ML19323A969
| ML19323A969 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1980 |
| From: | Porter W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005090040 | |
| Download: ML19323A969 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ -
8 0050900 TO W 7 NUMBER
'"" W Dmm Powzn GOMPANY LEGAL DEPARTMENT..
P. O. Box 3128 33189 GnAnLoTTE, N. G. 28242 WILLIAM LARRY PORTER
(,0137342S
.m... m c. m 5:.
At 4
\\
J March 28, 1980 6-3 f
APR g 1999, 3 g,fe Secretary Commissioners 9'
E I8
,g 'Vice U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
'y 7,'
Dear Members of the Commission:
I Pursuant to the Commission's March 24, 1980 Sunshine Act notice of public meetings (
Fed. Reg.
), the Commission announced the scheduling of a public meeting on-i Monday, March 31, to discuss amendments to the Commission's Interim Final Rule regarding Physical Protection of Irradiated Reactor Fuel in Transit.
On March 9, 1978, Duke Power Company filed an application to transport irradiated reactor fuel from its Oconee Nuclear Station to its McGuire Nuclear Station.
This application is still pending.
Pursuant to the existing Interim Final Rule, Duke Power Company sought approval of various transportation routes for the shipment of the spent fuel.
The primary route selected by Duke (I-85/I-77) was not approved by the NRC Staff despite the fac'- that it was the sole subject of its Environmental Impact Appraisal.
Duke unsuccessfully sought reconsideration of the Staff's denial.
The concluding phase of the evidentiary hearing being held in this matter is scheduled for April 28, 1980.
Duke intends to challenge the Staff's denial of the primary route at this hearing.
Pursuant to the Commission's regulations, prepared testimony supporting Duke's position must be filed by April 14.
So as to provide the Board and parties additional time, Duke contemplates filing its testimony in early April.
In the event the Commission adopts the amendments suggested by its Staff at its March 31 meeting, the possibility exists that the primary route could be approved.
In such an event it would be unnecessary for Duke to pursue the matter further at the hearing.
In an effort to avoid needless utilization of resources of the Applicant, Staff, Board and other parties, Duke would request expeditious consideration by the Commission of the Staff's proposed amendments.
Such expedition is l
l
ry*
e s
Commissioners March 28, 1980 Page 2 particularly warranted when one recognizes that Duke's transportation applicatior to ship 300 spent fuel elements has been pending for over two years, six months of which resulted from the Commistion's deliberations on confidentiality.
Clearly, Duke is entitled to some measure of expedition.
Sincerely, d**
AW William L. Porter cc:
Marshall E. Miller, Esq.
Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
Dr. Emmeth'.A. Luebke Mr. Jesse L.
Riley Edward G. Ketchen, Esq.
Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
David S. Fleischaker, Esq.
J. Michael McGarry, III., Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, NRC Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, NRC y/Mr. Chase R. Stephens s
- - -