ML19352A748
| ML19352A748 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1981 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Goldsmith R CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19352A749 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106020008 | |
| Download: ML19352A748 (2) | |
Text
.. N 7~KR A l
REGULEDRYDOCH!LECOPY j
g 4
/
May 26, 1981
~
cket Hanauer RTBUTION Mattson Docket No. 50-10 Local PDR Murley ORB Reading Vollmer DEisenhu:
Snyder RPurple C
Heltemes, AE0D I
g 7
DCRutchfield 6
HSmith Y'
('
C Mr. Robert Goldsmith P0' Connor L
[A f Citizens for a Better Environment SCavanaugh(NRR-81-211gS.u.z ([/ W
/,l 59 East Van Buren Street EHughes dfgg b %$
Chicago, Illinois 60605 DNottingham OELD
'8 % % r p
Dear Mr. Goldsmith:
Case Denton f
This is in response to your letter dated April 21, 1981 in which y M
summarized your understancing of the status of your July 8,1980 petition to the Comission and asked for the NRC staff's response to four specific ques *. ions. Your questions and the NRC response to each of them are as folicws:
QUESTION 1.
Has Commonwealth Edison Cogany decided to postpone the actual flushing of the primary piping at Dresden I for a period of tice?
If so, when does the Cogany plan to decontaminate the plant?
RESPONSE
Comonwealth Edison (CECO) has not informed NRC that it wishes to postpone the flushing of the primary coolant piping at Dresden 1.
It is our understanding that CECO plans to co@lete all procedures and tests required to prepare for the decontamination and decon-taminate the plant as soon as they receive NRC authorization.
QUESTION 2.
Does Edison still plan to use the Dow solvent and the decontamination procedures discussed in the Environmental Igact Statement? If not what are the current plans?
RESPONSE
Comonwealth Edison has not informed NRC of any proposed changes to their solvent or procedures since we issued our EIS in Octow 1980.
- SEE PREVIOUS TISSUE FOR CONCURRENCE p
NCma og 2
v
OELD*
DL '
'S L: AD/SA
-9, DL:
R seawrh,P0"Connor:cc HSmith
.U.C,,,c., i eld.G ' ina p.....
..pise$ hut.
wr >
1,
""""810Bd~sU O0[
,g,J// {l, 6 (%g{.
.'.S T4%.
g OFFICIAL RECOAD COPY
..c.c
.g,co w ucac
, o n i-
%V -
x--
~
Mr. Robert Goldsmith May 26, 1981 QUESTION 3.
Since the NRC has appealed the Sholly decisicn to the U. S. Supreme Court, will a decision on our petition be delayed until this case is finally decided?
RESPONSE
The Comission has under consideration a proposed Order providing a re-sponse to your petition. At this time we cannot predict the Comission response. The NRC staff response to the Comission's January 8,1981 Order dated January 28, 1981 did not urge that a decision on your petition be delayed until the Sholly case is decided.
QUESTION 4.
Is the NRC attenpting to persuade Congress to amnd sect' ion 139 of the Atomic Energy Act to delete the mandatory require-ment for public hearings on all license amendments? If so, will this delay a decision on our petition until Congre.ss decides?
RESPONSE
On March 11, 1961, the Comission transmitted to Congress proposed legislation intended to clarify its authority to issue a license amendment without holding a prior hearing, where no significant hazards consideration is involved. The legislation would amend Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Amendments similar to the NRC proposal have been included in the NRC FY 1982-83 l
authorization bill as reported by the Senate Comittee on Environment l
and Public Works and as marked up by a subcomittee of the House l
Comittee on Energy and Comerce. These measures are still pending before the Congress. The proposed change should have no effect on the Dresden proceeding.
I hope that this letter is responsive to your request.
Sincerely.
Original signed by Darrell G. Eisenhut Director Division of Licensing 1
I.
0" c t )
I
~ ~ 4........
cus >l i.
we.cau m ao agyacu euc
._ OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- * ' " " ' * "