ML19351G120
| ML19351G120 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 02/19/1981 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351G121 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102230149 | |
| Download: ML19351G120 (9) | |
Text
i 02/19/81 A
.9 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(%
/D NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
03
'._,,% gl"'%
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIKi BOARD 2
In the 14tter of
)
g
)
/
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket Nos. 50-500 e
,/ +
)
50-501 (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Units 2 and 3)
)
NRC STAFF REPORT IN RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER AND NRC STAFF PROPOSAL FOR CONDITIONS T9 BE IMPOSED IN ORDER TERMINATING THE PROCEEDING In an Order dated December 31, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereaf ter the " Licensing Board"), ordered that counsel for the Applicants and counsel for the NRC Staff file with the Licensing Board, on or before February 19, 1981, a brief report detailing:
1.
Steps necessary to complete termination of the pro-ceeding; 2.
Estimated dates for completion of such steps; and 3.
Any other information relevant to the completion of the proceeding.
In response to the Board's Order, the Staff herewith files its report, which addresses each of the subjects Wumerated above.
BACKGROUND The Licensing Board has rendered two partial initial decisions in this construction pennit proceeding involving Units 2 and 3 of the 8102230/49 G
s.
Davis-Besse nuclear facility.
Toledo-Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-75-75, 2 NRC 993 (1975); LBP-78-29, 8 NRC 284 (1978).
No exceptions were filed to either decision and appellate review sua sponte by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (hereaf ter "the Appeal Board") was deferred to await final Licens-ing Board action in this proceeding.
By letter of January 24, 1980, counsel for the Applicants advised the Chaiman of the Atonic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (hereafter "the Appeal Panel") that his clients had decided not to construct Units 2 and 3.
In light of this development, counsel requested that the proceed-ing be teminated.
On January 30, 1980, the Secretary to the Appeal Panel informed counsel in writing that no action would be taken on that request "pending further word respecting whether the [ applicants] intend to withdraw their application for construction pemits (or, instead, will pursuesomeothercourse)".
On February 13, 1980, the NRC Staff filed "NRC Staff Response to
~
Applicants' Request For Temination of Proceeding" (Staff's Response).1/
The Staff there noted its agreement with the Cnainnan of the Appeal Panel that action on the request should be withheld until the Applicants announced their intentions with regard to the construction pennit applica-tions.
The Staff also noted that the two partial initial decisions Daved 1/
The Staff will not reiterate the events leading to the issuance by the Licensing Board of the two partial initial decisions, supra, since those events are discussed at length in the Staff's Response, supra, at 1-6.
the way for the issuance of limited work authorizations (LWAs) under 10 CFR 9 50.10(e)(1)(3). Two such authorizations had been issued by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and site preparation work had been performed in accordance with their terms.
In these ciremstances, the Staff stated that any termination of this proceeding "nust 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 deter-mining whether temination requires the imposition of special conditions".
Staff's Response, at 7.2! By letter dated November 17, 1980 from an official of the Toledo Edison Company to the NRR Director,3/ the Appli-cants stated that they "hereby withdraw" their application for pemits to construct Units 2 and 3.
The letter went on to request that "[t]o the extent that action by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Atomic f
Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, or Commission is required for this withdrawal to become effective, * *
- such action be promptly taken".
In a letter to the Licensing Board dated November 26, 1980, the Staff advised the Licensing Board of its rcceipt of the letter of Novem-ber 17, 1980 from the Toledo Edison Co. and also provided a copy of the
-2/
In this connection, the Staff observed that the LWAs provided that any activities undertaken pursuant thereto were to be at the Applicants' risk.
See 10 CFR 9 50.10(e)(4).
3/
The letter contained a notation that courtesy copies of the letter were sent to the Chaiman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, members of the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the Docketing and Service Section and the Secretary of the Commission.
~
1 e
1 s '
l s
s
- letpr to the@lcens$ng 333rd.
The Staff also'fnfumed the Licensing w.:: ;
w Board that on Febmary 6,1980,the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforce-y.
ment ("I&E") had conducted a speciak inspectiorgof the Davis-Besse 2&3 site, which' assessed all of the activities updcAtiken pursuant to the LWAs.
In addition, the Staff stated that ih \\new of the time that had elapsed between the announcement by the Applicacts of the cancellation of Davis-Besse 2&3 and their subsequent withdeswal of the applications for construction pemith, the Staff would conduct another inspection to detemine the current condition of the site. The Staff stated that, upon completion of that inspection, it would be in a position to present its views to the Licensing Board on whether temira+bn of the proceeding requires the imposition of any special condjtions.
On December 1,1980, the Chaiman of' the Atnmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel issued a Memorandum and Order ( ALAB-622) regarding Applicants' withdrawal of their joint applications for construction pemits and their request that the adjudicatory proceedings 07 those applications be teminated.
See Toledo Edison Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-622, NRC (December 1,1980).
In ALAB-622, the Appeal Panel Chaiman struck from the Appeal Panel's docket the two par'tial initial decisions of the Licensing Board which were before 't9e Appeal Panel for appellate review sua sponte.
He also removed this proceeding from the list'of proceedings in which appeal boards are now considering the generic issue pertaining to the environmental conse-quences of radon releases attributable to the mining and milling of uranium fuel.
With regard to Applicants' request for a full temination of the proceeding, the Appeal Panel Chaiman detemined that such a request must be addressed to the Licensing Board, which still retains jurisdiction over portions of it.
In addition, the Appeal Panel Chairman noted that the Staff had taken the position in the Staff's Response, supra, that any termination of this proceeding 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 detemining whether such temination requires the imposition of special conditions.O Therefore, the Chairman determined that before taking action, the Licensing Board is to accord the Staff a reasonable opportunity to propose any conditions which its inspection of the current state of the site might suggest be attached to the termination order.
Thus, the Chaiman of the Appeal Panel impliedly adopted the Staff position as to what steps are necessary before Applicants' request for termination can be granted, i.e., completion of the special inspection by I&E and a detemination by the Staff as to what conditions, if any, should be suggested to the Licensing Board.
Subsequently, by letter dated December 22, 1980 to the Licensing Board, the Staff advised the Board of its receipt of a letter dated November 26, 1980 from Toledo Edison Co. to B.J. Youngblood of the NRC Division of Licensing.
The Applicants' letter included an attachment 4,f As the Appeal Panel Chairman observed, licensing boards have been expressly empowered to impose conditions upon the withdrawal of. a pemit or license application, where as here, a notice of hearing has been issued.
10 CFR 5 2.107(a).
containing 1) a description of the status of all activities perfomed by Applicants pursuant to their LWAs and 2) the plans by Applicants to redress portions of the Davis-Besse site affected by the Davis-Besse 2&3 construction activities.
(The Staff's letter to the Licensing Board enclosed copies of the letter from the Applicants and the attachment thereto).
In "The Toledo-Edison Company's Motion For Temination of Proceed-ings",E (hereafter " Motion") the Applicants requested that the Licensing Board "teminate all further proceedings in these dockets". Motion at 3.
The Licensing Board's Order of December 31, 1980, supra, cited this notion.
STAFF POSITION Subsequent to the Staff's last letter to the Licensing Board (dated December 22,1980), I&E completed its special inspection of the Davis-Besse site.
See Inspection Reports Nos. 50-500/81-01; 50-501/81-01, January 13, 1981 (hereinafter " Inspection Reports") which are included as an attachment (under cover of letter dated January 20,1981). That inspection detemined all LWA activities undertaken by Applicants and action by Applicants, if any, to redress the portions of the Davis-Besse site affected by the Davis-Besse 2&3 construction activities.
No deviations from commitments which Applicants made in the LWAs were identified during the course of the inspection.
DJring the
-5/
The Staff's copies of the motion and the attached certificate of service are undated.
Both documents were received under cover of a letter dated December 23, 1980.
course of the inspection, the inspectors were infonned by the Applicants that the majority of the redress work will be finished by the end of 1981.
In addition to the inspection, the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has evaluated the activities undertaken by Applicants pursuant to their LWAs and the Applicants' plan for redress of the site. As supported by the attached affidavit,6/ the NRC Staff recommends that the following activities to redress the Davis-Besse site, all of which have been proposed by the Applicants in their plan for redress of the site, be included as conditions of the withdrawal of the applications for constructio'1 permits:
1.
The temporary construction office facilities (separate and connected trailers) shall be removed from the site.
The temporary above ground electric service shall also be removed.
(The area between N9,500 and N10,000 around E9,500 on drawing 6670TP-P-C002 of the attachment to Applicants' letter of November 26,1980).
2.
The existing construction material stockpiled throughout the material storage area and the construction equipment shall be removed from the site when dispositioned.
3.
The west side of the wave protection dike shall be seeded.
4.
Throughout the site, wherever earth mounds or trenches occur, they shall be contoured as necessary and covered with topsoil to enhance the wildlife habitat.
5.
The eight ponds created by construction excavation shall remain as waterfowl and wildlife habitat.
The banks of the ponds will be graded as required.
6.
The existing topsoil stockpile shall be utilized throughout the site in strategic areas as ground cover for vegetation restoration purposes.
6/
Affidavit of B. J. Youngblood and Alexander W. Dromerick ( Attachment 1).
4 7.
Landscaping and vegetation restoration shall enhance the site's natural environment.
In developing the details of this effort, compatibility with wildlife areas adjacent to the site will be considered. The details shall be finalized by the Environmental Activities Division of the Toledo Edison Company.
8.
The definitive reconditioning plan shall be based on considerations such that the site shall be improved to a condition that shall encour-age wildlife to the area.
Approximately 100 grout pipes remaining from the remedial grouting ( A 9.
shall be cut off and plugged prior ~to backfilling the excavation.
number of these pipes are visible above the approximately one foot of snowcover blanketing the area.)
10.
The grour.dwater treatment plant shall be mothballed in place.
In the event that these activities are imposed as conditions of the with-drawal of the applications for construction permits, the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement will monitor the performance of such activities.
The Staff is of the opinion that the attached affidavit, together with the NRC Staff Inspection Reports, supra, demonstrate that redress of the site, based on the activities described above, is acceptable.
Accordingly, it is the Staff's position that the Licensing Board should issue an Order
- 1) granting Applicants' motion; 2) imposing as conditions pursuant to 10 CFR 6 2.107(a), upon the withdrawal of the applications for cps, the completion by Applicants of the work described above for redress of-the site;
- 3) vacating, on the grounds of mootness, the Licensing Board's partial initial decisions authorizing issuance of two LWAs for the Davis-Besse 2&3 P
w
_g_
f acili ty;2/ 4) terminating the construction pennit proceeding; and
- 5) directing that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation shall revoke the outstanding LWAs with due notice to all parties _/ and shall cause to 8
be published in the Federal Register a notice of the withdrawal of the applications for construction permits.E Respectfully submitted,
& & W w fls % u M Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 19th day of February, 1981.
~7/
LBP-75-75, supra, and LBP-78-29, supra. cf. Long Island Lighting Company and New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-628, NRC (Janu-ary 15, 1981).
8/
Id.
-9/
10 CFR 6 2.107(c) provides that such a Federal Register notice shall be published where, as here, notice of receipt of the applications has been previously published.
39 Fed. R_eg. - 32176 (September 5,1974).
_