ML19294C148
| ML19294C148 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 02/29/1980 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FOIA-80-137, FOIA-80-A-14 CLI-80-03, CLI-80-3, NUDOCS 8003070187 | |
| Download: ML19294C148 (3) | |
Text
,
N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
6 T' John F. Ahearne, Chairman Victor Gilinsky q
Richard T. Kennedy p
Mcre Joseph M. Hendrie 3p Peter A. Bradford 2
3g>$
~g,3 z.
gtggg101WA )?
S S S'
)
DG;!@64/
d N
In the Matter of
)
.b' g <
)
4 DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
)
(Amendment to Materials License
)
Docket No. 70-2623 SNM-1773 -- Transportation of
)
Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear
)
Station for Storage at McGuire
)
NuclearStation)
)
)
ORDER (CLI-80-3)
On September 7,1979, the Commission received from the NRC staff a petition for review and a request for an interim protective order covering information specifically identifying and describing alternative routes for the shipment of spent fuel.
In order to preserve our jurisdiction to decide the matter, we issued an interim protective order that day; we also held hearings on September 10, and, through the General Counsel, solicited the further views of the parties on September 12.
Having considered these submissions, on November 2,1979 we decided to examine the protected route infonnation in camera. Affidavits of non-disclosure and briefs discussing the protected route information were received from the State of South Carolina and the Carolina Environmental
-MGW.
DMeb.4-.
i 2
Study Group; NRDC elected not to examine the protected information but also submitted a brief; and the staff submitted a reply.
After examining the protected route information and considering all the submissions from the parties, we have determined to deny the staff's petition for Commission review and to terminate our interim protective order.
In doing so, we recognize that the question whether and to what extent routes for shipping spent fuel should in general be made public is a matter of some importance, perhaps appropriate for Commission review.
See 10 CFR 2.786(b)(4)(1).
However, we do not believe that the staff has made an adequate showing here that it is important to protect this particular routing information. Ordinarily, we would not expect a complete record until the petition for review had been granted and the merits briefed.
But here we have asked the parties to address the merits -- whether the interim protective order should be made pemanent -- as well as whether the petition for review should be granted. We have received a relatively complete briefing on the merits and, of particular importance, the staff has twice indicated that it had little to add to its submission of September 14. We therefore believe that little could be gained from requesting further briefing.
While the staff may have correctly applied 10 CFR 2.790(d)(1) to spent fuel routes, this case raises the broader question of whether spent fuel routes can effectively be protected, or should be. While the staff suggests that shipments could be timed so as to foil those who would follow them, there is little in the record from which we could attempt to make a reasonably accurate judgment as to whether shipments would, in fact, be successfully followed.
Similarly, while it is clear that there is at least some incremental gain in security from protecting routing information, the record does not disclose
3 the importance of this benefit and hence we cannot tell whether it outweighs the public's interest in knowing the routes.
The Commission intends to address this broader question generically outside the context of this case.
Certain other considerations suggest releasing the route information involved here. The parties have already sunnised, for the most part correctly and without reference to protected route infomation, that the staff-approved routes largely follow the interstate highway route published in the environ-mental impact. appraisal. The two routes that do so are thus largely public already. The third staff-approved route avoids the interstate highways alto-gether and thus has not been public, but poses other problems.
Staff studies of preferred routes for shipping radioactive materials have indicated that interstate highways are usually to be preferred to non-interstate routes.
While we cannot pass judgment on this proposition here, the third route deserves some additional consideration in light of these studies.
For these reasons, the staff's petition for review is denied and the interim protective order issued September 7 is teminated.
Persons signing affidavits of non-disclosure are released from all responsibilities under the affidavits.
It is so ORDERED.
For the Commiss on Ok SAMUEL J.f'QilLK Secretary of t?e Commission Dated at Washington, D.C.
this 79 ay of February,1980.