ML20138K429

Notifies That on 851121,ASLAB Issued Decision Affirming Previous ASLB Decision Permitting Storage of Spent Fuel.Fes Re Operation Prepared by NRR & Submitted on 830110

ML20138K429
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	12/12/1985
From:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Hirsch A ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
References
NUDOCS 8512180431
Download: ML20138K429 (4)

Text

r Docket Nos.: 50-413 and 50-414 DEC 12 1985 Mr. Allen Hirsch, Director Offica of Federal Activities U. S. Environmental Protection Agency l

Room 2119m (A-104) 400 M Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C.

20460

Dear Mr. Hirsch:

On November 21, 1985, the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board designated to preside in the proceeding involving the application of Duke Power Company, et.al., for operating licenses for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, issued a Decision affirming a previous decision of the Atomic Safety and Li-censing Board which permits the storage at Catawba of spent-fuel generated at Duke Power Company's Oconee and McGuire nuclear facilities.

A Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of the Station was prepared by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and was transmitted to you under cover of a letter dated January 10, 1983.

Sincerely, CEIGINAL SIG GD B'll B. J. Youngblood, Director PWR Project Directorate #4 Division of PWR Licensing-A

Enclosure:

Decision cc w/ enclosure:

See next page DISTRIBUTION:

EMS NRC PDR Local PDR PRC System PWR#4 Rdg MDuncan KJabbour OELD ACRS(10)

JPartlow EJordan i

f BGrimes PWRf4/kWR-A PWRf4 PWR-A PWR#t fhR-A MoukhrtTmac KJabbour BJYot n ti ood 12/jf/85 12/lt,/85 12/f a

8512180431 851212 PDR ADOCK 05000413 A

PDR

~

]

p!. -

DEC 12 1985 i

Mr. Allen Hirsch, Director i

Office of Federal Activities U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Room 2119 M (A-104) 400 M Street, S.W.

Washington, D. C.

20460 cc: Mr. Peter H. Smith Joyce M. Wood Advisory Council on Historic Director, Office of Ecology Preservation and Conservation Old Post Office Building U.S. Department of Commerce -

r 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Room 6800

[

Washington, D. C.

20004 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mr. Peter Smith Washington, D.C.

20230 U.S. Department of Agriculture Room 242W Administration Building Mr. Robert Stern I

14th & Independence Avenue, S.W.

U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D. C.

20250 Room 4G064 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Mr. Joseph R. Binder Washington, D. C.

20585 r

Rural Electrification Administration Room 2859 South Agriculture Building Mr. Lawrence R. Anderson l

Washington, D. C.

20250 Director, Office of Electrical l

Power Regulation Mr. John A. Miranowski, Director Federal Energy Regulatory Comission i

Natural Resources and Economics Room 304 RB j

Division 400 First Street, N.W.

Room 412C-GHI Washington, D. C.

20426 g

U.S. Department of Agriculture r

Washington, D. C.

20250 Mr. Norton Savage Power Supply Planning Branch, n

U.S. Department of Agriculture Room GA-270 Forest Service - Southern Region U.S. Department of Energy 1720 Peachtree Road, N.W.

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Washington, D. C.

20585 y

U.S. Department of Agriculture Mr. John Scheibel Soil Conservation Service Federal Emergency Management 240 Stone Ridge Drive Administration Columbia, South Carolina 29201 500 C Street, S.W. - Room 840 Washington, D. C.

20472 U.S. Army Engineering District, Charleston Mr. Winga Craig P.O. Box 919 Federal Emergency Management Admin.

Charleston, South Carolina 29402 500 C Street, S.W. - Room 506 Washington, D. C.

20472

+,, - -,

e

r?.

}:3.

DEC 12 1985 t

i

-I,,

Mr. Allen Hirsch u,

'i

' cc: Mr. Charles Custard Comissioner for Environmental U.S. Department of Health &

Health and Safety Human-Services Room 537F Humphrey Buildirg South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 200 Independence Avenue, S.W.

2600 Bull Street Washington, D. C.

2020)

Columbia, South Carolina '29201 Health Physics Advisory Office County Manager of York County Food & Dron Administration

York County Courthouse I

Bureau of' Radiological Health (HSX-1)

York, South Carolina 28745 U.S. $partment of Health & Human Services

~

State Clearinghouse 1

5600 Fisiiers Lane Office of the State Auditor

,t Rockville,, Hacyland 20837 P.O. Box 11333

~

'l}

Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Regional Administrator g

Department of Housing and Urban Catawba Regional Planning Council j

Development P.O. Box 862 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.

York Hill, South Carolina 29730 Atlanta, Georgias 30309 Librarian g

~

Mr. Bruce Blarichard, Director Thermal Reactors Safety Group i

i Office of Environmental Project Brookhaven National Laboratory Review Building 130 U.S. Department of the Interior, Upton, New York 11973 i

Room 4256 18th and C Streets, N.W.

Mr. Fred Yost, Manager Washington, D. C.

20240 Research Utility Data Institute 2011 I Street, N.W.

Mr. Joseph Canny Washington, D. C.

20006 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs Directar, Criteria.and Standards U.S. Department of Tran3 porta tion (ANR-460) 400 7th Street, S.W. - Room 9422 Office of Radiation Programs Washington, D. C.

20590 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Capt. Wm. R. Riedel 401 M Street, S.W.

Water Resources Coordinator Washington, D.; C.

20460 W/S 73 U.S.C.G. - Room 1112 U.S. Department of Transportation Director, Office of Radiation 2100 Second Street, S.W.

Programs Washington, D. C.

20590 Las Vegas Facility J

i U.S. Environmental Protection Secretarial Representative Agency U.S. Department of Transportation P.O. Box 18416 Su'ita 515 Las Vegas, Nevada ~ 89114 1720 Peachtree Pnad, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30S09 P

I i

j

,g,

.Q,. y-+,

...~v._,

,_w e,

y

g-

- i,-

f Mr. Allen Hirsch DEC 121985 cc: Director, Eastern Environmental Manager, Eng. & Economic Analysis Radiation Facility Hanford Eng. Development Lab.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Westinghouse Hanford Company P.O. Box 3009 Box 1970 Montgomery, Alabama 36193 Richland, Washington 99352 EIS Review Coordinator Mrs. Ann W. Rudolph Environmental Protection Agency Battelle Columbus Laboratories Region IV 505 King Avenue i

345 Courtland Street Columbus, Ohio 43201 Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Dr. H. E. Zittel Mr. Jerry Stegman Environmental Statement Project t

Department of the Interior Oak Ridge National Laboratory i

Room 2543A P.O. Box X 18th and C Streets, N.W.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D. C.

20240 i

H. Todosow

(

Mr. J. R. Buchanan Brookhaven National Laboratory Assistant Director, NSIC Building 130 a

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Upton, New York 11973 t

P.O. Box Y I

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Professor H. Paul Friesema e

Northwestern University College of Arts & Sciences Evanston, Illinois 60201 Dr. Robert Braid, Group Leader Social Impact Analysis Group Building 4500N Mail Stop G-22 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Mr. S. I. Auerbach Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O. Box X Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Philip F. Gustafson, Manager Environmental Statement Project Argonne National Laboratory 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Bldg. 11 Argonne, Illinois 60439 g

a-mm---w,am.%

.*,e-4,e m, fea-wr--

s.-

e+=-),

c f

'l

), -

' r5C A

L UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI3SION

'85 NN 21 P2 :18 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD tr+.:.:...

Administrative Judges:

$NC Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman November 21, 1985 l

Thomas S. Moore (ALAB-825)

Howard A. Wilber SERVED NOV 2I1985

)

In the Matter of

)

I

)

i DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.

)

Docket Nos. 50-413 OL

~-

l

)

50-414 OL l

(Catawba Nuclear Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

I I

Robert Guild, Columbia, South Carolina, for the intervenors Palmetto Alliance and Carolina Environmental Study Grcup.

f J. Michael McGarry, III, Washington, D.C.i(with whom Anne W. Cottingham and Mark S. Calvert, Washington, f'

D.C.,

and Albert V.

Carr, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina, were on the brief), for the applicants Duke

[

Power Company, et al.

George E. Johnson for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.

,s DECISION i

?

In ALAB-813,1 we decided the censolidated appeals of intervenors Palmetto Alliance and Carolina Environmental s

l Study? Group from a series of Licensing Board decisions, the last of which authorized full power operating licenses for

(

'\\

l' f

s 22 NRC 59 (1985).

)

DR

.3.30 2.

4 I

1 J

2 i

'I the two-unit Catawba Nuclear Station owned by Duke Power

!I Company, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1, North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation and Saluda River Electric Cooperative.

Although we affirmed the major

.k portion of the Licensing Board's license authorization, we deferred all questions pertaining to a small part of the authorization permitting the applicants to receive and store L

at Catawba spent fuel generated at Duke Power Company's Oconee and McGuire nuclear power facilities.

We now f

address those questions and affirm the remainder of the v

[

Licensing Board's full power license authorization.

)

'l I.

)

This proceeding was instituted with the publication of f

-l tra customary notice of opportunity for hearing indicating

((

that the Commission had received an operating license application pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 "to possess, use and operate" the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.3 In addition to the conventional information concerning the procedures for intervening in the proceeding, the notice closed with the usual statement that the license application on file in the agency's varioes public document rooms should be consulted "[f}or further details pertinent to the matters 2 Id. at 64, 86-87.

3 42 Fed. Reg. 32,974 (1981).

1

II t.-

t t

i 3

}

under consideration."4 The Commission's published notice i

said nothing about the possible utilization of the Catawba j

facility as a repository for spent fuel generated at other ii nuclear power plants.

The application referenced in the notice stated, however, that 5

[t]he 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, i

Applicants further request such additional source, l

special nuclear, and by-product material licenses as may be necessary or appropriate to the f

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 stora available.ge as one of the alternatives In response to the Commission's notice, both Palmetto I

l Alliance and Carolina Environmental Study Group filed petitions to intervene and proffered contentions aimed at, inter alia, the fuel storage proposal contained in the l

license application.6 The Licensing Board admitted both 4

Id. at 32,975.

5 Duke Power Company, Catawba Nuclear Station License Application (Mar. 31, 1981), Volume 1-at 11-12.

After the intervenors' petitions to intervene were filed, the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (acting pursuant to the standing delegation of authority contained in the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R.

S 2.714) established a Licensing Board to rule on the petitions and preside over any (Footnote Continued)

T 4

t.'

F i

4 i

intervenors as parties to the operating license proceeding, I

but, in initially considering the admissibility of the.

t intervenors' contentions concerning the fuel storage i

proposal, the Board questioned whether it had jurisdiction f

I over that subject matter.

Asserting that its jurisdiction "is normally established by the notice of opportunity for hearing" and that here the notice did not mention the fuel storage proposal, the Licensing Board sought the parties' views on the issue.7 After receiving them, the Board I

concluded, without elaboration, that it "must consider the i

I environmental impacts associated with [ spent fuell transport to, and storage at Catawba. 8 As pertinent to the issues now before us, the Licensing Board then rejected for various f

reasons most of the intervenors' contentions regarding the applicants' spent fuel proposal.

On appeal, the intervenors purport to challenge the i

Licensing Board's rejection of certain of their contentions r

l concerning the applicants' spent fuel proposal.

Because i

j they sought to contest the applicants' plan, the intervenors

~

(Footnote Continued) operating license proceeding.

See 46 Fed. Reg. 39,710 (1981).

Other than naming the members of the Licensing Board, this notice only referred to the Commissi~on's previous notice of opportunity for hearing.

LBP-82-16, 15 NRC 566, 580 (1982).

8 LBP-82-51, 16 NRC 167, 171 (1982).

s

_7-

_ -. ~ - -

- - - - - ~

i t..

i 1

5 i

understandably did not dispute the Licensing Board's assertion of jurisdiction over the portion of the license application containing the spent fuel proposal.

We, on the other hand, raised the issue of the power of the Licensing Board to consider the intervenors' spent fuel contentions at oral argument of the intervenors' appeal. Because the issue i

{

of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, we

~

questioned (for much the same reason originally asserted by 1

f the Board below) that Board's naked conclusion that it had authority over the spent fuel portion of the license j

application.

Accordingly, we invited the parties to brief the jurisdictional issue.

{

In response, the applicants and the NRC staff assert that the Licensing Board properly exercised jurisdiction over the spent fuel proposal.

They also argue that the f

Board properly rejected the intervenors' related l

contentions.

The intervenors, in ef fect, now argue alternatively that the applicants' spent fuel plan was beyond the jurisdiction of the Licensing Board, but that, in any event, the Board erred in rejecting their contentions.

II.

Although it failed to articulate the rationale for its conclusions, the Licensing Board was correct in asserting jurisdiction over the spent fuel proposal contained in the operating license application.

This being the case, the Board properly could, as it did, determine whether the

g 4.-

]'

?

6 l

6 i

intervenors' spent fuel proposal contentions were admissible.

t Adjudicatory boards do not have plenary subject matter jurisdiction in Commission proceedings.'

Under the Atomic

'lj Energy Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is empowered 10

'h to administer the licensing provisions of the Act and use I

licensing boards "to conduct such hearings as the Commission may direct."II The boards, therefore, are delegates of the Commission and, as such, they may exercise authority over only those matters that the Commission enmmits to them.12 I3 f

The various hearing notices are the means by which the i

i t

i 9 See Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-739, 18 NRC 335, 339 (1983).

0 4

42 U.S.C. SS 2132, 2133.

The Atomic Energy t'

Commission was abolished and its regulatory functions were transferred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the

{

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. S 5841(f) &

~

(g).

11 42 U.S.C. S 2241.

12 See Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2,

3 and 4), ALAB-577, 11 NRC 18, 25 (1980); Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), ALAB-249, 8 AEC 980, 987 (1974).

See 10 C.F.R. S 2.700.

i r-

l Pf:

t,.

.... - -.......-._.. 3....,.........

i-t l

I f

7 i

}

Commission identifies the subject matters of the hearings i

and delegates to the boards the authority to conduct l

proceedings.14 l

6 I

our decisions make clear that licensing boards

)

{

generally "can neither enlarge nor contract the jurisdiction conferred by the Commission. 15 For example, in Marble

[

Hill,16 we faced the question whether a notice of opportunity for hearing on a construction permit application gave the Licensing Board jurisdiction to consider an intervention petition seeking to raise antitrust issues L

where the Commission previously had issued a notice of n

hearing on the antitrust aspects of the application.

In

[

affirming the Licensing Board's determination that it lacked I

jurisdiction, we held that the Board correctly turned to the Commission's hearing notices to ascertain its subject matter jurisdiction, and that the Board had no discretion to alter.

I 14 See Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units Nos. 1 and 2), CLI-76-1, 3 NRC i

. 73, 74 n.1 (1976).

15 Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-235, 8 AEC 645, 647 (1974).

16

~

Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167 (1976).

1

-w uw *r

-..4,

=.

ese

.+..

__.______._m__._

g l.-

t*

1 1

l 8

this delegated authority absent Commission approval.17 f

Thereafter, in Trojan,18 the issue of the Licensing Board's

{

jurisdiction arose in a special proceeding involving the f

question of the interim operation of the facility where the f

r notice initiating the hearing spelled out the issues to be l

}

heard. We agreed with the Licensing Board's conclusion that 7

it lacked jurisdiction over certain issues proffered by the intervenors because the " issues manifestly (were] beyond the

't bounds of the issues identified in the notice of hearing which triggered this special proceeding."I9 In so holding, we relied upon Marble 11111 as a precedent of general applicab.4lity and characterized that decision as " squarely

^

t hold [ing] that a licensing board does not have the power to j

explore matters beyond those which are embraced by the notice of hearing for the particular proceeding."20 i

Finally, in Zion,21 we had occasion in an operating license a

9 l

amendment proceeding concerning the modification of a spent

't

'}

fuel pool to state, in a somewhat different context, that 1

.he Licensing Board's " jurisdiction was limited by the 4

i I

d. at 170-71..

18 Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287 (1979).

19

d. at 289 n.6.

20 Id.

Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-616, 12 NRC 419 (1980).

(T h_'..

9

-i t

i Commission's notice of hearing" and that its " jurisdiction

{

extended only to issues fairly raised by the application to j

modify the spent fuel pool, the sole matter which the Commission had placed before it. 22 Unlike the hearing notice in the special Trojan 1

proceeding that specified the issues for hearing, the notice j

of opportunity for hearing on the Catawba operating license l

application followed the Commission's customary practice for It such notices and was very general.

As pertinent here, the notice referenced only the application to possess, use and operate the two Catawba units and stated that the i

application should be consulted for further details.

By t

employing a broad announcement without specifying any I

limitations, the Commission delegated to the Catawba Licensing Board authority over all portions of the license f-application in the event of an operating license proceeding; L

the application ^itself therefore set the bounds of the Licensing Board's jurisdiction.

The fact that the hearing i

notice did not specifically identify the applicants' spent fuel proposal, or any other particular feature of the application, is irrelevant to the question of the Licensing Board's subject matter jurisdiction because the Commission's

'2 Id. at 426.

See also Point Beach, 18 !!RC at 339.

.~

y y

-w og-e eyw<

4,apr m -.% =-,, e + w g, ry -.a egw t,-g g w -yey yg ye, g

• g%

tg.gg, te r we 99.

• p,-,

~+g yvw+y-w- - -

y4-

-< a e-y-.

i, q.-

p 3

l 10 delegation of authority to the Licensing Board in the i

hearing notice necessarily covered the entire operating f

license application.23 All matters properly included as

.f part of an operating license application pursuant to the 1

commission's regulations thus fell within the jurisdiction

[

of the Licensing Board.

Moreover, the Commission's regulations, 10 C.F.R. Part 50, do not prohibit the type of spent fuel proposal contained in the applicants' application.

Indeed, in the statement of basis and purpose accompanying the Commission's

-f I

23 Because the intervenors sought to challenge the

. t applicants' spent fuel proposal in their proffered

}

contentions (and on appeal did not raise any questions concerning the notice) and we raised only the question of the Licensing Board's jurisdiction to consider the spent fuel portion of the license application, we leave for another day any questions concerning the adequacy of the Commission's hearing notice under the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.

S 2239, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

S 554, and the Commission's regulations, 10 C.F.R. S 2.105.

-3 For example, 10 C.F.R.

S 2.105 (b) (1) states, inter alia, i

that the notice of opportunity for hearing on an operating license application set forth the " nature of the action proposed."

One substantial question is whether that section requires something more in a notice than a simple statement to consult the license application for further information when the noticed application, in addition to seeking authority "to possess, use and operate" a nuclear power plant, also seeks authority for a second activity that is clearly nonintegral and coincidental to the operation of the plant (such as receiving and storing spent fuel generated at other facilities).

Regardless of what 10 C.F.R.

S 2.105 (b) (1) requires, however, explicit mention in the notice of opportunity for hearing of such nonintegral activities clearly would be advisable in the future so that the notice may fully serve its intended purpose.

I

[.-

v 11 i

rule setting forth requirements for the storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation, 10 C.F.R. Part 72, the Commission indicated that proposals such l

as that contained in the Catawba application that do not l

qualify as independent storage installations should be licensed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.24 Consequently, the i

[

applicants' spent fuel proposal was properly included within

(

their operating license application, and the Licensing

[

}

Board's jurisdiction encompassed that proposal as well as I

the intervenors' contentions directly challenging the l

applicants' spent fuel plan.

III.

e i

On appeal, the intervenors claim that the Licensing I

Board erred in rejecting their " environmental contentions which sought to require thorough environmental impact analys[e]s of the costs and benefits, as well as the consideration of more environmentally-sound alternatives" to the applicants' transshipment proposal.25 They assert that the lower Board incorrectly relied upon the Commission's generic determination of insignificant environmental impacts contained in Table S-4,

" Environmental Impact of 4

~

45 Fed. Reg. 74,693, 74,698 (1980).

25 Brief of Appellants Palmetto Alliance and Carolina Environmental Study Group (Jan.

9, 1985) at 69.

l

.(

i

[."

kL l

[-

{

12 h-i Transportation of Fuel and Waste To and From One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor," 10 C.F.R. S,51.20 6

e l-(1984).

They argue that the S-4 Table applies only to the shipment of irradiated fuel from a reactor to a reprocessing plant, not from one reactor to another.

..ll But the intervenors have failed to identify which L

,J specific contention was wrongly rejected and which Licensing

!(

Board ruling was incorrect. Over the course of the operating license proceeding, they filed a number of similar contentions all aimed at the applicants' spent fuel proposal.26 Moreover, the licensing Board dealt with all of r

them in a number of different rulings.27 Consequently, like so many of the intervenors' arguments in ALAB-813 their I

argument here suffers from a lack of proper briefing.28 i

Once again the intervenors have not fulfilled their I

obligation under the Rules of Practice " clearly [to]

identify the errors of fact or law that are the subject of the appeal" and, "[f]or each issue appealed, [to identify]

g

>t I

26 See CESG's Contentions (Dec. 9, 1981); Palmetto Alliance Supplement to Petition to Intervene (Dec. 9, 1981);

~

Palmetto Alliance and Carolina Environmental Study Group Supplement to Petitions to Intervene Regarding Draft Environmental Statement (Sept. 22, 1982).

See LBP-82-16,-15 NRC at 578-81; LBP-82-51, 16 NRC at 171-72; LBP-83-88, 17 NRC 291 '(1983).

28 See ALAB-813, 22 NRC at 66 n.16, 71, 84 n.128.

U J

7

[.-

?-

i h

s 13 i

the precise portion of the record relied upon in support of t

the assertion of error."29 For this reason their argument fails.

Nevertheless, as best we can determine, it appears that the intervenors intend to challenge the Licensing Board's rejection of combined contention 19.30 If that is

,f f-the case, their protest is without substance.

t One part of the intervenors' contention 19 questioned 4

4

{

the environmental costs and benefits of the applicants' 1

I transshipment proposal and sought an examination of the I

alternatives to it.

In rejecting the contention, the Licensing Board found that the intervenors' challenge was an l

.. impermissible attack on_the Commission's regulations, specifically Table S-4.31 That ruling and the Board's I

supporting reasoning is generally correct.

We need only add that the intervenors' sole argument before us (i.e., Table L.

S-4 is inapplicable to the transport of spent fuel from one reactor to another because 10 C.F.R.- S 51.20 (g) (1) (1984) speaks of the spent fuel being shipped to a reprocessing

.I c

29 i

10 C.F.R. S 2.762 (d) (1).

See Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-719, 17 NRC 387, 395 (1983); Pennsylvania Power and Light Co.

(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-693, 16 NRC 952, 954-56 (1982); Consumers Power Co.

l (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-270, 1 NRC 473, 476 (1975).

30 See LBP-83-8B, 17 NRC 291 (1983).

Idl. at 294.

1 I-I l

5.-

+

y.

It I

t t

4 14 I

[

plant) is unavailing.

As the Licensing Board indicated in i

l rejecting another of the intervenors' contentions, the Commission's generic determination of transportation impacts

<L in the regulation is equally applicable to the transshipment of spent fuel between reactors as well as to a hypothetical f

reprocessing facility because it is the same fuel regardless of destination.32 Even if the intervenors' literal reading of the regulation were accepted, however, the Licensing Board's t

result would not change.

First, the intervenors have not y

challenged the Board's alternative determination that the contention lacked specificity.33 More important, subsequent t

to the Licensing Board's decision, the Commission's

,f regulation was amended to delete all reference to a reprocessing facility.34 Hence, there no longer can be any basis for arguing that Table S-4 does not apply to the transshipment of spent fuel from one reactor to another.

f Because we are required to apply the regulations in effect at the time of the appeal,35 the amended regulation is f

i i

f 2 LBP-82-16, 15 NRC at 579 (1982).

See LBP-83-8B, 17 NRC at 295.

34 See 49 Fed. Reg. 9352, 9389-90 (1984).

The i

substance of 10 C.F.R. S 51.20 (g) (1) is now codified in 10 C.F.R. S 50.52 (1985).

ALAB-813, 22 NRC at 86.

,.4-. +

fggy ye

• MgyemieirgeW P-

• e.

ry ggy,ap g,

emw -

+-+w

'-d-

+%me---m-g--ewwww h wi

l.

i 15 t

1 F

I controlling and the intervenors' semantic argument is now r

moot.

I For the foregoing reasons, therefore, we affirm the I

{

remaining part of the Licensing Board's operating license f

authorization that permits the applicants to receive and i

store at Catawba spent fuel generated at Duke Power Company's Oconee and McGuire nuclear power facilities.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD t,

&M-- %N km t

C. @n SIToemaker-Secrdtary to the Appeal Board P

1 i

E' Gm I

+