ML20008F678
| ML20008F678 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1981 |
| From: | Alderson C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Sohinki S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008F676 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104210493 | |
| Download: ML20008F678 (3) | |
Text
.
/
'o UNITED STATES S,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.I REGION il s
a.
~*
101 MARIETTA sT. N.W 5UITE 3100
[
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
~
APR 171981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Steven Schinki, Counsel for NRC Staff. Office of the Executive Legal Director FROM:
Carl E. Alderson, Director. Enforcement and Investigation Staff, Region II
SUBJECT:
DUKE POWER COMPANY - POSSIBLE FALSE STATEMENT REGARDING AMENDMENT TO MATERIALS LICENSE, DOCKET 70-2623 As you requested during our telephone conversation today I am enclosing a copy of our Summary of Inquiry into the subject matter.
As you are aware, we have conducted a preliminary inquiry into this matter, the scope and results of which are documented in the enclosure herewith.
Based on the information we have gathered to date, we do not believe that a formal investigation or further expenditure of investiga-tive manpower is warrented.
If I can be of further assistance in this matter please contact me.
I G +E. Alderson% au
~
Carl /
Enclosure:
Summary of Inquiry 4
4 810.4210YD
R, e
.w. -
MAR 4 1881 EtiCLOSURE
SUMMARY
OF IfiQUIRY As a result of a memorandum from W. J. Ward to J. P. O'Reilly dated November 24, 1930, Region 11 conducted an inquiry into com;"ents made by the ASLB in tneir Initial Decision dated October 31, 1980) in the matter of Duke Power Company's reque(st for amendment to tiRC Licens S',M-1773 (Docket 70-2623) to permit shipment of spent fuel from Ocenee Nuclear Station to McGuire Nuclear Station for storage.
Of specific interest were the ASLB's statements that "...it appears that Duke was somewhat less than candid, if tot actively devious, in not disclosin Decision)g its Cascade Plan to the NRC._." (at page 12 in the Initial and "...we regard as disingenuous, the further note that 'Each plant is exelded solely on the basis of meeting its own need for storage.
to mention of the cascade approach in licensing documents'." (at page 15).
The inquiry included a review of the entire Initial Decision and those pages of the hearing transcript which were cited by the ASLB in making the above statenents. Additionally, both the applicant's and the NRC Staff's appeal briefs were reviewed.
An NRC staff rember, Brett A. Spitalny, who was the project ranager for the Duke license amendment review was telephonically interviewed ccncern-ing his knowledge of the cascade plan.
During that interview, Soitalny explained that cor..encing sometime during the summer months of 1972, he had numarous telephone conversations with Duke personnel concerning shipments of spent fuel elements from Oct 1ee to McGuire, McGuire to Catawba and Oconee to Catawba. He recalled that it was considered oy Duke to be an inexpensive way to handle the fuel storage problem as the fuel pool at McGuire was empty and Duke was considering building a larger spent fuel pool at Catawba.
He stated that the Catawba FSAR specifically stated Catawba was being designed 50 that spent fuel could be transported frca McGuire and Oconee and stored at Catawba.
A review of the Catawba FSAR, Section 9.1.2.4,, " Storage of Oconee and McGuire Spent Fuel" disclosed that it states, in part: "The interim spent fuel storage plans for Duke Power nuclear facilities call fer storage of some Oconee and McGuire spent fuel assemblies in the Catawba spent fuel pools.
It should be noted that the prehearing conference for the mateTials license amendment took place on Marsh 13, 1979, and discovery by the intervenors was conducted on V,41 26-27, 1979.
The Catawba FSAR was submitted to the NRC for accy tance review on March 21, 1979, a;proxi-mately one month before the intervenors obtained copies of tne Duke internal documents to which the ASLB refers in calling Duke somewhat less than candid, if not actively devious.
_. ~
$[~$ ~ "$
% N m Ld%Yeb es.. m mo o
n A
l c,;
gjj,7; 4 W P, ~
In that the Staff was aware, both infomally (Spitalny telephone con-versations with Tuke employees) and fomally (Catawba FSAR), that trans-shipment of fuel was being considered by Duke, it does not appear appropriate that the question of material false statement should be addressed further. While the statt:ments contained in the Duke internal memoranda appear to suggest that infonr.ation be withheld from the NRC, the inform 3 tion referred to, was in fact made known to the NRC.
6 m
1-y
_,