Responds to util's interrogatories.Affidavits of TB ...

, ,yi - .

,

DTC"PL*P& rpm)3g 2

h -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

-

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (.. L'

'%/.

sIn The Matter Of )

)DUKE PCWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 70-2623

)(Amendment to Materials License ,SNM-1773 )for Oconee Nuclear Station Spent Fuel )Transportation and Storage at McGuire )Nuclear Station) )

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL ANSWERSTO APPLICANT'S INTERROGATORIES

-..

.

1. No decision has been made on the extent or

nature of our participation at an evidentiary hearing.

2. Yes. "NRDC Findings on the Alleged Need For

Acquisition or Construction of an Away From Reactor Spent

Fuel Storage Facility," by Dimitri Rotow, March 26, 1979; _

" Analysis of Space Available for Storage of Spent Fuel at

Existing Operating Reactor Sites," NRDC, July 1978; " Nuclear Waste:

Too Much Too Soon," by Thomas B. Cochran and Arthur R. Tamplin.

3. No witnesses have been identified by us.

*

4. No decision has been made.

5. Yes,

a. No. Applicant has a right to file the material.

b. We have not identified erroneous facts.

,-..

7905140cp;"9 'c

s'*

2.

c. Yes. There is no data on protective measures

(Section 17.0) and insufficient data to support the following

conclusions (Duke Power Company, McGuire Nuclear Station,

Information Supporting Storage of Oconee Spent Fuel at

McGuire, March 9, 1978):

Quantities of radioactivity released inairborne and liquid effluent streamswill.be well below applicable criteriaand personnel exposures will be minimal.

. . . .

It is anticioated that any radioactivematerial that is released from the site -

will not affect the health and safety -

of the public. [p. 8-1, emphasis added.]

Duke has considered constructing anindependent spent fuel storage facilitywhich could be built at an existing Dukenuclear site or another site for receiptof spent f.cl beginning in 1983. Thisalternative is currently judged undesirablefor adding fuel storage capability becauseof the large commitment of resources required.(p. 18-1.] _

Storage expansion of the Unit 1 and 2storage pool would also recuire use ofhigh density storage racks. To accomplishthis, all fuel would have to be movedelsewhere, the pool drained and decontam-'

inated, existing racks removed, and newracks installed. Since space for interimstorage of the fuel in the Oconee 1 and 2pool is not available this option is notconsidered viable.

. . . .

If no action is taken by Duke, Oconee Units .

1, 2, and 3 would be forced to shut downduring 1980. This shutdown would be necessarydue to full. spent fuel pools making furtherfuel discharge from the reactors impcasible.The economic penalty for such action isobviously enormous and unacceptable.

.,

,

.' !

3

The cost of replacement power by fossilfuel plants on the Duke system would beseveral hundred thousand dollars per dayin 1980, if the power was available. Ifpurchased outside the Duke system, thecost would be even greater. Therefora,it is considered that ceasing operationof the Oconee reactors due to insufficientspent fuel storage is not in the interestof Duke or its customers. [p. 18-2,emphasis added.]

Further articulation of the specific data we feel is needed

is set forth in our requests for data and admissions to the

Applicant (NRDC Request to Applicant and Staff for Admissions, ._

..

dated April 2, 1979).\

6. No. Object to "if not, .:hy not" on the ground

that it is immaterial to this proceeding.

7. Yes, but we did not attempt to identify each

_

part of it with wh'ich we take exception.

a. No. The Staff has the right to publish what it

wants in an EIA.

b. Facts are facts, they cannot be erroneously stated

or they would not be facts. The problem with the NRC-EIA so

far as " facts" are concerned is not those acts of commission

but those acts of omission.

The principal omission is that the EIA does not consi-c.

der the relevant fact that no AFR exists and that such a facility

would require action on the part of Congress. Such Congressional

action is not certain. Without Congressional action, AFR facili-

ties are highly speculative - with the limited.. exception of the G.E.Morris facility, no private industry wants to store spent fuel.

.

4, ,,

.

Moreover, DOE has stated that AFR does not appear

to represent the best choice for utilities (see DOE /ET-0055,

p. ES-1 and p. 3). In short, by omission, the NRC/EIA does

not assess the preferred alternative to the present action.

. d. See the answer to c above. Any method employed

that does not consider all relevant information is in error,

e. See c above.

f. See c above. Moreover, the EIA presents no evidence

to support the assumption that some mechanism for the management

of spent fuel short of at-reactor-storage will evolve within

the life time of the reactors in questien.

8. Yes, but we did not attempt to identify each part of it

with which we take exception.

a. No. The Staff has the right to publish what it wants

in the ER.

b. Again facts are facts and cannot be erroneously stated

and maintain the status of facts.

c. The principal omission is that the staff has not ade-

quately evaluated the consequences of industrial sabotage. The

shipping casks are vulnerable to the current NRC threat character-

ization for industrial sabotage against nuclear power reactors and

___.facilities handling strategic quantities of SNM, as contained in

10 CFR 73 (See NUREG-0254, p. B-1, 2). This represents a serious

risk because credible threats can cause the release of significant'

quantities of gaseous and volatile fission products and in the more

populated areas can cause serious health consequences and land con-

tamination. The probability that these threats, considered

credible, will be realized is highly uncertain, however, the

NRC and the intelligence community can provide no assurance of

. t 4a.'

deteceion of these threats prior to an attempted malevolent act.

d. The methodology is inadequate because it did not

analyze all the pertinent information.

e. See above answers.

f. 1) Letter of Feb. 2, 1979, from William O. Parker,

Jr., to Harold R. Denton, with Attachment 1, " Proposed Techni-

cal Specification Revision".

2) " Environmental Impact Appraisal Related to Spent

Fuel Storage of Oconee Spent Fuel at McGuire Nuclear Station -

Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool", Docket No. 70-2623, USNRC Dec. 1978.

3) " Generic Environmental Assessment on Transporta-

tion of Radioactive Materials Near or Through a Large Densely

Populated Area", Preliminary Report, Ducharme, et al., SANDIA

Lab., SAND 77-1927.

4) Proposed Final Environmental Statement, Liquid

Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program, WASH-1535, USAEC, Dec. 1974,

Vol. VI, pp. VI. 38-53 through VI. 38-85.

5) " Domestic Safeguards", USNRC, NUREG-0524, Jan. 1979.

6) Letter of April 13, 1978 to Senator John Glenn

from Thomas B. Cochran and enclosures.

7) Numerous documents related to the health effects

of ionizing radiation, in particular those cited in NRDC's sub-

missions to NRC associated with NRDC's Petition to Amend 19 CFR

20.101 - Exposure of Individuals to Radiation in Restricted

Areas (Pending)

...

.' 5'

9. No. Object to "if not, why not" on the ground

that it is immaterial to the proceeding.

10. Yes, at the time of the prehearing conference the

NRDC attorney met with attorneys for and representatives of

some of the intervenors. The substance of the meeting was

privileged discussion of trial strategy and tactics. At that

time NRDC does not remember discussing consolidation.

11. Thomas B. Cochran, Arthur R. Tamplin, Dimitri [~},

Rotow, Anthony Z. Roisman.

12-15. The proposed program is a DOE proposal to build

away-from-reactor storage capability for the nuclear industry.

The details are contained in an October 1977, DOE press,

release, the DOE draf t impact statements on that proposal '

(Storage of U.S. Spent Power Reactor Fuel, DOE /EIS-0015-D,

August 1978; Suppleme,nt, DOE /EIS-0015-DS, December 1978;

Preliminary Estimates of the Charge for Spent-Fuel Storage

and Disposal Services, DOE /ET-0055, July 1978; Charge for Spent

Fuel Storage, DOE /EIS-0041-D, December 1978), and the DOE

legislative proposal sent to Congress on creation of a re-.

volving fund for construction of an AFR.

TFe proposed action is to transship spent fuel from

Oconee to McGuire. To have independent value, that trans-

shipment would have to be capable of solving the spent fuel

storage problem without depending upon use of another interim

...

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

. .

6-

measure. Solving the spent fuel storage problem means having

storage space sufficient to receive all spent fuel to be

generated by the reactor (in this case Oconee) between now

and when the spent fuel can be disposed of in a permanent

repository. The earliest date for such a repository is, in,

our judgment, not until the mid- to late 1990s. Prior to that

time, Oconee will need another spent fuel storage solution.

The present transshipment is merely a short-term solution

waiting for that long-term solution. The long-term solution.

which transshipment encourages is construction of an AFR.

The solutions which will tend to be foreclosed by

transshipment are maximum compaction and re-racking at both

Oconee and McGuire and construction of new spent fuel storage

capability at Oconee. In our view, the solution to spent fuel

storage problems other than by plant shutdown is influence,,d

primarily by technology and economics. The cost of building

a new spent fuel storage pool at Oconee is a fixed dollar"

amount. If the utility transships before it adopts that option,

then the cost of at-reactor storage becomes the cost of trans-

shipment plus the cost of the new pool. In addition, the

failure to move now to expand at-reactor storage with a new

pool creates an apparent "need" for the AFR. In addition, *

the McGuire pools are not radioactive. They could be modified

or expanded now without any of the risks identified by the

Staff in the EIS for Oconee where changes are made to a pool

which has already had spent fuel in it. Allowing Oconee spent

fuel to go into the McGuire spent fuel pool inhibits the

'aximum utilization of at-reactor storage for McGuire spentm

fuel at McGuire.

_ _ _ . . _ _ _ ._ _

. .

7

16. Do not know.

17. The Commission regulations and policy statement

cited do contemplate that in appropriate circumstances trans-

portation of spent fuel will be allowed.

18. The proposed activity is not consistent with the

Commission regulations because of the reasons identified in

our contentions. For further details, see our answer to the ..

.

Staff interrogatories.

19. Do not know.

20. We have no direct knowledge.

_

21. We understand that off-site shipment of spent fuel

has occurred from reactors to West Valley, Morris, and from

H.B. Robinson to another reactor. We have no direct knowledge

beyond what is available in public documents regarding those

facilities.*

22. Only to the extent mentioned in 21.~

23. Yes. Do not know.

.

24. The impact statements prepared in conjunction with

the proposed program and referenced in answer to Questions 12-15,

'

8

include consideration of some alternatives. The alternative of

compaction (all kinds) has been used or sought to be used.

We do not know which plants beyond what is available in Federal

Register notices of application. Transshipment has been used

at H.B. Robinson ano sought with respect to the Dresden/ Quad-

Cities reactors.

25. Yes, provided that such consideration is conditioned

upon analysis of the five factors listed in the Federal Register .

.

notice. Yes.

26. See answer to Questions 12-15.

27. Because unless it has such independent value

approval of the proposed action would constitute an illega1,

segmentation of a coraprehensive program for solution to the

spent fuel storage problem.-

28. The statute is NEPA, particularly Section 102 (A) ,

(B) , (C) , (D) , and (E), and the regulation is 10 CFR Part 51,

SS 51.40 and 51.41.

29. No. All steps taken to alleviate the problem prior

to a programmatic decision will tend to increase the total

econcmic costs of the final solution.

. . . ,

-

o

9

.

30. The problem is the absnece of a permanent waste

repository for spent fuel coupled with continued creation of

the spent fuel and the absence of existing storage capacity at

reactors to store this spent fuel on an interim basis. None

in particular.


32. Expansion of at-reactor storage to handle the

lifetime spent fuel to be generated by the reactor. Shutdown -

.

or substantially reduced use of the reactor to assure that

spent fuel that needs to be discharged during the lifetime of

the reactor can be stored at the site assuming no expansion or

limited expansion is accomplished.

33. We have insufficient data to answer this question

since it presupposes selection of Oconee or another site for

permanent waste disposal and we believe such selection is_

premature at this time. Letter to the President of the United

States from Anthony Z. Roisman, dated March 26, 1979; " Nuclear

Waste: Too Much Too Soon," by Thomas B. Cochran and Arthur R.

Tamplin; Report to the President by the Interagency Review Group

on Nuclear Waste Management, March 1979; Testimony of Anthony

Z. Roisman and Arthur R. Tamplin before the Subccmmittee on

Nuclear Regulation, Senate Committee on Environment and Public

Works, June 14, 1978.

. . ,9

.

.

.

10

34. The question is semantic. Permanent shutdown of

Oconce for instance is not an " interim" solution. The present

situation appears to be extremely uncertain, given the recent

reracking application for Oconee, but in general, short of

permanent plant shutdown or restricted use to the limits of

available storage, all solutions are potentially interim

except actual expansion of spent fuel capacity at the Oconee

to handle the lifetime spent fuel to be discharged. We do not

use " interim" to refer to prior to permanent waste disposal,_

but to refer to prior to finding a comprehensive and programmatic~

solution to the problem of what to do with spent fuel, if any,

generated by reactors, prior to implementation of a permanent

waste disposal solution.

35. The proper area of inquiry is identified in our,

contentions. It includes the tendency to foreclose storage

options at both Oconee and McGuire. We are not familiar with~

the McGuire Part 50 proceeding.

36. The time period bewteen now and when spent fuel

capacity at McGuire and Oconee will be filled.

37. The final decision is the conclusion of tb.

process of deciding what to do about the spent fuel storage

problem. It could be made by one or more of the following:

. ..

9 *

11

a. DOE

b. NRC

c. Congress

d. State and local governmental bodies

e. Courts

f. Citizens in violent or non-violent protests.

38. We have no idea.

.

39. See Answer to Questions 12-15.~



-

42-43. Transshipment will not have independent utility

but will require completion of some further spent fuel storage

action before continu'Ed operation of Oconee can be assured

until a p manent waste disposal facility is available. The

use of the McGuire pool now, before the maximum possible re-

racking has occurred, will make such reracking in the future

more expensive and more dangerous. The expenditure of funds -

to transship Oconee fuel now, rather than irmediately beginning

to increase at-reactor storage at Oconee by further reracking

and building an additional storage pool at Oconee, will result

in an economic cost which will tend to significantly foreclose

the use of such options in preference to an AFR in the future.

. .

12

44a. We object. Disagreement with NRC policy in this

proceeding is not material

b. We do not know precisely what the proposed licensing

action is designed to provide, but it has the effect of creating

an artificial "need" for an AFR and that effect is similarly

created by the Commonwealth proposal.

45. We object. This question does not make sense,

because "in this regard" is too vague. .

.

46. Yes, but they would probably be illegal and would

probably all bias the final decision. Allowing the plants to

run out of storage space, including loss of an FCR, would not

bias the final decision and is not an action or solution.

There is reason to believe that if the government decisionmaking

on this issue, particularly at DOE and NRC, were less" concerned

with finding the non-existent justification for an AFR and~~

merely let the facts speak for themselves in the programmatic

impact statements,' a decision on what solution to adopt would

occur before any shutdowns were required due to inaction.

47. The studies, if properly conducted, will comprise

the comprehensive body of information required to be assembled

prior to taking a major federal action. Because of the existence

of jurisdictional uncertainties between DOE and NRC, both are

doing programmatic studies which if done properly would cover

the same subject areas but from different perspectives. The

. .

13

DOE /EIS-0015-D and Supplement and NUREG-0404 are intended to

address the basic proposal and alternatives to it as well as

safety, environmental impacts and the factors listed specifi-

cally in Section 102 (2) (C) and (E) of NEPA. DOE /ET-0055 and

DOE /EIS-0041-D are both addressing the economic cost of one

possible solution to the spent fuel storage problem -- i.e., a

government-owned AFR. DOE /EIS-0040-D discusses the return of

foreign spent fuel to the United States for storage which was

a part of the original DOE proposed action announced in

October 1977.

48. The studies must comply with NEPA with respect

to the proposed action. Once that is done, a decision can be

made based on the information provided in the studies and

licensing actions may proceed which are consistent with that

decision. We have not prepared a list of specific determin-

ations which must be made before a decision on the proposed"

action. Our resources compel us to be more reactive. Our

comments on the draft EISs is the only detailed statement we

have prepared of the deficiencies we found in those documents.

49. The answer would depend upon whether we believe

the studies were legally and factually sufficient, whether we

believed the decision was legally and factually correct and what

conditions if any were imposed on the use of the transshipment

alternative. It is not clear what is meant by "a viable one."

.

.

14

50. The only legal position we have developed is

spelled out in the papers filed in this proceeding and our

letter to NRC requesting creation of programmatic review for

spent fuel storage and a halt in decisions on spent fuel

storage applications until completion of the review.

51. At this time we do not intend to raise other matters

beyond those in Contentions 3, 4, 5 and 6. The method for

disposal of the contention depends upon the development of the

record on the other contentions. It would appear at this time '.

that once the record on those contentions is developed, the

resolution of contentions would be based on legal argument.

But that is only a tentative conclusion.

52. No. We feel that the' Commission merely stated that

one or the other might be sufficient, not that an EIA woul'd be

sufficient in any cases, much less this case.

-

53. The full range of environmental impacts and econo-

mic and other costs and benefits must be analyzed without any

preconceived notion that the proposed action is preferable to

any alternative or that the scope of inquiry is limited by

the announcement of a spent fuel storage policy by DOE prior

to completion of the programmatic study.

. .

* weme -mw ,me

. .

15

54. They are required by law and common sense.

55. They are equally important.

56. Within the limits of our resources, we have.

" Nuclear Waste: Too Much Too Soon," by Thomas B. Cochran and

Arthur R. Tamplin; Statement of Anthony Z. Roisman and S. Jacob

Scherr on Behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council Beforethe House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs Concerning .

.

Storage of Domestic and Foreign Spent Nuclear Fuels, submitted

January 26, 1979.

57. The decision-making process is designed to produce

the best course of action based on all of the relevant consid-

erations. There is nothing to describe in detail. .

58. NEPA and the Administration Procedure Act..-

59. See answer to 56.

60. Assuming that, due to inherent technological

limitations, a nuclear plant is incapable of being used for

specific peaks, we intend that its use as a base load peak

unit be considered on a last on, first off basis. Thus, if

Duke projects that its base load needs can be met without

using Oconee at any time, Oconee is not to be used and is only

to be used when the base load is projected to require it,

. ,

16

allowing sufficient lead time to bring Oconee on line.

61. We have insufficient data to answer the question.

That is why we urge more thorough consideration of it here..

62. Yes:

Power Plant Performance: Nuclear and Coal Capacity

Factors and Econcmics, by Charles Komanoff, Council on Economic

Priorities, 1976

Nuclear Plant Performance / Update: Data Throuch December

30, 1976, by Charles Komanoff and Nancy A. Boxer of Komanoff

Energy Associates, Council on Economic Priorities, 1977.

Nuclear Plant Performance Update: Data Throuah December

1977, by Charles Komanoff, Komanoff Energy Associates, 1978.

A Comparison of Nuclear and Coal Costs, by Charles

Komanoff, Komanoff Energy Associates, presented as testimo'ny

before the State of New Jersey Board of Public Utilities,

October 9, 1978. -,

Statistical Analysis of Nuclear and Coal Power Plant

Performance, by Christoph Hohenemser and Robert Goble, special

issue of SIPI Scope of the Scientists Institute for Public

Information, Vol. VI, No. 4, July / August 1978.

The Economic and Social Costs of Coal and Nuclear

Electric Generation: A Framework for Assessment and Illustrative

Calculations for the Coal and Nuclear Fuel Cycles, by Barrager,

Judd, and Norta, Stanford Research Institute, Review Draft,

July 14, 1975.

'.

* he up-mew..

. .

17

Cost Comparison Between Base-Load Coal-Fired and Nuclear

Plants in the Midterm Future (1985-2015), by Doan L. Phung,

Institute for Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge Associated Universities,

September 1976.

63. No. We do not maintain a position on this point

at this time.

64. Only in general. We have no studies or supporting

documentation. Our general conclusion is that both are

environmentally undesirable and should be avoided as much as

possible by greater use of energy conservation and solar energy.

65. No. See 34.

.

66. We do not know.

67. No. There is no detail to explain.

68-69. No. We consider it speculative until the

party with the burden of proof demonstrates how the figures

were derived, what criteria were used for selecting the pros-

pective supplier, including lead time allowed for arrangements,

the availability of non-conventional. energy supply options,

such as a more vigorcus implementation of available energy

conservation and solar energy including utility financing of

-,

18* '

these options, the extent to which purchase power costs are

dictated by voluntary arrangements between utilities,

arrangements subject to regulation and thus to regulatory

change, arrangements subject to legislation and thus to

legislative change.

70. We contend that there is insufficient data pro-

vided in this record to answer this question.

.

.

71. As a general rule only those "technicological"

methods that are protective of the public health and safety

are acceptable.

72. The doe states that there will be benefits to

at-reactor storage: -

There is considerable DOE interest in minimizingAFR storage requirements and shipments by encour-aging the use of at-reactor storage by furtherdensification and/or expansion. It is assumedthat there would be economic and other advantagesto the utilities of keeping their spent fuel attheir own reactor sites rather than shipping itto interim AFR storage basins. (DOE /ET-00 5 5, July1978, p. 3)

73. Yes, a permanent storage facility for nuclear wastes

is an absolute necessity. However, when such a facility will

become available is indeterminent. We have no opinion concerning

the licensing of transportation to this facility.

-

* ?^

19*

74. This is a strange question. We only propose that the

Oconee fuel be stored at the reactor site until an acceptable

system of radioactive waste disposal is demonstrated. This could

mean that the life time fuel requirements would have to be stored

on-site for a period greater than the useful life of the reactor.

We have not done an analysis sufficient to answer questions a g.

75. This is a totally " iffy" question. There is no

information in evidence to support the proposition that an approved

off-site disposal area will be available by 1983 or even 1993.

76. On-site storage is the least unacceptable alterna-

tive to a demonstrated safe means of ultimate disposal.

77. The risks of routine, accidental and intentional

(sabotage) releases of radioactivity.

78. To some extent time and distance would be related

to the risk.

79. Any risk that is not associated with a commensurate

benefit is unacceptable.

80. See 79 above.

81. The ALARA requirement of the NRC regulations.

82. We have not. (See answer to 72 and 73 above.).

20, ,

83. We have not made estimates but the entire cask

could be breached.

84. We have not made estimates.

85. So long as it is not associated with a commensurate

benefit.

86. See answer to 85 above.


88. Yes.

(a) We are not challenging the regulations.

(b) The public will be exposed. With no commensurate

benefit, it is unacceptable.

89. Yes.


(b) See answer to 88 (b) above.

90. Yes.


(b) See answer to 88 (b) above.

91. We have made no assessment.

..-

21. -

92. We have not. This is the responsibility of the NRC

staff and the applicant.

93. Any unanticipated release of radioactivity.

94. We made no such analysis.



97. We are not challenging the regulations.



100-103. See answer to 94 above.

104. We assumed no sabotage scenario.

105. We made no assessment.

_


107. Expand the existing spent fuel storage pools at

the Oconee site to their maximum capacity using state-of-the-art

compaction techniques, including, for example, use of high density

.

22.

racks made of neutron absorbing materials (poison racks).

Then, further expand the storage capability at the site by expand-

ing the pools themselves and constructing new pools, not necessar-

ily adjacent to the existing pools.

108-109. See answer to 107 above.

110-112. We have made no such analysis.



117. Yes. These plans do not include the best state-

of-the-art nor include expanding the pools (see 107 above).

118. We do not consider this to be a reasonable hypothe-

sis. In applications for pool compaction that we have seen, the

completion times are only 3 to 6 months.

119. The alternative we are suggesting requires the

storage of spent fuel on site until an acceptable means of

radioactive waste disposal has been developed.

120. No. The exposure that we are concerned with relates

to routine, accidental and intentional (sabotage) release of radio-

activity..

* '

23

121. Yes

122. We do not represent any person in this proceeding

as an attorney. We appear in this proceeding on our own behalf.

Our membership includes persons living in the vicinity of this

plant and people throughout the U.S. who do not consider it

appropriate to expose workers, who are also members of the public,

to exposures in excess of ALARA.

123. ALARA is As Low As Reasonably Achievable. ALARA

requires the balancing of risk-cost-benefit. the NRC regulations

indicate this.

124. No.

125. We assert no specific value.

126. We have made no such analysis.


128. It seems possible because two shipments will be

regtired. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the waste dispos-

al problem will be resolved during the lifetime of the McGuire

facility. Thus, this will just represent an additional step.

.

' '

24

129. It seems reasonable to so assume. See answer to

128 above.

130. Yes. We have made no such analysis.



133. See answer to 132.

134. It is quite possible unless it is shown by the

applicant through = risk-cost-benefit analysis to ALARA. We

are not challenging the regulations.


136. Yes.


138. Yes.


141. Yes, until it is demonstrated by a risk-cost-bene-

fit analysis to be ALARA.~

25,

142. The induction of cancer and genetic effects in

the exposed population. The 1972 BEIR Report of the NAS-NRC.

143-147. Yes, but we have not made an analysis o the

effects.

148. ALARA requires a risk-cost-benefit analysis. We

are not challenging the regulations.

149. Not determined at this time.


151. We have done no legal research on this issue.

152-167. NRDC does net contend that the 1-core discharge

capacity standard is a necessary standard for either environ-

mental or health and safety reasons. NRDC has done no analysis

in this respect.

168. We are maintaining that applicant has provided

no data from which we can assess whether it has a security plan

or needs one. Our own dat.= suggest that the danger of sabotage

or malevolent acts against shipped spent fuel is real and cred-

ible. It also suggests that an intentional release of radioactivity

.*

26' '

from a cask is credible and will cause substantial doses of

radiation to the public, particularly if done in a heavily

populated area. Similarly, the threat of such a release would

be a substantial motivation to pay a ransom, release prisoners

or submit to similar extortions. Unless there is an improved

cask design or secutiy protection sufficient to hold off an

attack, the shipments should not be allowed.

169. The NRC regulations and the Atomic Energy Act

require that a proposed action not be permitted unless there

is adequate protection for the public health and safety. The

situatior, described in the previous answer indicates that on this

record the proposed action does not provide that degree of safety.

170. Read it today for the first time. No. It relates

to accidents and we are concerned with intentional acts and

their prevention.

171. A little. It is not exempted from security pre-

cautions. It is at best exempted from the equivalents of Part

73 which are not stated to be the definitive safety considera-

tions related to sabotage of nuclear wasto in transit.

172. No. We object to "if not, why not" as being irrele-

vant to this proceeding. We are not challenging the validity of

10 CFR S 73.6.

. ..

'. .

27

173. Yes. High explosive technology is available to

saboterna. We have made no analysis.


175. Yes.

176. Probably not.

..

-, .

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

In The Matter Of ))

DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 70-2623)

(Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773 )for Oconee Nuclear Station Spent Fuel )Transportation and Storage at McGuire )Nuclear Station) )

AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS B. COCHRAN, PH.D.

City of Washington )) ss:

District of Columbia )

I, Thomas B. Cochran, Ph.D., hereby depose and say:

1. I am employed by the Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc., 917 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.

2. I am primarily responsible for answers to the

NRC Staff's interrogatories relating to NRDC's Contentions

3c&d, 5 and 6. All information contained in those answers

is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

30 8GThomas B. Cochran, Ph.D.

Subscribed and sworn to before me

this 16th day of April 1979.

/ &'' Notary Public

*"

/ff3' *

.f .rg L>s Jaa a M

a, ,


In The Matter Of ))


(Amendment to Materials License SUM-1773 )for Oconee Nuclear Station Spent Fuel )Transportation and Storage at McGuire )Nuclear Station) )

AFFIDAVIT OF' ARTHUR R. TAMPLIN, PH.D.



I, Arthur R. Tamplin, Ph.D., hereby depose and say:


Council, Inc., 917 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.


Applicant's Interrogatories 7, 8, 71-121, 123-150, 152-167,

and 173-176. All information contained in those answers is

true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

adasanV'hamplin , Ph.D.Arthur R.

Subscribed and sworn to before me

this 16th day of April 1979a.

'

,, Notary Public' e -

m sm age 1=. :a. wa

.=. .


In The Matter Of ))



AFFIDAVIT OF ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN, ESO.



I, Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq., hereby depose and say:


Council, In., 917 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.


Applicant's Interrogatories 1-6, 9-71, 122, 151, 168-172.

All information contained in those answers is true and

correct to the best of my knowledge.

9^~1 L" g,

i 'I ( 1 ,, Anthony Z. isman/N) />

s- .>' , g \ l lI l ' '',<. , , ..

Subscribed and sworn to before me(';'| U ' p.i

this 16th day of April 1979.) .f . 1

50 f. s YW& ',--

Notary Public [/

" :-: =:ca r.;u 2 ;.dr E im

=*s .,


In The Matter Of ))



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that copies of " Natural ResourcesDefense Council Answers to Applicant's Interrogatories",dated April 16, 1979 in the above captioned matter, have beenserved upon the following by deposit in the United States mailthis 16th day of April, 1979.

Marshall I. Miller, Esq. Mr. Jesse L. RileyChairman, Atomic Safety and President

Licensing Board Carolina Environmental StudyU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Group

Commission 854 Henley PlaceWashington, D.C. 20555 Charlotte, North Carolina 28207

Dr. Emmeth A. Leubke Edward G. Ketchen, Esq.Atomic Safety and Licensing Counsel for NRC Regulatory

Board StaffU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Legal

Commission DirectorWashington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

CommissionDr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Washington, D.C. 20555DirectorBodega Marine Laboratory William L. Porter, Esq.of California Associate General Counsel

P.O. Box 247 Duke Power CompanyBodega Bay, California 94923 P.O. Box 33189

Charlotte, North CarolinaShelly Blum, Esq. 18242418 Law Building Richard P. Wilson730 East Trade Street Assistant Attorney GeneralCharlotte, North Carolina State of South Carolina

28202 2600 Bull StreetColumbia, South Carolina

29201

. ..

.

.. 'r

Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq. Chairman, Stomic Safety andNatural Resources Defense Licensing Board PanelCouncil U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

917 15th Street, N.W. CommissionWashington, D.C. 20005 Washington, D.C. 20555

Brenda Best Chairman, Atomic Safety andCarolina Action Licensing Appeal Board1740 E. Independence Blvd. U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCharlotte, North Carolina Commission

28205 Washington, D.C. 20555

Chuck Gaddy, Chairperson Mr. Chase R. StephensDavidson PIRG Docketing and Service SectionP.O. Box 2501 Office of the SecretaryDavidson College U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryDavidson, North Carolina Commission

28036 Washington, D.C. 20555

Mr. David R. BelkSafe Energy Alliance1707 Lombardy CircleCharlotte, North Carolina

28203

Arthur R. Tamplin, Ph.D.

.,

Responds to util's interrogatories.Affidavits of TB ...

Documents

Transcript of Responds to util's interrogatories.Affidavits of TB ...