ML20005A987
| ML20005A987 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1981 |
| From: | Jeffrey Riley CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005A988 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107060172 | |
| Download: ML20005A987 (5) | |
Text
.
'e -
- g WTED COMEspoypc;(g g
- yMj[
-12 UNITED STATES w -E ZdICA NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION D
0///ce,f
> O@ S O I
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BCA y
+
u In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-2623 (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773 for Oconee
)
Huclear Station Spent,Fbel
)
Transportation and storage
)
At McGuire Nuclear Station
)
CESG'S RESPONSE TO OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT'S
SUMMARY
OF INQUIRY REGARDING DUKE POWER COMPANY POSSIBLE FALSE STATEMENT This ALAB heard the Appeal of Duke Power Company and NRC' staff of the Initial Decision in the captioned matter on April 22, 1981.
Under date of April 20, 1981, Stephen Schinki of NRC staff filed a memorandum regarding the results of a preliminary inquiry by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement into the
" allegations" of the ASLB [more properly the findings of the ASLB] "regarding possible lack of candor on the part of Duke Power Company concerning the so-enlled Cascade Plan."
Intervenor CEEG had r.:
received this filing, addressed to the ALAB, at the time of the hearing and herewith responds.
CESG respectfully. suggests that there are two proper and appro-priate courses of action in regard to this Staff filing.
This Board may disregard the April 20th filing by Staff as untimely or it may refer the matter back to the ASLB for further consid-eration.
O
\\
The document enclosed with the Staff filing is a letter from Carl E. Alderson, Director, I and E Staff, Region II, to to Stephen Sohinki;
Subject:
Duke Power Company - Possible False
~8107060172 81050 PDR ADOCK 0700 3
C
. DR
r 1
-2, Statement Regarding Amendment to daterials License, Docket 70-2623, April 17, 1981, and an unsigned enclosure, Summary of Inquiry.
The Alderson letter concludes that, based on the information gathered in this preliminary inquiry
.we do not believe that a formal investigation or further expenditure of investigative manpower is warranted.
The Summary of Inquiry shows an I and E posture which is that of defender of the Applicant against a suspect ASLB.
In the words of the Summary Region II conducted an inquiry into comments made by the ASLB in thsir Initial Decision (dated October 31, 1980) in the matter of Duke Power Company's request for amend-ment to NRC License No. SNM-1773 (Docket 70-2623) to permit shipment of fuel from Oconee Nuclear Station to McGuire Nuc1 car Station for storage.
Of specific interest were the ASLB's statements that
"...it appears that Duke was somewhat less than candid, if not actively devious, in not disclosing its Cascade Plan to the NRC..."
(at page 12 in the Initial Decision) and "...we regard as disingenuous, the further note that
'Each plant is expanded solely on the basis of meeting _
its own need for storage. No mention of the cascade approach in licensing documents'." (at page 15).
The inquir, included a review of the entire Initial Decision and those pages of the hearing transcript which 4
were cited by the ASLB in making the above statements.
]
Additionally, both the applicant's and tne NRC Starr's appeal briefs were reviewed.
[ Emphasis supplied)
There was apparently no investigation of whether the Applicant was more deeply involved in withholding information from the NRC.
7.., Summary (th) refers to Erett A.
Spitalny as an "NHC staff
~
member".
Spitalny left employment by 'the NRC at the conclusion l
of the evidentiary hearing (see attached affidavit) and was not a member at the time of the reported telephone interview.
l The Summary (95) indicates that the FSAR for Catawba, Section 9.1.2.h, refers to the storage of some spent fuel assemblies from I
r
r Oconee and McGuire at Catawba.
The FSAR was submitted to the NRC for acceptance review on March 21, 1979, about one month before intervenor NRDC discovered internal Duke documents which led, in the course of of cross-examination, to a memorandum regarding
" Spent Fuel Storage Review 8/11/76" (Applicant 2s Exhibit 4) which reported that " Transportation aspects should be handled internally and should-not be addressed in discussions of expansion plans with NRC.... No mention of the cascade approach in licensing documents."
(I.D. p. 12)
It should be noted that the notice of the opportunity to intervene preceded Duke's Catawba FSAR filing by nine months (I.D. p. 3).
The order admitting intarvenors preceded the filing of the FSAR by a month.
URDC's contentions touching on plans for spent fuel handling and storage, denied by the Licensing Board Order of November 2, 1978, were, after an ALAB overturn of the denial, February 13, 1979, admitted by the ASLB by Crder of March 16, 1979.
It is clear that the Applicant had substantial notice,.
that its planning would be the subject of inquiry before the submittal of the FSAR. (I.D. p.4)
There clearly was a period of at least two years in which Applicant did not disclose any aspect of its cascade plan to the ERC.
The FSAR disclosure, if it may be called that, was under Docket 50-413, 50-414, not 70-2623 This may hcVe constituted apprising relevant URC staff.
It did not apprise the public.
The FSAR has yet to be placed in a public document room.
It was only through the diligent effort of URDC counsel, clearly shown by the record, that the existence and details of the cascade plan were brought to light.
Needless to say there aas no reference to t3e cascade plan in any documents submitted by Applicant or Staff prior to this point in the hearing.
h-Although the memorandum of the plan dated 8/11/76 is listed as Applicant's Exhibit h, the record makes clear that it was offered in evidence only after cross-examination by NRDC's counsel had revealed its existence.
The Staff's role in supporting the Applicant and in ignoring the long range implications of the cascade plan are most pointedly indicated if we credence Uh of the summary which w'ould indicate the familiarity with the cascade plan of the NRC project manager.
only through NRDC's intervention were the far reaching plans for moving fuel made known, plans which as the amicus curiae brief filed in this docket by the Nuclear Transportation Group shows were a prime concern to essentially the totality of nuclear utilities.
It is clear from the foregoing that Staff and I and E have been acting in the interest of exculpating and rehabilitating the Applicant, using the means of attempting to controvert the record and impugn the Licensing Board.
There was in Staff's presentation no reference to the several years of nondisclosure; of the time relation of filing the FSAR " disclosure" to the filing of NRD0's contentions; la confining investigation to documents and a former staff employee; in not requiring a sworn statement from this former employee; in failing to note the availability of the FSAR to the public; in failing to comment on the lack of a bridge between the Part 50 filing for catawba and the Part 70 filing for materials handling.
Equally remarkable is the I and E obliquity in regard to the clear meaning and intent of Applicant's Exhibit h, the Spent Fuel Storage Review of 8/11/76.
,,,__-.%n
--..w
,--m,.r,
,w-
---g 4
g,*-
q,,.,
9
-_,-.a y
e t u-v
CONCLUSION This ALAB should either disregard the Staff's April 20, 1981 filing of an Investigation and Enforcement Office letter and Summary of Inquiry finding that further investigation of possible false statement by Duke Power Company is not warranted or, in the alternative, remand this specific matter to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for further consideration.*
This Staff filing is an obvious, last ditch attempt by a favorably biased Staff to rehabilitate the Applic ant and in so doing obscure the deficiencies in its Environmental Impact Appraisal and related testimony.
Respectfully submitted, zgig ']. l' ' ' -
Jesse L. Riley Carolina Environmental Study Group At Charlotte, N. C.
May 5, 1981
A letter addressed to this ALAB by Stephen Sohinki of ERC staff, April 16, 1981, encloses a statement providing a statement of current Department of Energy policy in regard to away-from-reactor storage and reprocessing spent fuel.
The Board is urged, as with respect to the Summary of Inquiry matter, to either disregard the filing or to refer it to the ASLB for consideration were it can be subjected to the rigors of impartial examination.