ML19250B912
| ML19250B912 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Moffett T HOUSE OF REP., GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19250B913 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911060156 | |
| Download: ML19250B912 (3) | |
Text
c,#" ""%
UNITED STATES
+
A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 3
- [
+*
September 26, 1979
~
OFFICE OF THE M
CH AIRMAN
, +-9 hk The Honorable Toby Moffett, Chaiman 5
Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Government Operations United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chaiman:
I am pleased to respond to your letter of August 22, 1979, requesting that you be provided with copies of past and future correspondence related to the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy's (TCSE) requests to shut down the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1. TCSE's requests concern matters related to emergency planning for the Davis-Besse facility. The documents which you requested are enclosed and are listed for your convenience on a separate piece of paper. We will also provide you with additional correspondence and documentation that may become available in the future.
TCSE's petition of July 9,1979, and its earlier letters requesting action with regard to the Davis-Besse facility, are being treated as a request for action under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Conmission's regulations.
TCSE's requests are unrelated to the proceeding presently being conducted under the Commission's Order of May 16, 1979. Under 10 CFR 2.206 (a copy of which is enclosed), any person may file a request for the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, or the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, as appropriate, to institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or to take other action as may be appro-priate.
In this particular case TCSE's letters have been addressed to or referred to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR),
Mr. Harold R. Denton, for appropriate action. TCSE's requests are O
currently under review by the NRR staff. Under 10 CFR 2.206 the Director must take action on TCSE's requests within a reasonable time.
The NRR staff estimates that it will complete its review of TCSE's requests in October 1979, at which time Mr. Denton as the Director of NRR will either grant or deny in whole or in part TCSE's requests.
If 1277 077 f 7911060 6 b k
The Honorable Toby Moffett '
TCSE's requests are denied, the Director will issue a written decision explaining the reasons for denying the requests. This denial is F
subject to the Comission's discretionary review under 10 CFR 2.206(c),
i and if the Comission declines to formally review or affims the Director's denial of miief, TCSE may seek additional review in the federal courts.
P E.._..
I trust that the infomation and documents provided are responsive to
[
your Concerns.
Sincerely,
- ~
original Signed h Yktor Gilinsky
/ d Joseph M. Hendrie g'l Chairman
Enclosures:
As Stated Above and Listed on Accompanying Sheet g
DIST:
fiRC Central Comissioner Gilinsky ELD Rdr Comissioner Kennedy Subj. File Comissioner Bradford Rdr Comissioner Ahearne Burns Chron Murray Chron Lieberman Info Cyr Info Bachmann Info
~%
TF ardt Cleared with all Cmrs. by SECY C/R EChristenbur EDO(#07254)y p- -
PDR OGC PE OCA RF(2) h" j77J Q78 SECY 79-2483 HRDenton, NRR NR V h SEGY H
nton -
TCombsd
^
9/ /79 9/24/79 OEL Q g yD[g/\\ A4P ED0 OCA OCM omc.,
snn, nCS
.w2,4.
/7MShaoar
@b
_[f 1061bes.c
_916/19 9k./79 9/h/79
._.j/eja.$
9/(4/79 9/
/7f
..r.,
unc rou, 3i.
<,.76, uncu 24.
,'i \\
... o,,..
a
f, CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING TCSE'S REQUEST UNDEP 10 CFR 2.206 m a Date Description April 23, 1979 Letter from Terry Lodge, TCSE to James Keppler, Director, NRC Region III.
i May 17, 1979 Letter from James Keppler to Terry Lodge.
May 23,1979 Letter from Terry Lodge to Stephen Burns, NRC Office of the Executive Legal Director.
June 1,1979 Letter from Harold Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to Terry Lodge.
June 1, 1979 Letter from Harold Denton, to Lowell Roe, Vice President, Toledo Edison Company.
June 1,1979 Federal Register Notice (published in 44 Fed. Reg. 33192 (June 8, 1979)).
June 8, 1979 Letter from Bruce Churchill, counsel to Toledo Edison Co., to Harold Denton.
June 12,1979 Letter from Terry Lodge to Harold Denton.
June 12,1979 Letter from Terry Lodge to Stephen Burns.
Jur.e 27, 1979 Letter from Harold Denton to Terry Lodge.
June 27, 1979 Note from Harold Denton to Samuel Chilk, Secretary to the Coninission.
July 9,1979 Letter from Terry Lodge to Harold Denton, enclosing " Motion for Preliminary Injunction".
July 16,1979 Letter from Bruce Churchill to Harold Denton.
[.
1277 079 i:i a
e
PARY 2 o RULLS OF Pr.AC~ilCE 1:OR DO!/iESilC UCS.'CU,'G rr.OCi Mil:GS og d
to ir.pse a civil pcdry under se.: ion tor, Omce of Invcc tii.n and Ef.i e.
ti hra-
,I,ings of fact and eenclusions of law, an 23.t of the Act, the Director of Nuttar u.c nt, as.., ypriate, op n c.
Reactor Regulat' n, Director of Nu r.lcar tion of the m er, will is<ue. n.-ider
- f all right to seck Coramission and
,sdicial review or to coatcst the validity Material Safety and Safeguar ds, Dirce-dhmi. sing the procet ding or i..p. sing, of the order in any forum. The order tor, Omce of hopection and Enfarce-mitigating,or r witting the t is il pen.>ity, s
The person charged may, within tw:nty shall have the same for te and effect as an rnent, ar sppropriate,shall ' c r v e a w ritten (20) days of the date of the ord.r or s
order made after hearing by a presiding notice of violation upcen the p c r s>n.
- <fficer or the C.,mmission.
charged. This notice may be includsd in other ilme speciGed in tN order, re pest
" (0 When the Director of NuLicar a notice issucd pursuant to } 2.201. The a hearing.
,3f the persen th r.J lth i M.d 1 Re actor Regulation, Director of Nuc1 car notice of violation shalt specify the date tbn s cocsts a learins, the Cwuhatm (e) f;, Material Safety and Safeguards Direc-or dates, facts, and the nature of the
,vnt inue on order dedgnr.t!:.u the,tMe; tor, Office of Inspection and Enforce-altsged act or omission with which the un c
g mcnt.a! appropriate,findsthat the public health, safety, or interest so requires or person is charged, and shall it'c a tify that the violatmn is willful, the urder to specifically ihe particular prcc.inon or te Nued af ter the hearing 1;y the p: *dd-Ing o. cer or the commiulua d!<.ntv ing show c ause may provide, for stared provisions of the law, rule, regulation, 5
license.pcr uit, or cease and desist oider the proceeding or !mposing rnitysCng,-
reasvns,that the prepacd action be tem.
invohed in the alleged violation and or rc:nitting the civil penalty.
(g) Th,: Director of Nuclear Roetor ponrily effective pending further order.
s' tall state the a,au ut of uch h aally Regulation Director of Nu: lear Z
i 2.203 Sstile ment and compro+nise, which the Director of Nuclear Reactor Material Safety and Saftguards, Direc-Regulation, Director of Nuclear tor OfGee of Inspection nr.d ErLrre-At any time after the issuance of an Material Safety and Safeguards Direc.
ment, as appropriate, may *compromisc
. order designating the time and place of tor Office of Inspection and Enforce.
any civil penalty, subject to the yrevi-
' heasing in a proceeding to modify, sus-ment as appropriate, proposes to impose.
sions of { 2.203.
The nctice of violation shall also advise (h) If the civil penalty is not com-pend.or revoke a license or for other ac-the person charged that the civil penalty promised, or is not remitted by the tion,the staff and a licensee or other per-son may enter into a stipulation for the may be paid in the amount speciGed
. Director of Nucicar Reactor Rcga ation,
_ settlement of the proceeding or the com-therein, or the proposed impositien of j Dircetor of Nuclear Material Safe:y ud
, promise of a civil penalty. The stipula-the civil penalty may be protested in its Saftguards, Director, OfGce of !: spec-9 y tion or (ompromise shall be subject to entirety or in part, by a written answer, [ tion and Enforcement,as appropriate,the cither denying the siofr. tion. or shewing estenuating circumstances. The notice of o Presiding offker or the Commiss y approval by the designated presiding
" if payment is not made within tea (10) efficer or, if none has bcen designated, violation shall adsise the person charged days follev.ing either the service of the u.
' by ihe Chief Administratise Law Judge.t accoidmg due' weight to the position of & that upon failure to pay a civil pcaalty order described in paragraph (c)or (f) of
~
'th siiff. The presiding officer.or if nonc $ sahequently determined by the Com.
this section.or the expiration of the time has been design ted, the Chief Ad-E mission, if any, the penalty may, unicss for requesting a hearing descri'<d in ministr atis c 1.a w Judge,t may on der "a compromised, remitted or mitigat ed, be paragraph (d) of this section, no s.ch re-such adjudication of the issues as he may " collected by civil action pursuant to see-quest having bcen made, the Director of decm to be required in the public in-tion 234c of the Act.
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Dirutor of (b) Within twcnty (20) day 5 of the Nuclear Material Safety and Sar unrds, terest to dispose of the proceeding. If ap-date of a notice of violation or other time Director, Otfice of Inspection and En-a peed, the terms of the settlement or compromise shall be embodied in a deci-cpecified in the notice, the person forcement, as appropriate,may rder the sion or order settling and discontinuing charged may either pay the penalty in the rr atter to the Attorney General for col-amount proposed or answer the notice 9f L ction.
_the proceeding.
violation. The answer to the notice of (i) Except when payment is made
~{ 2.204 Order for modification of
' violation shall state any facts, explana.
after compromise or mitigation by the U"""*
tions, and arguments, denying the Department of Justice or as ordered by a charges of violation, or demonstr ting of the United States, fo' lowing i
court The Commission may modify a license any extenuating circumstances, error in reference of the m-"cr to the A':orney by inuHg an amendment on notice to the the notice of si >lation, or other reason General for collectE n, payment of cisil Innsee that he may demand a hearing why the penalty should not be imposed penalties imposed under section 234 of with respect to all or any part of the and may request rcmission or mitigation the Act shall be made by check.naft,or 2 amendment within twenty (20) days from of the penalty, money order payabic to the Trea,urer of j
G the date of the ratice or such longer (c) If the person charged with viola.
the United States, and mailed ta the
{ period as the notice may provide. The tion fails to answer within the time Director of Nuclear Reactor Regalation, g amendment will bccome effective on the specified in paragraph (b)of this section, Director of Nuclear Material Satety and espuation of the period during which the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regula.
Safeguards, Director, Office of in2pec-the "censee may demand a hearing, or*
tion Director of Nuclear M aterial tion and Enforcement, as appropciate.
in tne esent that he demands a hearing, Safety and Safeguards, Director, OfGet.
on the date specified in an order made of Inspection and Enforcement, as ap-2.2 % Repnts for action unk IMs following the hearing. When the Com-propriate,will issue an order imposing g subp art.
nioion finds that the public health, the civil penalty in the amount set forth 9
Safety, or mteress so requires, the order in the notice of violation described in N a) Any penon may Gk a request for
_may be made effectise immediately, paragraph (a) of this section.
E e Director of Nuclear Reactor r.eguia-
,3 (d) If the person charged with siola-Director;of Nuclear M a te rial o
"l tion,Safetv and Safeguards, Director, O tion files an answer to the notice of viola-
-[ 2.205 C...t pen alt.ies.
ni
(
tion, the Director of Nuclear Reactor (a) Beforc instituting any proceed..ng Regulation, Dir ector of Nuclear kg
~
I af ty and Safeguards, Direc-
% nna w i n ixin, D r3r3lD
$lD 9m
- o.caa h w in v f
M M
J]
~
Septcmb r % 1978 m
79
.Ci!CE E03 OG,'._ TIC UCS;S!TJG MOCEEOUJGS P ',';Y 2 o S EC G F f n
- 5 of i g un 4r d Eaforc ca,( nt, as ap.
im ohe the WJuration in f ee ess of cause to be pubhaed in the f t air.t.
p:gri.ac,w :ruliute a pro ceding p.r.
a number of pplications, fM i;. ne or R i r,is t u, p ur u:ar.t to { 2.10 5, a n. ' c,e
.nt to t 2 202 to modify, su pt nd or uot e :., ylis a..ts pa smmt to qpmdit N of proposed actien 4th reyct to e.r
}
a
% t e a license,or for such other activn of Part !0 of Ws th);ccr, for Ikenses to
.y gcation as seen as poc'n * :: dts' j as r.a) Le proper. Such a request shall be construct and r.ptrate nuclear p.4 cr the applications have l<cn docketed.
todu md to the Director of Nuclear reactors of eentially the same d:<ign to Re ictor Regulation, Director of Nuclear be located at dif ferent sites.
{ 2A04 Itcarings on rpplic at! ens lor 9,terbi Safety and Safeguards Direc.
optrating liamo pursuant to > p-lor. OMce of Impcction and Er. force.
- 2.M1 Notice of hearing on a pplica.
pendis N of Part 50,
. ent, as appropriate, and sha'l bc fif d tiens pursions to Appu. dis N of e
cither (1) by delisery to the Public Part 50 for comf ruction permits.
If a r(quest for a heating andfd y ti-tion for lease to intervene is filed wittin,
c Dm u.ns nt Room at 171711 Stre et NW.,
Washington, D.C., or (2) by mail or (a) In the case of applications pur.
the ti.nc pressribcd in t'ie notice of pro-tc!cgram idJresud to the Director of suant to Aypendix N of Part 50 of this poscd action en an application for an, Nucbr Rc actor Regulation, Director of chapter for construction pe r mit s for operati"g license pursuant to A;psnjix M hicar %terial Safety and Safeguaids, nuclear powcr reactors of the ty pe N of Part 50 of this chapter with it pcct
@ Director, OfGce of Inspation and En.
described in i f 0 22 of this chwer, the to a specific reacto,r(s) at a specific iie, e forccmc nt, as n; propriate, U.S. Nuclear Sc(ictary willlnue' notices ~ of hearLW and the C,mmission or an atomic safety
~
$ Regulatory Conunission. Washington, pursuant to i 2.104.
and licensing board designated by the
" D C. 20555. The requests shall specify (b) The notice of hearing will also Commisdon ur by the Chairman of.he de vtion repceted and set forth the state the time and pbce of the harings Atomic Safety and Licensing Bo ird fasts that constitute the basis for the re-on any ssparate ph.:se of the proc cding.
Panel h.n h u d a umite of :.s..ig ur other appropriate order, the Cornmis-quest.
(h) Within a reasonahic time after a
{ 2A02 Separate hearings on scparate sion or the atomic safety and licens'ng reqmt pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
~ sues; comolidation of procerd-g board may order separate hearings on of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Director Wparticular phases of the proceed:ng section has b,en receised, the Director ings.
e and/or cor%!idate for hearing two or of Nuclear M aterial Safety and (a) In the case of applications pur.
more proceedings in the m a n r.c_r SA;uards, Director, OfGee of Inspec.
suant to Appendix N of Part 50 of this described in t 2.402.
tion and Enforcement, as appropriate, chapter for construction perrnits for shall either institute the requested pro-nuc! car power reactors of a ty pe
{ 2A05 Initial decisions in co n soll-cctJmg in anordance with this subpart, descril ed in { 50.22 of this chapter, the d.:ted hurings.
f3 cr shall adsisc the pctson who made the g Commiuion or the presiding officer may At the conchnion of any hearing h{s' i,
r + st in kriting that no proceeding N order sep, rate hearings on particular j
will be inuituted in whole or in part, E phees of the proceeding.such as matters pursuant to this subpart, the presid.ng.",
with respect to his request, and the G sclated to the acceptability of the design officer will render a p.utial initial dei-
~ reasons therefor.
of the reador, in the context of the site sion which may be appeated pur suan, tc parameters postuiated for the dc<ign;cn.
{ 2.762. No construction pcimit or fut!
sironmental matters;or antitrust aspects power operating license will be issued
- act ill Director's decisions under this of the application.
until an initial decision has been imed (b) lf a separate hearing is held on a on all phases of the hearing and al1 issues I
e cr r ithin L ent 0 days af ter the date of a Director's decision particular phase of the proceeding, the under the Act and the National Envi,ron- -
under this section that no proceeding Commission or picshfing officers of each af.
mental Policy Act of 1969 appMpriate to will be instituted or other action taken fected proceeding' rnay, pursuant to $ 2.716, the proceeding have been resobed.
In whole or in part, the Commission Inay consolidate for hearing on that phase two
"'.ne proceedings t consider com-
{ 2A06, Finality of decisions en seg ar-S oe r in rt to t tre i k.nDi:ector has abused his discretion. This "mn inues relating to the appbcations are issues.
c: remw power does not limit in any say invohed in the proceedings, if it Gnds
"- ett her the commb slon's supenisory pow.
that such action will be conducis e to the Notwithstanding any other provis on O tr cser ddcrrited St#! cttlons or the proper dispatch ofits business and to the of this chapier, in a proceeding can-
"b"
I" "E
e Mace of any dudef pmant to Ns Wspart and \\p-fr r nf I
sr such consolidated hear.ing due regard pendix h, of Part 50 of th,s chapter, ro i
5 ard.ng institution of procwdings under this teet!on.
will be gisen to the cons cnience and matter which has been rescrsed for can.
' W No petition or other request for necessity of the parties, petitioners for sideration in one phase of the heati"g Combsicn sedex of a Director's dect-lease to intervene or the attorneys or shall be considered at another phase of mn under this sec tion will be enterta!ned representatives of such persons, and the the hearing except on the basis of sign.fi-
_ty the Commission.
public interest.
cant new information that substantially Solgart C [Nicted 40 IE 8m.]
affects the conclusion (s) texhed at the
~Sebrart D--Additional Proccdures Ap.
t 2A03 Notice of propowd action on other phase or other good cause.
plicable to Proceedings for the Is.
appliulions for operating licenses suunse of I.icenses To Construct or pursuant to Appendis N of Part 50.
{ 2A07 A pplicability of other set-tions.
3 Operate NucIcar Power l'! anes of Dupliute Doign at Multiple Sites In the case of applications pursuant to Appendix N or Part 50 0f this chapter for F The prosisions of Subparts A ano[
u.
? j 2J00 Scope of subpart.
operating licenses for nuclear pow er relating to copt r uction pe r mits N f
l reactors, if the Commission has not operating licends apply, respectis cly, t'o ' -#
This sut part describes procedures ap.
found that a hearing is in the public in-const r uction permits and oper at'ng pfic ble to Ikensing proccedings which terest. the Director of Nuclear ReacMr licenses subject to this subpart,excep as Regulation will, prior to acting thereon,
.w m y,g, m D
o o
e~
1977 081
&;tember 1,1978 2-10
)
Wg
-]..
.n
0
(-
Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy g - J.D., ~
P.O. Box 4545 Toiedo, OH 43620
- -9. - -
(419) 243-G959
~
April 24,1979 2
Mr.' James G. Keppler, Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III Office of Inspection and Enforcement 799 Roosevelt Rd.
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Dear Mr. Keppler:
We have fo? lowed with considerable interest the actions of the NRC and Toledo Edison, operator of the Davis-Besse nuclear plant, since the Three Mile Island disaster.
After reading your comments in the April 20,1979 Toledo Blade, concerning personnel performance at Davis-Besse, we are greatly concerned about the irresponsibility of the NRC decision to allow Davis-Besse to go back on line before numerous safety questions have been answered.
Our concerns have been redoubled by the' April 19 findings of the Ohio Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) that documents tht gross of emergency and evacuation plans in the event of a serious inadequacies The NRC appears to be an accomplice in a no-win accident at Davis-Besse.
situation, allowing a less-than-public spirited utility to return to power generation while that utility continues to maintain incompetent staff and substandard emergency preparaticas.
Therefore, the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy demands that the folicwing steps be taken by your office immediately:
That Toledo Edison officials be restrained from reopening Davis-1/
Besse until such time as all possible operational problems, human and mech-anical, have been corrected; That revised and epdated evacuation plans be posted in visible 2/
public places within a 50 mile radius of Davis-Besse within 30 days of your receipt of this notice, and prior to D-B's reopening; That a full-scale disaster drill be conducted within a 10 mile 3/
radius of the plant prior to its return to power generation; That all consumers in the Toledo Edison and Cleveland Electric 4/
illuminating jurisdictions receive a complete written description of emergency procedures with their last electric bills prior to the startup of Davis-Besse; That these and other matters becom the subject of full and
~
5/
cpen public hearings initiated by the hRC prior to 0-8's startup.
Your earlest written response to these urgent requests will be P77.082 2 7 1979 n
. t.. -
r,
(.)
( _.
~
Mr. James G. Keppler
~
. 4/24/79 p. 2_
g.
greatly appreciated,Thank you.
f Sincerel
.oY'
(
er
.L ge Cha r1 n TCSE Legal Ac*,f on Conmi ttee 4
.r Members, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission cc:
Washington, D.C. 20555 Senator Howard Metzenbaum 234 Summit St.
Toledo, OH 43604 m8 1977 083
C O
J0 UNttEo STATES So s s e CO:NAlstlON
%, *y.;'~ ~. -'_:.
. NUCt.E AR R EG'UL ATo n Y riccion us g
m noost.vci.y no^o p.. n.
e - y>I.'. :. -
oi.ct, cu.vu, n.unois sois:-
m
'*"**f May 17, 1979 A
mm a
y 0
Mr. Terry J. Lodge, Chaf rv:an co a
a Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy P.O. Box 4545 Toledo, Ohio 43620
Dear Mr. Leadge:
TDis is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1979, identifying steps schich you believe should be taken relative to resu=ption of operations of the Davis-Besse tiuclear plant.
As you probably know, based on inforr.4-tion obtained to date from the Three Mile Island accident, the NRC issued an Order to a]T operating reactor licensees owning Babcock and Wilcox requiring Company nucicar secam supply systens, including Davis-Besse, certain design modification's and changes in c,perating procedures, A copy The of the Order to Toledo Edison-Company is pro.rided as an ei) closure.
reactor will not be permitted to return to operation until the actions specified in the Order have been completed to the satisfaction of the NRC.
With respect to the actions specified in your letter, we are creatingformal Hea fcr a your letter as a requestof the NRC Rules and Regulations (Title 10 - Chapter 1 Code of Federal Regulations).
As such, I have forwarded your letter to our Headquarters staff for consideration of your request.
You can expect to hear directly a
from them regarding this matter,
~
If you have additional questions regarding the NRC's actions in this taatter, please let me know.
Sincerely.
$ lT b James G.
Y er L* rector Enclosures Order to Toledo Edison Company bec v/o enclosure:
Dudley Thoinpson, XCOS p77.084
P.O. Box 2091 Toledo, OH 43603 May 23, 1979 Mr. Stephen Burns Office of Executive Legal Director Nuclear Regulatory Comission RE: Complaint of Toledo 1717 H Street, N.W.
Coalition for Safe Washington, D.C. 20555 Energy
Dear Mr. Burns:
I am writing in confirmation of our telephone conversation of lianday, May 21, at which time you apprised me of the fact that your office is treating my April 24 letter as a request for a formal hearing per 10 CFR 52.206.
For the record, I am ratifying that determination on behalf of my client, the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, and wish to preserve TCSE's procedural rights to properly pursue this matter.
Enclosed per your request are the April 20, 1979 Toledo Blade news article referenced in my April 24 bt+er, and the Wednesday, April 18, 1979 news release of the Ohio Public Interest Research Group concerning inadequacies of evacuation preparations at the Davis-Besse I Nuclear Power Station near Port Clinton, Ohio.
You are doubtless aware that Davis-Besse is a Babcock & Wilcox reactor, closely related from a design standpoint to Three Mile Island I.
It is thus understandable that the Coalition might draw unsettling conclusions from the juxtaposed comments of James G. Keppler of the NRC Region III
, office, and the publicly-proclaimed inadequacies of emergency plans.
In the coming weeks, legal "tsearch people from TCSE will be attempting to verify the existence of other questionable aspects of both the utility and State of Ohio emergs. y plans for Davis-Besse. As all of this help will come from volunteers, we ask that you allow us the time to take up our inquiry where OPIRG left off.
While I will not reiterate all of the elements of relief which my client seeks through the complaint process, I hope that the NRC will be able to make a policy determination that the safety aspects of this poorly-managed reactor override the economic considerations which rny force Davis-Besse back on line before emergency contingencies are fully addressed.
Sincerely (
6 Te r J odge 7
Attorney
- Toledo' Coalition for Safe Energy enc P77 085
- d..
DHIO PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP b
h STATE OFFICE 65 S. 4th ST. COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 -[614) 461-0136 l
J OTHER OFFICES: OSERLIN COLLEGE, WITTENBERG UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON, WILMINGTON COLLEGE, CAPITAL UNIVERSITY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, April 18, 1979
Contact:
Janis White n
614-461-0136 L:s Kathy Westby 216-775-8137 216-775-5283 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLANS AT DAVIS-BESSE PLANT INADEQUATE Plans to safely evacuate the residents of the area near the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in case of a nuclear accident appear to be inadequate, according to the Ohio Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG). The group has cailed for a full scale evacuation drill before the plant reopens.
"We have discovered that neither the utility nor the state emergency plans meet all the recomended federal guidelines and that the two plans d,1ffer in many aspects which could affect the smooth functioning of an actual evacuation,"
said Kathy Westby, research coordinator.
" Government and utility personnel charged with responsibilities in the plans do not always know what those responsibilities are," Westby said.
Developing and implementing emergency evacuation procedures are the Joint responsibility of the Toledo Edison Co., the operator of the Davis-Besse plant, and the Ohio Disaster Services Agency. The utility plan, filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, covers emergency procedures within the plant and plans for off-site support by government agencies. The state's draft plan, incomplete although the plant has been in operation, establishes the roles and r
.s i *
-more-
-more-
~
D""D "D ~I We dJ 2.1
_m It tes of government personnei in the event of' an emergency.
According to Westby, the only employee of the Ottawa County Disaster Services Agency was not aware ? hat he is supposed to play a moJor role in evacuating residents and arranging for their relocation.
Instead, he believed his role was a minor one, simply to act as a liaison between the plant and state officials to provide needed support after the accident.
One fire official said, "We don't have any of that wicked stuff [ dangerous radiation] here [st the plant]." He told OPIRG researchers he had formed this opinion based on information he had received from Davis-Besse officials.
The utility company is required to contract with two hospitals for the provision of emergency medical services.
The principle hospital identified in the utility plan is the Magruder Memorial Hospital in Port CIInton, approximately eleven miles from the plant. They are only equipped to handle up to 80 serious radiological victims.
The second hospital named in the plan is the University of Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. An administrator at Hagruder however, thought the second hospital was probably St. Charles Hospital in Toledo and was totally unaware of the role of the University of Pennsylvania Hospital.
"Given the fact that the primary hospital is within the possible radiation zone, and that the other one is almost 400 miles away with no apparent plans for transporting victims, makes us question the adequacy of medical provisions in the plaa," said Vestby.
Current plans would evacuate residents within a 2 mile radius of the plant, although there ha s been some recent discussion of extending that to a 20 mile radius.
"A full scale nuclear accident could affect an area the size of Pennsylvania.
What good would these plans do us then?" said Janis White, Director of OPlRG.
"Even if a less serious accident occurred, it could become necessary to
-more
-more
-more-
3
~.
evacuate the Toledo area which is only 35 miles from the plant," she added.
The state draft plan equates nuclear evacuation procedures with those used In the event of a natural disaster such as floods or high water.
" Nuclear accidents and natural disasters are not equivalent and cannot be handled in the same way. Differences in warning times and signals, as well as the health hazards connected with radiation exposure require special considera-tion for a nuclear emergency. By comparing the two, the state is demonstrating its lack of awareness of the real dangers of a nuclear disaster," White said.
"Neither plan meets all the recommended federal guidelines," Westby added.
"For instance, estimates of expected accident assessment times, evacuation times, or traffic capacities of evacuation routes are not mentioned at all in the plans."
"0PIRG questions the effectiveness of these plans. Our research indicates that they are ambiguous, centradictory, incanplete, and un-tested," said Westby.
"A few of the agencies listed in the plans have held their own practica drills, but no coo' dinated, full scale drills have been conducted based on the r
plans," continued White. "The public has never been told how they will be con-tacted or what they should do in case of a nuclear emergency."
"In the states where nuclear evacuation drills have been conducted, evacua-tion plans have had to be rewritten to reflect reality," she added.
"We call on Toledo Edison and the state of Ohio to schedule a full scale evactation del 11 before the Davis-Besse plant is put back in operation," said White. "They have accepted the public responsibility to protect Ohioans - we have the right to see if the plans on paper will work in practice."
OPTRG is a statewide, university based research and advocacy organization concerned with consumer protection, environmental quality, human rights, government responsiveness, and corporate responsibility.-
777 Q88 State and Utility E,acuation Plans:
Are Tney inadequate?
Utility companies and the state share the responsibility for developing and implementing emergency evacuation plans in the event of a nuclear accident.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires the utility company to file a plan dealing with both in plant and off-site procedures. The state plan deitneates the roles and responsibilities of off-site agenc'es involved in evacuation pro-cedures.
Evacuation plans for the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant have been developed by the Toledo Edison Co. and the Ohio Disaster Services Agency (draft plan).
OPIRG has analyzed whether the Toledo Edison plan and the State of Ohio plan meet federal standards. Officials named in the two plans were also con-tacted by letter and/or phone to find out what they believe they are supposed to do in case of a nuclear emergency.
Failure To Meet Federal Guidelines Both plans fa!! to meet some of the recommended federal guidelines.
The utility plan does not centain:
the expected accident assessment time the expected time required to notify the population estimates of evacuation times for the areas which would be affected estimates of the traffic capacities of egress routes arrangements with contiguous states The state draf t plan does not contain:
planning coordination with nearby states a population chart by sectors around the plant an account of institutions and asient populations which may impair mobility egress routes and their traffic capacities plans for yearly drills and exercisas Ambiguities and Contradictions The following chart compares what the plans state should happen with what the officials interviewed believe they would do:
THE PLANS SAY:
THE OFFICIALS SAY:
1.
SHIFT FOREMAN Utility Plan:
evaluates accident, no-would contact Toledo Edison - company tifies off-site support groups in case would then contact sheriff.
of emergency, contacts other plant of-ficials, county sheriff, medical assis-tance and fire department if needed.
State Plan:
does not specify who from 1977 089
. ~,
f 'i s off-site support plant not g roups.
II.
COUNTY SHER t
UtIIIty Plan _:
contacts Chio and Ot-would contact relevant agencies and help tawa County Disaster Services A-evacuate people.
gencies, initiates emergency no-tification system, sets up road blocks and other evacuation pro-cadures.
State Plan:
notifies all county and state agencies involved, notifies residents in affected area, desig-nates road blocks.
Ill. OTTAVA COUNTY ENGINEER Utility Plan: assist in traffic would help evacuate, notify public, set control and back-up comun1ca-up road blocks, assess equipment and tions.
get more help if needed.
State Plan:
provide barriers, make equipment and manpower available, support evacuation, assist in door to door notification.
IV. CHIO DISASTER SERVICES AGENCY
~
Utility Plan: work with sheriff to have prepared draft state plan - doesn't determine evacuation routes anJ deal with evacuation routes, does relocation centers, arrange for have list of potential care centers food, lodging, and medical care.
for Ottawa county.
State Plan:
not mentioned in text.
V.
OTTAWA COUNTY DISASTER SERVICES AGENCY Utility Plan:
not mentioned in consists of one employee who believes text.
his role is after the disaster, would State Plan:
evacuate residents,
contact Ohio Disaster Services Agency identify and prepare evacuation for help, said he would play minor centers, arrange for 10 days sup-role.
port, coordinate emergency planning with other county agencies.
VI.
FIRE DEPARTMENT Utility Plan:
contacted if needed, would help put out plant fires (however State Plan:
assist sheriff with do not have any special equipment public notification, assist in at Department for fighting radiological evacuation procedures and fight fires), would help with pt;1 tc notif t-any fires.
cation.
1 77 090 V i l ~. MEDICAL SUPPORT A.
AMBULANCE SERVICE Utility Plan: provided by Robinson no longer provided by Robinson Funeral Funeral Home, Oak Harbor.
Home - sold to tarroll Township Emer-State Plan:
not mentioned in text.
gency Medical Service - unable to find supervisor there.
B. MAGRUDER MEMORI AL HOSPITAL, Port Clinton UtI11tv Plan:
radiation emergency could handle up to 80 serious cases of area ready if needed, have special radiation exposure, informal agree-
4 ments with other area hospitals equipment.
State. Plan:
not mentioned in text.
to handle overflow.
C. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVMtIA HOSPITAL, Phliadelphia UtIIIty Plan:
second facility named not contacted (Magruder Hospital ad-to handle radiation exposure cases.
ministrator not aware that University State Plan,:
not mentioned in text.
of Pennsylvania Hospital is the back-up hospital).
D. RADIATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Utility Plan:
provide training and did not respond to OPIRG 1etter.
and evaluation of emergency medical plans.
State Plan:
not mentioned.In text.
Vill. TOLEDO EDISON CO.
Utility Plan:
release public Infor-Public Relations staff person knew little about plan or procedures.
mation.
State Plan: not mentioned in text.
Some other ageneles are IIsted in the plans as playing secondar'/ roles, but were not contacted by OPIRG..
CHO PUBUCINIh FiESEARCH GROUP 4/17/79 461-0136 J
J e
1977 091
d,. FrequencyAf Err'o~rs By 'ers66nel " -
~~^^^^
-r :n :.
p f
At Davis-Besse Is Under NRC Studv
~
=
/
.===
Number Called
- P"'* "" '"pped 6 turn Mf a saml opwadog Duis. Bene becam so
= - ;
ed specific valve at the facility. Instead of ~ worrisonae that an NRC inspector re-Unusuallv Hi h.
==ias a22 ** c=act** *=d =dy arged Mr..Keppi m aut me
=""
==
O off two other valyes - a mistake that plant down and keep it closed until the 1.J.~
~ - =w.
I R
By MICHAEL WOODS _
... partially inactivated the reactor's situation could be corrected.
~ I_...~ ~
si e. sammes seier crecial emergency core cooling system.
Davis.Besse currently r.maina shut
-====
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Nuclear ne Toledo Edison Co., which lias down, fonowing a scheduled outage for Regulatory C=mi= ion is trying to de. charge of operaticos at Davis.Besse, mainten:nce. Mr' Keppler said be does 1-,-i.~..
termine why the Davis.Besse Nuclear may be fined for'the incident, Mr.Kep-not intend to order Edison to keep t;ie Z
Power Station near Toledo continues to P er said. Toledo Edison is coowner of plant shut partly because of as-i
- 1..M""" ~ ~ ~
"...."..=E5.:~
be plagued by an unusually high number Davis. base along with the Clneland surance from Toledo Wiaan President John Willismaan that operation wH1 not of personnelerrors.
Electric Illuminating Co.
James Keppler, director of NRC's Davis.Besse has come under sharp resume until~the ~ personnel problem is
="
==
""~" "E Chicago regional dfice, said the fre. NRC scrutiny in recent weeks in the solved.' ;
-v s-
' t...
Iiiiiii?
quency and poter.'.ial seriousness of mis. aftermath cf the accident at the Three No Action To Prevent Restart
= =!
sa takes made by plant personnel have giv. Mile Island nuclear power plant cear NBC has taken no acdon dat would a--=-'
EE en Davis.Besse one of the poorest repu. Harrisburg, Pa.
- prevent' Edison. from restarting the
= =
Davis.Besse's reactor is a sister to the tations for operator precision in the re. reactor at Three MHa Island, both hav* plant itamediately. Technically, all =
gion.
Edison would have to do is notify NRC
=--
ET The Chicago region &1 office oversees ing been built by the maclear engineer of its plans to "go crideal" wie ce 21 nuclear power plants spread through ing firm of Babcock & Wilcor. In add!' plant.
z.
a broad section of the Midwest.
tim, NRC has identified melfunctions Another factor, Mr. Keppler said, is
=
Many of the personnel. errors at nimilar to those at nress Mile Island that Edison personnel at the plant do !
Davis.Besse have been minor, Mr. Kep. that occurred in less serious form early seem capable of operating the facility in i
pler said. But others have involved in the operatinglife of Davis.Besse.
a " passable" fashion.
F crucial safety systems, where mistakes Shtdcwn Urged b
8 The plant's continuing problem with fo there oa all bas o nu ear rea r ents.
personnel errors, which Mr. Keppler dis. Mr. Keppler said he would confer a *c Turned Off Wrong Valves cussed during an interview nursday, passing grade.
Mr. Keppler cited, as an hstration, are an additional factor.
one incident last month in which a plant Mr. Kepler said that mistazas by per.
Turn to Page 7. Col 3 4ls.L 2
on v
my 1.
oo e At g
o 77 092 s
- - ~
._P-.-
.,.. ~. g; I:n u;n.n THE' BLADE:.. TOLEDO, OHIO, FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 1979 g
- ._7....
~
! Davis-Besse Personnel Errors Under Study E
Condnoed from p Pase Besse in the months following startup in P '"** shut dcwn until he is certain that
+
"*" #*8"* 8*
I*
E ut be also indicated'lhat on a scale
- -a O
of A. B, C, D, or F, he probably would personnel errors have remained I~
M d
ade, plant ireassel performance with y high at the plant and show a noting that operators - some of whom I
UI I 3"O' 8CN Tr *We nf n einsed NRr' ears f tin e rien
[w
. held here Apnl 5, a week after the l=
- Three Mile Island incident, mention Poor Motivation, Disefpline Assur:ng Compkte Safety g
bl ne reasons, Mr..Keppler said, are
~'
Davis.Besse's continuin bems. John rplexing. Among: the possibilities Some of the plant operators wil'.4 E.::
z.
Davis, actin offt inspection,and enforcement, noted dur.
considered by NRC are inadequate trained shortly in new procedures s am- !!E
"=
" = = = - ing the meeting: "If we did have a ra training of the operators, poor motiva. ming from the nree Mile Island iner m ing system of A, B, C, we would and roor discipline. Ironically' plant dent. Training win be on a computer
~
? Davis.Besse C on this scale. It should Personnel scored well on the federal simulator at the Embcock & Wilcox nu.
a betglant."
licensing namination for re' actor opera. clear facility in Lynchburg, Va.
5 Mr. Keider acknowl t.per tors, Mr. Keppler noted.
The primary concern at this point is 5sonnel errors do tend to be more fre.
Mr. Keppler said that Edison realizes assuring cornplete safety of the plant
^ quent during the early months of opera-that there have been problems with per. and not the economic impact of the a-ation at any new atomic power plant, sonnel at the plant and has agreed to shutdown, he noted. Mr. Willimmann said u
E n wben the staff is new and relatively submit a plan for corr =ctingthem.
It probably will t e a matter of weeks.
'""iinexperienced. And, indeed, psssel Mr. Williamson said Thursday be has rather than days or months, before the
" errors were n2 ore frequent at Davis. made a personal decision to keep Davis-plant is set to resume operations.
-~.
e gy, *.
~
~,-
~.. -
...' JUNE.
,1 ma ii..=
.M.n i i -. -
~
~..
s.
Dock.et No.: S0-34 6
' gf,.'
.7..
.G Hr. Terry $. Lodge 1
Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy
.P. O. Box 4545
, Toledo, Ohio 43620
,, f,.
Dear Mr. Lodge:
9
,,,,.This letter is sent to acknowTedge receipt of your TietTtiim on.benair or the Toledo Coalition for Safe, Energy requesting that the Office of Inspection and Enforcement issue an order that the Davis-Besse nuclear, plant not be restarted until' certain emergency'and evacuation actions are taken by Toledo Edison and public hearings are held.
Your petition has been referred to the Director of. Nuclear Reactor Regulat.fon because the subject matter of the peti, tion,is within the jurisdiction o.f this.
~
office.
Your petition is being treated under.10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations, and accordingly, appropriate action will be taken within a reasonable time.
I anclose for your inforr.ation a copy of the notice that is being filed for publication with.the.0ffice.of the. Federal. Register.
s, igg 3(gyy,_
H.R.Denten Harold "R. Denton, Director -
Office of' NucTear Reactor Regulation 7.-[
Enclosure:
Hotice o *
- lo
- lo s y ng MmM Ah 1977 093 e
Q.. ;. -
hyg I
U19
- j.-
..w,,.. :
~
, Docket No.: 50-346
~
L-
~
Mr. l.owell E. Roe Vice President, Facilities Development Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza 300 P.adison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43652
Dear Hr. Roe:
.. ' ~.....
I enclose for your infomattoli a copy of a petition filed on behalf of 'the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy which requests that an order be issued that the Davis-Besse nuclear plant. not be restarte'd until certain actions.
are taken concerning emergency and, evacuatjon pr'ocedures and public hearings The petition.is being treated under 10 CFR 2.206 of the have been held.
Comission's regulations, and accordingly, appropriate action.will.be taken on the petition within a reasonable time.
I also enclose for your infomation a copy of the notice that will be filed for publication with the Offige of the Federa1 Register.
Sincerely.
Origias! Sigced by H. R. Dentos harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor
. Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Petition I
2.
Iotice cc w/ enclosures:
Seenextpahe e
i*fT fM
,1
_d aJ o
1977 094
Toledo ~ Edison Company
. C I,5/_gn, closure (s):,
Mr. Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
Director, Technical Assessment The Cleveland Electric Division.
Illuminating Company Office of Radiation Programs P. O. Box 5000 (AW-459)
Cleveland, Ohio 44101 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Crystal Mall #2 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Arlington, Virginia 20460 Shaw, Pittman, Potts U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Federal Activities Branch Washington, D.C.
20036 Region V Office ATTN:
EIS CCORDINATOR Leslie Henry, Esq.
230 South Dearborn Street Fuller, Seney, Henry and Hodge Chicago, Illinois 60604 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43604 Mr. Robert O. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Ohio Department of Health Nuclear Pcwer Generation Division
, ATTN:
Director of Health Suite 420, 7735 Old Georgetown Road 450 East Town Street Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Columbus, Ohio 43216 Ida Rupp Public Library 310 Madison Street Port Clinton,0hio 43452 Pre.cident, Board of County Commissioners of Ottawa County Port Clinton, Ohio 43452 Attorney General Department of Attorney General 30 East Broad Street Columbus. Ohio 43215 s
Harold Kahn, Staff Scientist Power Siting Commission 361 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 Yb Skjh d77095
~
[
7590-01
,Mii,-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~ " ~ - -
TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY AND THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-346 DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1
~
REQUEST FOR ACTION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that by petition dated April 24,1979, the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy requested that an order be issued that the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1. not be restarted until certain actions are taken concerning emergency and evacuation pro-cedures and public hearirigs haye been held.
This petition is being treated as a request for action under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Comission's regulations, and accordingly, action will be taken on the peitition within a reasonable, time.
Copies of the petition are available for inspection in the Comnission's Public Docurmnt Room 'at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555 and in the local public document room at the Ida Rupp Public Library, '310 F.adison Stree',, Port Clinton, Ohio 4345.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
&Wlk Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Cated at Bethesda, Maryland, l977 y6 this 1st day of June 1979.
~
e-
e e
SHAw, PITTMAN, PoTTs & Taowentoce 18 0 0 M ST R C CY, N. W.
WAS HINGTON. O. C. 2 Od3 0D8b0
. f-,,,
~.. :~,.n.
I,033 3 3e..sOO rt s
- ST CvC N L. p* C Li a C m eAmSATO.Po.!? MAN STCusatt.r oC AN O. AutoCm S C omC C F.1mO* DesOGC JOM88 C NGEL
"" c * c '
u,e.u'.':L".e?.2,'d?,
.',M"'"t;"":'O
,t.
i,0,....O.......-.no CS
.C.
J.
C S.. M m,N
" C fA.'O e." ' ' * "M "
8 "i'J"n".'Z"'C."S. J ;.
tete =
- !,""C."T."'.'C.".H "
"f"J"' '" lla"
".21",'C,'JJ$ '^'
".*t,',t ^d."3*t C,
CASLC SMAWbAW*
JOH N M O'M C att.J A m,cseanO J. AC A DALL Jav C. SateCmo J AT A. C STICN m an 0 A A A **. so S SOf ff f A AN 4 LIN O. C MU JOMN M. SMAmOH es n OF 0 ak OLDS iC. A C S
?OwAAD e CROSLAND r a C O A. Let TL C TMOM A S M. MeC C A M.C4 F ACO D A AShC A sus AN & F ALESON C UNSCL peat e& NtCL S E C C O, J fb STEWCN 04.LUPAS osamA auGChBLICm NAND L.ALLCet 1::"U,'O;; t"O :'S
=",t;.",.'.*l."'
June 8,
1979 T MC M A S A. S ha T C 4 AL AN R. TUSDCM Jame C S ed. SumGC 4
,JOM M,L. CAR R. J %
MILE J. M A Rv CY Ser C LOON.b w CES CL
\\.
sO8eN A. MeCULLouGM KAY L. RtCMM ADO ssMCS secou s LCnMnar
~
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Re:
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.
l',
Docket No. 50-346
Dear Mr. Denton:
By letter dated April 24, 1979, the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy has made several demandJ related to the operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1.
This letter is being treated by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation' as a request for action under 10 C.F.R.
S2.206.
The first demand, related to "all possible operational problems, human and mechanical" is so broad and vague it must be dismissed; its lack of specificity permits no reasoned response by the NRC Staff.
The next three demands are all related to emergency plans, and are actions which are neither required nor authorized by NRC regulations; as such they could be considered, if at all, only as a request for rulemaking, and not as actions relating to the status of a particular license.
The fifth and final demand -- for a hearing on the previous four demands '--
is thus an empty request.
I g
j
SHAW,'PITTM/.N. POTTS & TROWBRIDGE' l"
Mr. liarold R.
Denton Page Two G,$.-.
, 1979 June 8
,,Accordingly, the Licensees respectfully submit that the Coalition's request should be denied.
s.
Sincerely yours,'
)
i
~
Br e W. ChNchill Counsel for The Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Elec tric Illuminating Company, Licensees BWC:cp cc:
Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy S) 2MI$]$4 =
e p77 098 e
e
.P.O.
Box 2091 Toledo, OH 43603 June 12, 1979
-Q:l
.jLE.
~ 'Dr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RE:
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power 1717 H. Street N.W.
Station, Unit No.1, Docket Washington, D.C. 20555 No. 50-346
Dear Dr. 'Denton:
I am in receipt of your June 1,1979 letter confirming the NRC's ini-tiation of the processing of the complaint filed April 24, 1979 by the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy.
I hereby respectfully petition this Commission to bifurcah its treatment of that letter and the information subsequently forwarded me on May 23 to Mr. Stephen Burns of the Office of the (NRC)
Executive.agal Director in the following way:
(1) That my May 23 letter and information and the second paragraph of the April 24 letter from the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy to James G. Keppler of NRC-Chicago, which addresses inadequata emergency and evacuati,on plans of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
- Station, Unit I be treated as a petition for modification of the operating license granted to Toledo Edison Company and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company pursuant to 10 CFR s2.206 and applicable sections of 52.202 and 550. - -;
(2) That the thiid.through eighth paragraphs of the April 24 letter be treated as a Petition for Rulemaking per 10 CFR 52 seq., and consolidated with the Petition for Rule Mak 800 le ing filed by Critical Mass Energy Project, et. al., on May 9,1979 (Docket No. PRM-50-23), and acted upon accordingly; (3) That a hearing on paragraph (1) herein be scheduled priorcto the issuance of any NRC clearance to the operators of D-BI to restart the plant, and that counsel for the licensee utilities be instruc-ted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.202 to show cause why the emergency and evacuation procedures _for Davis-Besse and the State of Ohio should not be modified prior to any startup of Davis-Besse; (4) That said hearing be held without delay.
I am in receipt of a letter from Mr. Bruce W. Churchill, Counsel for TEco and CEI, licensees of Davis-Besse, dated June 8,1979 requesting relief from you in the form of dismissal of TCSE's petition..I am not aware that you sit in the position of either an administrative law judge or hearing officer as of this date.
Moreover,10 CFR 52.206 does not appear to grant to a licensee the right to respond to the TCSE petition at this stage of the proceedings.
Theref6re, I respectfully request an order from you that counsel for licensees' letter be stricken and excluded from the record and from consideration of further NRC action on the TCSE petition.
Failing a
.. ="~..,
.s
......-.n..,..,,.
a...
' n Harold Denton D
Page 2 3
N
. ph....
that, I will treat counsel for licensees' letter as a motion for dismissal, albeit quite clearly outside of the self-explanatory provisions of 52.206 and 52.703 et. seo.
The following response is for the specific purpose only of answering Mr. Churchill's ex parte letter in defense of the TCSE petition, and is not to be construed as an exercise or waiver of any rights which TCSE has under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, or Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Counsel for licensees evidently cannot grasp the distinction between the complaint embodied in the April 24 petition, and the request for relief therein.
Instead of addressing the substance of that complaint - that there are documentable inadequacies in the emergency and contingency arrangements for the utility and the State of Ohio concerning Davis-Besse I - counsel for licensees has treated the TCSE request for relief as the corpus of the complain t.
This treatment of 'the petition misses the point entirely, and is a disservice to this Commission in its determination as to whether the terms of the existing Davis-Besse license should not be modified.
D-B I is closely related Trom a technical design standpoint, to the Three Mile Island 11 reactor.
Disturbingly, D-B is also closely related to TMI in terms of the totally deficicot emergency / evacuation procedures, the consequences of which was ominously depicted in the ignorance and indecision of Pennsylvania utility and government officials in March and Apiil.
It is for these reasons that TCSE seeks the above-enumerated relief from this Commission, and specifically that Davis-Besse be restrained from startup until appropriate changes to emergency / evacuation preparedness and procedures be imposed upon licensees in the form of license modifications.
Section 50.100 of the CFR empowers the NRC to modify a license
...hecause of conditions reve led. by the application or license or a
statement of fact or any report, record, inspection, or other means, which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license on an original application...
Simply stated, NRC guidelines set as a standard that the Commission review licenses which have been granted according to whether it would grant a license on the basis of obsolete license application components.
Would the NRC approve, today, after Three Mile Island, the woefully insufficient emergency procedures which are currently applicable to Davis'-Besse? TCSE thinks not.
We await your earliest expeditious', action upon the TCSE petition and p77 100
. Md
pc. Harold Denton Fage 3
_ n~=
- i:. -
.sA upon the requests herein. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
/ Dan l4 *i f for the Toledo Coalition Ter Lo se Coun for afe Energy, Petitioners Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge cc:
P77 101 M
P.O. Bor 2091 Toled o, OH 43603
-R..
June 12, 1979
. n.- -
Mr. Stephen Burn's Office of Executive Legal Director-RE:
Complaint of Toledo Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coalition for Safe 1717 H Street, N.W.
Energy Washington, D.C. 20555 -
Docket No. 50-3M -
Dear Mr. Burns:
Enclosed for information is a letter I recently sent to Dr. Denton in response to a so-called " motion for dismissal" filed by counsel for the' 11censees of Davis-Besse I.
Since I have received no confirmation from you as to the materials I sent May 23, I assume that they have reached you.
I have a questions what constitutes a " reasonable time "
per 10 CFR S2.206 and the notice which the NBC published in the Federal Register of TCSE's complaint?
It is of concern because nothing in Dr. Denton's letter clarifies the point..
If at all possible, please advise me on this point.
It is the desire of TCSE that the troubling emerger.cy plan de-ficiencies will be dealt with honestly and openly by the NRC in an expeditious manner, so that we.will not have to' seek extraordinary relief through the federal courts.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely, "l'p[ b,d
]
mm m
9 9
3-Terry!
. Lo se y-Attorr}i for TCSE ey at Law Couns e
~
eno em
. T'Wguaggemem"
4asb o
UNITED STATES 8
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
g, C WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
%,,,,0, June 27, 1979 Docket No. 50-346 e
Mr. Terry J. Lodge, Chairman Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy P. O.
Box 4545 Toledo, Ohio 43620
Dear Mr. Lodge:
This letter will acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 12, 1979 requesting that a portion of your petition on behalf of the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy (TCSE) be separated out for treatment under 10 C.F.R. 52.206 of the Commission's regulations and that the remainder of the issues identified in that letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking.
In accordance with that request, I am forwarding copies of your correspondence to the Secretary of the Commission for docketing as a petition for rulemaking.
I expect to act shortly on TCSE's remaining request to institute a pro-ceeding to modify the license for operation of Davis-Besse in the area
- of emergency and evacuation procedure pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206 but I do not now expect that a decision on that matter will precede authoriza-tion for the reactor to resume operation. As you were informed by a letter from Mr. James Keppler, Director of Region III of the Conmission's Office of Inspection and Enforcement dated May 17, 1979, the determination regard-ing when the Davis-Besse Unit i facility will be permitted to return to operation will be based on an evaluation of whether the actions specified in the Commission's May 16, 1979 Order have been completed to the satis-faction of the NRC.
A copy of that Order was sent to you with Mr. Keppler's letter.
As indicated above, the nature and subject matter of your petition, contained in your correspondence with this agency (letter of April 24 to J. Keppler, letter of May 23 to S. Burns, and letters of June 12 to H. Denton and S. Burns), reflect that it is properly a request for consideration under 10 C.F.R.12.206 (petition for license modification) and 10 C.F.R. 52.802 (petition for rulemaking). The petition is not, therefore, a request for a hearing with respect to the Commission's May 16, 1979 Order as provided for in Section V of the Order. Accordingly, I am treating your request as prescribed by the appropriate regulations.
p? 7.103 ed e
me,
p.e
a
' Because it involves a related matter regarding a similar Babcock and Wilcox reactor, I am also enclosing for your information a copy of a Commission Order issued June 21, 1979 ruling on a request for a hearing brought pursuant to the Commission's Order of May 7 directing that the Rancho Seco facility remain shut down until certain actions specified in that Order were satisfactorily completed.
Sin re C2'
/
/
/)L J-j Harold R. Denton, Director y
' Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Bruce W. Churchill, Esq.
Counsel for Licensees 1977 104
.s.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.v. MISSION h'*0ea, COMMISSIONERS:
A g
UwtG Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairnian Vict,or Gilinsky
}
dVN211979 $> 5 Richard T.
Xcnnedy
.ay.
d Peter A. Bradford Wg' g
John P. Ahearne g
4 C'J
)
In the Matter of
)
)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAI. UTILITY DISTRICT
)
Docket No. 50-312
)
Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station
)
)
)-
ORDER D T
}D
]D
' 3
} h o b.s J u o Ju_2. k tru 2 -
By a confirmatory Order dated May 7, 1979 the commission directed that the Ranche Seco facility, then in a shutdown condition, should remain shut down.until certain actions speci-fied in the Order were satisfactorily completed, as confirined by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
The Order f 1,.
also directed the licensee to accomplish as promptly as practica-
.~
ble the long-1.erm modifications set forth in Section II of the c y' '.
4' O.rde r.
The Or' der stated furthers 'gj Within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, } the licensee or any person whose interest may be t 4. affected by this Order may request a hearing with respect to this Order. Any such request shall not l stay the immediate effectiveness of this Order.
- E..~
- ,. l Requests for a hearing have been received from Friends of
- .y the Earth and from members of the Board of Directors of the t'
Sacramento Municipal Utility District. The Commission hereby directs that the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel shall, pursuant to 1977 ILS
D**}D
- D'
'lh E o Ju o M d) . \\ lnks ~ 10 CFR 2.105 (o), select'a board to determine whether the requesters meet the requisite personal interest test and to conduct any hear-ing which may be required. The subjectis to be considered at the hearing shall include: 1. Whether the actions required by subparagraphs (a) through (e) of Section IV of the Order are necessary and suffi-cient to provide reasonable assurance that'the facility will I respond safely to feedwater transients, pending completion of the long-term modifications set forth in Section II. A contention challenging the correctness of the NRC staff's conclusion that the actions described in subparagraphs (a) through (e) have been com-pleted satisfactorily will be considered to be within the scope of the hearing. However, the filing of such a contention shall not of itself stay operation of the plant, t 2. Whether the licensee should be required to accomplish, as promptly as ' practicable, the long-term modifications' set .:tth in Section II of the Order. 3. Whether these long-term nodifications are sufficient to
- vide continued reano,able assurance that the facility will respond safely. to feedwater transients.
Resumed operation of the Rancho Seco facility on terms con-sistent with the Order of May 7, 1979, is not stayed by the pen-dency of these proceedings. Contrary to the contention of the Friends of the Earth in their filing of June 8, 1979, the trin-scripts of the commission proceedings of April 25 and 27 reflect no Commission intent that hearings necessarily precede restart of the facility. Nor is such a requirement compelled by law or by the factual circumstances before us. Mere speculation that the hearing might develop facts indicating the need for further P77 106 DN* M
~ u.. enforcement action does not suffice to warrant a prohibition on re-start of the facility. In the event that a need for further enforce-cent action becomes apparent, either in the cocarse of the hearing or at any other tiinin, appropriate action can be taken at that time. NRC staff has now determined that the actiems set forth in sub-Paragraphs (a) through (e) have been completed satisfactorily, and it shall provide the Commission with an informational briefing as. to the basis for its conclusions prior to permiittting restart of the facility. That briefing will be open to the puiblic. In recziving this briefing, the Commission will in no manner prejudge the merits of the adjudicatory hearing authorized by this Order. Any adjudi-catory determination by the Commission -that may arise from.that hear,.. ing will be based solely on the record developera in that prcceeding. It is so ORDERED. a For he Commissiona j d ?,a R I SAMUEL J. CnII;K N Secretary ofj the Commission Dated at Washington, D.C., this 21st day of June, 1979. ~
- / The decision of the Licensing Board will be: made on the basis of Ee record developed before it.
Tcccrdingly, pursuant to our rules, statements made by any person in the course of the staff's informa-tional briefing for the commission inay not be
- pleaded, cited, or relied upon" in the adjudicatory proceedings before the Licensing Board, or in subsequent appellate proceedings before the Appeal Board.
10 CFR 9.103. If and whe1 Commission review of that adjudi-cation takes place, any party wishing to plead, cite, or rely on the transcript of the informational briefing will be at liberty to do so. To that extent, owing to the unusual factual circums tances present here, we waive the prohibition contained in 10 CFR 9.10 3, in accor-dance with the provision of that rule authoriz-ing such i v y the Commission. } J
- en m
-m..
s Je '9( ' h% (. 4 r '3
- g j [ s n( c } A l d =
m. c F R ON1: ACTION CONTROL DATES CONTROL NO07254 COm oEAou~E cnnm ..40 9 I Id$be I MI6 '~ ACKNOWLEDG M ENT DATE OF DOCUMENT DU l$@@ 00 T NaEEd81Is NM N INTERIM REPLY khh T O f * * "" ' ~, * ' ' ^ ' ' PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE Credif%n herittric. FINAL REPLV / / D CHAIRMAN FILE LOCATION O. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR / fl / ' /, /,, . oT ER:- DESCRIPTION O LETTER OMEMo O REPORT O OTHER SPECIAL INSTRUCllONS OR AEMARKS ke, cc.>tet of all past and future filim;s to all parties w the proceeding on umtdo.:n of isavis-oesse CLASSIFIED DATA OOCUVENT/ COPY NO. C LASSlFIC ATION NUYBE R OF PAGES CATEGORY "M bdO POST AL R EGIST RY NO. O NSI O Ro O rRo ASSIGNE D TO: DATE INFORMATION ROUTING LEG AL REVIEW 0 FINAL 0 COPV SWur B/2fi/79 M ton ASSIGNED TO: DATE NO LEG AL OBJECTIONS gg g NOTIFY: O EDO ADVIN & COR RES BR G015ICL
- EXT, gg COMM ENTS. NOTI F Y.
EXT. JCAE NOTIFICATION RECOMMENDED. O VES .'._.i No NDC R
- 232 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS '
DO NOl e t /.'u n im cuer PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL .g u 0,3 '. g , Q, W v:: 1977 108
s 8/27/79 N/ 79-2483 to,,,n, oa,e NRC SECRETARI AT oate - To: O commeioner O cen. Cou..sef XXO Enec. oir./Oper. O soricitor O Co.,9 Liaison O secretary O Puthe Aff airs O _ Rep. Toby Moffett. Chairman Subcomm. on Env.. Enerav & Natural incom;ng. F rom i Resources I 8/22/79 Chairman HEndrie oa1,_ Reouests conies of filinos of oarties in ENHE ro. subject: ~ Davis-Besse shutdown oroceedina XXb Prepare reply for siJnature of; X)DDC Chairman Date due Com: Sept. 10 0 Coramissioner O eoo. cc. Ct. sot. PA. SECY O signature block omitted 0 XM Return original of incoming with response D For direct repuy-Fc,r appropriate action O For inio mation O ror recommenoaiion Cpys to: RF, Chm, OCA to Acknowledge. Docket p, ma 4,. t Combs F or the Commission:
- Send three (3) copies of reply to Secy Mail Facihty
.. h. f ACTION SLIP .._,,.,:._,.7...;.-s..... =.. = g T. p77.109 '}}