ML19343C022
| ML19343C022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1981 |
| From: | Goldsmith R CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT, GOLDSMITH, R., PRAIRIE ALLIANCE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102180511 | |
| Download: ML19343C022 (7) | |
Text
,t D'
N\\ST'k o
s J
~
g k~
S-
-2c UNITED STATES OF A!ri<ICA Q
Ct~.,.,.
tg4/ & O NUCLEAR REGULATORY '.JMMISSION
- * ),y
\\
BEFORE THE COMMISSION g
6e. \\
In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO!!PANY
)
Docket No. 50-10
)
(Dacontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit No. 1)
)
RESPONSE OF PETITIONERS TO COMMISSION CRDER On November 14, 1979, Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) proposed two amendments to Appendix A, Technical Specification, to the operating license for Dresden I in order to per. form the primary system chemical decontamination.
Prior to and af ter l
that date, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received various petitions from Kay Drey, Citizens for a Better Environ-ment, Prairie Alliance, Marilyn Shineflug and Bridget Rorem (hereinafter collectively referred to as " Petitioners") requesting that NRC prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The petitions for an EIS were granted and at the end of May, 1980, a draf t EIS for the Dresden I[c[ntia31nitlor1 ~was--
issued.
Petitioners submitted comments 6'n the draft EIS, and
~
?
on July 8, 1980, petitioned for a public hearing on the EIS and the proposed license amendments for the decontamination.
On October 17, 1980, the final EIS was made available to-the S
6o I
t M';
3:. %.w l *
- * * *4
.~......,
gJQg3
- ~
s.....e Cr
r public.
The Commission in an Order dated January 8,
- 1981, requested briefing on several issues.
To this date the Commis-sion has not ruled on the proposed license amendments nor on the petition for a public hearing.
Question (a):
What, if any, license modifications in addition to the two Technical Specification Changes sought by CECO are required for decontamination?
Answer Since the Commission has made no determination on the petition for a public hearing, Petitioners are not a formal party yet.
There are no regulatory or procedural provisions govern-ing Petitioners' role prior to this determination.
Under S 189 (a) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
522 39 (a),
the Commission shall:
grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding.
If Petitioners' petition is granted, S 189(a) requires that they be treated as a party without further ado.
On the other hand, this Commission, if it adopts the NRC staff's position, may require Petitioners to submit an additional petition to inter-vene and contentions.
Thus Petitioners do not want to prejudice their potential contentions, 10 CFR S 2. 714 (b), by listing specific issues they seek to litigate in this matter, prior to their formal submittal.
Moreover, it is Petitioners' position that if their petition for a public hearing is granted, then-the Commission must admit them as a party under S 189(a) and formal contentions need not be submitted, at least until there is an opportunity for discovery under 10 CFR S 2.740.
2
Finally, it is unclear whether the Commission's Order of January 8, 1981, excludes the issues relating to the EIS for the Dresden decontamination, for which Petitioners also regrested a public hearing.
For that reason, Petitioners reiterate that all issues connected to the environmental impact of the decon-tamination are relevant issues for litigation at the public hearing.
These issues include both those addressed by the comments on the draft EIS and new issues arising since the close of the comment period.
Question (b):
What, if any, license modifications are required for resumption of operation?
Answer Although Petitioners do not wish to prejudice their potential contentions in this area as well, it can be stated that specific Technical Specifications or other license modifica-tions necessary for a return to commercial operation of Dresden I will pro'bably not be raised.
This does not exclude environmental implications of the decontamination upon Dresden's capability to be returned to service nor the evaluation of alternatives to return to service.
Additionally, Petitioners do not intend to waive their right to petition, at a later date, for a public l
hearing related to license modificationt necessary for Dresden's return to service.
Question (c):
l If license modifications are required for both decon-tamination and return to operation, how should the hearing be structured?
l Answer At the outset Petitioners. contend that this particular hearing should include the license modifications for the l
4 y
decontamination and all environmental issues related to the decontamination.
A separate hearing, later in time, may be necessary for issues surrounding the return to service.
Petitioners take issue with the NFC staff's position that no adjudicatory hearing is necessary if the mandate of Sholly v.
NRC, 15 ERC 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1980), is not entered prior to the approval of the proposed amendments required for the chemical decontamination.
Not only would this violate the intent of Sholly, supra, but it would also violate section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, which requires the NRC to grant a hearing upon the request of a person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding - whether or not the NRC has made a finding of "no significant hazard."
Petitioners requested such a hearing on July 8, 1980, before approval or disapproval of the Dresden decontamination, which to this date has not been decided upon.
To circumvent this statutory requirement, notwithstanding any_
entry of the mandate of Sholly, is a clear violation of the Atomic Energy Act.
Brooks v.
Atomic Energy Commission, 476 F2d 924 (D.C. Cir. 1973) made it clear to this Commission's predecessor agency over seven years ago that the mere request by a person whose interest may by affected is sufficient under S 189(a) to require a public hearing.
The Atomic Energy Act gives no indication whatsoever that a finding of "no significant hazard" by the NRC staff precludes, a public hearing properly requested under S 189(a).
4
v The hearing, since it will be considering a license amend-ment and the environmental impact of the proposed decontamina-tion, should be governed by 10 CFR S 51.52 as well as subpart G of 10 CFR Part 2.
These provisions provide no discretion to
" structure the hearing'as the Commission deems appropriate" (Staff Response at 5); as at any other hearing, the procedural rules of 10 CFR S 51.52 and subpart G of Part 2 must apply.
Finally, Petitioners have no objection to their consolidation as one joint party.
Respectfully submitted,
/,4 }/
\\
t,
/16 %
W Dated: 2/// /&/.
Robert Goldsmith Counsel for Petitioners Suite 1600 59 East Van Buren Street Chicago, Illinois 60605 (312) 939-1530 5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-10
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit No. 1)
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the captioned matter.
In accordance with S 2.713, 10 CFR Part 2, the following information is provided:
Name Robert Goldsmith -
Address Suite 1600, 59 E. Van Buren St.
Chicago, Illinois 60605 Telephone Number (312) 939-1530 Admissions Illinois State Supreme Court Wisconsin State Supreme Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Name of Party Petitioners:
Citizens for a Better Environment, et al.
L Lv Robert Goldsmith Counsel for Petitioners Dated:
I
45GtI q 3-..
N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
FF313;gg7
-2' SH
~
BEFORE THE COMMISSION f
ri:,
dL k
3:4..
In the !!atter of
)
'g p
)
/b COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-10
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " RESPONSE OF PETITIONERS TO COMMISSION ORDER" and " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this // Td, day of. February, 1981; Lawrence Brenner Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Board Panel Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Philip Steptoe, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Isham, Lincoln & Beale Appeal Board Panel One First National Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Forty-Second Floor Commission Chicago, Illinois 60603 Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of the Attorney General, Docketing and ervice Section State of Illinois Office of the Secretary Environmental Control Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 188 West Randolph Street Commission Suite 2315 Washington, D.C.
20555 Chicago, Illinois 60601 l
Leonard Bickwit, Esq.
Richard E.
Fenske Office of the General Counsel 635 Forest Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Park, Illinois 60302 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 i
l Samuel J.
Chilk, Secretary U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/(s A.
Washington, D.C.
20555 n
Robert Goldsmith Counsel for Petitioners l
f
.. _.