ML20023C002

Motion to Compel Applicant to Respond to Conservation Council of North Carolina Interrogatories 4-1 Through 4-5 & 4-14 (First Set) Re Contention 4 Concerning Cumulative Effects of Transshipments.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20023C002
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	05/03/1983
From:	Runkle J CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8305090475
Download: ML20023C002 (6)

Text

_ ________ _______________________________ ______ _ _ __ _

5/3/83 THE CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA 307 Granville Road, Chapel Hill, H.C. 27514 (919) 942 7935 or 9421080 (24 houri)

In the L:atter of )

)

CAROLINA PCWE? & LIGM COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50 600-01 AND NC EASTERN FUNICIPAL '2 ); * -6 0 #1 401-01 POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 & 2) )

CCNC MOTION TC COMPEL APPLICANTS TO RESPCND TC DISCCVERY The Conservation Council of North Carolina (CCNC) moves the Licensing Board to issue its Order directing the Applicants to respond fully to CCNC interrogatories 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4 4, 4-5,

( and 4-lh (First Set). In support thereof CCNC states as follows:

3ackcround On March 18, 1983. CCNC served interrogatories upon the Applicants in regard to our Contention 4 (Transshipment).

Interrogatories 4-1 through 4-5 dealt with the environmental impacts of transshipping unirradiated (fresh) fuel to the SENPP n88 site. Interrogatory 4-14 (see below) dealt with the Applicants' owa.

plans to dispose of radioactive wastes and spent fuel produced en0 3 by the operation of the SEMPP.

ot so oo

$Q Contention 6-14 was inadvertently left out of the Applicants ' Answer gg to CCNC's Interrogatorien (First Set); it is however ebjected to gg by the A pplicants. It reads in full:

4::

Page 2 On April 6,1983, Mr. Carrow, Applicants ' Counsel, spoke with us on the telephone concerning Applicants' objections to our interrogatories 4-1 through 4-5 and 4-9 and 4-14 We cleared up the misunderstanding relating to 4-9.

Mr. Carrow asked for an extension until April 20 which was granted. Briefly, the Applicants object that the interrogatories address fredi fuel to and spent fuel from the SENPP as well as spent fuel from the other CP!:L reactors. The April 6 conversation ended with the i understanding that if the Applicants changed their stance, Mr.

Carrow would contact us.

The Applicants responded to CCNC's interrogatories on 1 April 20, 1983 .:

Included in their answers were the same objections Mr. Carrow had related previously. A follow-up call i

to ?".r.

E Carrow on May 3 was made and the Applicants still object .

g Discussion M

"he issue is a simple one but not one CCNC and the Applicants =

can rea dily negotiate, that is: E-

==

May the Applicants rely on Table S-4 for the effects of =

5 transshipment of Tael to or wastes from the SENFP or -

=

need they do the equivalent of an environmental impact b

=

f 4-14(a). What plans do the Applicants have to dispose of radioactive operation of thewastes SENPP?and spent fuel produced by the 55 (b). Will any radioactive wastes or spent fuel !E.;

produced by the operation of the SHNPP be transported 23 to a fuel reprocessing plant or waste burial facility? "M=

(c). If so, describe transportation plans, includina volume and radioactivity of the material, timetables for dII shipping, E9 of the shipments. casks to be used, routes to be taken, frequency

=

$G

Page 3 analysis to assess all the impacts of transshipment, including the spent fuel from the other reactors?

May we remind the Board at this point that the issue has been before the Board previously, CHANGE /ELP and CCNC Brief Concerning Spent Fuel Transshipment (dated August 4, 1982) and the Applicants' Reply (dated August 31, 1982). The Staff relies on its position in the Catawba proceeding, which it included in the NRC Staff Response to Licensing Board Inquiries (dated August 10, 1982).

"he issue revolves around the close reading of the regulation accompanying Table S E (Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste To and From One light-water-cooled Nuclear Power Plant) which is located as part of 10 C.F.R. 51.20 (g). Section 51.20 (g)(1)(i) states that the Environmental Report shall contain either " a statement that the transportation of cold fuel to the reactor and irradiated fuel from the reactor to a fuel reprocessing plant...is within the scope.of this paragraph, and as the contribution of the environmental effects of such transportation to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear power reactor, the values set forth in the following Summary Table S 4 "

The Applicants rely on this paragraph and include such a statement in their Environmental Report.

We contend that they do not fall within this paragraph but the next one, at 10 C.F.R. 50 (g)(1)(ii), which continues -

"or, (ii) if such transportation does not fall within the scope of this paragraph, a full description and detailed analysis of the environmental effects of such transportation..."

Page 4 The rationale for requiring a complete environmental analysis is one of common sense, if a great number of different types of shipments occurs, the cumulative effects have the potential to be much higher than those values found in Table S4 We are not certain at this point how much spent fuel the Applicants are considering to ship from their other reactors, let'alone the routes, times, and radioactivity of those additional shipments to the SHNPP site.

We are not certain just how much spent fuel is at those other reactors. There are also possibilities that different casks will be used or will be needed to be used for each of the dif'ferent types of shipments.

Of special concern are those persons who live and work near the SENPF site. " -

In the Board's Memorandum and Crder of September 22, 1982, which admitted this contention, the Board agreed that the impacts i of transportation of spent fuel from the other reactors should be factored into the NEPA analysis in this instance. At that i-a time the Staff expressed its intention to perform this analysis E:

in its draft impact statement.

However, the Staff appeared to take the position at the February 26, 1983, prehearing conference

~[

that they would not produce such an analysis.

As the Board in its September 22 Memorandum and Order stated jEl that it would " reconsider this question in the light of that m; analysis" (page 20, second paragraph), the time has arrived to make that decision, whether the environmental effects of trans-

=

shipment will be considered in this proceeding. =

Page 5 Conclusion The interrogatories asked by CCNC to the Applicants all seek information relevant to our Contention 4 relating with the cumulative effects of transshipments to and from the SENPP, and

~

from the other CP&L reactors to the SHNFP site. The Board should direct the Applicants to respond fully to the CCNC interrogatories numbered 4-1 through 4-5 and 4-14 Respectfully submitted, ohn Runkle Attorney-at-Law Conservation Council of North Carolina May 3, 1983 A ttachment--S ervice list O

CERTIFICA_?E OF SERVICE

• I hereby certify that copies of this filing were served this day of b l

, 19kMbydepositintheU.S.

mail, first class, pos age prepaid, or by hand-delivery, to the following:

James L. Kelley Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ruthanne G. Miller US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Board Panel US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Glenn O. Bright Washington, D.C. 20555 same address Dr. Phyllis Lotchin Dr. James H. Carpenter 108 Bridle Run same address Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Karen E. Long, Esq.

e of Ex ive legal Director Public S taff, Utility Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Com.ission Po 9 Washington, D.C. 20555 a FiC 27602 Docketing and Service Section '

Bradley W. Jones Esq.

Office of the Secretary US-NRC, Region II US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marrietta S treet ' "

Washington, D.C. 20555 Atlanta, GA 30303  :

Daniel F. Read Richard E. Jones Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Vice President and Senior Counsel Pc Box 524 Carolina Power & Light Company Chapel Hill, NC 2751h PO Box 1551 =

Raleigh, NC 27602 M. Travis Payne [

Edelstein and Payne George F. Trowbridge

• PC 3ox 12643 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Crowbridge RaleiSh, NC 27605 1800 M S treet, N.W.  :

Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Richard D. Wilson 729 Hunter Street Apex, NC 27502 Wells Eddleman 718-A Iredell S treet Jg#g' Runkle, J.D.

Durham, NC 27705 CMservation Council of North Carolina -

Patricia and Slater New:nn

Citizens Against Nuclear Power 2309 Weymouth Court

Raleigh, NC 27612 CC#C MofIon YO (OA s

Deborah Greenblatt 163h Crest Road h /

Raleigh, NC 27606 g g b CO PfF