ML20150E313

Responds to Re Concern About DPC Proposal to Transport Spent Nuc Fuel from Oconee Nuc Facil Located in Sc for Storage in Spent Fuel Pool at McGuire Nuc Facil, Charlotte,Nc.Issue Will Be Heard Before ASLB

ML20150E313
Person / Time
Site:	07002623
Issue date:	11/21/1978
From:	Ketchen E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Ervin L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20150E316	List: ML20150E313 ML20150E318
References
NUDOCS 7812130075
Download: ML20150E313 (2)

Text

- - - - _ _ _ _ _ - . -

MfM b UNIT ED STATES

[W .,/k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING TON, D. C. 20555

$ ..I.hd h  %

• n November 21, 1978

• • • e 4!f^ . , 9 6\

d' .@'

Ms. Louise G. Ervin V

Box 456 Honea Path, South Carolina 29622 W d e[/b _~ 0 In the Matter of $h* dV[ #

cp DUKE POWER COMPANY e, (Amendment to Materials License -

SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station) ~~

Docket No. 70-2623

Dear Ms. Ervin:

Thank you for your letter which we received on November 9,1978. It has been forwarded to me for reply. In your letter, you expressed concern about the Duke Power Company proposal to transport spent nuclear fuel from the Oconee nuclear facility located in South Carolina for storage in the spent fuel pool located at the McGuire nuclear facility in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The material consisting of three-hundred spent fuel assemblies would be transported from the Oconee nuclear facility to Charlotte, North Carolina. Duke plans to shiri on the order of one spent fuel assembly per day in a spent fuel cask certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to meet the U. S. Department of Transportation regulatory criteria for such material. The U. S. Department of Transportation regulations permit shipment of spent fuel over ordinary transportation routes if the material is transported in certified shipping containers (i.e., spent fuel casks).

Transportation )f the Oconee spent nuclear fuel for storage at the McGuire Unit i spent fuel pool has been formerly admitted as an issue in administrative proceedings to be conducted by a U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board pursuant to 10 CFR Part 2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice. Three organizations who have fonnerly intervened in those proceedings have raised t'ie issue that concerns you. Any health and safety matters relative to persons located near the transportation routes and environmental effects, if any, will be considered as an issue in the adjudicatory proceedirg held before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. As necessary, it will determine what further requirements, if a'ny, should be imposed to insure protection of the public health and safety and the environment.

By copy of this letter, I am transmitting a copy of your letter to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board with the request that the Board consider your letter as a written limited appearance statement. Under the procedures 781213o0 75

l set forth in the Commission's Rules of Practice,10 CFR Part, Section 2.715(a),

an opportunity is provided for persons to express views on a proposed action. When a hearing is held, the limited arpearance procedure set forth by 10 CFR 62.715(a) allows persons who e not formal parties to the proceedings to make oral or written limited appearances to state positions on the issues under such conditions as may be esteSlished by the presiding officer. If you have further comments you wis.1 to make, you may request the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for an opportunity to make them, either in written or oral form, at the forthcoming hcarings to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina. A specific date for those hearings has not yet been established, although one is expected to be held within the next several months. It is the usual practice for the Commission to contact those who have indicated an interest in making a limited appearance as to the time and dete when hearings are scheduled. Limited appearances are ordinarily scheduled on the first day of the hearings.

In order to assure that your comments are fully considered, I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the project manager who is handling the review of the proposed action for the NRC Staff.

If you have further questions concerning the status of this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (301) 492-7502 or Mr. Richard K.

Hoeflirg at (301) 492-7520.

Sincerely,

/ ,[ ;TI e ,; _ f...v

.) . / 9 q , ]x, N Edward G. Ketchen Counsel for NRC Staff cc (w/ letter from Ms. Ervin rec'd 11/9/78):

Robert M. Lazo, Esq.

A Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke W. L. Porter, Esq.

Ms. Brenda Best Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

Mr. Jeremy Bloch Shelley Blum, Esq.

J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.

Mr. Charles Gaddy Richard P. Wilson, Esq.

Mr. Jesse L. Riley Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel