ML20002B450
| ML20002B450 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1980 |
| From: | ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012110606 | |
| Download: ML20002B450 (2) | |
Text
-
r.
ISHAM. LINCOLN & BEALE cce.se.cas c u.w O N C a s NatiC N a t mLA; A r:n?v.stcoNo rLCOR 0+CACC. ILLIN ois 6 C et'3 "C.E**CN C 2?2 E 5 8 75 0 C TCLCK:2*S288
- A$ mhGTCN OFFICE
,/
)j ezo couscc?>:ur avcuuc.9 w sv vc 22s December 3, 13 M,c,*^5-~ecaoo2o:55 N.
N..
202 833+973o l'r n?l.Q p
'h, f:7. ' ' /.
S jr th ef
.y /
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission--
n.4;,9 Secretary of the Cc= mission
. \\a,
. f,, j, /
s Washington, D. C.
20555 p
RE:
Dresden Station Unit 1 Chemical Cleaning of Primary Ccolant System NRC Docket No. 50-10
Dear Mr. Chilk:
On November 14, 1980 comments were submitted to the Commission on behalf of Commonwealth Edison Ccmpany encouraging the Commission to approve promptly the proposed chemical cleaning of Dresden Unit 1, notwithstanding the receipt by the NRC of a request for hearing from Citizens For A Better Environment ("CBE") and othe: citizens ' groups.
Those comments were based in part on our interpretation that Section 189 (a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as cmended, dces not require a prior hearing for licensing actions not involving significant hazards considerations.
This, of course, had also been the consistent interpretation of that statute by the NRC itself.
On November 19, 1980 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in Sholly
- v. NRC, F.2d
, Nos. 80-1691, 80-1783, and 80-1784, that this interpretation of Section 189(a) is incorrect and that hearings, if requested, are required prior to the issuance of license amendments whether or not such amend-ments involve significant hazards considerations.
While Commonwealth Edison believes the Court of Appeals' decision is in error and should be reversed, to avold further delay we respectfully request that the NRC promptly establish a licensing board to consider Commonwealth Edison's request for license amendments to carry out the Dresden Unit 1 chemical cleaning project.
{)5d5 6'd 8 012110 g dE -
r i
Secretary of the Commission December 3, 1980 Page Two t
It is our understanding that a petition for rehearing may be filed in the Sholly case.
If during the course of any further litigation the D.C. Circuit's holding 3
is reversed or modified, the Commission should allow the
)
Licensing Board the flexibility to permit the chemical i
cleaning to proceed prior to ccepletion of the evidentiary.
hearings, en the basis of the Staff's Safety Evaluation.
Commonwealth Edison makes this request because it strongly believes that the delays and costs associated with prior evidentiary hearings in cases such as this where no signifi-I cant hazards censiderations exist-are contrary to the public interest.
Respectfully submitted, 3
I
(
\\
L' w?w s
One*of the Apto' nets 8cr r
i Cc=monwealth Edison Cbmpany PPS/kb i
l CC:
NRC Cc=missioners Messrs. Bickwit Denton Trubach Goddard l
O'Connor
{
Goldsmith (CBE) i
- l..
I 9
I f
+-,nu,,mn-,---,-,,--wn,,-r--n,w,w,,,,,,--,,c.~
,,-.,ywwv_--a,~ww.,-,-,,-,,-.,,-,
.,m-n..m-.-n v.r--r-,--
,p.m,-u.--,.-,~.--.,,
, - -, - - -, - -