ML19351F866
| ML19351F866 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1981 |
| From: | Steptoe P COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102200396 | |
| Download: ML19351F866 (15) | |
Text
.,
4 Q
s BEFORE 7.4E CCCI2SEON g'Q Y
AY 2/ 16 / 8 1 d
y v,7 1
I m
T' ea r~
Q
~
'LD 1 0 193l w ~~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S
(o, u.a. %a...E**
ccamiss
'JCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION 000KETEt
\\
\\ ^i, -
USN2O M
s (f)
,1,g s FE9 IS 1981 > ~;
EEFORE THE COMMISSION
'V Office cf the Soestery
- i 00:itdrg & Se:vi.
In the Matter or_
)
Ea.c
//
)
e, CCMMCET.ALTH EDISCN CCMPANY
)
Occket No. 50-10 m
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Pcwer
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
APPLICANT'S BRIEF TO THE CCMMISSICN This matter involves a request for hearings by several persons and groups
(" Petitioners") in respect of Ccmmonwealth Edisen's
(" Applicant's") proposal to carry out a chemical cleaning of its Dresden Unit Cne reactor.
On January 8, 1981 the Conunission asked the parties to brief three questions prior to its addressing the petition for hearings.
Those three questions and Applicant's re-sponses fcilow.
Question (a) :
What, if any, license modifications in addition to the two Technical Specification changes sought by Ceco are required for decontamination?
ANSWER:
,'q
/,
Applicant agrees with the NRC Staff's resp'onse dated January 20, 1981.
Cuestien (b):
What, if any, license modifications are required for a resumption of operation?
C*.v.. w= is...m.
Applicant agrees with the NRC Staff's I
S*/
81 ougoo390 g
response to'this question, but we think one point deserves additional emphasis:
Applicant does not know at this time all the license modifications which will be required for restart of Dresden Unit 1.
Indeed, present uncertainty concerning eventual NRC requirements arising out of the Systematic Evaluation Program and TMI reviews is one reason why Applicant has deferred the scheduled restart of Dresden Unit 1 until 1986'3/
The NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions provides at footnote 4 a general description of the actions not relating to chemical cleaning which appear at the present time to be required for restart of Dresden Unit One.
Appli-cant has tried to provide herein a somewhat more detailed response. is a list of Applicant's commitments to make engineering changes or to provide information to the NRC Staff prior to restart of Dresden Unic One.
Applicant has not yet p.oposed, nor is it possible to define pending completion of SEP and the other reviews listed in Attach-ment 1, the specific license modifications or cech spec changes to be made.
The list in Attachment 1 is certain to grow in the near future as the Staff continues to publish new requirements and ask further questions in respect of all cperating reactors.
We think that Attachment 1 illustrates
-1/
The other reason is certain short-term cash flow deficiencies currently being experienced by Applicant.
w
.. y..
r 1
l that it would not only be premature, but impracticable to addreas restart issues in any chemical cleaning' hearing.
1' Question (c):
r 1
If license modifications are required for both decontamination and return'to operation, how should the hearing ~be structured?
t a
ANSWER:
i The Commission's question apparently indicates that a hearing will be held.
If, as Applicant assumes, the basis for this decision is that such a hearing is required by ShcIly v. NRC,1'/ then the notice of hearing should direct i
the licensing board, in the event Shelly v. NRC is reversed 5
or legislatively correctec prior to ecmpletion of the hearings, to allcw the chemical cleaning to go forward without further t
delay on the basis of the Staff's "No Significant Hazards
)
i Finding and the-Final Environmental Statement.
The hearings i
a could continue as a justification of.the Applicant's proposal-4 and of the Staff's review, in accordance with what the-Commission itself has argued is ths appropriate interpretation i
or the "significant hazards" limitation in Section 189(a) of l
l the Atomic Energy Act.
-2/
On December 3, 1980, as soon as.it learne.d of the-l Shelly decision, Applicant ' wrote to the Commission-requesting that c licensing board be. appointed so that
~we could get on with the hearings which-seemed. required I
by the decision.
At'that time Applicant did not know that the NRC would seek an indefinite stay of the-mandate in Shelly.
I;plicant's letter was not a request for the Commission to hold hearings as a matter of discre--
tion if none are required as.a matter of law.
l l
l l
t.
s E
e
-,+--.,,,,rme-wee,.,---
-w-,.-,.,nau--,.n,-ew~-,,,e-.,sv -e e -
,e me,r.n-,,-,----,n.,,:
,.,~-re-.~,,
r,w n n,--,,e-
,wr~n wra wm
--,,-w,e,,a-,,,
)
\\
)
Any hearing should address the chemica3 cleaning itseli, together with necessarily related issues such as waste disposal or post-cleaning follow-up requirements.
(See NRC Staff Response to Ccmmission Questions, text at pp. 3-4).
Since an environmental impact statement has been prepared, 2/ it should be presented, along with the Staff's SER, at the hearings.
See Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Ccemittee v. AEC, 449 F.2d 1109, 1117-18 (1971).
- Ecwever, if the licensing board agrees with the Staff's conclusion that the chemical cleaning will have no significant impact on the human environment, and further finds that the chemi-cal cleaning does not give rise to " unresolved conflicts ccncerning alternative uses of available rescurces" within the meaning of Section 102 ( 2) (E) cf NEPA, there will be nc need to discuss alternatives to Applicant's proposal.
- See, e.g.,
Virginia Electric and Pcwer Company (North Anna Nuclear Pcwer Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAS 584, 11 NRC 451 (1980).
- l i
The restart and subsequent operation of Dresden Unit One should not be addres;ed in this hearing -- because these issues cannot be addressed -- but should be the subject of a separate " Notice of Opportunity for Hearing" published upon receipt of Commonwealth Edison's application l
for the license modifications necessary to restart the unit.
In this regard, note that Petitioners have not asked for a hearing on restart cf Dresden Unit Cne.
The issues involved
)
f 3/
Final Envircnmental Statement related te Primary Cocling System Chemical Decontamination at Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit Mc.
1, NUEEG 0686 (Cetober 1980).
4 i
- /
in chemical cleaning and restart are clearly separable.1 And no party will be prejudiced by this separation of issues, since Petitioners and other " interested persons" will have a
the oppertunity for a hearing prior to restart of Dresden Unit one.
A number of suggestions concerning the conduct of any hearing have been made by the NRC Staff and Petitioners which we believe could be left to a licensing board.
Su; for the sake of completeness, Applicant responds as follows.
The NRC Staff urges tne censolidation of Petitioners as one joint party.
(NBC Staff lesponse to Commission Cuestions at p.
5)
Petitioners have no objection.
(Response of Petitioners to Cc= mission Order at p.
- 5).
Applicant supports this c:nsolidation.
Assuming there is consolidation, and Ms. Rorem, who does have an interest in this matter, continues to participate as one of the Petitioners, Applicant believes it would be re-dundant and unnecessary to require each of the other Petitioners to establish his or her interest in the proceeding, as suggested by the NRC Staff.
(NRC Staff Response to Commission l
Cuestions at pp. 5-6).
4/
The issues raised by Petitioners to date in respect of chemical cleaning have primarily related to corrosic-and to the potential migration of chelated wastes
- Sowing burial.
The issues which must be resolved, at least by the NRC Staff, pricr to restart of the unit have to do with HPCI, Fire Protection, Environmental Qualificaticn, t
Seismic Reanalysis, etc.
More generally, the obvious l
distinction te make is between cleaning and operating i
Dresden Unit One.
I.
J Petitioners cla'.m that if their petition is granted their formal contentions need not be submitted t
until there is an opportunity for discovery under 10 CFR 1
S2.740.
Applicant strongly opposes this suggestion.
The Cctmission's Rules of Practice provide that " discovery shall begin only after the prehearing conference provided for in 1
S2.751a and shall relate only to those matters in controversy which have been identified by the Commission or by the presiding 4
l cfficer in the prehearing conference order entered at the conclusion of that prehearing conference."
10 CFR S2.740.
As a practical matter, there are more than seven years cf j
studies, experiments and correspondence supporting the pro-i posed chemical cleaning, and it would be unreasonably burden-scme for Applicant, its centracters, and, we think,.for the i
NRC Staff to threw this extensive history open for discovery l
without scme prior definition by a licensing board of the specific matters in controversy.
Respec'#' lly. submitted,
(
/
102) cs4NM One gf the Attorpeys for)
Cor-nwealth Edsson Company ISHAM, LINCOLli & BEALE Suite 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago,~;111ncis 60603
- s4 3;C 130e w ';
COMMONWEALTH EDISOM COMPANY'S
SUMMARY
OF REQUESTS FOR IN:'ORMATION/ COMMITMENTS REQUIRED AT ME PRESENT TIME FOR RET (_1 TO SERVICE Letter Description 1.
3.3.
Stephenson Letter Ccemitment to qualify Dresden Unit I to J.G.
Keppler dated equipment which performs safety June 30, 1975 functions during and after a postulated LOCA.
2.
K. R.
Goller letter to NRC authorization to initiate chemical R.L.
Solger dated decontamination of Dresden I containing December 9, 1975 Commonwealth Edison's commitments to conduct testing program, a pre-service inspection program for the primary coolant boundary, and a post cleaning.
surveillance program.
3.
R.L.
Sogler letter to Cammitment to modify the core spray Directer of NRR dated system and the reactor protection January 12, 1976 system (RPS) to ccmply with IEEE Standard 279.
4.
G.A.
Abrell letter to Progress report on. !!igh' Pressure D.L.
Ziemann dated Coolant Injection System '(RPCI), :which May 26, 1976 specified that Commonwealth Edison would remedy inadequate core spray system suction by installing new diesel drive booster. pumps.-
5.
M.S.
Turbak letter to Cc=mitment to repair valve problems K.R.
Galler dated with the modified gas system March 18, 1977 using new linkages and actuators.
6.
C. Reed letter to Commitment to replace the intermediate J.G.
Keppler dated range neutron monitering (IRM) system April 19, 1978 connectors as part of the modification to upgrade the reactor protection system.
7.
D.K.
Davis letter to NRC Staff-letter nctifying Commonwealth.
R.L.
Solger dated Edison that the Commission issued January 6, 1978 Amendment No. 23 to the operating.
license for Dresden I, which' extended the ECCS exemption and date'for compliance with IEEE-279 to October 31, 1978 and contained new interin license conditions.
A.. A C F u.r.". *. l'
i 3,
J.G.
Keppler letter to NRC Staff letter transmitting IE
- 3. Lee, Jr. dated Bulletin No. 79-07 which requires April 14, 1979 action on the part of Cc=monwealth Edison regarding seismic stress analysis of safety-related piping.
9.
J.G.
Keppler letter to NRC Staff letter transmitting IE 3.
Lee, Jr. dated Sulletin no. 79-09 which requires April 14, 1979 action en the part of Commenwealth Edison regarding events relevant to SWR's identified during TMI incident.
10.
R.
Snaider letter to NRC Staff request for additional R.F.
Janecek dated information or. combustible gas t
i May 29, 1979 control insid.e containment, i
11.
J.G.
Keppler letter to NRC Staff letter transmitting IE 3.
Lee, Jr. dated Bulletin No. 79-14 which requires July 2, 1979 Commonwealth Edison to submit written respenses regarding seismic analysis for as-built safety related pipir-systems.
12.
C.
Reed letter to Letter stating Com=cnwealth Edisen has J.G.
Keppler dated undertaken a ccmprehensive nrogram July 5, 1979 to resclve concerns raised in IE Sulletin No. 79-02 regarding pipe support base plate designs using concrete expansion anchor bolts.
13.
D.L.
2..emann letter to NRC Staff letter notifying Commonwealth C.
Reet dated Edison that the Commission issued August 3, 1979 Amendment No. 23 to the operating license for Dresden I which requires completion of fire protection modi-ficatiens identified in the NRC's Fire Protection Safety Evaluation dated August 9, 1979,~and supplements thereto.
14.
R.F. Janacek letter Letter stating that the decision D.L.
Ziemann dated concerning modifications to the August 31, 1979 emergency condensor valves will be deferred pending completion of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP).
l 15.
C.
Reed letter to Cc=mitm.?nt to demonstrate Dresden D.
Eisenhut dated Unit I's compliance with the require-Cctober 13, 1979 ments of Enclosures 6 and 7 cf D. G. Eisenhut's letter to all operating plants dated Septerber 13, 1979 prior to Dresden 'Jnit 2 start-up.
- : v
16.
D.L.
Ziemann letter NRC Staff request for Commonwealth to D.L.
Peoples Edison to submit 90 days prio. to dated October 23, 1979 restarting Dresden Unit I a written cc=mitment that Dresden I will be operated in compliance with the NRC's interim position re containment purging and venting during normal operation and to provide the NRC with information demonstrating initiation of purge and vent valve operability verification on an expedited basis.
1.7.
D.L.
Peoples letter to Supplementary Response to Commonwealth-H.R.
Denton dated Ediscn's-October 18, 1979 letter on November 30, 1979 Lessens Learned Ccmmitments which clarifies Commonwealth Edison's commitment with regard to staffing each operator shift with a technical graduate licensed at the Senior Reactor Operator level.
13.
R.F.
Janacek letter to Letter transmitting Core Spray Distri-D.L.
Ciemann dated butien Modification update to the NRC December 20, 1979 which describes the new grid design Commonwealth Edison has adopted to modify Dresden Unit I's core spray distribution.
19.
J.G.
Keppler letter NRC Staff letter transmitting to C. Reed dated IE Supplement No. 1 to IE Bulletin July 18, 1980 No. 30-17 which requires Commonwealth Edison te submit information and take action with regard to the failure of' control rods to insert during a SCRAM and supply information on the manpower Commonwealth Edison expends to conduct the review and prepare the responses required by the Bulletin.
20.
J.G.
Keppler letter to NRC Staff letter transmit".ing IE C.
Reed dated Bulletin No. 80-04 requesting February 8, 1980 Commonwealth to submit information regarding analysis of a PWR main steam line break with continued feedwater addition.
21.
J.G.
Keppler letter to NRC Staff letter transmitting IE C.
Reed dated Bulletin No. 80-08 which requires April 9, 1980 Commonwealth Edison to examine containment liner penetration welds and submit a written response to the NRC.
~
3_
22.
R.F.
Janacek letter Action plan proposal for resolving to D.L.
Ziemann dated seismic design issues which includes February 29, 1980 co mitments by Commonwealth Edison to (1) conduct tests and supply information to the NRC, and (2) implement the results of a review of non-seismic category I auxiliary items of Dresden Unit 2 on Dresden Uni I prior to returning Dresden Unit I to service.
23.
R.F.
Janacek letter to Response to NRC letter concerning pipe D.L.
Ziemann dated breakage outside containment stating March 10, 1980 that the modification to the fire protection system to improve fire system lersk ~deteccion has already been scheduled.
24.
J.G.
Reppler letter to NRC Staff letter transmitting IE C.
Reed dated Bulletin No. 30-11 and requiring May 3, 1980 Commonwealth Edison to examine and provide a written report on all masonry walls in proximity to safety-related systems.
25.
R.F.
Janacek letter to Response to NRC concerns about fire T.
Ippolito dated protection designs for Dresden Unit April 8, 1980 No. I which includes information on the fire detection and water suppression systems to be installed.
26.
R.F.
Janacek letter to Commitment Oc forward information on D.L.
11emann dated the retrofit program modifying the May 1, 1980 Emergency Core Cooling and Reactor Protection Systems for Dresden Unit I.
27.
T.
Ippolito letter to NRC Staff letter requesting. Commonwealth D.L.
Peoples dated Edison to submit additional information May 15, 1980 regarding the adequacy of station electric distribution system voltages-at Dresden Unit I.
28.
D.L.
Peoples letter to Letter stating that Commonwealth D.M.
Crutchfield dated Edison was unable to supply information June 10, 1980 the NRC had requested regarding the environmental qualifications of electrical equipment at Dresden Uni I
due to the retrofit program modifying the Emergency Core Cooling and Reactor Protection Systems, but committing Commonwealth Edison to supply the requested information when :: beccmes available.
_4_
.m 4
29.
D.L.
Peoples letter to D. Eisenhut dated Ccmmitment to show Dresden Unit I's compliance with the requirements June 12, 1980 and schedules contained in Mr.
D.
G.
Eisenhut's letter to All Operating Plants dated May 7, 1980, prior to s ta rt-up.
30.
D.M. Crutchfield letter NRC Staff letter requiring Commonwealth to D.L.
Peoples dated Edison to respond to the possibility June 11, 1930 i
of cracks low pressure turbine discs, l
and recommending a full UT inspection of at least one low pressure turbine prior to restart of Dresden Unit I.
31.
D.G. Eisenhut letter to All Power Reactor NRC Staff letter describing its plan Licenses dated for implementing NUREG-0577 which May 19, 1980 will require Commonwealth Edison to 1
demonstrate the adequacy of the support structures of its nuclear facilities through the submittal of detailed reports by December 31, 1981.
32.
D.L. Ziemann letter to D.L.
Peoples dated NRC Staff letter requesting Commonwealth Edison to submit information showing March 6, 1980 Dresden Unit I's compliance with environmental qualification guidelines i
set forth " Guidelines for evaluating environmental qualification of Class lE Electrical Equipment in operating reactors - Enclosure 1 and 2 to NRC i
letter to licenses," dated February 15, i
1980 by June 2, 19 8 0.~
33.
D.G. Eisenhut to NRC Staff letter requesting Commonwealth D.L.
Peoples dated Edison to submit, by September 15, 1980, August 4, 1980 details of its plans for proceeding with a seismic evcluation program to demonstrate tre seismic-design adequacy of Dresden Uni:
I.
By letter dated September 11, 1980, Commonwealth Edison deferred its response to Staff's request until some future date prior to 3resden Unit I res : art.
34.
R.F. Janacek letter to D.G. Eisenhut dated Response to NRC Staff's request for information and commitments for
~
June 26, 1980 providing a second level of undervoltage protection for ' the 4KV emergency power buses supplying safety related loads at Dresden.
-W
\\
\\.
CCCIGTD USMC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
FEB 191981 > (
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION 1
r
/
Ot'its of the Seaway BEFORE THE COMMISSION W3 g w
/
Erw&
OV g,
64^ '
In the Matter of
)
,0
)
CCMMONWEALTH EDISCN CCMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-10
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
NOTICE CF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersignen attorney herewith enters an appearance on behalf of Commonwealth Edison Company in the captioned matter.
In i
accordance with 52.713 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, the following information is provided:
Name:
David M.
Stahl Address:
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone:
(312) 558-7500 Admission:
Supreme Court of Illinois United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois DATED:
February 16, 1981 r-
,- t
~
/
/
/.
l
!l l
.,m.,
,, y
~. -
(y N q -
e David :". S t a.4 1, One of the A :crneys for Commonwealth Edison Company 9
,-m
,-s.
CD p.
S x c urso ussm0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IC8 f 9 g g 'f
-!1 NUCLF.?dt REGULATORY COMMISSION C.e..s. e n.
\\'
s:: red. 7 & *c x.,
E: s
/p SEFORE THE COMMISSION x
g-x.
' r6 t \\ \\ '
1 In the Matter c'
)
CCFMCNWEALTH EDISCN COMPANY
)
Cccket Sc. 50-10
)
(Decentamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
NOTICE CF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned atterney herewith enters an appearance on behalf of Cc==cnwealth Edisen Cc=pany in t'e captioned matter.
In acccrdance with $2.713 cf the Cummissien's Rules of Practice, the fcilowing information is prc' tided:
Name:
Philip P.
Steptoe Address:
Isham, Lincoln & Seale Suite 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone:
(312) 558-7500 Admission:
Supreme Court of Illinois Supreme Court of Virginia United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois DATED:
February 16, 1981 g
l
/
/
(
k'M I
\\LS L
nn P.%tilp P '. Stqp ce7Cnefof the A terneys fci Ccm=cnwehlth Edison Ccepany
cc P
cb G
oc0KETE
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N
w NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
FEB 191981 > b n.
SEFORE THE COMMISSION Occhsting & Semt
/
c:ne.
'd L%L
/
Q, In the Matter of
)
a gti\\'
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CCMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-10
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power
)
Staticn, Unit No. 1)
)
Cr.w.. vr. ec -. e_ Oe.
_e r R 1 2 C r.
mn I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Srief to the Ccmmission," " Notice of Appearance" of David M.
Stahl, and " Notice of Appearance" of Philip P.
5:eptoe in the above-captioned prcceeding have been served upcn the fclicwing by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 16th day of February, 1981:
Robert Goldsmith, Esq.
Samuel J. Chil%, Secretary 59 East Van Suren Street U.S. Nuclear Regulstory Chicago, IL 60605 Cc= mission Nashington, D.C.
20555 Lawrence Srenner, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Atomic Safety and Licensing Director Appeal Scard Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of the Attorney General Docketing and Service State of Illinois Office of the Secretary Environmental Control Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 188 West Randolph St.
Commission Chicago, IL 60601 Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard E. Fenske Lecnard Bickwit, Esq.
635 Forest Avenue Office of the General Counsel-Oak Park, IL 60302 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- t 4
e
I
~
r Chairman John Ahearne Commissioner Victor Gilinsky U.S. Nuclear Fec.ulatorv.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatorv.
Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ccemissioner Pete: Bradford Ccemissioner Joseph Hendrie U.S. Nuclear Reculatory U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 r
[
/
1 q
'[
/
f g
\\
-h K x-M Ph:. lip P. Steptoe
(,
N one of the Attorneys for4 Ccmmonwealth Edison Company 9
e..4e