ML19296B239
| ML19296B239 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1980 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002200313 | |
| Download: ML19296B239 (10) | |
Text
,,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
THE TOLED0 EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket Nos. 50-500
)
50-501 (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Units 2 and 3)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' REQUEST FOR TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS I.
Introduction By letter dated January 24, 1980, to Alan S. Rosenthal, Chaiman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel (the Appeal Board), the Toledo Edison Company, et al. (Applicants) informed the Appeal Board that the co-owners of the proposed Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (hereaf ter Davis-Besse, Units 2 and 3), have announced their deci,sion to teminate plans to construct those facilities.M Attached to the letter is a press release announcing this decision.
In view of this decision, the Applicant requested that the Appeal Board "teminate any further proceedings in these dockets." A letter dated January 30, 1980 from the secretary of the Appeal Board to counsel for the Applicants confirms a :;elephone conversa-tion between Mr. Rosenthal and A'pplicants' counsel, advising counsel that no y
Staff counsel received a " courtesy copy" of this letter. Courtesy copies were also apparently sent to the members of the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Docketing and Service Section.
SD1122
action will be taken on this request pending a determination by the co-owners _
whether they intend to withdraw their applications for construction permits.
According to this letter, once a detenninatica in this regard is made, Applicants are to promptly so inform Mr. Rosenthal and the Commissioners.
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff agrees that no action on Appli-cants' request should be taken at this time. The Staff is also of the view that a determination on Applicants' request should be held in abeyance until the Staff has had the opportunity to evaluate the precise condition of the Davis-Besse, Units 2 and 3 site, in terms of all activities undertaken by the Applicants on the site pursuant to their Limited Work Authorizations (LWAs). The Staff will then provide the Licensing Board with the results of its review.
In the event Applicants decide to withdraw their applica-tions for construction permits, such withdrawal shall be on such tenns and conditions as the presiding officer shall prescribe.
10 CFR S 2.107(a).
II.
Status of the Proceedings On August 21, 1974, the Atomic Energy Commic on issued a Notice of Hearing On Applications For Construction Permits (riotice), which was published in the Federal Register on September 5, 1974 (39 Fed. Reg. 32176), with respect to the applications filed by the Toledo Edison Co., et al. for construction pennits for Davis-Besse, Units 2 and 3.
The proposed facilities were to be located at Locust Point on the southwestern shore of Lake Erie in Carroll Township of Ottawa County, Ohio, 21 miles southeast of Toledo, Ohio.E 2,f Also located at the site is the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, for which the Toledo Edison Company, et al. has an operating license.
An uncontested evidentiary hearingM on environmental and site suitability matters (which encompassed the Applicants' October 13, 1975, request for a Limited Work AutSorization) was conducted by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the Licensing Board) on November 13, 1975. The Licensing Board issued a Partial Initial Decision on December 31, 1975, wherein it concluded that the site was a suitable location for two nuclear power units of the general size and type proposed by the Applicants. Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-75-75, 2 NRC 993 (1975).
In the Partial Initial Decision, the Licensing Board also concluded that the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),10 CFR Part 51, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 had been met, and that the environmental review performed by the Staff pursuant to NEPA was adequate.
_Id., a t 1027. No exceptions were filed to the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision.
On December 31, 1975, the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued, in accordance with the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision and pursuant to the authority contained in 10 CFR $ 50.10(e)(1), a Limited Work Authorization (LWA-1) to the Applicants for conducting certain nonsafety-related activities at the site. These activities are within the scope of 10 CFR 5 50.10(e)(1), and include, in general, site preparation, installation of construction buildings and support facilities and dewatering for certain 3f Although the Licensing Board had granted the request of the State of Ohio for leave to participate as an interested State pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.715(c), Ohio withdrew as a participant in the proceeding on August 4, 1975.
facility structures. This LWA is subject to certain conditions specified E
therein for the protection of the environment.
On January 26, 1976, the Appeal Board issued an order (unpublished) wherein it deferred review of the environmental and site suitability matters addressed in the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision pending consideration of the remaining radiological health and safety issues and the Licensing Board's rendition of its initial decision on these issues.
The Applicants requested a second Limited Work Authorization to conduct certain additional activities on the site, in a letter dated May 25, 1978, as amended June 6.1978. The activities for which authorization was re-quested were in the nature of subsurface preparation for the installation of structural foundations for certain safety-related structures. Accordingly, 10 CFR 6 50.10(e)(3) required the Licensing Board to determine whether there were any unresolved safety issues relating to these activities that would constitute good cause for withholding authorization. An uncontested eviden-tiary hearing on the Applicants' request for a second LWA was held on July 25, 1978. The Licensing Board concluded that there were no unresolved safety issues relating to the activities for which authorization was requested which would require a withholding of authorization to conduct such activities.
Accordingly, on August 30, 1978, the Board issued a Supplemental Partial Initial Decision authorizing issuance of a second Limited Work Authorization (LWA-2). Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3,
Based on the determinations of the Licensing Board, the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued LWA-2 to the Applicants by letter dated September 13, 1978.
The activities authorized by LWA-2 consist of performance of a bedrock verification program, including exploratory drilling and remedial grouting in the areas where the contain-ment, auxiliary building and turbine building were to be located. LWA-2 incorporates by reference, and is subject to the conditions specified in, LWA-1.
No proceedings have been initiated with respect to the radiological health and safety issues remaining to be considered by the Licensing Board.
Issuance of the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) Supplement has been delayed by Applicants' November 15, 1978, announcement that they were reevaluating the construction schedule for Davis-Besse, Units 2 and 3 and by higher-priority work by the Staff related to the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 accident.
In addition to the foregoing Licensing Board proceeding described above, the radon issue is also pending before the Appeal Board in this proceeding.
According to the Appeal Board's letter to the Applicants of January 30, 1980, petitions for review of ALAB-560 relating to an antitrust proceeding (including, inter alia, Units 2 and 3 of Davis-Besse, Docket No. 50-500A and 50-501A) are pending before the Commission.
III. The Staff's Views on Applicants' Request for Temination of Proceedings The present situation regarding Applicants' intentions with respect to its applications for construction pemits for Davis-Besse, Units 2 and 3 and Applicants' request for temination of proceedings gives the Staff cause for concern. Applicants' letter to Mr. Rosenthal makes no specific mention of the pendency of proceedings before the Licensing Board related to the appli-cations for construction pemits nor is there any reference to the two LWAs issued to Applicants for Davis-Besse, Units 2 and 3.
Mr. Rosenthal's response to the Applicants indicates that termination of the pending proceedings at this time would be premature since Applicants have not infomed the Appeal Board whether they plan to withdraw their applications for construction pemits. The Staff agrees and notes that since a Notice of Hearing has been issued in the proceeding before the Licensing Board,b withdrawal of the applications for construction pemits shall be on such tems and conditions as the presiding officer shall prescribe.
10 CFR S 2.107(a).N The Staff believes that consideration of Applicants' request for temination of the proceedings must take into account the current status of Applicants' activities on the site pursuant to their LWAs. The Commission's Office of y
As previously stated, hearings have in fact been conducted by the Licensing Board.
y A request to withdraw an application after the issuance of a notice of hearing would ordinarily be ruled upon by the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Consumers Power Company (Quanicassee Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-37, 8 AEC 627 (1974).
In the circumstances of that case, which involved a series of motions addressed to the Commission and the issuance of a show cause order by the Commission, the Comission detemined that it was appropriate to rule upon the request itself. _Id.
Inspection and Enforcement has confirmed that Applicants have undertaken
~
certain activities on site pursuant to these LWAs.
The Staff has no reason to believe that Applicants are not fulfilling the obligations and conditions imposed by these LWAs. However, in view of Applicants' request for termina-tion of proceedings, Staff counsel har requested information from the appro-priate NRC personnel regarding the precise conditions on site, in terms of all l.VA activities undertaken. Counsel has requested the Director, Divison of Reactor Construction Inspection, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to arrange with the appropriate NRC personnel for the site visit and inspection necessary to provide this information.
Upon completion of the site visit and inspection, the Staff will be in a position to present its views on what matters should be considered in the event that the Applicants seek to with-draw their applications for construction permits.
The Staff believes that any proposed termination of the proceedings in this docket must be preceded by appropriate NRC review, taking into account the conditions at the site resulting from activities undertaken pursuant to the two LWAs issued to Applicants with a view toward detennining whether termination of the pro-ceeding requires the imposition of special conditions.O IV. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Staff respectfully requests that the Appeal Board hold in abeyance any ruling upon the Applicants' request for 6/
In this regard, the Staff also notes that the LWAs specify that any activities undertaken pursuant to the LWAs shall be entirely at the risk of the Applicants.
tennination of all proceedings in this docket pending 1) written notification by Applicants (to all the NRC tribunals before which matters relating to this docket are pending) of their intentions regarding their applications for construction pennits for Dav.'s-Besse, Units 2 and 3, and 2) completion by the Staff of its evaluation of conditions on site with regard to work already performed pursuant to the LWAs.
Respectfully submitted, h McAdd Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 13th day of February,1980
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
2'
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket Nos. 50-500 1.
)
50-501 (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.
)
Units 2 and 3)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' REQUEST FOR TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion's internal mail system, this 13th day of February, 1980:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman
- Dr. David L. Hetrick Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Professor of Nuclear Engineering Board The University of Arizona U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tuscon, AZ 87521 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Lowell E. Roe Richard S. Salzman, Esq.*
Vice President, Power Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal The Toledo Edison Company Board Edison Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 300 Madison Avenue Washington, DC 20555 Toledo, OH 43652 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
Bruce Churchill, Esq.
Bodega Marine Laboratory Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
University of California Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge P. O. Box 247 1800 M Street, N.W.
Bodega Bay, CA 94923 Washington, DC 20036 Mr. William B. McCorum, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ohio Power Siting Commission Panel
- P. O. Box 1735 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 361 E. Broad Street Washington, DC 20555 Columbus, OH 43216
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section (7)*
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 At U]4fw W eMN Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff