spent fuel pools, transportation and away-from-reactor storage? If not, please explain the Commission's reference in 40 Fed. Reg. 42801 (1975) and provide supporting basis for your position. Are these options presently being utilized or being sought to being utilized? 26. What is the basis for your statement that the proposed action has no " independent value"? ,Have you performed any analysis, conducted any study or gathered any information that supports such statement? If so, please list and provide a copy thereof. 2232 301

, 27. Why does this proposed action need " independent value" in solving the spent fuel storage problem? 28. Do you maintain that establishment of an " independent value" is a statutory or regulatory requirement? If so, please identify the specific statutory or regula-tory section. 29. Do any of the proposed lternatives, or any other alternative, have any " independent value" in solving the spent fuel storage problem? If so, please list and describe in detail all such alternatives and explain their independent value. 30. Please explain what you mean by the spent fuel storage " problem". What analysis, studies and/or documents do you~ rely upon in support of this statement? Please list and provide a copy thereof. 31. Please explain the statement that the proposed action "is inherently premised on the near-term construction of an interim away-from-reactor storage facility". 32. Please list and describe in detail all alternatives which are not premised on a " construction of interim away-from-reactor storage facility". 33. If the proposed action involved approval for the final storage of spent fuel either in expanded Oconee spent fuel pools, in a separate facility at the Oconee site, or in a storage facility elsewhere, would you oppose the activity? If so, please explain and provide supporting 2232.02

. basis for your opposition. If not, is it fair to conclude that your concern is with an " interim" solution? 34. Given the present situation, must not some " interim" solution be taken, be it, plant shutdown, last-on, first-off base-load generation, supplemental purchase power, etc? If not, please explain. 35. If your concern is with an " interim" solution, is the proper area of inquiry into the impact at McGuire arising from storage of the Oconee spent fuel assemblies? If not, please explain and provide supporting basis. If so, was this matter considered in the McGuire Part 50 proceeding? If not, please explain and provide supporting Lasis. 36. Please' define "near term" as used in this contention. '2 7. What is the " final decis ion" that you refer to? Who will make it? 38. Aside f rom the documents referenced at the end of this contention, what other documents do you feel will be relied upon in the final decision? Please list. 39. What " program" does the final decision relate to? Please explain and provide supporting basis. 40. How will the proposed action " bias" the final decision? What is the basis for your position in this regard? Have you performed any analysis and/or studies that would support your statement in this regar4?

.. so, please list and provide a copy. Do you rely upon any documents that would support your statement in this regard? If so, pleast list and provide a copy. 41. What relevancy does "McGuire" have to the instant Contention? Please explain. 42. Please explain year sentence concerning conditions 1 and 2 contained in 40 Fed. Reg. 42801 (1975)? 43. Please describe the basis on which you contend the " proposed action is inconsistent with the conclusions one and two rendered by the NRC in promulgating specific factors associated with the approval of interim spent f uel s torage". 44. With respect to the Commission directive refer anced in 40 Fed.- Reg. 42801 (1975): a. Do you disagree with the Commission's statement expressly authorizing licensing of actions in-tended to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity during the period that the NRC is developing their final policy with regard to such shortages? If so, state the exact nature of such disagreement and state the legal basis for such disagreement. b. Is the proposed licensing action designed to provide an interim solution to the specific problem of a shortage of spent fuel storage capacity at the Ocor.ee station? If so, is this purpose independent from other licensing actions of this type such as that proposed by Commonwealth Edison? 2232 304

~. , 45. With respect to the documents listed at the end of Contention 1, are you relying upon any of the docu-ments in this regard? If so, please list. 46. Could any full-term or interim action related to spent fuel storage be taken prior to the completion of the generic impact statements that you reference? If so, please describe all possible actions and explain how such actions would not " bias a final decision". If not, please explain. 47. Please describe exactly what pertinence each mentioned study has to the proposed action in terms of safety, desirability, alternative courses of action, and any other factor that is necessary to consider in deciding on the proposed action? 48. For each listed study, state the determinations each must make before the proposed action can be approved and before the proposed program can be completed. 49. If all listed studies were ctmpleted before the final decision in the proposed action and concluded that, inter alia, that the transshipment alternative was a viable one, what position would you take to the proposed action? 50. Have you developed a legal position with respect to the theory of this contention? If so,-please describe in detail. 2232 305

, Contention 2 51. Do you intend to raise any matters beyond those dis-cussed with respect to Contentions 3, 4, 5 and 6 to support this Contention? If so, please provide specific information. If not, would you agree that this Contention is legal in nature and susceptable to being disposed of by legal argument as opposed to the presentation of direct evidence? If not, please describe, with specificity, the evidence you would present and provide a copy of your evaluation to support your conclusions. 52. Do you disagree with the Commission's statement (40 Fed. Reg. 42801) expressly approving the filing of either an environmental impact statement or an environ-mental-appraisal in actior.. such as the proposed action? If so, please explain. Contention 3 53. What do you consider to be the relevant criteria used to evaluate the proposed alternative in relation to other alternatives? 54. What is your basis (legal and/or other) for using these criteria? 55. List in order of importance the criteria specified above. 2232 306

~ . 56. Have you compared the various alternatives listed in this Contention using the criteria specified above? If so, please provide copies of the analysis. If not, please explain. 57. What is your understanding of the appropriate standard used to reject the proposed alternative when compared to anotner alternative? Describe the nature and extent of this standard in datail. 58. What is your basis (legal and/or other) tor the standard specified above? 59. Have you compared the various alternatives listed in this Contention using this standard? If so, please provide copies of this analysis. If not, please explain. Contention 3a 60. Please explain the use of the term "last-on, first-off". 61. Is the consideraticn of last-on, first off status a management decision which involves numerous factors? If not, please explain why not. 62. Have you performed any analysis or study or collected any data concerning the operating costs of nuclear versus fossil generation? If so, please list anc provide copies. 63. Do you maintain fossil base-load generation is more economical than nuclear generation? If so, please describe in detail and provide copies of any supporting documentation. 2232 ;07

, 64. Have you considered environmental impacts associated with fossil generation as opposed to nuclear generation? If so, please describe in detail and provide copies of any supporting documentation. 65. Is your alternative an interim solution? Please explain in detail. 66. How much additional time will the use of Oconee as a last-on, first-of f base-load plant have with respect to delaying the time when present Oconee spent fuel storage capacty will be fully utilized, exclusive of the full-core dischrage capability? Inclusive of the full-core discharge capability? Provide your supporting documentation. 67. Are you attempting to relitigate the nuclear versus fossil cost issue? Please explain your response in detail. Contention 3(b) 68. What is the basis for your assertion that purchase power costs are " speculative"? Do you have any con-trary information? If so, please provide. 69. What additional information is necessary to justify this conclusion? 70. Do you contend that shutting down Oconee or restricting use of Oconee is pref erable to the alternative proposed by Applicant? If so, please state your basis for such a contention. Have you performed any analysis or are you relying upon any analysis which would support this response? If so, please describe and provide a copy. 2232 308

. Contention 3(c) 71. What " technological" methods are acceptable to you with respect to storage of spent fuel? 72. What is the basis for your statement that there are no " economic" disadvantages to expanding Oconee spent fuel storage? Have you performed any analysis or study or collected any data or documents in this regard? If so, please list and provide a copy. 73. Do you conte.aplate that at some period in time spent fuel will be stored at a legally approved off-site permanent storage facility for nuclear wastes? Would you maintain that a separate license would be r.;cesuory for the transportation activity associated with such option? If so, please explal%. 74. With respect to storage at Oconee, does your c ontention contemplate an independent spent fuel storage facility on the Oconee site? If not, please explain t:1e meaning of your reference and the total storage capacity that can be accommodated on the Oconee site. If to, please answer the following and provide supporting basis:

a. Where would the independent storage f acil.ty be located on the Oconee Site?

b. How much would this facility cost?

c. What is the environmental impact associated with the consruction and operation of such a facility?

2232 :09

.. d. Will the spent fuel produced at any of the Oconee units need to be packaged and shipped to this separate spent fuel facility?

e. When would this f acility be able to receive spent fuel?

f. How many spent fuel assemblies could be stored under this alternative?

g. What are the doses to the workers and the general public associated with this spent fuel storage activity?

75. If a federally approved off-site waste disposal area could be available by the end of 1983, should Applicant now construct the on-site f acility suggested by this contention? If so, what is the basis for your response. ~ 76. Do you consider thd on-site storage of spent fuel or any other alternative to transportation, acceptable? If so, please list and explain. 77. What " risks" are you referring to? Please quantify. 78. Do you equate risk with time and distance? Do any other factors enter into your risk assessment? If so, please identify them and explain how they are utilized. 79. Do you claim this risk is unacceptable? If so, please explain. 2232 31C

, 80. What do you consider to be the relevant criteria used to determine if shipment of spent fuel creates an unacceptable radiation hazard? 81. What is the basis (legal or other) you rely upon for the criteria specified above? 82. Have you analyzed the proposed alternative in light of the criteria specified above? If so, provide copies of this analysis. If not, please explain. 83. What is the magnitude of the " releases" postulated in your contention? What is the basis for your response? Please provide materials relied upon. 84. What dose will result from " routine" exposure? What is the basis for yoar statement? If your response is contrary to Applicant and Staf f documentation, please explain the reason for such difference, stating with specifity where Applicant and Staff are in error. 85. Do you claim that " routine" exposure is unacceptable? If so, please explain. 86. What increase in radiation doses result.ng from " routine" i releases do you consider to be acceptable? In answering, please specify if you can, with supporting basis, the acceptable dose for:

a. One individual f rom one spent fuel shipment.

b. The total population of persons in tre region near the proposed transportation routes from one spent fuel shipment; 2232 311

+

,. c. One individual from all spent fuel shipments con-templated under this Application.

d. The total population of persons in the region near the proposed transportation routes from all spent fuel shipments contemplated under the Application.

87. If you were able to respond to Interrogatory 86 above, please describe all assumptions you relied upon including:

a. Amount of spent fuel transported per shipment.

b. Manner of shipping spent fuel and type of spent fuel shipment container.

c. Amount of radiation emitted by said containers in terms of alpha, beta, gamma, X-ray, and other classes.

88. Have you read 49 CFR Part 170-189? If not, why not? If so, please answer the following: Do you agree with the dose rate limits for transport a. of spent fuel contained in 49 CFR Part 170-189 in general and 49 CFR 5173.393 (j) specifically? If not, what should these limits be? Please provide all supporting analyses, calculations and~documenta-tion.

b. Do you agree that pursuant to the aforementioned regulations the public may be subjected to a small increase in radiation dose during the routine transport of spent fuel?

Do you consider this increase an acceptable radiation hazard? If so, 2232 312

.- upon what do you base your contention? If not, please explain. 89. Have you read Table S-4 to 10 CFR 551.20(g)? If not, why not? If so, please answer the following:

a. Do you cgree with the doses set forth therein?

If not, what should their limits be? Please pro-vide all supporting analyses, calculations and documentation.

b. Do you agree that pursuant to the aforementioned regulations the public may be subjected to a small increase in radiation dose during the routine transport of spent fuel?

Do you consider this increase an acceptable radiation hazard? If so, upon what do you base your contention? If not, please explain. 90. Have you read 10 CFR Part 71? If not, why not. If so, please answer the following:

a. Do you agree with the parameters set forth therein?

If not, what should these limits be? Please provide all supporting analyses, calculations and documenta-tion.

b. Do you agree that pursuant to the aforementioned regulations the public may be subjected to a small increase in radiation dose during the routine transport of spent fuel?

Do you consider this increase an acceptable radiation hazard? If so, 2232 313

. upon what do you base your contention? If not, please explain. 91. In your assessment of " routine" release, do you dif-ferentiate between doses to persons living in the vicinity of the transportation route and persons travelling on the route? If so, please explain. 92. Have you compared routine doses from an enlarged on-site f acility with those associated with the trans-portation activity? If so, please provide your results. If not, please explain why not. 93. What is your definition of " accident" as used in this contention? 94. Please identify the types of accidents considered, dose from each accident, and the mode by which each accident is initiated. 95. Does your Contention include all accidents described in Interrogatory 94? not, please describe with specifi-city the type of accident you postulate with regard to this contention? What is the basis for your response? 96. What is the probability of the accident (s) you postulate? What is the basis for your response? 97. Have you read Table S-4 to 10 CFR S51.20(g) with regard to accidents? If not, why not. If so, do you agree with the content? If not, please explain in detail, with supporting basis. 98. Have you read 49 CFR Parts 170-189 with regard to accidents? If not, why not? If so, do you agree 2232 314

. with the content? If not, please explain in detail, with supporting basis. 99. Have you read 10 CFR Part 71 with regard to accidents? If not, why not? If so, do you agree with the content? If not, please explain in detail, with supporting basis. 100. Do you assume a delay in transit as part of your contention? If so, what time period is assumed? 101. If the answer to Interrogatory 100 above is affirmative, describe in terms of length of delay, the exact un-acceptable incremental burden of radiation dose for people:

a. Within 25 feet of shipment.

b. Within 50 feet of shipment.

c. Within 100 feet of shipment.

d. Within 200 feet of shipment.

e. Within 300 feet of shipment.

f. Within 500 feet of shipment.

g. Within 1000 feet of shipment.

102. What is the probability of delay in transit assumed in this contention? What is the basis for this response? 103. Please provide all assumptions used for traffic patterns, demographic distribution, and traf fic density with respect to location, time of day and accident incidence. 104. What sabotage scenerio do you assume? What is the basis for this assumption? What is the probability of such sabotage? What are the possible results? 2232 315

^ ,. What is the probability of such results? What is the basis for your response to these sabotage questions? 105. Is there a significant disparity in terms of dose between Oconee and McGuire spent fuel? If so, please explain and provide supporting basis. 106. Do you aver that the risk of accidential or intentional (sabotage) releases is greater it, this activity than other spent fuel transportation activities? If so, please explain and provide supporting basis. Contention 3(d) 107. What " potential" are you referring to? Please quantify. 108. What acceptable means exist that would enable Applicant to " compact" spent fuel? 109. Do you' contend that the spent fuel pool for Oconee Units 1 and 2 can be modified? If so, please describe the specific nature of the modification. 110. What are the costs associated with the modification? 111. What will be the resulting number of spaces? 112 What length of time is necessary to complete the project? 113. Do you contend that the spent fuel pool for oconee Unit 3 can be modified? If so, please describe the specific nature of the modification. 114. What are the costs associated with the modification? 115. What will be the resulting number of spaces? 116. What length of time is necessary to complete the project? 2232 316

. 117. Are you aware that Duke has sought permission to modify the configuration of the storage racks in the Oconee Unit 1 and 2 spent fuel pool? If so, will such modification satisfy your concern with respect to the alternative set forth in this Contention? If not, explain with specificity. 118. What should Applicant's course of action be in the event that these modification alternatives could not be implemented until some time after the present Oconee spent fuel storage capability had been completely used? What is the basis for your position? Please provide supporting analyses. 119. Is this alternative an interim solution? Please explain. Contention 4 120. Is your reference to " exposure" related solely to routine releases? If not, please describe the com-ponents associated with the term " exposure". 121. Are your answers to Contention 3(c) above applicable to this Contention? If not, please explain. 122. Do you represent " workers"? If not, why have you raised this oncern? 123. What is your definition of "ALARA"? Does ALARA require the balancing of various factors? If not, please explain. If so, what factors do you assert should be balanced? What is the supporting basis for your position. 2232 317

,. 124. Limiting your attention to the transportation alterna-tive, do you contend that any other neans of transpor-tation is ALARA? If so, please provide detailed supporting basis. 125. What doseage do you asser t is ALARA with respect to workers? What supporting basis do you have for this position? Please provide any pertinent document: 126. Please quantify the contribution the proposed action will make to workers "beyond" ALARA. What supporting basis do you have for this position? Please provide any pertinent documents. 127. Please quantify the contribution the proposed action will make to the general public "beyond" ALARA. What supporting basis do you have for this position? Please provide any pertinent document. 128. Will workers be subject to additional risk or exposure under the proposed activity beyond the risks and exposures associated with tri shipment of Oconee spent fuel to an ultimate repository? If so, please explain and provide supporting basis. 129. Will the general public be subject to additional risk or exposure under the proposed activity beyond the risks and exposures associated with the shipment of Oconee spent f 11 to an ultimate repository? If so, please explain and provide supporting basis. 2232 s18

. 130. Should the ALARA standard be applied to all phases of the transshipment activity? If not, please explain. If so, please quantify ALARA to each component of the proposed activty, i.e-, packaging, lo ad ing, the actual transporta tion, unloading and storage. 131. State all case, regulatory, and statutory authority supporting your answer to Interrogatory 130 above. Also, please state and describe all assumptions and calculations made to support this contention. 132. List each specific action involving the Applicant's proposed alternative which you believe would increase the radiation exposure to workers or the general puhi c i beyond what is ALARA? 133. For each action listed in Interrogatory 132 above, state what precautions or additional measures must be taken to assure that the action is not beyond the ALARA concept with regard to radiation exposure. 134. If applicant complies with all specific dose criteria and radiation limit criteria imposed by the Commission's and the Depar tment of Tr ar sportation's Regulations, would the exposure to radiation from the alternative proposed by Aplicant be beyond what is ALARA? If so, do you contend that such regulations restricting dose and radiation limits are inadequate? If no t, please explain. 2232 al9

~ . 135. Is the radiation exposure to workers and the general public from the shipment of spent fuel f rom other facilities beyond what is ALARA? If so, do you contend that all shipment of spent fuel should be halted? If not, how does Applicant's proposed alternative differ from other shipments of spent fuel so as to make this proposed alternative beyond what is ALARA with respect to radiation exposure? Contention 4(a) 136. Would your answers to Contentions 3(c) and (d) above be applicable to this Contention? If not, please explain. 137. What doses to workers will result from "on-site expansion of spent fuel pool storage capacity at Oconee, including building another spent fuel pool"? What is your supporting basis for this response? 138. Is this Contention limited to workers? If not, please explain its relationship to the general public. 139. Describe each method of on-site expansion of spent fuel pool storage capacity at Oconee which will not be beyond what is ALARA with respect to radiation exposure. 140. For each method described in Interrogatory 139 above, state the total man-rem dose that would be received in (a) accomplishing the expansion and (b) transferring the spent fuel to the expanded storage area. 141. Do you oppose construction and operation of all off-site spent fuel storage? If so, state with specificity 2232 320

. the aature and basis of your opposition. If not, state hoS the Applicant's proposed alternative differs with the off-site storage concept and why such activity would be beyond ALARA. Contention 4(b) 142. What " residual risks" are vou referring to? Please describe and provide supporting basis. 143. Are there " residual risks" associated with on-site storage in existing spent fuel pools? In expanded spent fuel pools? In separate spent fuel pools? If so, please describe and provide quantifiable supporting basis. 144. What do you contend is the incremental " residual risk" associated with the proposed activity in compari-son to the various types of on-site storage? 145. Which group of " workers" are you referring to? Please explain and provide supporting basis. . 6. What is your definition of a " major cost"? Please 4 provide supporting basis. 147. Have you performed a cost / benefit analysis for the proposed action? If so, please provide your detailed analysis with supporting basis. If not, please explain. 148. If Applicant meets all applicable specific dose rate and radiation limit c;iteria specified in various regulations would these residual health risks be present? If so, do you contend that such regulations are inadequate? P 2232 221

. 149. Do you intend to present evidence in regard to the nature and extent of these residual health risks? If so, please state the nature and provide a summary of such evidence. 150. In support of your assertion that such residual health risks would "tip the balance against the proposed action", please provide a copy of the analysis of the proposed alternative and other alternatives upon which this assertion is based. Include in this analysis the criteria considered in comparing the various alternatives and a ranking of each alternative for each criteria. Contention 5 151. State all case, statutory and regulatory authority for the claim that Applicant should be bound to comply with the one-core discharge capacity conditions or have to make the stated demonstration. 152. Please set forth all safety and environmental consider-ations which warrant the impostion of the suggested " condition". 153. What is.your understanding of the "one-core discharge capacity"? 154. How many storage spaces are associated with this option? What is the basis for your reply? 155. Under normal operation, when will Oconee as presently designed lose its full-core discharge capacity? What is the basis for your reply? 2232 322

.. ~ . 156. I. the full core discharge capability is not utilized, under normal operation when will Oconee lose the a.bility to store any additional spent fuel? What is the basis for your reply? 157. To your knowledge, has Applicant had to discharge a full-core at its Oconee Station? If you know, how many times has this circumstance occurred? 158. Is the conditio1 you are seeking to impose a condition in any other ope:ating license issued by the Commission? If so, please litt. If not, what circumstances warrant the imposition of the condition in this instance? Please set forth your supporting basis. 159. If Applicant were seeking only to expand its spent fuel storage capacity, would you seek the imposition of the condition? Please dxplain. 160. Is the need to discharge a full core a planned normal operating event? If so, please explain with supporting basis. 161. Does prudent management practice require that Applicant maintain flexibility with respect to addressing abnormal occuranc'es? Please explain. 162. Is maintenance of the full-core discharge capability a management decision? Please explain. 163. Which option do you prefer, maintenance or non-maintenance of the full-core discharge capability? Please set forth the supporting basis for your response. 2232 J23

. 164. If a cost / benefit analysis as suggested were made, what factors should be considered and how should each be weighted in terms of importance? 165. Define what is meant by " holding that capability is more valuable". What is the measurement of value in this instance? 166. .' a separate on-site spent fuel storage facility were available, would you oppose Applicant's shipment of spent fuel to such installation in order to maintain a full-core discharge capability at Oconee? If so, please state in detail reasons for such opposition. If not, please state in detail the difference between the above-stated hypothetical and Applicant's proposed alternative. 167. If an off-site spent fuel storage facility were available, would you oppose Applicant's shipment of spent fuel to such installation in order to maintain a full-core discharge capability at Oconee? If so, please state in detail the difference between the above-stated hypothetical and Applicant's proposed alternative. Contentior. 6 168. Are you maintaining that Applicant should have a security plan for the proposed activity? If so, what is your supporting basis? 169. Do NRC regulations require a security plan for the proposed requirement? If so, identify the regulations. 2232 a24

. 170. Are you familiar with proposed rulemaking, PRM-7-6 (42 Fed. Reg. 61089 (1977))? If so, does this proposal seek to implement the contention you are proposing? If not, please explain. 171. Are you f amiliar with Part 73 to 10 CFR? If so, is the proposed activity exempted from a security plan by S73.6? If not, please explain and provide supporting basis. 172. Are you f amiliar with the rationale underlying the Commission's exemption contained in 10 CFR 573.6? If not, why not? If so, do you agree? 173 Does cask integrity enter into your contention? If so, please explain :nd answer the following:

a. What type of cask do you assume?

b. What is the probability the cask will breach?

Please provide any analysis ;ou have to support your response.

c. What dose is associated with the alleged breach?

Please provide the supporting basis for your response. 174. Describe in detail the particular acts of sabotage or other malevolence that you contend may present a " serious risk". In describing each act, include the following: a. The nature of the act and how it may be carried out.

b. The type and amcunt of explosives or weapons used to carry out the act.

2232 025

, c. The radiological consequences of the act.

d. What specific acts, if any, do you intend to support with the presentation of evidence at the upcoming hearing and a summary of such evidence.

e. The probability of each act occuring.

175. Do you believe that all shipments of spent fuel which comply with appropriate regulations are subject to sabotage and malevolent acts presenting a serious risk? If not, how does the proposed shipment of Applicant's fuel differ with other shipments? 176. Is the transport of spent fuel from Oconee to McGuire more or less vulnerable to sabotage and other malevolent acts than transportation of spent fuel from other reactors in the United States? Respectfully submitted, 'o [J. Michael McGgrry Of counsel: William L. Porter, Esq. Associate General Counsel Duke Power Company March 28, 1979 2232 326

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) ) DUKE POWER COMPANY ) ) Dacket No. 70-2623 ( Ame ndment 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 Interrogatories to Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC ) and Requests to Produce", dated March 28, 1979 in the above captioned matter, have beca ser.ved upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 28th day of March, 1979. Marshall I. Miller, !sq. 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, Nor th Carolina 28207 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Edward G. K e tchen, Esq. Board Counsel for NRC Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Staff Commission Office of the Executive Legal Washington, D. C. 20555 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Cade t H. Hand, Jr. Commission Director Washington, D. C. 20555 Bodega Marine Laboratory of California William L. Porter, Esq. Post Of fice Box 247 Associate General Counsel Bodega Bay, California 94923 Duke Power Company Post Office Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 2232 327

. Shelley Blum, Esq. Richard P. Wilson 418 Law Building Assistant Attorney General 730 East Trade Street State of South Carolina Charlotte, North Carolina 2600 Bull Street 28202 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq. Natural Resources Defense Chairman, Atomic Safety and Council Licensing Board Panel 917 15 th S t reet, N.W. C. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20005 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Brenda Bese Carolina Action Chairman, Atomic Safety and 1740 E. Independence Blvd. Licensing Appeal Board Charlotte, North Carolina U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 28205 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Chuck Gaddy Chairperson Davidson PIRG Mr. Chase R. Stephens P. O. Box 2501 Docketing and Service Section Davidson College Of fice of the Secretary Davidson, North Carolina U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 28036 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. David R. Belk Safe Energy Alliance 1707 Lombardy Circle Charlotte, Nor th Carolina 28203 QJ' E' e /d. Michael McGarry, II 2232 328}}