ML20127G228
| ML20127G228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1985 |
| From: | Mcgarry J BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#285-065, CON-#285-65 OL, NUDOCS 8505210010 | |
| Download: ML20127G228 (57) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . - . . - - - . . - ~ . . - . . . . - - t w
.e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [ngcI0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION *
. .. /
. 5 MAY2(kg39-BEFORE THE-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL. BOARD '
- 7yy w. a C - i . ,,, J ;
In the Matter of ) .c
) I\ ' ' '
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413O L. (Catawba Nuclear Station,-
)
)
50-414 c L
* /
Units 1 and 2) )- MEMORANDUM OF DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL. RESPONDING TO APRIL 25, 1985 ORDER OF o ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD J. Michael McGarry, III Anne W. Cottingham Mark S. Calvert Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9800 Albert V. Carr, Jr. Duke Power Company P.O. Box 33189 Charlotte, N.C. 28242 May 17, 1985 COUNSEL FOR LICENSEES i g'J'"iB8!R P%g3 g's
, -. - - --._ --.. .-. .c,.. .-
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Authorities.............................. i Licensees' Response to Question 1................. 1 Licensees' Response to Question 2.................. 4 Licensees'-Response to Question 3................. 18 Licensees' Response to Question 4................. 20 i e 6 'l
~
w-. w .. .-._. . - --: . - - - - - - - - - -
. . . = , . - . - . . . . .: ..- ... ---. a..- - .- o TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Pace FEDERAL CASES Buckner Trading, Inc. v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 1210 (S.D. Tex. 1973)................ 10 Cella v. United States, 208 F.2d 783 (7th Cir. 1953), cert. denied, 347 .
U'.S. 1016 (1954).............................. 10 City of West Chicaco v. NRC, 701 F.2d-632 (7th Cir. 1983) ................. 16-17 South Terminal Corp. v. EPA, 504 F.2d 646 (1st Cir. 1974).................. 9 ADMINISTRATIVE CASES Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (Cobalt-60 Storage Facility), ALAB-682, 16 NRC 150 (1982)............................. 17-18, 20 Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), 4 AEC 666 (1971).................... 27 Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 & 4), ALAB-577, 11 NRC 18 (1980).................... 22 Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station), LBP-79-24, 10 NRC 226 (1979)............................. 24,25, 31 Citizens Advisory Board, DPRM-81-1, 13 NRC 429 (1981)............................. 20 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-38, 18 NRC 61 (1983)................... 24, 31 i l
w -
. = . - _ . . . - . . . . . - - .. .-.... ~ . ~ .. - . - . . -. . . - . - .
. ~
-o -- m
)
l Duke Power'Co. (Amendment to Materials License
~
SNM-1773/ Transportation of Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB-651, 14 NRC 307 (1981), rev'c LBP-80-28, 12 NRC 459 (1980)........................................ 5-6
' Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1& 2), LBP-84-24,.19_NRC 1418 (1984)....f.... 10, 13 Duke-Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units-1& 2), LBP-83-56, 18 NRC 421 (1983).......... 10 Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1& 2), LBP-83-8B,-17 NRC 291 (1983).......... 12-13 Duke Power'Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1& 2), ALAB-687, 16 NRC 460 (1982)........... 9 Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2& 3), ALAB-482, 7.NRC 979 (1978)......... 3 Duke Power Co. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2& 3), 4 AEC 592 (1971)...................... 27 Edlow International Co. (Agent for the Government of India on Application to Export Special Nuclear Material), CLI-76-6, 3 NRC 563 (1976)............'............................ 16 Florida Power & Licht Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 & 4), LBP-79-21, 10 NRC'183 (1979)............................. 4 Houston Lichtina & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-574, 11 NRC 7 (1980)............................... 8, 20 Kerr-McGee Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earth Facility), CLI-82-2, 15 NRC 232 (1982)........ 14-16 Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-292, 2 NRC 631 (1975)................................ 4, 20 Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2),
ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188 (1973).................... 9 11
_ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ _ - . _ . . . - _ _ . . . . _ . . _ _ . _ . ~ . . _ . . Pacific Gas & Electric Co.-(Diablo Canyon Nuclear
, Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-76-1, 3 NRC i 73 (1976)..................................... 14,22- l 25,30 Pacific Gas li Electric Co. (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit 1),-ALAB-400, 5 NRC 1175 (1977)........................................ 22 Pennsylvania-Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam-Electric Station, Units 1 & 2), Docket Nos.
50-387/50-388, May 21, 1981 memorandum and order (unpublished)........................... 26-27 Philadelphia Electric Co. .(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-765, 19 NRC 645 (1984)........................................ 14,17, 20,25-26,30 Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP-84-16, 19 NRC 857 (1984).................................... 24-25 Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287 (1979)............ 20,28-30 Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), LBP-78-40, 8 NRC 717 (1978)........... 29 Project Management Corp. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-354, 4 NRC 383 (1976).... 20 Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167 (1976).............................. 20,27-28 Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418 (1977)........................................ 12 STATUTES Atomic Energy Act of 1954, ll82c, 42 U.S.C.
$2232c........................................ 17 iii
- _ = . - . . . . - -..--~.-,n . - . ~ . . ..- - . . . - . . . -.. . ~ . - _ . , . . . . . .
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, $189a, 4:2 U.S.C. 52239a........................................ 2, 4, 15-17 Federal Register Act, 44 U.S.C. 551501-11......... 4 REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. 5 2.104................................. 15, 17 10 C.F.R. 52.104(a)............................... 3 10 C.F.R. 52.104(d)............................... 27 10 C.F.R. 52.105.................................. 8, 15-17 10 C.F.R. 52.105(a)(4)............................ 16 10 C.F.R. 52.105(a)(8)............................ 2, 5 10 C.F.R. 52.105(b)............................... 2, 4 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c)............................... 6 10 C.F.R. 52.717(b)............................... 24, 25 10 C.F.R. 52.721.................................. 21, 23 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix A, $X(e)............... 27 10 C.F.R. Part 30................................. 14 10 C.F.R. Part 40................................. 14 10 C.F.R. Part 50................................. 2, 14 , 10 C.F.R. 550.31.................................. 14 10 C.F.R. Part 70................................ 2, 14 10 C.F.R. 572.34.................................. 17 OTHER AUTHORITIES 43 Fed. Reg. 3'4905 (1978)......................... 3,5,6 46 Fod. Reg. 32974 et seq. (1981)................. passim i iv I L.
y -.. . . L-- . - . - - - - - . . - . : L - :~.... -.:.. - - - - ---- -. ^. h ! 46 Fed. Reg. 39710 (1981)......................... 21 i 46_ Fed. Reg. 56086 (1981)......................... 19 47 Fed. Reg. 702 (1982)........................... 19 47 Fed. Reg. 39767 (1982)......................... 19 i i f a i l i f I i i l I f V
p u _ s._ .%-__ _._ . _ . _ . _ . . . - _ _ _ . . . - _ . _ . _ . - . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, BEFORE THE' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )
)
DUKE POWER CO., et al. ~-
) Docket No. 50-413
) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )
Units.1 and 2) ) MEMORANDUM OF DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL. RESPONDING TO APRIL 25, 1985 ORDER OF ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD By Order dated April 25, 1985, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") in'this proceeding directed the parties to file by May 17, 1985 supplemental memoranda addressing four questions raised sua sponte by the Appeal Board. The response of Duke Power Company, et al. (" Duke" or " licensees") to these questions is set forth below. Appeal Board Question 1: Are there legal requirements for the issuance of a public notice with respect to the planned use of the Catawba facility for the receipt and storage of spent fuel generated at the Oconee and McGuire facilities? If so, what are they?
Response
Licensees sought authorization to use the Catawba facility for the receipt and storage of spent fuel generated k
T ...... ..--...-. - - -. . . - - --- - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - -- ~ ~ - - - ~
+- .
at'the Oconee and McGuire facilities. This authorization was sought in conjunction with Duke's operating license application for the Catawba facility which was filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 50. A public notice requirement attaches to an operating license application. See 5 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 5 2239a, which requires " publication once in the Federal Register" of the Commission's intent to issue an operating license. The NRC's regulations implementing the Act require that a notice of proposed action regarding an operating license application be issued. This notice is to set forth: (1) the nature of the action proposed; and (2) the manner in which a copy of the safety analysis and of the ACRS report, if any, may be obtained or examined. 10 C.F.R. 52.105(b). See also 10 C.F.R. 52.105(a)(8), which requires that the notica reflect an opportunity for members of the public to request a hearing.1/ 1/ Although Duke properl:r sought the necessary authority to store Oconee and McGu.re spent fuel at Catawba as part of their Part 50 operating license, licensees could also have properly sought such authority under a Part 70 special nuclear materials license. As discussed infra, had the latter procedure been followed, there would have been no legal requirement for public notice. Duke is of course aware that a separate notice was published for their 10 C.F.R. Part 70 license amendment request for the shipment of Oconee spent fuel to McGuire for storage. The notice issued in the Oconee/McGuire (Footnote 1 continued on next page) e
Appeal Board Question 2: Assuming that question 1 requires an affirmative answer, was the notice published in the Federal Register (46 Fed. JRe . 32974-75) adequate to satisfy the requirement (s)? In Ttis connection,.would or should interested members of the public have understood that the applicants' request for licenses "to possess, use, and operate the Catawba Nuclear Station" embraced a request for authority to employ that facility as a repository for spent fuel generated at other facilities?' If not, was the notice nonetheless adequate because it referred the reader to the operating license application itself (which application, according to our information, did indicate that such authority was being sought)? (Footnote 1 continued from previous page) cransshipment case must be viewed as discretionary in that 5 2.104(a) provides that the Commission may find a hearing is required in the public interest. See Kerr-McGee Corporation (West Chicago Rare Earth FacIIity), CLI-82-2, 15 NRC 232, 246 n.12 (1982), aff'd City of West Chicago v. NRC, 701 F.2d 632, 640 (1983). :n this regard, the Federal Register notice specifically stated that it was issued " based on the determination that an opportunity for hearing should be afforded pursuant to the Carolina Environmental Study Group's (pre-existing] request." 43 Fed. Reg. 32905 (1978) (copy attached as Attachment 1). To elevate discretionary actions to binding requirements would prove to be a powerful disincentive to the ordering of discretionary hearings. In addition, the need for a separate Federal Retister notice was not a contested issue in that proceec ing and thus the case is not binding precedent on that point. See, e.g., Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, UnTes 1, 2, & 3), ALAB-482, 7 NRC 979, 981 at n.4 (1978). Lastly, subsequent to the public notice of the Oconee-McGuire transshipment, the Commission and Appeal Board have had occasion to consider the notice requirement as it relates to material license applications. As discussed infra, these tribunals have determined that such notice is not required.
r__c.._____.._._,._._. . .
. Response:
Assuming that there is a legal requirement for notice of Duke's use of Catawba to receive and store spent fuel from McGuire.and Oconee, the notice published in the Federal Register (46 Fed. Reg. 32974-75 (1981)) (Attachment 2) provided adequate notice. The Atomic Energy Act's requirement of one-time publication in the Federal Register of an intent to issue an operating license has been satisfied. See 46 Fed. Reg. 32974 (1981).2/ The Atomic Energy Act does not require the Federal Register notice to enumerate the details of the operating license application. See 5189a of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 52239a. The requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.105(b) have also been satisfied. The " nature of the action proposed" is detailed in the operating license application and supporting documentation was incorporated by reference in the Federal Rogister notice (46 Fed. Reg. 32975, col. 2); the manner in which a copy of 2/
~
As has been recognized by the Appeal Board as well as the Licensing Board, under the Federal Register Act, 44 U.S.C. 551501-11, publication of a notice in the Federal Register provides notice to all residents of the United States. See 44 U.S.C. 51508; Long Island Lighting Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-292, 2 NRC 631, 646-47, 647 n.18 (1975); Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 & 4), LBP-79-21, 10 NRC 183, 191-92 (1979). , i
y -
- s o.
i the safety analysis and the'ACRS report could be obtained was 4
.likewise addressed. 4 3_/
With respect to whether members of.the public would or
-should have understood,the notice itself to subsume licensees' request to' store spent fuel generated at its other facilities, licensees submit that interested members of the public (those concerned about receipt and: storage of spent fuel at Duke facilities) would or should have had a heightened sensitivity to the possibility that Duke's Catawba license application ,
would likely seek authority to store McGuire and Oconee fuel at Catawba. This is because, as interested members of the ; public, such persons would by definition no doubt already be aware of the then-recent hearings and appellate proceedings involving Duke's proposal to ship spent fuel from Oconee to < McGuire and the allegation that Duke planned to " cascade" spent fuel to its other nuclear facilities, such as Catawba. See, e.g., 43 Fed. Reg. 32905 (1978); Duke Power Co. (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773-Transportation of . Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire - Nuclear Station), ALAB-651, 14 NRC 307 (August 10, 1981), t 3/ Section 2.105(a)(8) requires that in the case of an l application for an operating license, a notice of
~
opportunity for hearing shall be issued. This ' requirement was met by the Federal Register notice set forth at 46 Fed. Reg. 32974 et seq. (1981).
.~. .
rev'q LBP-80-28, 12 NRC 459 (October 31, 1980). It should come as no surprise to such interested persons that Duke, in an effort to keep its storage options flexible, might seek similar spent fuel storage authority in connection with their Catawba plant.4/ In this regard, see Attachment 4A, discussed in Duke's response to Question 3. However, the Board need not reach this question since the
~
Federal Register notice, which properly incorporated by reference the operating license application, pr.ovided adequate notice to the public. The Federal Register notice for Catawba stated: "The Commission will consider the issuance of facility operating licenses for Catawba . . . . These licenses would authorize the applicants to possess, use and operate the Catawba Nuclear Station in accordance with the provisions of the licenses and the technical specifications appended thereto . . . . 46 Fed. Reg. 32974, col. 3 (1981) (Attachment.2 hereto). The notice further stated, similar to 4/ ' Licensees note that no persons living in the vicinity of Oconee petitioned to intervene in the Oconee/McGuire transshipment case despite the fact that the Federal Register notice in that case was available in the local public document room in Oconee County, South Carolina, the site of the Oconee facility. See 43 Fed. Reg. 32906 (Attachment 1 hereto). All petitioners were centered in the Charlotte area, except for NRDC, which was admitted on a discretionary basis, professing national - membership, and the State of South Carolina, which participated pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c). See LBP-80-28, 12 NRC at 464-65.
a == y .-. . . - - . . . - ~.- ......- . .~. - .- - . .
~
L all notices issued in operating license cases, that: "For
-details pertinent to the matters under consideration, see the application for the facility operating licenses and the applicants' environmental report dated June 8, 1981, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, . . . Washington, D.C. and the York County Library, . . ., Rock Hill, S.C. . . . . Id. at 32975, col.
2. The referenced operating license application clearly described to the NRC, as well as interested members of the public, the full range of uses which the licensees sought for Catawba: The license hereby applied for is a class 103 operating license as defined by 10 CFR 50.22. It is requested for a period of forty (40) years. Applicants further request such additional source, special nuclear, and by-product material licenses as may be necessary or appropriate to the acquisition, construction, possession, and operation of the licensed facilities and for* authority to store irradiated fuel from other Duke nuclear facilities. At present, Duke has no specific plans to utilize this storage alternative but, rather, considers it prudent planning to have this storage as one of the alternatives available. Operating License Application, p. 12 (emphasis added). The reference in the Federal Register notice to the publicly available application, which contained this clear language, put l . I-l l l L
-~
7 interested members of the public on notice in fact,5/ as.well as in law. See Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek ' Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-574, 11 NRC 7 (1980) which recognized the duty of a person who may wish to intervene in an NRC proceeding to read the full Federal Register notice and inquire into any preconditions relating to intervention. Id. at 10. This duty was deemed not to be an onerous undertaking in that a copy of the notice was available at the local public library. Id. In this regard, this Board, in this case, recognized an
" ironclad obligation" on the part of members of the public to examine the publicly available documentary material pertaining
~
5/ There are hundreds of significant activities involved in the operation of a nuclear power reactor. NRC notice regulations do not require that all licensed activities (or potential activities) be mentioned explicitly in the Federal Register notice. See 10 C.F.R. 52.105. Rather, these activities are understood to be encompassed within the scope of the application for a Part 50 operating license. In licensees' view, Duke's request to store Oconee and McGuire spent fuel in the Catawba spent fuel pool is similar to one of many such activities always embraced within the operating license application, i.e., storage of the spent fuel generated by the reactor. There are no legal requirements for specific public notice with respect to the subject activity, just as there are no legal requirements that other aspects of plant operation within the scope of the original operating license application be specifically noticed (i.e., no specific notice was required for the first 8 x 8 fuel configuration, nor for the first subatmospheric containment, nor for the first ice condenser).
to the facility in question in framing contentions. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nu '. ear Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-687, 16 NRC 460, 468 (1982); see also Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 192 n.5 (1973) (recognizing that a petitioner, in framing contentions, is to make use of the " abundant information respecting a particular facility"). Certainly there is a
' commensurate duty to inquire into the exact scope of the operating license authority sought by reading at least the first dozen pages of the license application when that license application is specifically mentioned in the Federal Register notice as a source of further information, as was the case with the Catawba notice. See 46 Fed. Reg. at 32975, col. 2 (1981).
NRC precedent finds support in the federal case law. See, e.g., South Terminal Corp. v. EPA, 504 F.2d 646, 656-57, 659-60 (1st Cir. 1974) wherein the Court found that EPA had provided adequate notice of the technical basis for a proposed rule by stating in the Federal Register notice that a technical support document was available. Specifically, the Court stated: EPA stated in its published notice that a technical support document was available. That referred to previous studies which, had they been sought out, would have been found to include consultants' technical reports. 504 F.2d at 659 (emphasis added).
a o - It is significant that published " notice is generally considered adequate in the absence of a showing that an interested person was misled." Buck'ner Trucking, Inc. v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 1210, 1219 (S.D. Tex. 1973) (three-judge court), citing cella v. United States, 208 F.2d 783 (7th Cir. 1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 1016 (1954). On the facts of the Catawba proceeding, no such showing has been made or likely could be made by an " interested person." Indeed, far from being misled, in response to this notice the Intervenor Palmetto Alliance submitted four contentions dealing with transportation and/or storage of spent fuel from other facilities at Catawba. See " Palmetto Alliance Supplement to Petition to Intervene," pp. 11-13 (Dec. 9, 1981) (contentions 14, 15, 16, and 17).6/ It is worth emphasizing that Palmetto Alliance asserted a broad membership throughout the State of South Carolina.7/ See Palmetto's " Petition to Intervene and Request for 6/
~
One of these contentions, Palmetto 16, was admitted in part and litigated before the Licensing Board. See LBP-83-56, 18 NRC 421 (1983). The Intervenors cross-examined on this contention (see, go.., Tr. 10,324-501, 10,530-48 (12/8/83); Tr. 11749278, 11797-97(a) (12/15/83)). However, the Intervenors defaulted on this, their sole admitted spent-fuel stor by falling to file any proposed findings.ge See contention, L5P 24, 19 NRC 1418, 1423 n.1 (1984). . 7/ Duke's Oconee facility is located in Cconee County,
~
South Carolina.
- g. _. _ . . . .
Hearing," p. 2 (7/22/81). The other Intervenors alleged similarly diverse constituencies. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Environmental ~ Coalition (CMEC) (a coalition of six groups consisting of Carolina Action, the local chapter of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, the Joseph LeConte Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Carolina Environmental Study Group, the Davidson Energy Group, and the Safe Snergy Alliance) alleged representation of 1350 persons, almost all of whom lived within 35 miles of Catawba, and the " great majority" of whom resided in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.8/ See CMEC's " Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing," pp. 1-2 (7/24/81). The Carolina Environmental Study Group alleged that it had 150 members, most living within 30 miles of Catawba, with the majority living in Charlotte. See CESG's " Catawba Operating License Application -- A Petition to Intervene," p. 1 (7/27/81). Thus a broad range of interested persons throughout North and South Carolina had notice, through their organisations' representatives, of Duke's application for authority to receive and store spent fuel from ocones and McGuire at Catawba. See letter f rom A.V. Carr, Jr. to R. Guild (Attachment 3), which discusses the subject spent fuel ! 8/
~
Duke's McGuire facility is located in Mecklenburg l County, North Carolina, north-west of Charlotte. l l l l 8
storage scenario and which was served on 411 parties including the three other organizations that petitioned to intervene. At oral argument (Tr. 51-55), the Appeal Board inquired as to the adequacy of the notice with respect to individuals beyond what can be styled as the Catawba area 1.e., a radial
. area of approximately fifty miles from Catawba.9/ This would include McGuire, given its 35 mile proximity to Catawba. As the Licensing Board correctly held, the environmental effects of spent fuel transportation away from McGuire and Oconee (to any destination, including Catawba) have already been considered by the NRC in conjunction with the licensing of McGuire and oconee, and these should not be considered or weighed a second time in connection with Catawba. See LBP-83-85, 17 NRC 291, 293-94 (1983); see also licensees' February 13, 1985 Appeal Board brief at 85-86.
Thus, the only spent fuel transshipment concerns that , remained to be litigated in response to the Catawba Federal l Register notice involved the incremental environmental impacts of storing a greater quantity of spent fuel at 9/ Prior cases establish that residence within fifty miles of a plant gives a person a sufficient interest in the safety of the plant, necessary for standing to intervene. Lee, e. Tennessee vallop Authority (Watts ser Nuclear Want7-f$,ts i 1 & 2), ALAB-o13, 5 NRC 1418, 1421-22, n.4 (1977).
Catawba than would be produced by the operation of the Catawba reactors alone. Those persons who would be interested in these impacts would not be any persons along the transshipment route but would be those who live around the Catawba site who, as discussed supra, are already within the population of interested persons notified by the original Federal Register notice. Since no transportation impacts other than those involving unloading and storage of spent fuel at the Catawba site veru open for consideration, the Federal Register notice pertaining to operation of the facility adequately notified the public who would be interested in the spent fuel activities to be evaluated by the NRC: 1.e., the environmental impacts of spent fuel receipt and storage at Catawba. These matters, as noted, were the subject of contentions filed by the Intervenors, including Palmetto 16 and DES-19, on which the Intervenors defaulted. See LBP 24, 19 NRC at 1423 n.1; see also LBP-83-88, 17 NRC at 295-96. The above response has assumed a legal requirement to . publish a notice. However, as noted above, there is no such legal requirement with regard to NRC materials license applications. Duke's " planned use of the Catawba facility for the receipt and storage of spent fuel generated at the
o a Oconee and McGuire facilities" can be viewed. simply as a plan to possess and store special nuclear material from other Duke power reactors at the Catawba plant. In order to conduct these activities, Duke in effect obtains an NRC materials license under 10 C.F.R. Parts 30 and 70, the application for which may be combined with the facility license and will merge into the Part 50 operating license.10/ Question 1 can be read as asking whether legal requirements for public notice emanate from this materials license characteristic of the licensed activity. The answer to this question is "no". This position is supported by court-approved analogous NRC authority. In Kerr-McGee Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earth Facility), CLI-82-2, 15 NRC 232 (1982), the licensee operated a thorium milling facility from 1967 until 1973, pursuant to a source materials license under Part 40. This license authorized the possession and storage of thorium ore. As part of its plan to decommission the site, Kerr-10/ See 10 C.F.R. 5 50.31.
~~
Also, NRC licensing boards have specifically held that the authority encompassed within a special nuclear materials license "is essentially subsumed within a license to operate a commercial power reactor, issued pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 50." Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), ALA5-765, 19 NRC at 649 n.2. See also Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CL1-76-1, 3 NRC 73, 74 n.2 (1976). I l t
c McGee sought and obtained from the NRC Staff a license amendment that authorized, inter alia, the receipt and on-site storage of contaminated material (mill tailings) taken from the site. The city of West Chicago challenged the issuance of the amendment on the grounds that it had been given no notice of the licensee's amendment request and thus no opportunity to request a hearing. The Commission upheld the issuance of the amendment, ruling that neither NRC regulations nor section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act nor constitutional due process compelled the public notice of an opportunity for a hearing under 10 C.F.R. 52.104 or 52.105. 15 NRC at 244-46.11/ With respect 11/ With regard to Section 2.104, the Commission held that no notice of hearing was required unless (1) a hearing is mandated by section 189a of the Act or 10 C.F.R. Chapter 1; or (2) the Commission finds a hearing is required in the public interest. 15 NRC at 244-46. The Commission ruled that a materials license request did not mandate a hearing (only a construction permit application does) and that nothing in 10 C.F.R. Chapter 1 so requires. The Commission also found that the materials license request did not give rise to a public , interest finding. Id. With regard to Section 2.105 the
~~
Commission stated: (B]y its very terms, section 2.105 requires that the Commission issue a notice of proposed action - also called a notice of opportunity for hearing - only with respect to an appi, cation for a facillty license, an application for a license to receive radioactive waste for commercial disposal, an application to amend such licenses where significant hazards considerations are (Footnote 11 continued on next page) L
D'
- to the applicability of NRC regulations, the Commission stated:
Although the Atomic Energy Act allows the City to request a hearing, our conclusion here is that there are no NRC regulations which require that we commence the formal hearing process which is triggered by a section 2.104 notice of hearing or section 2.105 notice of proposed action
. . . . those regulations do not apply here . . . .
15 NRC at 246.12/ ' The Commission's decision in the Kerr-McGee proceeding was affirmed in City of West Chicago v. NRC, 701 F.2d 632 (7th Cir. 1983). The court of appeals ruled therein that: (Footnote 11 continued from previous page) involved, or an application for "any other license or amendment as to which the Commission determines that an opportunity for public hearing should be afforded." 10 C.F.R. 5 2.105(a)(4). The Kerr-McGee amendment does not fall into any of these categories. 15 NRC at 245. 12/ The Commission acknowledged that it had, in the past,
~~
provided formal hearings on materials license cases, either under the authority of since-repealed AEC regulations or as a matter of " policy and convenience." However this fact did not foreclose a different result when the Commission squarely ruled upon the issue. 15 NRC at 246, n.12. Moreover, even before the Kerr-McGee proceeding arose, the Commission took a consistent position in Edlow International Co. (Agent for the Government of India on Application to Export Special Nuclear Material), CLI-76-6, 3 NRC 563, 581 (1976), (Footnote 12 continued on next page)
-. w =
.ym...;.w e.; av _.17-- Because's material's-license amendment' clearly falls within the first sentence of Section 189(a) (of the AEA), it does not, we hold, trigger-the Section 2.104 notice of hearing, or the formal procedures provided therein. 701 F.2d at'639. The court similarly rejected the argument that the notice of hearing under 52.104 was triggered in this-instance'by 52.105. Id. at 639-40. More recently, in Limerick, ALAB-765, the Appeal Board' ruled that "the holding of Kerr-McGee fully pertains to Part 70 matters," although that proceeding involved a Part 40 license. 19 NRC at.651 n.9. Parts 30, 40, and 70 all deal with " materials" as distinct from " facilities." The Board rejected the intervenor's argument that section 182c of the Atomic Energy Act, and sections 2.104, 2.105 and 72.34 of NRC regulations, required .the Commission to provide notice of an application for a Part 70 license. Id. at 651-52 n.10.
-It also appears (although the Commission has not squarely decided this issue) that no other statutory or regulatory provisions require notice of materials license action.
Limerick, ALAB-765, 19 NRC at 652 n.10; Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (Cobalt-60 Storage Facility), (Footnote 12 continued from previous page) wherein the Commission stated, with respect to petitioners' complaint that there had been no public - notice of Edlow's export license application, that "no legal obligation exists to give public notice of materials license applications, either for export or domestic use."
~ - =.: ;w a .. . . . p =.
. ALAB-682, 16 NRC 150, 157-59'(1982)("AFRRI"), wherein Mr.
Eilperin stated in his concurring opinion:13/ The Commission's regulations do not specify any kind of formal. notice for materials license actions
.such as these. And in'the past, the Commission has suggested that-there may be no notice requirement flowing'from any other source of law. However, the Commission-has been reluctant to decide the '
question finally. A AFRRI,-ALAB-682, 16 NRC at 157 (footnotes omitted). Appeal Board Question 3: Has there been any other notice that apprised the public of such intended use of Catawba (e.g., a notice issued in connection with the application'for a construction permit, an application for a construction L permit modification, or an application for the issuance of a materials license pursuant to 10 CFR Part 70)? If so, what present significance attaches to that notice?-
Response
Several other Federal Register notices referred the public to additional documents or public meetings describing Duke's proposal to ship spent fuel from Oconee and McGuire to Catawba. Although none of these notices contains explicit language discussing spent fuel receipt and storage, they do refer to 13/ The majority opinion in this decision did not reach the
~-
notice question. See 16 NRC at 155. However, both the majority opinion and Judge Eilperin's concurring opinion suggest that the Commission may wish to study the matter and resolve the issue in a rulemaking proceeding. The fact that nearly three years have elapsed and the Commission has taken no action suggests the Commission is not troubled by the fact that materials license applications need not be noticed.
y, a . . . . (and' incorporate by reference) additional publicly available documents that do describe the transshipment and storage authority sought by Duke. See, e.g., 47 Fed. Reg. 39767-68 (1982) (discussing issuance of NRC Staff's Draft Environmental
/
Statement (" DES") and setting deadline for filing new contentions based upon it);14/ 46 Fed. Reg. 56086 (1981), modified, 47 Fed. Reg. 702 (1982) (setting time and place for first prehearing conference, at*which Licensing Board and parties discussed, inter alia, Palmetto's four spent fuel contentions (14, 15, 16, and 17)). Under the same rationale of incorporation by reference, discussed supra under question 2, these Federal Register notices provided further public notice of Duke's proposed transshipment of spent fuel from its other facilities to Catawba. In addition to publication in the Federal Register (which was in itself adequate, as demonstrated above), there was significant coverage in local and regional newspapers of the fact that Duke sought authority to receive and store spent fuel from McGuire and Oconee at Catawba. See attached newspaper i articles carried in newspapers which are widely circulated in the Oconee, McGuire, and Catawba areas. (Attachment 4A-H.). i l Such newspaper coverage provided adequate notice to the public 14/ See p. 5-19, and Appendix G of the DES, which specifically evaluate Duke's transshipment request.
o . in the affected region, both in fact and in law. See, e.g.,
- Allens Creek, ALAB-574,-11 NRC at 11-12 n.12; Project Management Corp. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-354, 4 NRC 383, 389 (1976); Jamesport, ALAB-292, 2 NRC at 647 (opinion of Mr. Rosenthal); Citizens Advisory Board, DPRM-81-1, 13 NRC 429, 435 (1981) See also, Limerick, ALAB-765, 19 NRC at 652, n.10 which. notes,-relying upon AFRRI, that in the event of actual notice, the, Appeal Board need not reach the question of
- whether the statutory or regulatory provisions pertaining to notice have been met. Thus, regardless of this Board's view regarding the adequacy of the Federal Register notice, complete and adequate notice to the public was effected by the ensuing publicity in the newspapers.
J Appeal Board Question 4: Assuming that question 1 requires an affirmative answer, and further that no published notice can be reasonably construed as' embodying the proposal to use Catawba for the storage of spent fuel generated at other facilities, did the~ Licensing Board have jurisdiction to consider that proposal? (In this connection, see, e.g., Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287, 289-90 i n.6 (1979);.Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear 3 NRC 167, Generating 170-71 1976)). (Station, Units If not, 1 and 2), ALAB-316, on what basis could the authorization of such storage be now granted , byfthe NRC staff?
Response
Licensees submit that the Licensing Board convened to preside over the Catawba operating license hearing did have 4 . e J
- . _ . . , . , _ - _ - _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . , _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ , , . . ~ _ . , . _ . . - , _ . . . . _ . _ _ - , - . , - - . _ ~ _,.__...__..__.__-,__.._._..___,,.._-.,m. . . - . . - . . _ _ . - - -
r _ y_ . l') . ~ _%Y
~
jurisdiction'to consider Duke's proposal to store at Catawba spent fuel'from the Oconee and McGuire nuclear plants. Under the Commission's Rules of" Practice, Licensing Boards may
" preside in such proceedings for granting, suspending, revoking, or amending licenses for authorizations as the Commission may designate, and to perform such other adjudicatory functions as the Commission deems appropriate." 10 C.F.R. 52.721(a). The NRC's notice of receipt of Duke's >
license application stated that a petition to intervene in "a
-hearing with respect-to issuance of the facility operating licenses" may be filed by "any person whose interest may be
.affected." 46 Fed. Reg. 32975. As noted previously in response to. question 2, this notice referred the reader to Duke's
.. publicly available application for these facility operating licenses "[ flor further details pertinent to the matters under consideration." Id. The matters under consideration naturally included the entirety of the referenced OL application, including the spent fuel receipt and storage authority. The notice provided that should a petition to intervene be filed, the Commission could designate a Licensing Board to conduct the necessary proceedings. Id. Such a Board was subsequently designated. See 46 Fed. Reg. 39710 (Aug. 4, 1981).15/
(Attachment 5). .' 15/ By means of that Notice, the Commission sets the scope ' TFootnote 15 continued on next page)
I As noted.above, the notice of hearing for the Catawba operating license proceeding did not specifically mention the fact.(nor need it have done so) that the Catawba spent fuel pool-might'be used for^the storage of Oconee and McGuire spent fuel as well as Catawba spent fuel. However, as explained supra, licensees believe that this activity _was one of many that are legitimately encompassed within the broad scope of the operating license application, but are not specifically mentioned in the notice of hearing. Moreover, Duke's request for.the necessary authority to store Oconee and McGuire fuel at
' Catawba was set forth in-the Catawba operating license application itself. This matter therefore fell within the
; jurisdiction of the Catawba Licensing Board.
Analogous NRC case precedent supports this position. In Diablo Canyon, CLI-76-1, 3 NRC 73 (1976),- the applicant had i sought, during an ongoing OL proceeding,.a materials license under Part 70 to enable it to transport and store fuel assemblies at the plant before issuance of the operating license. The licensing board presiding in the OL hearing also ! (Footnote 15 continued from previcus page) of-the proceeding, and establishes the authority of this
-Board. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit No. 1, ALAB-400, 5 NRC 1175 (1977);
Carolina Power & Lic ht Co. -(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, ', and 4)~ALAB-577, 11 NRC 18, 25 (1980)). s a$6#. 1
- \
- 2. . __ - - _ _ _ _. _ __ _ _ f u _ y ,_ . ._
held an evidentiary. hearing on the Part 70 license in which it denied:the intervenor's request to prevent delivery and storage of the fuel and authorized issuance of the materials license.
-With. respect to the-licensing board's assertion of jurisdiction over the Part 70 license application, the Commission stated:
The' Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards may be given jurisdiction over proceedings for the issuance of Part-70 materials licenses. 10 CFR 2.721. Normally,.the notice of hearing constituting a particular board confers jurisdiction in a parti-cular' case by referencing the specific license application or applications to be considered. Although the notice of hearing establishing the present board did not explicitly reference the materials license in question here, that license is integral to the Diablo Canyon project, and it does not appear that any interested person was actually prejudiced by the lack of such a reference.16/ Given that Board's familiarity with the Dia5To Canyon project, it made good practical sense for it to hear and decide the related issues raised by the Part 70 materials license application.
-16/ Though it may be argued that the storage of Oconee and
-- McGuire spent fuel at Catawba is arguably not " integral" to the operation of'the Catawba facility, it is both integral to the license application and identical to activities that-are always involved (i.e., storage of spent fuel). This activity became an integral part of Duke's OL application when licensees specifically noted 1 in the application that they sought the requisite regulatory authority to perform this activity.
Moreover, in the Diablo Canyon proceeding the applicant sought a materials license after the OL license hearing had begun, whereas in the instant case the materials license application.was encompassed within the Part 50 license application.- If the Commission found that the materials license was " integral to the Diablo Canyon project," then surely the request to store spent fuel generated at other Duke reactors, which was sought along with the Part 50 operating license, must likewise be viewed as integral to the Catawba project. 5 b
)
Accordingly, we hereby confirm the Licensing Board's assertion of jurisdiction in this instance. 3 NRC at 74 n.1 (emphasis added). A similar holding was reached in Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station), LBP-79-24, 10 NRC 226 (1979). During the operating license proceeding for that facility, intervenors filed a motion to delay the delivery of fuel to the site after the utility had obtained a Part 70 license. The licensing board found that it had jurisdiction to rule-on the motion. Citing 10 C.F.R. 52.717(b), which authorizes a presiding officer to modify "as appropriate for the purpose of the proceeding" any " order related to the subject matter of.the pending proceeding," the board ruled that the issuance of a Part 70 license is an " order" which may be
" modified" by a licensing board delegated to preside in a Part 50 operating license proceeding. 10 NRC at 228-30. See also Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units.1 & 2), LBP-83-38, 18 NRC 61, 62-63 (1983).
This precedent was followed in Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP-84-16, 19 NRC 857 (1984), wherein the licensing board in that operating license proceeding ruled that it had jurisdiction over the utility's Part 70 license application to receive and store unirradiated fuel onsite. The applicant argued that the
board's jurisdiction did not extend to the Part 70 contentions, and. attempted to distinguish contrary case law (including Zimmer and-Diablo Canyon, supra) on the basis that the Part 70
-licenses therein had been issued before the boards asserted jurisdiction, whereas in the Limerick proceeding the licenses were still pending.
The board rejected this argument, stating that: "[olur jurisdiction over Part 70 matters is not to be so narrowly construed." 19 NRC at 863.17/ Citing the Commission's Diablo Canyon decision (3 NRC 73), the board stated that the practical good sense in letting a licensing board hear and decide related issues raised by a materials license application apply no less to issues raised before the Part 70 license-is granted than they do.to issues raised-after the license is-granted." Id. The appeal board affirmed the Limerick licensing board's assertion of jurisdiction in ALAB-765, 19 NRC 645. Citing the Commission's Diablo Canyon decision as precedent, the Appeal o ! --17/ As in Zimmer, supra, the licensing board in the Limerick proceeding based its assertion of jurisdiction over Part 70 matters upon 10 C.F.R. 52.717(b). The purpose of this provision, reasoned the board, " clearly-is to permit integration of an operating license proceeding with Staff orders on matters related to that proceeding." In the' Board's view, such integration could, and perhaps should, take place before the Staff
- issues.an order on a related matter. 19 NRC~at 863.
l t w -
- , , - - - - - , , , , , , - - , - - g-m.rn -,r-------m--- w,
. r Board ruled that "PECo's materials license is no less integral
- to Limerick," and that it made good sense for the Limerick licensing board to rule on the proposed Part 70 contentions given its familiarity'with the proceeding. 19 NRC at 651. It >
concluded that "the consistentl8/ agency practice . . . is for licensing boards, already presiding at operating license hearings, to act on requests to raise Part 70 issues involving the same facility." Id. at 652 (citations omitted). Neither of the two cases cited in Question 4 contradict licensees' position on this jurisdictional question, since both . --18/ In. Pennsylvania-Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2), Docket Nos. 50-387/50-388, Licensing Board Memorandum and Order of May 21, 1981, pp. 28-29 (unpublished), the Licensing Board declined to assert jurisdiction over Part 70. issues at that time because it believed that it would be able to issue an expedited decision on the operating license first, thereby eliminating the need for a separate Part 70 license. The board stated: There is precedent in the Commission's proc ;
~
- eedings for Licensing Boards to assume
- jurisdiction over this application once it t
is filed, and there seems to be ample i justification where the receipt of these h unirradiated fuel bundle assemblies and i their storage on the refueling floor of the Reactor Building relates closely with one or more contentions. However, inasmuch as
- i. the grant of an operating license negates l the necessity for [a] Part 70 license, the i Board declines to assume-jurisdiction of this proceeding at the present time. At present, the Board intends to concentrate on expediting the hearing process on the operating license application.
(Footnote 18 continued on next page) l i
are clearly distinguishable from the instant case. In Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167 (1976), the licensing board convened to consider health, safety and environmental aspects of a construction permit application denied an intervention petition for lack of jurisdiction, on the grounds that the petition raised only antitrust issues. The Appeal Board affirmed this ruling, noting that the Commission has established entirely separate procedures for antitrust issues, and that a notice for opportunity for a hearing on antitrust issues had previously been published to which petitioners had not-responded.19/ The Appeal Board further reasoned that (Footnote 18 continued from previous page) Slip op at 29. However, as the Susquehanna Board acknowledged, there is ample precedent for the Licensing Board to take jurisdiction over related materials license matters and the fact that the Susquehanna Board chose not to exercise its jurisdiction in no way undermines the validity of this point. 19/ It is standard, and long-standing, Commission policy to review antitrust matters raised in connection with the licensing of a facility " separately'from the hearings i held on matters of radiological health and safety" for the same facility. (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A S X(e); e.cr. , Duke Power (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, See, 2, an dIlT, 4 AEC 592 (1971); Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), 4 AEC 666 (1971)). In fact, the Commission's rules specifically provide that "unless the
~
Commission determines otherwise" a hearing on the antitrust aspects of an application will be considered at a proceeding other than the one convened to hear environmental and safety matters. (10 CFR 5 2.104(d)). i f f
n . _ _ licensing boards, as delegates of the Commission, exercise only those powers that the Commission has given them, and that the NRC's hearing notice (which invited' consideration of
" radiological health and safety and environmental matters relating to the proposed facility") could not reasonably be read to encompass antitrust issues.
On this last point, the Marble Hill decision is clearly distinguishable from the situation in Catawba. While the jurisdiction of a licensing board to consider health, safety and environmental issues related to the proposed operation of a nuclear plant cannot reasonably be read to encompass antitrust issues, it should be read to include activities such as the proposed storage of fuel from other licensee facilities at the facility in question. The storage of Oconee and McGuire spent fuel in the Catawba spent fuel pool constitutes a " health, safety and environmental" issue that falls under the licinsing board's jurisdiction, even though it may be seen as a materials license rather than a facility license issue, as we have already discussed. Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287 (1979), also supports the general proposition that "a licensing board does not have the power to explore matters beyond those which are embraced by the notice of hearing for the particular proceeding." 9 NRC at 289-90, n.6.
. -. -. - ~.
,6 6 Duke does do not dispute that general proposition. However, as Lin Marble Hill, supra, the facts of that decision are clearly
' distinguishable from those in the instant case. In particular, the licensing board in Trojan had been convened for a limited 1
purpose: [Olur jurisdiction in this phase of the proceeding is limited.to determining whether interim operation of the as-built Control Building and the related equipment can be authorized with rea'sonable assurance that such operation will.not endanger the public health and safety. We are not authorized to examine matters'that were explored at the construction permit'or. operating license stages, nor can we expand the issues beyond those related to.the design deficiencies that resulted in the notice.of hearing which described the issues we are empowered to consider. Although a safety audit of the entire Trojan facility is beyond our authority, we did permit all Intervenors to cross-examine fully on the nature, effect and ramifications of the identified design deficiencies, and no safety questions were left unexplored. Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), LBP 40, 8 NRC 717 (1978). Many of the concerns raised by the intervenors in Troian involved matters beyond the scope of those issues to be considered in the hearing on interim operation, such as the alleged need for an overall safety audit of the plant and need for power. 8 NRC at 745. Accordingly, the Appeal Board reasoned, the licensing board had correctly determined that it
. lacked jurisdiction to explore these matters. 9 NRC at 289 n.6.
In affirming the licensing board's decision to allow interim
operation, the Appeal Board ruled that "the Licensing Board treated all of the issues necessary to a reasoned decision on the interim operation question." Id. at 289. Again, the situation in Trojan -- involving a licensing board with very limited jurisdiction -- is clearly distinguishable from that of the lic'ense board in Catawba. Trojan involved a narrow health and safety question; jurisdiction of the Catawba licensing board was broad, potentially covering any public health and safety matters duly placed in controversy by the parties related to the operating license application, in which Duke made their request to store Oconee and McGuire spent fuel at Catawba. As explained by the Commission in Diablo Canyon, it is normal practice for the Federal Register notice to confer jurisdiction in a particular case by referencing the specific license application (s) to be considered. CLI-76-1, 3 NRC at 74 n.l. This was done in the case of Catawba (see 46 Fed. Reg. 32975, col. 2), conferring on the Licensing Board full jurisdiction over the authority to receive and store at Catawba spent fuel from McGuire and Oconee. Such is fully consistent with Trojan, ALAB-534, and Marble Hill, ALAB-316, for those cases limited the Board's jurisdiction to those matters encompassed by the notices in the Federal Register. Licensees seek no authority beyond that incorporated by reference in the
r- - ._. __
. Catawba Federal Register notice. Indeed, under NRC precedent, the Licensing Boards would have jurisdiction over Part 70 matters relating to Catawba even in the absence of their inclusion in the OL application referenced-in the Federal
' Register. See Diablo Canyon, CLI-76-1, 3 NRC at-74 n.1; Limerick, ALAB-765, 19 NRC at 651-52; Zimmer, LBP-79-24, 10 NRC ,
at 228-30; Perry, LBP-83-38, 18 NRC at 62-63. Thus the Licensing Board had jurisdiction over licensees' request for authority to receive and store spent fuel from McGuire and Oconee at Catawba. Respectfully submitted, JY Michael McGarry, III
% fy Anne W. Cottingham Mark S. Calvert Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds .
1200 Seventeenth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036* (202) 857-9800 Albert V. Carr, Jr. Duke Power Company P.O. Box 33189 Charlotte, N.C. 28242
;7 ., - -
Attachmont 1 j
'N $. q';Id.e.u@m.[.~h.'k
-**' -Y' '"
~ . .- Y:
NC I 5 .' v
.('32905 1since LN last antl t advice letters were 1773 Issued pursuant't'o 10'CFR Part ing as to which petitioner wishes to In.
./wr6tten Lilco has had a change in its oper. 70 to authorize the receipt and storage tervene. Such petitions must be filed stiins th..t merits notatton. . .
. of Oconee Nuclear Station spent fuel in . accordance with the abore refer.
In'Aor'l.1978. the Greenport New York at the McGuire Nuclear Station.. enced FrontAr. Rzorsten Notice and
~ Municipal ziectric System, which until that < - -ihe propostu .tmendment would au. must be illed with the Secretary of
. e rt y tem hN pea thorize. the receipt, and storage of about 3 MW. In addition. Greenport.ofas wett . Oconee Nuclear Station spent fuel at ~the Commission. U.S. Nuclear Regula.
tory Commission, Washington. D.C. as Freeport and Rockvine Centre. the only the McGuire facility'in accordance 20555. Attention: Docketing and Serv.
- atwo cther. comparatively smau municipal with the licensee's/ application'..for ice Section, by Aust
- 28,1978. A copy j = utuities-in;Luco a. service area. have ob. amendment dated March 9,1978. Ac. of the petition at.d/or request for j tainedsconnutments from the Power Au* tivities for which additional authoriza. hearing should be sent to the Execu. '
suf[thit wN Lu as , tion is sought involve. receipt, posses. tive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclea' r Reg. wou as ather lavestor. owned utuities in the ,.8 IOU
- IU8pectiort and. storage of spent ulatory Commission. Washinston, D.C.'
Stata at New Yoric, have agreed to transmiti nucleat',f fuel n "from',.' the *,/ licensee's 20555, and to Duke Power Co., c/o W. Nuclear.;Pacility in Oconee L.. Porter, Esq . Associate ' General 't that power from the FASNYW.l?
. system to the three municipal sy=**== transmission County... /Oconee'[JMS.C.;1'at""thenlicensee's
.. ,. . Counsel; Legal Department,422 South '
' After tion andcxamination review of the ofrelevant the current dawappuca..'McGuiretfacility we burg County, N.C;71ricluding located in Mecklen' ~ Church Street. Charlotte N.C. 28242; .
' ha e ded noin transport attorney ior the applicant.?Any ques.
' of the Ocones spentafuel by truck be . tions or requests for additional'infor. '
. g. ,,,
of th3 advice siven with respect t9 the appu. . .tweetr.ithe ' two sitesJ!The factivities ' mation regarding .the context, of this , cases in the above. cited antitrust letters.::'?.. being reviewed also' include storage of ~ notice.should bem addressed .to, the..
. W.T express os opinion, however. concern. Ocone. e irradiated l fuel.with the spent - Chief Hearing Counsel! Office of tige .
- las th21esality under. the antitrust laws et
- fuel to'be. gen.erated by'the operation Executive Lega1 Director; U.S. Nuclear. i the mannerin whicht or any arransements ~ of. the .McGuira. facility. In .ita.lleense. . Regulatory. Cammhalont Washington, c pursuant to whichi f i
. sted. should;they.,the .diftet plaats trom orwul be oper , am.endment. Duke ;PoWW Co...also-re ' . D.C. 20555.'Mm f Y.~.rt%M pd.it..: Y:
extend !
*" -questedi,certain specialsarrangements' ...The.CarolinalEnvironniental: Study' *
* '* ' " f * . **d1 with. respect to Price. Anderson Act in. Group was previously admitted as an
((,,',"liention.n' tite INosEstlo'n ahlia,- This request is"under Interrenor . In- fAe
- Matter 'rof' Duke , .. ,
i
. Aesordensly, tros demnification; .
- ble to us.at the present time we conclude consideration by.the Commisslorras.s , power Company (William"B;. McGuire f '
t that no. antitrust hearins by the, Nuclear separate matter, and it will be the sub. Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) Docke$ . j , Regulatory 'Comunission. wu! be , required ~ ject of a, separate action, including any. Nos. 50-369,50-370/a separate operat,. a
*I""8""88..""I8 *P' ucatioaQM,,gy.@ , public'.hotice required;. Issuance of an?ing license application proceeding. On Any persoh;whose interestimay'be Op*rsting license forthe McGuire Nu.< May.23,1978,: the- Carolina. Environ.
t.ffected by this proceeding may, pur. ? clear facility is presently under consid.. mental Study.. Group ffiled f a. motion suint to.I2.714 'of;the Commission's eraMon.in a. separate' proceeding pur. (" Motion to RoopencEnvironmental, ,
**Rulesjof' Practice",:10"CFR Part;2,. suant to.10 CFR*Part 50 'in: Docket Hearing. to Add Contention;(2)") in ,
- fG2 a petition *for' leave to ' intervene Nos. 50-369 and 50'370. ',.J'.'"" the McGuire . operating license pro-End request a hearing on the antitrust,. .The.NRC.will not issue the license ceeding that seeks to raise a conten.
aspects"of thei application. Petitions amendment .for storage 'or .Oconee tion relating.to the proposed transpor. forlears to intervene and requests for spent . fuel. at the .McGuire Nuclear tation and storage' of:Oconee spent
~
i
' hearing shall be filed by August 27,
- Station spent fuel *por>l.(1) untu the fuel at the McGuire facility pursuant 1978, tither (1) by-delivery to the NRC _ completion of.a safety' evaluation on to the application. for amendment ofi y) Docksting and Service Section at 1717 the Ilcensee's request and the comple.
the Special Nuclear Material. License
> . H Street NW:, Washington, D.C. or(2) tion ' of
- environmental evaluations SNM-1773. The Carolina Environmen. l by mill or telegram addressed to'the made pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51; and, tal. Study Group's ' motion 'Is being I l
. Secretary, '. U.S.I Nuclear.; Regulatory (2) unless favorable findings required treated as a request for hearing pursu. i l
C:mmission.' Washington, D.C. 29555, by'the Atomic. Energy 'Act of 1954, as ant to 10 CFR 9 2.105.tThis notice is Attnt Docketing and Service Section. " amended (the ,act).. and the. NRC's being issued based on the.nererrmu. . FIEt$ter UudearMesuist'o' recon if rules.and regulatiorns havebeen made. . uvu_snas an. opportunity for hearmg 2 r :U.-4@y. . ,%The NRC will complete an environ. .o - ne arzm a . pursuant to the { n.. Jan ent I evaluation in accordance with CaroHna . . Ennronmental. ' Study mission . ahf.3 8aszSat,issaAN[ b Chis/,untifrust and Indemn ty. R.CFR Part,51.,to *?'~ , determine if the .--- s .rea"---_ .s.;aroima. Environ. , , TGroup O es environmental.:.Jnental Study Group's motion of May . r 6 go, h./)1ce ,..ef,#sefear
.i . .c. -
Jtese,;.7 : preparation xof;.ian- q c%q,.y.s.3 d.. impact statement, or ,'nega
- r. > * .
ant to this; notice of application for '.
.ad,#" 2,,,,NI",D.E*3.sas an3g,r warranted.tion; Thisand action environmentalwill be the sub . appraisal
' amendrnent is.to I.lcense No, SNM-1773 .
8 ( jm
~
r* .fg7J 1]ect of.a' separate notice in the Fspan..,.as.of the'first day of publication of . ' f . . : . af Raorstra.Wf':r p w . tq'Wx this. notice in the Fspanat, Ruotsrun.. i. l ' [7590.0.1.1. -.: y.: ~. .f,'fl; Mort or before August. 28/1978,* the ill- provided, hotoeverl1that,the Carolina. 1 ,
^. p. .ltDocket N5.70 2833306)dr@. - .b*f:f. censte may. file a request for 'a' hearing Environmental StudrGroup may file; !
. . . . . . . . . . . . and*any member of the public whose a statement within the thirty. (30) day . !
- u .GrDunePowsa to..--r
- gr a ' interest may be affected by the pro. Intervention period indicating that it ,
,1 4
__ - _.---, fw Pwblie PerHelpen se in Pr'e- ceeding may file a request.for . .,dblic does not wish;to' participate in the peeed Mac usen.3ae- Adios tw AmeaMeat . hearing in the fortit of.a petition for SNM-1773 license amendment pro. ; ). L gu _-. w . leave totintervene .with respect.:to ceedings, or it may elect to file any ad. whether the: proposed. amendment
. SNM-1773 should be issued. . .
. v o,to ditional: materialorwith specific aspect respect (aspects of .toDuke Clie s
( j and $6eres.e .. .,c.et McGui.ce .,. Mweleet SteHe ..- ~ Petitions for leave to intervene must Power. Company's . application to
............L. .
Th2.U.S.rNuclear Regulatory Com. .' set.forth the interest of the petitioner amend SNM-1773 on which it wishes missi:n s (the Commission)-Is
- giving in .the proceeding.,how that interest to intervene. ..
.f publit nitice that.it is considering an may be affected by,the results of the - Not later than fif teen (15) days prior
' coplication for amendment to'Special proceedios. and the specific aspect (s) to any prehearing conference sched. , i Nucl=r Material 4 License No.:SNM- of'the subject matter of(the. proceed. uled in the proceeding, the petitioner
( 3.i. o - d ., k
. , r ..
.L g!
- e. a;
- PsosRAt stollissf Vol. 43, NO.' 144-.7sIDAY, JULY 2s,19Fs * ,, ,
N .' ' , ...r . e
, e >
l
~- ,
. g; - ..7' ' .'.
, ;; v. a:.M J. ;.{-:s({h.fhk.hgg
.[f %Uh, h'b M
.[ ' M , jf.,.y ' .f +Nh " %Q
n ,_ .
. {, f..
- r.'. - '
c
>y.g . . ; 2.pl.
32906 4.' ,
-" ' ] E MNO'TICES . .
g $. ;3-
. shall file ' asupplement to the petition _ E ff
.to intervene which must. include a list sion..The to amend pettiloner section 31.11. request's general 11.the . .1978. Co[nmiss.
respectively.'..N 26162 ' at d 30631.
. 'A June
- cf th2 contentions which are sought to . cense for use' of byproduct. material In accordance with .the procedures d' .
be litisated in the. matter. and the ? for certain in vitro. clinical or labora. ' outlined in the FEDERAL Rectsrun on. c/ !
. bases for each. All petitions will be ~ tory testing. to include veterinarians October 31,1977 (42 FR 56972), oral or Mp 4 a acted upon by the Commission or the as seneral licensees. The petitioner written statements may be presented .?.'
' t Licensing Board, designated by the states that:. r u . . < . .i' ';by members of the public, recordings N!J-G Commission or by the Chairman of It has'been broushYto my 'adention that . win penn n dudng W w ..,ri
, th? - Atomic Safety . and Licensing licensed veterinarians are not etisible to res- portions of the meeting when a tran. :q . .
B:ard Panel.. Timely petitions will be later on Form AEC-4s3 for in vitro testing script is being kept. And questions may Q y c:nsidered to determine whether a under the terms of the senerat license pro. be asked only by members of the sub.. %. h cring should be noticed or another vided for in section 31.11 of 10 CFR Part 31. . committee, its consultants. and staff. S.
'. 'tppr:priate order issued re':arding the l Rather, veterinarians must request a spectf. Persons desiring to make oral state. .
disposition of the petitions.. ::4 .v'a.c . , le byproduct materiallicense on form AEC . ments should. notify the .. designated 3 E . .' In the event that a hearing is held.; 313. It is also my understanding that the fee ' ' Federal employee as far in advance as '..Jr6 by od t practicable so that 1 appropriate ar. 'h
. and a person is permitted to intervene. ] h',,".h'g, g spec ,, . ,,
that parson becomes a party to the ? poetsraduate~ training in clinical patholosy ., rangements can be made to allow the.
- y5
, '. proceeding and has a right to particlM and upgradins.their diasnostic 'faciliues neesssary time during the meeting for- f
- pate fully in the conduct:of the hear-Iconsiderably. I believe it is a hindrance to J such statements; 6EsM N r..r.a q Q
.Ing..Foriezamples thatiperson may' y E present '.evidenceganCyross.exa'mine - that i entended se j prosresa
- to..physsetans.
i to reeutre to
,The i small a different license than #gThe
;shan be as.follop:g'gg.& fpagendai s
{ H.J M S.'.8 J# a m. M iG m e d j ! i.f.' witnesses.:JW;..W.pJt RaatsTsactla!.? .
,,VQQg,",t,y
,
- u,e ,d a
,, u ,d y, 6w.% ,
;is: A'. copy.. of th:: FEDasAr. :3, Notice is.available.for.public Inspect;{. dioimmunoassay1; would 1 nplyfarsimilar] - **
i
- .3. tion at the Commission's Fublic Docu. G; type licensure for veterinarians.-Would you. ' % Tisubc
. J
. l ment? Room; .1717 H:t Street NW ' please consider having alsot.rthis type of lleensure session, with any of its consultants who 0 may a
~
for veterinarians (g:F;0.
*/ OWashington.4D.cc.vand-st the Alocal M YPTY $Dkitl[n Nb.v4C "
d*T pad =lamry be present, opinionsU resarding to explore matters and- exchans
~ Public Document Rooms at the Public $ng is available for public inspection in which should p y
' be
' Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg J.ithe Cornminalon s PublicM Document _ meeting and to formulate a report and ree.
. caunendations to the full comanittee. '. ? *
~ C:unty.1310 ? North i Tryon + Street, , Room.1717.R i *itreet..NW.PWashing ; 1At the conclusion of the esecutive seanton.,tQ '
' Charl tte. rN.C. '28202*'.ebetween the ,
, . h:urs of 9 a.m. and 9 p.mc. weekday' s 9.:. ton, D.C. A copy be .obtained, byof the petition
. writing to'.themayRules :. theand subcommittee hold discussions will hear withpresentations representatives by of *
.. ya.m.and.6 p.m.on Saturday and 2 p.m.1;and ProceduresLBranch.:. Division of the NRC 8taff, the Idaho National Engl. '. '! , . ~
,andt 6,p.m. 'on . Sunday i and at.the.* Rules and Records. Office of-Adminis- neertas Laboratory (INEL). and their eon-sutaants, pertinent to the above topics. The
- nea. County Library 201 South -
pring Street. Walhalla. 8.C. 29691. tration, U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Com* subsommittee may then caucus to deterJ V,}
; between the hours or w a.m~~^
and 9 '. mission. Washington. D.C. 20555.., . ..-t All. persons who, desire to, submit. mine whether the matters identitled in the hW.!' Initial
- pJB. Cn Monday 9 a.m.' arid 5 p.m.' written comments or suggestions con- and whether the project is ready for review
/ .'andTuesday 12 noonthrough on Saturday Fridays'.and cerning the petition for rulemaking The Com. 9 a.m. l should send their comments to the by the full committee; _' .j ;r, q%g 3,* ( .misstrn has arranged for other docu. ; Secretary of the Commission. U.S.Nu-
' Further ' information ' regarding hi' L * ?ments and correspondence relating to topics to be discussed, whether the ~h
/ th> proposed amendment to the Spe ; clear Regulatory Cornmlazlort Wash
- meeting has been cancelled or resche .
i
- i. scial - Nuclear" Material. License. -No. . Inston D.C. 20555 Attention: Docket . duled. the chairman's. ruling on-re- 4]8 t
' CNM-1773 to be kept at the same loca., ing and Service Branch, By.jeptemb, e r quests for the opportunity to present ,1 j j
tions.* u-iW+ * "wem,s.s r.-/ tit .. 26,1978. .
.... ,.n ; . ;.. i . oral statements and the time allotted
, .- l L
r - - ~~ . h -Dated at Washington,.D.C..this 21st - therefore can be obtained by a prepaid . ..
. telephone call to the designated Fed. 'llt l
.; Dated at . Silver Sprin'g,;,Md - this M of July'.19781.F -
%'#.t. M ...g w ~7 etg-{';r,,,q y . . -
M
.,i YFodtthNucles[
(_14th day,0fR.July,1978qf .egu latory. ForCo.rN
,cr mission.q.l. i!,3., -. .* i' uW, , -
g
'the, NucylRegulatory* Com* ,eral employee *for this meeting.
gggy. between 8:15 t a.ma. L;: and 5Bates,
.p.m.,
N Dr. p.,urg ..<,,ww , w8anson,J.* Czar.x,,b4.. Andrew: telepho
.c ,N ,g,,g,,,J a#fjf!Wir.yg.m.w.o T::'%gm.am9owd. p,,g_%'.
3
'MNk R!caAaB Y. DrAnosTscKIl.d -*8MIdIIM3ecrelery Qf the CJmmission. e 9 W'W W A N p;p' W g *[ ha cf.#. 'd, 6 Chief,-Fuel Reprocessing and Re W(yg g3,*,,73,Nees .Fil.ed %s7-7s: a 4s ap'k'd j 1 4;tjf.S$'Meycle Branch Division c/ Euelf ygig ..ty,s..js ..-
. .s f JoEN C. Hort.s.4** / ~ n U ."t'5j. i* Cycle and Material Safetv. ,'R3.%,U590-ol[ gyr pjg -Q. ore,pe+
..~.t n o .19 . y i .QM!!.Q. Q. g%jf ~
, y tra one.7.s-sessa rued 7 37-7s:s:es am'y, a ; usp.gfymgm ,. .. _p,:,ygAdvisory m.,,,,,,, Com,mittee ofjg,,7,
- i - Y* -(.W,Wl;.f" N2../Arem' "' "N'NGiM 6idh>: """# AovisoRY 8"****" 'comutted *" " oN "C# REACTOR saps., ~ [FR Doe.78-21132
. "*'3 .;.a ,,',g. w. . . , .-
^
[, '.}7590..
- k. :M W1 :%.' cots coouMo sysisms'isces) ..
M.,W tDooset No. Pant 4 -
'8 W:M 5 ;.Y h
- - e" - 4 J 1
'J. 4 gm.~ . - .+ .., p,s :;.&v .'I* % .? MN x N#M.. . yOFFICE OF MANAGEMEN1 anD..
,.m 9.c g.g s. F. NACHREINOR *.. ry,3.r?.S , ' t.The- ACRS Subcommittee on Emer* . L '. . . BUDGET ;. .. M.;W'f - 4f
[. ..g,y, F
';. MT0. sency Core Cooling.wiu hold an open '
i; 'il:..n #1*8 d,Peetelen fee a_s _ .g . meeting: .On r August 14,1978 at the ' N. P. etEARANCE oF REPORTS : c Notice is hereby givert that Dr. R. F. Westbank" Motel Coffee" Shop, " 475
' "* ^ *1 '"'***"<"*'
i Nachreiner. by. letter dated June 19,' .. River Parkway,8 -Idaho Falls. Idaho , * ' ' ' .
- U d " ~ ~ . ""'I * ,
J 1978. has filed with the Nuclear Resu. 83401, to review the status of research. The following is a list of requests for I - latory Commission a petition for rule . projects related to LO9T, SEMIS- clearance of reports intended for use
., making to amend the Commission's CALE.. thermal-hydraulic aspects of in collecting. Information from the
. ;, regulition **Oeneral. Domestic . Li- the Power Burst Facility (PBF), and 2 public received by }he Office of Man. ' - conses for Byproduct . Material." .10 phase flow instrumentation. Notice of asement and Budset on July 24, 1978 { CFR Part 31. ; .f . r.ss} ,this meeting was published at 43 FR (44 U.S.C. 3509). The purpose of pub- 3
- w~ . :. .;. .
.', )
PeosRAL Roosstem, vot. 4s, No. im anmAy, auty me, ters T n . . y . . . .
.t,
Ulf m
/ Attachment 2 -
1 _m 3*:9'74 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.122 / Thursday. June 25. 1981 / Notices S a amend i 121571. The Board has closed out - letters. responses and related correspondence Commission will. among other things.
- A-r4-106. -113. and -114.
A.e.W #une M1.-FAA has begun study are also free of charge. All requests must be in writing.pdentified by recommendation or cause to be published in the Federal Register, a notice of availability of the g of general aviation and commuter accidents report number. Address requests to: Public - and mcidents and will evaluate bird strike Inquiries Section. National Transportanon draft statement, re9uestinIcomments - batory and review windshield designs to Safety Doord. Washington, D.C 20594. from interested persons on the draft s determine effect of windshield heat on Mu!Iiple copies of Board reports may be stateW.h Mce W ab mWn a , windshield structural strength. (Ref. 45 FR purchased from the National Technical statement to the effect tha.t any yu (4053. Sept.11.198&l Information Service. U.S. Department of comments of Federal agencies and State a-dr-n and-4: A-79-M und A-440 Commerce. Springfield. Va 22161. and local officials will be made frencruted/ tfune M/.-FAA continues to available when recelVed.The draIt urge sma:1 twin.cngine airplane (49 U.S.C.1903(a)(2).1906) [ manufacturers to comply.with GAMA Margaret L Fisher. environmental statement will focus only 1 Speci'ication No.1:FAA is reuewmg 14 CFR Federo/RegisterLeaison Officer. Part 23. Airworthiness Standards: Normal. reviously discussed in the final " June 191981 Utihty, and Acrobatic Category Airplanes: p n o,ji-isE ntad sawi.sas emi eny ronmental statement prepared in pnor cor sideration is being given to c nnection with the issuance of the requirement for specific takeoff performance e cooe e m ,, construction permits. Upon datm added emphasis in FAA orders and constr8eration of comments submitted h.indbooks is being placed on fruir ng for with respect to the draft environmental poten'tal power fatture on takeoff: FAA plans NUCLEAR REGULATORY to revise Adsisory Circular AC 135.3D (A-41 COMMISSION statement the Commission's staff will p a hlemW she l ts s ety c a e Fd al la i n At o (Docket Nos. 50-413. 50-4141 the availability of which will be 1958 as amended, and has disseminated published in the Federal Register. Accident Prevention Program publications Duke Power Co., et al.; Notice of The Commission will consider the FAA-Ps 4019 and 25 regarding light twin. Receipt of Application for Facility issuance of facility operating licenses engine aircraft operation (A-70-05). FAA has Operating Ucenses; Availability of. for Catawba Unit 1 to Duke Power insured that safe operating knowledge and Applicants' Environmental Report; Company. North Carolina Electric practices are acquired through a combination Consideration of lasuance of Facility Membership Corporation and Saluda of increased expenence reflected in 14 CFR Operating Ucenses; and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing River Electric Cooperative Inc., and for \ h h n e 6 to Cha ter 3. ti sa:o.12. stves instructions for weight and AA d Notice is hereby given that the Catawba Unit 2 to Duke Power Company and North Carolina Municipal
\
f, balance control for Part 135 operators of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Power Agency Number 1. These licenses 1 aircraft certificated for nine or les Commission) has received an would authorize the applicants to passengers (A-79-ant. (Ref. 40 FR 18821 Mar. application for facility operating possess use and operate the Catawba 26,1981; 45 FR 85532. Dec. 29.1980 ) licenses from Duke Power Company, for Nuclear Station in accordance with the , Responses from the U.S. Coast Guard- itself and as agent for North Carolina provisions of the licenses and the _, Municipal Power Agency Number 1, technical specifications appended - Pr d g d nc in7he pera ng m r al North Carolina Electric Membership thereto, upon: (1) the completion of a as to espected results of exceeding the design Corporation, and Saluda River Electric tirmts for jacking operstmns or any vessel Cooperative. Inc. (the applicants), to favorable safety evaluation of the application by the Commission's staff: operation. will not improve overall vessel possess, use, and operate the Catawba ' (2) the completion of the environmental _ safety iM-M-39(5)). USCG does not concur in Nuclear Station. Units 1 and 2 two review required by the Commission's , requinns operating limits for self. elevating pressuri::ed water nuclear reactors (the regulations in to CFR Part 51:(3) the mobde offshore dnlling to be specified in a facilities). located on the shore of Lake receipt of a report on the applicants' -i terms of motion amplitudes and periods, or in Wyl c in York County. South Carolina. application for facility operating C Yo g$nsru er s t ete ne a val The reactors are designed to operate at licenses by the Advisory Committee on = unit motions. (M-79-41). A 7. step R&D a steady state power icvel of 3411 Reactor Safeguards: and (4) a finding by
- program for structural and motion monitorina megawatts thermal, with an equivalent the Commission that the application for a
.. 6s set for completion in 19aalM-79-42) USCG net electrical output of approximately the facility licenses, as amended. -d reports that IMCO's " Training Qualificailons 1145 megawat's. corre les with the requirements of the 3 ..=- of Crews Serving on Mobifa Offshore Units" The applicants have also filed. Ator .ic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (STW XIV/WP 41. lan. 21.198t coverina various dntte*/ training quathatiun+of pursuant to the National Environmental (the Act), and the Commission's $
ed Poi cy Act of 1969 and the regulations of regulations in 10 CFR Chapter 1. M for a$l Yy th Su o e an s the Commission in 10 CFR Part St. an Construction of the facilities was 2 environmental report which discusses authorized by Construction Permit Nos. of Treintna and Watchkeepinn in Febniary 1982 (M-79. 43 and -44f. lRef. 45 FR 52519. environmental considerations related to CPpR-116 and CpFR-117. Issued by the % - Aug. 7.19en). the proposed operation of the facilities. Commission on August 7.1975. - M-OJo //une #11- On fan.12.1981. This report is being made availableat ' Construction of Unit 1 is anticipated to representatives of Sabine Pilots. Mantime " the State Clearinghouse. Office of the be completed by March 1.1964, and Ltni Industry. and USCG amended and ratified 5 State Auditor. P.O. Box 11333. Columbia. 2 by September 1.1985. the " Voluntary Traffic Control Agn ement nf ' South Carolina 29211. and at the Prior to issuance of any operation (',,, *. .h'$,' " , ' , , , , , , , , , Catawba Regional Planning Council, tiennses, the Commission will inspect ;; from the Corps of Enstneers regarding P.O. Box 882. Rock 11111. South Carolina the facilities to determine whether they = Chapter 1. Tidal Hydraulics Committee 29730. have been constructed in accordance Report No. 3.1986. (45 FR 62234. Sept.18. After the environmental report has with the application, as amended, and j
, 19eal %een analyzed by the Commission's the provisions of the construction Note Single copies of Board reporte are staff, a draft environmental statement permits. In addition, the licenses wdl not D
available without charge as long as limited will be prepared. Upon preparation of be issued until the Commission has e supplies last. Copies of recommendation the draft environmental statement, the madd the findings reflecting its review j 11
. y E "
'N r -
Q , * - al
%.. 6, ,- [ *- ,.d.' *i '6
>(, *[,
1A : ygg. _- .
m . Federal Registhr / Vol. 46. No.122./ Thursday jttno 25.'1981 / Notices 32975 of the application under the Act, which sought to be litigated in the matter. and attached to the proposed facility will be set forth in the proposed the bases for each contention set forth operating licenses. i licennes, and has concluded that the Copies of the proposed operating ; with reasonable A petitionar who specificity' falls to file such a licenses and the ACRS report. when issuance of the licenses will not be inimical to the common defense and supplemerit which natisfies these available. may be obtained by request secunty or to the health and safety of requirements with respect to at least one to the Director. Division of Ucensing, the public. Upon issuance of the contention will not be permitted to Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. licenses the applicants will be required participate as a party. U..c Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to execute an indemnity agreement as A request for a hearing or a petition Was'.tington. D.C. a0555. Copies o~ the required by Section 170 of the Act and for leave to intervene must be filed with Commission's staff safety evaluation to CFR Part 140 of the Commissions's the Secretary of the Commission. United report and final environmental regulations. States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. statement. when available. may be By july 27.1981, the applicants may Washington. D C. 20555. Attention: purchased at current rates from the file a request for a hearing with respect Docketing and Service Section, or may National Technical Information Service. ' to issuance of the facility operating be delisered to the Commission's Public Department of Commerce. 5285 Port Document Room.1717 H Street. N.W., Royal Road. Springfield. Va. 22181. licenses and any person whose interest . For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. le a pe it on orI av to ntery ne. y e pe n sho d iso be ent to the Executive Legal Director. U.S, Dated. june 12.19et. Requests for a hearing and petitiorrs for Dinor G. Adensam. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. leave to intervene shall be filed in Washington. D.C.,20555. and to l. .4ctics Chief. l.icensing Bnmch No. 4. Os s ision accordance with the Commission's Michael McCarry. III. Esq Debevoise ofLicensms.
" Rules of Practice for Domestic .and Liberman.1200 Seventeenth Street, as wr= m ..* no t Ucensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
- N.W.. Washington. D.C. 20036 attorney awma coes rsee.eus If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above f r the applicanta. Any questions or date, the Cominission or an Atomic requests for additional informaton regarding the.gontent of this notice (Doctiet Nos. 50-200 and 50-2811' Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman ou d b ad as to th ief of the Atomic safety and12 censing issuance of Amendments to FactLty
. Legal Director. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cummission. Washington. D.C. 0555. Operating Licenses for pet tio t an the Sec etary o the N ntimely filings of petions for leave Commission. or designated Atomic. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory t intersene. amended petitions. Commission (the Commission) has S'afety and Licensing Board willissue a supplemental petitions and/or requests issued Amendment No. 70 to Facility
.s notice of hearing or an appropriate for hearing will not be entertamed g Operating Ucense No. DPR-32 and theAmendment No. 70 to Facility Operating As required by 10 CFR 2.714 a fo ,, , , prfsiding of icer, or License No. DPR 37 issued to t irginia petition for leave to intervene shall set Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Electric and Power Company (the forth with particularity the interest of designated to rule on the petition and/or licensee). which revised Technical the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the '," ubsa 9 Specificati ns f r peration of the Surry t I ow e of good cau e r s.1 a d -
, results of the proceeding. The petition the granting cf a late petition and/or PwnSta n. .
should specifically explain the resso is respectively. {the faci lities). located m request. That determination will be why intervention should be permitted based upon a balancing of the factors 7 N' ** with particular reference to the amendments are effective as of the date specified in to CFR 2.714 (a)(1)(il-(O "I I" * " d "'"' following factors:(1) the nature of the and 12.7Md). petitoner's right utyfer the Act to be For further details partinent t.) the These amendments resise the made a party to the proceeding:(2) the Technical Specifications to change lhe matters under consideration. see the nature and extent of the petitsuner's app.lication for the facihty operating WhM&MMwNNm property, financial, or other interest in licenses and the applicants. for Units 1 and 2. These amendments the penceeding and (3) the posuble also make editorial changes to the environmental report dated June 8.1981 efrect of any order which may be which are avadable for public Technical Specifications. entered in the proceeding on the inspection s't the Commission's Public The apphcation for the amendments petitioner's interest. The petition should Document Room.1717 il Street. N.W cumplies with the standards ad also identify the specific aspect (s) of the Washington. D.C. and at the York regnin ments of the Atomic Energ Act subject matter of the proceeding as to County labrary. 325 South Oakland uf wn as amended (the Act), and the which petitioner wishes to intervene. Avenue. Rock Hill. S.C. 29730. As they Comniiuinn's rules and regulatums. The Any person who has filed a petition for become avadable. the following Commisuorg has made appropriate leave to intevene or who has been documents may be inspected at th, findings as required by the Art and the admitted as a party may amend his above locations:(1) the safety Commission's ru!cs and regulations m to pctition, but such an amended petition evaluation report prepared by the CFR Chapter 1. which are set forth in the must satisfy the specificity requirements Commission's staff: (2) the draft hcense amendments. Prior pubhe. notae desenhed above. environmental statement:(3) the final of these amendments was not required Not later than fifteen (15) day s prinr to environmental statement:(4) the report sinre these amendments do not ins oisc the first prehearing conference of the Advisory Committee on Reactor a significant hazards consideration, scheduled in the proceeding. the Safeguards on the application for facihty The Commission has determined that petitinner shall file a supplement to the operating licenses: (5) the proposed the issuance of these amendments will petition to intervene which must include facility operating hcenses: and (6) the not result in any significant a list of the contentions which are technical specifications. which will be ensironmentalimpact and that pursuant h --- ..- .. - - . --_.- _ ? . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
Attachm:nt 3 Dume Powzn GOMPm LEGAL DEPARTMENT R O. Box 03189 GHARLOTTE, N. G. asa4a ALSERT v. cam m, JR. m 3"-se'*
.c....... ....... = = .c6 November 2, 1981 Robert Guild, Esq.
Attorney-at-Law 314 Pall Mall Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Re: Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-413 & 50-414
Dear Mr. Guild:
This is a follow up to our meeting of October 30, 1981. We thank you and the members of your group for the opportunity to meet with you and the time that you expended in doing so. With respect to certain specific items of information which you requested and other items discussed at the October 30 meeting, please note the following: . (1) We will add the Palmetto Alliance to Duke's service list so that from this date forward Palmetto Alliance will be served by Duke with a copy of documents filed by Duke in this docket with the NRC on or after the date of this letter, as though Palmetto Alliance were currently a full participant to the proceeding. However, these documents will not include amend-ments to the FSAR. Those amendments will be forwarded, in accordance with standard practice, to the local Public Document
! Room (PDR) and to those addresses in Columbia which were furnished to you in my letter of October 20, 1981.
! (2) The citation to the collateral estoppel case discussed ! is 7 AEC 82. (3) The dates for the NRC licensing milestones are attached to a letter of April 30, 1981 from Chairman Hendrie of the NRC j to Congressman Bevill, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and l Water Development, Committee on Appropriation. (4) With regard to your questions concerning the scope of l the authority sought in the application, the application contains l the following statement:
..e- ..
I 6 Robert Guild, Esq. November 2, 1981 Page 2 i The license hereby applied for is a class 103 operating license as defined by 10 CFR 50.22. It is requested for a period of forty (40) years. Applicants further request such addi-tional source, special nuclear, and by-product material licenses as may be necessary or appropriate to the acquisition, construction, possession, and operation of the licensed - facilities and for authority to store irradiated fuel from other Duke nuclear f acilities. At present, Duke has no specific plans to utilize this storage alternative but, rather, considers l' it prudent planning to have this storage as one of the alternatives available. At this point, we feel we must ceasider whether it is fruitful 1 + to continue discussions with the hope of arriving at a timely stipulation of contentions to present to the Licensing Board. It is our understanding that at this time the Palmetto Alliance j is not able to provide us with all of the contentions it will seek to raise as issues in this proceeding. Moreover, the Palmetto Alliance has indicated that it is unable to tell Duke ' when it will be prepared to discuss its full range of contentions. . Further, the Palmetto Alliance will not assure us that, if we do l~ pursue d cussions and do reach a stipulation of contentions, the ' Palmetto Alliance will not seek to file additional contentions ' with the Licensing Board on the date set by the Board for such filing. In light of the foregoing and Duke's desire to proceed in a timely fashion, we do not'believe that any useful purpose will be served by further discussions between Duke and Palmetto Alliance. I Sincerely, Albert V. pa'rr, Jr. AVCJr/fhb t cc: See attached list I i l i ;
~
f I *
. . . e \
/ \-
i i l Janez L. Rolley Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing i Acomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board . Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission . Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Edward G. Ketchen, Esq. Dr. Dixon Callihan Counsel for NRC Staff Union Carbide Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box Y Commission oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C. 20555 Jesse L. Riley Dr. Richard F. Foster Carolina Environmental Study Group P.O. Box 4263 854 Henley Place Sunriver, Oregon 97701 Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Richard P. Wilson, Esq. Board Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C0mmission State of South Carolina Washington, D.C. 20555 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Palmetto Alliance Donald R. Belk 2135\ Devine Street Representative Columbia, South Carolina 29205 Safe Energy Alliance 2213 East Seventh Street Henry A. Presler Charlotte, North Carolina 28204 Chairman Charlotte-Mecklenburg' tion Chase R. Stephens Environmental Coali Docketing & Service Section 942 Henley Place '. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Washington, D. C. 20555 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq. l Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20036 l
..__ ~ .. . - . _ - _ _ . _ . - - ~ . . . - . - . _ . . _
N l ll$ ,I N l!! ! L $!!i !l5d l' l kl!,!![l!ll- ~
~
klhh! u o
~ ~
L 5CI~ :
- -w.-e-~~
e l<e..* L 114 *i I i \ l % 1%s lit l< \l ..g., , ;; , lie = l Attachment 4B 9/22/81
~
o
= .-
+
a-- w .; .. D .
..e t '
2~ s ' y
--g,7 .. 9 ,,q y, E
m _ _ CATAWSA M3QAAA STADOS UMets COMsTheKTI$st ~ pulseem Amneses opposes sceassa, ter Wee panee
\
ke foes find supportin NRC's ticismICatawba construction ISR reht uts5
- A leoclear i
* ^
'e la se maderenew #da enanth, kk cheel Lawe. a spokassas far tus time snakes it subject to poor nas report renaegrd - group, said it regularly Lrtervenesin surtrr.anutap."
tactues - ^ -- m-Ihr licenntnet of nuclear power planta 14ee sa6d one of the alhance's Madeer plaat and sa requests far utAhty rate hthea mair, objectaana is to the 12ian wall bestaas antaeue it part2cipates is neglatetave leb. centralamat haMiaf a at Catawba poor wertamanah69 1sont planes have thedt walla. - west d Mart Hall.
- bying and promotes reneeable Duke has designed the McGiafre and energy resources, such as solar pow.
khmetta Asaance a er, m Soush Corotma. Catawba plants with than walla and inmental organsaa- *
, as ' :2- .
surroundmg the rese. ambia, raad-a-* to ' (
- RonHooposarvier Molan McAfee of ftRoute 1. S.
of Route York and tar kmLtdingI ta keep steam pressure irenewable een+e. , - down, tn rase of an accident IG8 Qo,er are acsAve memisers of Pan-use" b mtervenmg "Sut we have seen scridents that liessee proceedings hSaan Cataste statsun in Aagnet ha themotto princedlaAlbance and are miervenors esceeded the contamment scapau-a M Members for tff5 appard Iat an sporstag heense eratlag brense. ga ft,r Catawbe's ay. ty. at Catawt a." love sa J g to oppose the b plant tras year . the Paknette Alttarre ftled a peu. Heepmgarnar and nicAfee ar, - Nuclear = mate "We will restst
- an> attempt to store any wmate at <
t NRC repen rense tam protaat.r.g the pry,nsed gpgr. both farmer Duke employees who Catante from any other plants m the Cataet= plant atmg bcense m Ny say they observed delsc6encies iR plant eart.truction ano probleras m the f#ake 87 stem " love said la Constrwtnan.
- Subst nd.ro worttr rtshAp and Health and enuronmental h.s.
I la ranstrudaen pow gustitycortrolstrtr4ty suggest curtstruct2an management at the Ca. ards The hasards of redi.taori put sality entrol end (*at acha; plant runstrvetaan ta seb- lawba plant, towe says the Pak cil b) thta ptarit are rad mmunal." 2 cf epstruction .ntaaG) teen .NRC standards anfrom trwito ALLance will use testirnor.y 14ee said many hetety related arena " mys McAfee and floopmgarner and the P4cn That's en ) part vi the story - - others la pr<xent the Catawbe oper. there are rad;atace) hatarda itorn the said on h> they stieg license on the following mamang of fuel through trartsporta grounds W tc Palamento A2ance orgaruard m t4an ta sta handhng m fmal disposal " and have the . ems sM it?l and clean.saa a maihra; lass of - Cor.struehn ' Nuclear con. 6tsest 3)st prog)g mgede en1wutande structon is scr) es.: ting work.* - Economit a f ewe s.)s (f.e Co-Lawt.a plant rney t uviating f.*r. II8' lave seed thas mormng b eas graat. 8tAla. =a *f(*sted to pstdes mI antJtrMI laws b) Utmd Duke fw the $2 7 e.$sataan anc geeauuyr e.eutut "Esergtr.af.g h s to Dr d ene to pet. PWeer Con.HM) a rfM*fl..p'.I) On Erf.. the nueiner end.8% = fortsun 4 meld has to te perfect, trating pemee and snnstrue to n abd t!.e tedious nature of a wtstrur rapital 58
&pREMW?iFMWidMMMWM"""~'"*3
;= a t - . _- . .._ , _ _ ,__ . , __ . _ _ _ _ _ _
# 7:vyr wmQ, -
, e%@Oedsen Man,Mde,aan SL Wet 8 I
~ Attachm2nt 4C 6/25/82
\
Duke considers shipping nudear waste to Catawba nudear plant for storage Duke Nwer Co. Is considerlag shipping highly radioactive waste frose two auclear p& sets near Charlene and Seneca. 5 C., to its Catawba Nucleat 54 ados near Rock Hill. S.C., says Bob Rassnessen, a feel asetion assistaat se . The stitty has subesitted to the helent Regulatory seios a 30 page plas for the shipments. Shipments frons Ocones, near Senets, would begfa se sooner thas Wrch IMS. Shipments froen McGulft 17 miles northweet of Charloete on Lake Morssan, would begin so sooner them, ' March INI. 7 C Emme
?J F.
1
/
h 1 J. A.J. *d_' W M %N - Y h h. . T Nv M 7.a " "V- . Y 'P' 'm'a h- N
s
.M CHARI.OM CGSERVER Saturday.hme33.lgd Attachmont 4D 6/26/82 I Of.%nwral Or*sions Duke May Ship Waste i To York County Plant ;
33 JACK HORAN the anemblies apa 1 and bunching
***S******
the rods closer together to create Duke Pow er Co 's nuclear. additional space for new waste.
' waste storage plans for the 199(h antlude the pouibilat) of shipping Pinpacking "w ould be a less es.
highly radioactist nuclear waste pensiw option than transahip. from other Duke plants to the Ca. ment." Rasmunen said "Trans. tawba plant in York County, a shipment suit changes your spaces company official said around an,d esentually catches up "ll's just an option we's e " looked at." said Bob Nasmussen, a 1att ) car Duke began shipplag snember of a Duke task force on the first of 300 assemblies fross the w aatt issue. (konee to the AtcGuire plant.17 Such shipments likely would c'"f,'r' * " tras el along I.33 and i 77 in Char. e*
" lotte south to N C. 49 and S.C. 274 Di. ring public hearings on the to the Catawbe plant.
shipping license in 1979 oppo. h L The information was recentiv nents claimed the shipments were
- submitted to the U.S. Nucles'r the beginning of a " cascade plan" Regulatory Commisseos as part of that esentually would mass shut.
the licensing requirements for Ca. Ilsng waste to Catawba and other law ba. Plants. Catawba is scheduled to But Pasmussen said waste ship. "" "
- meats to Catawba may take place Rasmussen said the posenbie Ca.
only os a limited basis or may be tawba shipments aren't part of a ruled out completely by new cascade plan since Duke's present methods of compact:rg waste at strategy is to find ways te kasp Duke's two other nuclear plants, nuclear waste stored at the origi. ! One of these methods called Pinpacking, will be tested at l'nder Duke's current espea. Duke's Oconee plant near Seneca se in plans. Oconee won't run out I in August. nf storase spate until 1992. and Duke now stores 990 nuclear ' U "* ""I'I I waste assemblies - Durned up re. lie maid other possible opdoes actor fuel - underwater in spe. f r storing waste bes4 des shipplag cial pools at Oconee. Each assem. it to ravau b4 and pinpacking is. bly contains 208 fuel rods held e tud Suilding a new pool at Oco-tup *ther by metal frames cre- as.d putting the waste la Pinpacking consists of taking an .s e ground sasks. s
'T' h,
~~~~
Attachment 4E ! h h $5 e um o! 11 !! h . eil E 4!!i4*Ol i lli}! fEii! pj!'i11 lTfo EI!! Il 1e o 11:!eu
~I.iiill1'!
i 2 e ! n !!!i
>:aluu
.mg Attachment 4F NI b -
Prider.Jurw 25,1982 6/25/82 7 Duke may ship used fuel to Catawba' ROCM Hit.L - Duke Power Co. is considenna shipping highly radio, In mtothee m g active speni fuel ftom its Oconee g, g,,, cWhon mes auc. t end McGuire nuclear stations Io its e,g,gg,. Duke probebly will proceed ( atamba Nuclear. Station. a com. ,g consoldation of its assembises pany offecial said Thursday.
*1, Oconee and McGuire. thus delay.
The Charlotte. based utility r,. ed for any shipments. cently submitted to the Nuclear - sad Regulatory Commission 30 pages of prelimmary plans for the transpor.. %im oconse.Acaena thnme Rasmussen stressed that Duke estion of a masimum of 150 spent South Carolma 153. Interstate 85, had made no decisions about Ihe fuel assembhes per year from Oco. lonA term storage of spent fuel Interstate 77. Carom mds Boulevard Produced b) its nuclear plants. nee end 120 assemblies per year and South Carolma 274. The ship. The shipmettt of fuel to Catawks from McGuire to the Catawba sta. ments would pass through Seneca, tion near Rock Hill. is only a possibility. he said, Clemson Greenville. Spartanbur3 "We're riot goms to be shipping 8.c Rasmussen. an assastant en- Gastoma and Charlotte Ameer en Duke's fuel sect >on, said The first part of Ihe primary tomorrow or next week or seat I ihe Oconee shipments would begm year." Rasmussen sad. "If we de , route would be the same as the cut, have shipments. It'll be seeeral no s:oner Ihan March 1964. The I McGuire shipments would begm no tem OwwMcGuire route. years down the road.. . It's as op. souner than March l901.he sad. The primary McGuire.to Ca* tion. It's not something we're plan. ' The utility has no firm plans to tamta route, he sad, would eclude n 'p.do @ m make the shipments, which are North Carolma 73. Interstate 77, The Iwo spent fuel pools at Ca. only r.n ophon, Rasmussen as4. Carom mds Boulevard and South Ca- lawba were espanded by 30 foot Duke submitted Ihe information rodma 27t during conetructson io roeet pre. l on spent fuel transportation at the Rasmussen said Ihe shipments dicted storage needs The two poets i request of the .%RC as part of the could provide a short term soluttor. are d"; 4 to accominodate 3,3B licensing review for the Catamba fael assemblies. to spent fuel storage problems pre-st at mn, w hich is under const rue. docted at Occece and McGuire, but Catamba reactor Unit 1 la ex. tion, he sad the shipments are less desirable pected to begm commertal opers. Utility officials briefed reporters tion in June 19W. plant manager cn spr ait fuel storage and other th.in long. term soIusions to the m Hampton sad Reactor Utut 3 topics Thursd.) before a tour of the p W ms as predacted to m m W u h l her 1916. l tetaubs saation "It's an option that's readily Duke began the snipment of 300 a s.eilable." said Rasmussen, a fuel essemblies from the Oconee member of the utilit)'s task force stetinn, lorated near Seneca. Io Ihe siudsing nuclear wasie ntorage. McGuire statam, near C hariotte, m "% e look at it as a flesibility op-October. The shipments are in. "*"" tended so open up space at the Oro. Other option bemg considered nec spent fuel puois for addihonal are Ihe consttJetion of an adde. Storspeof assemblics. siunal spent fuel pool at Mm. If Duke decides to transport "dr> storage"in saults or casks sper.t fuel in the future, the utility .ind fuel rud crww.idation. s . u se said Re w Duke and % e<iinghouse Electric the litense for the Oronce.to. OP "" t ondus hnt a pu pmect MrGuire sh.pmerits lasted 44 "' 'h" D'"""* S'd"n t his pie r that months and a leegthy rneew could mill test t$c fuel rod comoldation be espected fut future shipments, concept it is the first test of Hs he sod kind m the n.soon. 3 The uhlit) has subryitted routes As part of the int, four fiveqeer. ,,.. ! to the NRC for the pumble ship. old fuel awemblies mill be consoh-j reenes so ( at..ru d.im! men two nisters, which will , l t he prim r> t h oncein Cata s ha j I t"use R. mewen s.sid. would m ! i to.le % n Carnhna 17. O % 121,
Attachment 4G 6/28/82 Ehr@ffrarturM y _ Monday, June 28,1982 Duke takeslead ; on storageissue . Duke Power Co. obviously isn't banking on the federal waste problem, but some govemment solving its spent utility officials seem less ruel storage problems for it. concemed with that than As Duke officials explained with having the government t last week, the utdity com- solve their temporary stets pany is studying several al- age problems for them. tematives for handling bumt fuel The Senate, over the ob-poolselements at as storage }ections of South Carouna's the Oconee and members, passed a nuclear McGuireplants fill up. waste disposal bill that pro-Orw of the ykies for a federal away. ' from reactor spent fust , O *f4m'"gons - ship.de OcO' *J*" f" pot. The Bamwell Nuclear McGuire to the Catawba plant at Rock Hill-is not an
"'l2'2*e,"'llr,o",
that purpose is considered a appealing one for the people i kely site for'such a facility, who live along the p routes. But it is prefera e to the g m m e nt e md nird District W man Butler N away from-reactor morage g,c3,,;,, og ,,,rrick oppoems y.g,, ,,,,,,, that some utilities seem to be tor storage in House legisin. devotmg their efforts to- tion, and for remnana. m mom , cheapes and safest way to store spent if The the spent fuel shipments, rove fuel is to hold N at the reac-necessary, would tor until a permanent els-1988, a no sooner than e official said. posal site is ready And the utility also is consid- cortmercial reproce. or unta , sang be i ering other optkms,includmg comes a reality. construction of another spent fuel pool at Oconee and fuel A fear is that the away. ' rod consoudation, that would from reactor controversy further delay the need to will prevent any nuclear , m c, . move the material. waste legislation from pass. * Ing thisyear. ' in any case, spent fuel - storage is only part of the Utilities running out of targer problem of nuclear spent fuel storage space waste daposal, which some would serve the putdie intet- /4:,;f,a uti!ities are complicating by est better by expandag that ~~ - u.. their short sighted insistence capacity on their own, leev. ga , on away from reactor stor- ing the gmemroent free to ' age. The future of the nu- tackle the bigger issue of clear industry deperds on a permanent disposal Duke - ' permanent solution to the Power Co. seems w.illmg to demonstrate it can be done. k s 2
_ _ _ ._-._ . _ . - . -- - - - - - - --- -~ ~ ^' ~ ^
, ,w p ,. p . . y3
. 8 *
' .% A , ;
' ?; A j. f 1. '
.);.' / h, d r,L 't. ,y'M.'t *' [.1,n , . .T . ' ,
i Attachment 4H h . ,;, b 2 .' $ !.I.O' 2.r $ 5 O6 b M
- U .U * *h'*
- 12/7/83
"~~ ~ '
C.
- f. n 44w l.? V
__ +i S. e5P'43 f gtg;g Mfd d LO T IL m ' AGE f sk t m P. o t 1 < c f ,r _' D 1 3 . tocATim en Pact: fos w r _ sets 6.s,,, q F - Duke may shipN-waste 1 5 to._ Catawba after1992: r
- m-w =c. w. ._ he.
t ANT a yIA - Dua. Poemer On. e., ese .wa m es. v1lll" _ . _ ._ h. ._ m, at- n.c.' ry c a or > taanprer; as up ut:1 has ten Our esar apa per shmotuma .8msarwl guddr'.aime wher, seg ter esosang estab- best%ny an wes- way here hr he Onsewbr year
- Tte et rest.eert.'ve wes** ! Pat St. Dessese plo. to storade et er Quiawte Ive- temsbe's of a tunsret gaat hesi heer gewsrs om.x h regresses.
i re r htwr nr.n ase:. mees' me oennes eney rue est et sesrep h es hg me sae's as as hieresesic pery casapegy oro wise anaered nekmmes here= 7 and seity. seert as esL'ty as lati, esom% to he!r foneth desmoraar4 morta war's tse 9rWtar.'s # 8dan ==st i
"la '.e
. era. asaL uia . egy recie, De thiender, en essa Wr dresfor to ts1h sWpmemas la Co- the seersee sneesd h,dves pene. Pn:mset. Anares ense:n e4 m ham-tes*.as wG hrveh. as erannetser he- amed emot rods ha redts not erg mar away at he andety of to Co-tweee tresu4relaneet am* ether hn wekt. The saurege Inste pied.
ancnge ed.wa w<! tactrd5Sec. for tes Oueses roertar he ,e Pdman Ahere alearney Bob-we,st.r4 pew,c hun.t),and ea W r, - noen *erested twice - ettk et GaIf tesestimed Data surferets s ses encLa beenk.A se Gast seen er.dn.': Warree Owee and Gearge , as-?.rermeneal ess." Sk re Or f.hh, seterAaMI':7 esse v olse ander.esGf Thehe stars.1 sem e foranA h 3 Orter add etwther mer asese-yw ter.: emi tan =ael eeu set hr sped wwtare t'em testtihe ehest Duke, seV in a swerm et**=mur re- sees sad Dulu is sudet' 9ederal appr, oval ter a estred by the & C. Aalc et: Ouser* sereshlag. . eht matumma the emesasey's are emes eartw the west. gen 2'*g asseresa progres une Des wedd prefsr to esemens to A> et modhird of to $ sal asases- 28 tr ol'ech De legso-j st-ce aque
- rwet as me InewtAnal re- tuas b a teneten ese tourmw2 bisa shedk const'esthe mehrtals a w enes. CetfDit asid. a teamr when t is refsenad, Deha and wert to make sure may most st.
Ahrwey Gerwrs! ftsvis Mmeaci Aady Therapsee enid $d safety standards. mew he wee "pirere!" Shat the Qast- . Coenee reacters are re. Es asked Owee aheet s Asseery , { kenetussed usmty esses as eveld teeled overy ll Deaths,' and Nat wuh a greur af es-enerne da to cais-t.a. Mc% ire reertere refueled ease a pulled ' 7 uk . she'd u ne w e , gros s pea ,heseM. - w w at ts.ro w e ser se d ase mate n m m ax e st n-mesia:med to esp Duha masses-
- -. wari = ear-8.
a:as.1 s%etCareL aseAmreams h,cfr.iessSeet ha the the aper- and reseter. Been somatti seen- meads the w e Maag ame=estsee a state is top tran@rtalkn W gese- pw se terl reds senesurt( abed prerreML er*+,e seats" mis et aw poise bish- eher' as hi 33 het lag. kWE'Ytstaal et8 we Gead agreemd Oem esM Id i < esyn." mk' 36sd. 41, was b*.3 re. @,. . .s erstad as a perest's he heretters the* thry hhd e !
*** .g 9 eph $st Ya88 to 94 <
Maseed a s.'4&arison Breen Dthe m he sP4most piset deer Mogene j "The pelley of South Cerekaa hee AeW te Om's slatammut, les that W" 1 a dreted.
" ? ,, ,
bemi to enNmise the treesper;an e sessels4 meenge space eseC rue less asked W 9m essapenly , et sp ra -har het inne er women eart et he MsGstro ;3est as early regeres employees to go trough a >
**e stst: b erder to redmos the b as tsee, het a piser.ed rereshtag toegsay retoures posem befwe %
berwit stuks to the pelse." eeund prvelde er adeqiets storage Smy som earquiate to es )fRC. ., anpash'7 l$rengh 158. f, -
"If rerecitan "Absolehty est,"Owne shot hadt.
Debs's pntcy **wenkt entrendes era he ese=gof 42w MsOutrepoets Es assed that he lo!d the worture
==rhed (by earty see met ytoe it was their h Itw sh esa d at such materials se ISof t, and given a ladersl eepeeltary e
ear put' e reeds t se, etense Diske en- rece#vtag tmd, a shedd est he mey andd a contact the NMC, med he
' rtaatma " to asW. men tesse me samar.'emies's pheme p.1: :e eritty enweke t!Iree re. secessary the future to . -
ensbar was posted at me Cateste - ,f actra at tis Ounes f. ant is north- Feel eran assostre to osta Off".h anid. see. westers 8 C., eand tv s remevre et the owes turned aside the angresesse , At Co'swbe. em>gste storage posts . 3;,. , Mrcure ptarit se take Nrman, abesid ;teelde adsgsate space ears was faer af rerriaals asseng -' ' ' nort.hreat af Chartethe The cura *- the kspettere. 31 ef whom mm lesah par,, hopes to bagvi operst:44 aus thrweSh the year mse line rerseMed Fy at the heariads sheet their ' Se i a see casevbe p4ars mest is daar and en unste is nepped trean ytyrneses. ,
. , , . .g roer. with darW r* enat Mo' 3 er.Ser please, Gresh said.
' "I intna u*e esear h ew peaey artiet.).d for leef. there's se ra netwe As of mem The saatammes et aWpm==8 plans pocpe stW wars ter as " he saat ',~ . ,
s W g
Attachment 5 39710 Feder:I Register / V:1. 48. N2.149 / Tuesdiy, August 4,1981/ N tices NUCLEAR REGULATORY Wa shington. D.C. In its review of applications for COMMISSION A request for a hearing or a petition license to export production or for lesve to intervene may be filed on or utilization facilities, special nuclear Appilcations for Ucenses to Esport/ material or source material, noticed ' before September 3.1981. Any reques't import Nuclear Facilities or Materials for hearing or petition for lease to herein, the Commission does not Pursuant to 10 CFR 110Jo(b)"Public intervene shall be served by the evaluate the health. safety or Notice cf Riccipt of an application." requester or petitioner upon the environmental effects in the recipient p! case take notice that the Nuclemr applicant, the Executive Legal Director. "# " the facility or material to be Regulatnr3 Commission hs recrised the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. d' following applications for export / import Washington. D.C. 20555, the Secretary. Dated this 2sth day of July 1981. at, licenses. A copy of exh application is U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 'd * # ** I*"d-on file in the Nui tcar Regulatury and the Executive Secretary. N h %hdWam hwon. James R. Shea, Commissinn's Public Document Runm Department of State. Washington. D C. - located .et 1717 ll Slrect. N.W.. Director. Office ofinternationalPrograms. f i
, 20420.
Waierel m 6doyasie 8' # 8# # O'[ Watagl type
*~
y ~~'y , (sh Casiyy Of deBAftakaa _ . ..___.__."'""__E'**' __ cm,o,. .e c- ., ewooeaa c 93 3 p. -owd w.m w. Oie e so rom o, caa., ae. neacio, amarwies Jure 29 1999 My 6 ' 9e ' o,eec. 5%Ar'ses ' f.ar.eewcaar My le 194' My i$ 19e1 3 e parcevit erireed wa%m .. *1 640 EsNWC1646eQ) '63 23 Reaoed ease lar Gee 98'ommen s.9restatus essgA>stm ansemater a l My le 99.I Me 79 3 2s perceae enncried warmwie 20 900 ee0 sta t Isr W0ied9 Rowere reanad ser De urus 2 Jassem t it.mapgre imemet.oast My 94 19 1 My I' Ies prMeat 98 treed wommssel- 13 056 .
. Iest asNW0teSO 373l Souwie resoed Iar rakahame Lwus f ~ De na wie v.orm u, i4 iwi u, si a es pe eem enrowd wan.wa t90t. asNW0teit 20 s's ses ' nauwe eveoad is naaame ure 3 __ _. _ _ os uWhdutrh lait **LatioPal My se '9e1 Jha89 II I 8s p*'Ceal e"I'@ed waasuset *0 rea 764 99ea ssNane*.s mowwie reeoad is Wearria ure I os na a ,. e e isoenas u , i4 ties us si 3:s ps.:n need wanun . is 63 er6 Stei. asNuC'ess neare meioed ear cro uw a _ _ _ os naema. ore emerealenal My to 13st JWfy 29 Ies perCaal enreed WWture . 20 sie ses meetsie ewioed its see, vie uns 3 tees, asNa40sess s os Bareyngasar My 20. 19et My 21. 9989. Os e6 percere erviC'ed warmse se13s IsMd0teSs to soo Fuse Ier eie Jarme 3 Reseecsi Aeatser .. _ Inamese femurtoner My 24 99e' My 24. 19e
- rF 1 pertere careed wasta I1 349 usteaD699iO6177 9 e Fst ersemed Fuse sur Aespecetting at $A00 . _ Fqen sesen Aarca te,. neemmeam u ,si i9ei M ,si two a as perceu need were.re - t esO es un and vo. mar e,dcason and omw is uo 7,em s. eden esNue '.O t a. . - . . _ - . - . _ - - - - .
' adeneus .
parw ei. m ,we.. us t suuseo coot rise.41.as IDocket So-255-SPI other materials shall be filed with the published in the Federal Resister (37 FR Board in accordance with 10 CFR 2.701 38710) and 2.105. 2J00. 2.702. 2.714. Consumers Power Co. (Patisades Nuc! ear Power Faculty); Reconstitution (1980). The address of the new Board 2.714a. 2.717 and 2.721 of the d had member is: Dr. Jerry Kline. Atomic Commission's Regulations, all as Safety and Licensing Board Panel. U.S. amended, an Atomic Safety and Pursurnt to the authonty contained in Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Licensing Board is being established in to CFR 2.721 (1980), the Atomic Safety Washington, D.C. 20555. the following proceeding to rule on end Licensing Board for Consumers Power Company (Palisades Nuclear Issued at Bethesda M.irt l and this Omh day petitions for leave to intervene and/or or gety igen, requests for hearing and to preside over ifowsr Fccility). Docket No. So-235-SP. B. Paul Cotter. lt the proceeding in the event that a ' 4 is hir:by reconstituted by appointing hearing is ordered: th2 fallowing Admmistrative judge to chier.4dministrarii e A..re tronur sorbr> , undlicensing Board Amel. Dde Power Company. et al Cataw% ' the Board: Dr. Jerry R. Kline. Dr. lohn R. s.
's .
!amtrsh, who was a member of this ,,,,,,,g,,,y wi.. ., w,on, units 1 and 2.
,,g,,,, een, y,s , Construrtiun Permit Nos. CPPR.116 af*d Board. is deceased. ,
cPPR.it7 .- As r: constituted. the Board is '
! Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414) This Board is being constituted dmi st a ive u es Duke Power Co.eet at; Establishment pur:,uant to a notice published by the Elinbeth S. Bowers. Chairman Dr. Petir A. Morris of Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board. Commission on june 25,1981, in the To Preside in Proceeding Federal Register (46 FR 32974-75)
;,, y, -
Dr. J:rry R. Kline Pursuant to delegation by the All correspondence. documents and Commission dated December 29.19*2. , ' ; G/.4 e - '
- a. . -
e O
i 1 Federal Regisler / Vol. 46. No.149 / Tuesday. August 4,1981/ Notices 39711 entitled. " Duke Power Co et al.: Notice CFR Chapter L which are set forth in the of Receipt of Application for Facility license amendment. Notice of Proposed Operating Ucenses: Availability of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Applicants' Environmental Report: Operating Ucense in connection with Consideration ofIssuance of Facility item 1. above, was published in the Operating Ucenses: and Notice of Federal Register on March 28.1979 (44 Opportunity for Hearing." FR 18566). No request for a hearing or ne Board is comprised of the petition for leave to intervene was filed following Administratise Judges: following this notice of proposed action. James L Kelley, Chairman. Atomic Prior public notice ofItem 2 was not Safety and ucensing Board Panel required since it does not involve a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. significant hazards consideration. Washington. D.C. 20555 De Commission has prepared an Dr. Dixon Callihan. Union Carbide Enviromental !mpact Appraisal for the Corporation. P.O. Box Y. Oak Ridge. Power increase and has concluded that Tennessee 37830 an environmentalimpact statement is . i Dr. Richard F. Foster. P.O. Box 4283. not warranted because there will be no Sunriver. Oregon 97701 environmentalimpact attributed to this issued at Bethesda. Maryland. this 28th day action other than that which has already of July. test ~ been predicted and described in the Commission's Final Environmental (Ad n7s'ttireludge. Atomiesafety
*k***' '*'
I* #U* 'Y
*" #"###"#### 8#* # "'A im uw. simam ma wt a ss ..)
For further details with respect to this
'""'"****'"d" action. see (1) the applications for amendment dated November 29.1978.
February 28.1979. November 20.1979, IDocket peo. 50-302) and July 9.1961. and supplemental filings. (2) Amendment No. 41 to Ucense Florida Power Corp., et at; Issuance of No. DPR-72. (3) Advisory Committee on Amendment to Facility Operating Reactor Safeguards letter dated May 13. Licones and Negative Declaration 1981, and (4)(the Commission's related De U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Safety Evaluation / Environmental Commission (the Commission) has impact Appraisal. Allof thesellema are issued Amendment No. 41 to facility . available for public inspection at the Operating Ucense No. DPR-72. Issued to Commission's Public Document Room, the Florida Power Corporation. City of 1717 H Street. N.W., Washington. D C. Alachua. City of Bushnell. City of and at the Crystal River Public Ubrary. Cainesville. City of Kissimmee. City of 668 N.W. First Avenue. Cri stal River. Leesburg. City of New Smyrna Beach Florida. A copy ofitems (2) and (31 may
' and Utilities Commission. City of New be obtained upon request addressed to Smyrna Beach. City of Ocala. Orlando the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Utilities Commission and City of Commis sion. Wa shington, D.C. 20555.
Orlando. Sebring Utilities Commission. A.Itention: Director. Division of - Seminole Electric C00peratise. Inc and ucens ng. the City of Tallahassee (the licensees) Dated at Beihesda. Maryland. ihis 21st day which revised the license and Technical of lutv 1981. Specifications (TSs) for operation for the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. , Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear John F. stein. Generating Plant (the facility) located in c3,d opcmims hoctors amnch No. 4. Citrus County. Florida. The amendrnent on,sjon of t., censing. is effective as of the date ofissuance. irm rw si.= a r.wa me us i This amendment:(1l authorizes the ous,a coos tw a. facility power level to be increased from
~
~
2452 MWt to 2544 MWt. and (2) corrects a typographical error on TS page % IDocket Isos. 56424 and 504251 3-4. De applications for the amendment Power Co.A at Issuance of comply with the standards and Amendments to Construction Permits requirements of the Atomic Energy Act The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory of1954, as amended (the Act). and the Commission (the Commission) han Commission's rules and regulations. The issued Amendment No. 2 to Commission has made appropriate Construction Permit No. CPPR-108 and findings as required by the Act and the Amendment No. 2 to Construction Commission's rules and regulatinns in in Permit No. CPPR-los. ne amendment n-
, c.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD ' In the Matter of ) 00CHEye
) USNRC DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al . ) Docket Nos. 50-413
) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, ) %3 gy 20 A9:5 Units 1 and 2) }
hkg S 1A b > BRANCH N CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Memorandum of Duke Power Co., et al. Responding to April 25, 1985 Order of Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board" in the above captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 17th day of May 1985: Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 George E. Johnson, Esq. Thomas S. Moore Office of the Executive Legal Administrative Judge Director Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Wa shington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Albert V. Carr, Jr., Esq. Duke Power Company Howard A. Wilber P.O. Box 33189 Administrative Judge Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Richard P. Wilson, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission State of South Carolina Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 11549 Columbia, South Carolina 29211
- u. .. .. w ;- - . - - -
~
n 'r 3 w.y 5
$ ,=1 4 Robert Guild,4Esq.
Chairman . Atomic Safety,and Licensing ', Attorney-at-Law Box 12097 Board Panel . < P.O. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory , Charleston, South Carolina ,29412 Commission ~ Washington,-D.C. 205'55 Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
- Palmetto Alliance- Commission '
'q 2135 1/2 Devine -Street - - Nashington, D .C.
20555 Columbia, South Carolina 29205 Don [N. Willard. N Jesse L. Riley Mecklenburg County -s 854 Henley Place Department of Environmental-Charlotte, N.C. 28207. s v Health 1200 Blythe Boulevard Karen E. Long, Esq. ,lCharlotte, North Carolina 28203 Assistant Attorney General e
.N.C. Department of Just ice Bradley Jones, Esq.
. Post' Office Box 629 Regional Counsel, Re"gion II Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory
+
~
Commission s ,, W
,ashington, D.C. 20555
~
s a.fhukatL J. MichaelMcGarry,Jrg/
~
D Atm G x b YU
'k s
D % L
,J L
'T ^
s
*4 4
I _ , _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . . _ , , _ . .._ -.}}