ML20010J315
| ML20010J315 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1981 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| AA61-2-166, CLI-81-25, NUDOCS 8109300302 | |
| Download: ML20010J315 (13) | |
Text
-
9/28/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C0K4ISSIONERS:
8
. N ~N..~'sN-
/
c y
[
Victor Gilinsky D [
I, k
Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairma O
1' Sgp O 19S16 45 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' g' 'q y Peter A. Bradford e
~
John F. Ahearne
'd A,
M h9 gg 0
Thomas M. Roberts c
b Emd 4
4/
b V
In the Matter of COMM0NW
' EDIS0N COMPANY
' Docket No. 50-10
)
(DresdenNuclearPowerStation,
)
em SEP 281981 Unit 1)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-81-25)
This matter involves a request for hearings by several persons and groups (Petitioners) If with regard to Commonwealth Edison's (CECO) proposal to chemically decontamina e Dresden, Unit One. On January 8, 1981, the Comission asked the staff. Ceco and the petitioners to brief three questions regarding the scope and format of any hearing on this proposal. Briefs hwe been received from all participar.ts and are summarized below.
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission has decided to establish an Atomic Safety an Licensing Board to datermine whether the petitioners have standing, and has provided guidance on the conduct of a hearing should the Licensing Board determine that one is required.
-1/
Petitioners are Citizens for a Better Environment, Prairie Alliance, Illinois Safe Energy Alliance, Kay Drey, Bridget Rorem, and Marilyn Shineflug.
h g,0 e
niO93OO302' 910928..
g g9g DR ADOCK 05000
2 I.
A.
Backgrouno On December 19, 1974, CECO submitted a proposal for the chemical decontamination of the interior surfaces of the Dresden 1 Primary Coolant System.
The NRC staff completed its review of that proposal on December 9, 1975 and concluded that the program could be conducted with reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public would not be endangered.
Specifically, the staff found:
The chemical decontamination of the 0 esden 1 primary coolant system will be performed entirely witnin a closed decontamination system.
The system has been designed so that no chemical or radiological waste will be released to the environment from the decontamination process. All waste generated in the process will be either solidified for offsite burial at a licensed burial ground or reprocessed for reuse onsite.
The solid wastes produced are similar in type and quantity to those handled routinely a'; the site.
T;.;refore, no adverse environmental impacts ire anticipated due to the decontamination...
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the chemical cleaning does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the cleaning project does not involve a significant hazard consideration; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense anu security or to the health and safety of the public.
While the staff noted that its review had identified three items as unresolved, the staff authorized initiation of the chemical decontamination program in anticipation that these items would be a
3 successfully resolved as specified. 2/
On November 14, 1979, CECO requested two changes to its Appendix A Technical Specifications in order to support the chemical cleaning of the Dresden 1 primary system.
These changes concern (1) deletion of the requirement to maintain primary containment integrity during the chemical cleaning outage when all fuel is removed from the reactor and coatainment; and (2) exclusion of the radioactive liquid storage tanks which are inside seismically qualified structures from the above grade storage curie limitation. On July 8, 1980, Petitioners requested a hearing on the environmental impact statement related to decontamination y
These items and the manner in which they were to be completed follow:
1.
The testing program will be completed and the results submitted for the review and apprcval of the NRC staff prior to perfonning the proposed ch: ical cleaning.
2.
A pre-service inspection program for the primary coolant boundary will be formulated and submitted for our review and approval prior to returning the reactor to service.
3.
Post-cleaning surveillance program which includes additional surveillance specimens and a specimen withdrawal and examination schedule will be submitted for our review and approval prior to returning the reactor to service.
By early 1980, CECO had completed satisfactorily the three open items.
4 of Dresden 13/ and "on the application for amendment to CECO's operating license for Dresden 1, necessary for the said decontamination."
On January 8,1981, the Commission asked the staff, CECO, and Petitioners to brief three questions regarding the scope and format of any hearing on this proposal.
The participants' responses to the Commission's questions are summarized below.
Question (a):
What, if any, license modifications in addition to the two Technical Specification changes sought by CECO are required for decontamination?
3]
On March 19, 1979, Ms. Kay Drey requested that an environmental impact statement be prepared on the decontamination of Dresden 1.
On September 20, 1979, the Illinois Safe Energy Alliance requested public hearings on the decontamination of Dresden 1 based on the lack of assurance that the NRC would issue an environmental impact statement. These requests were treated as requests for action under 10 CFR 2.206. By petition dated March 13, 1980, Mr. Robert Goldsmith, on behalf of Citiz ns for Better Environment, and Prairie Alliance supported Ms. Drey's petition requesting preparation of an environmental impact statement.
On June 26, 1980, the Director issued his decision under 10 CFR 2.206.
Although the results of the staff review indicated that the chemical decontamination of Dresden 1 would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, the Director decided that an environmental impact statement should be prepared due to the significant interest and concern expressed by members of the public. The Director thus denied requests for hearings by the Illinois Safe Energy Alliance on the ground that these requests were premised on the failure of the NRC to prepare an environmental impact statement.
This environmental impact statement was issued on October 17, 1980. On July 8,1980 Citizens for a Better Environment, Prairie Alliance, Ms. Kay Drey, Ms. Bridget Rorem, Illinois Safe Energy and Ms. Marilyn Shineflug again requested a hearing on the impact statement as well as on the amendments necessary for decontamination.
This request is dealt with in this Memorandum and Order.
l
[
5 Staff states that it will seek a license modification which will provide reasonable assurance that arrangements exist for the acceptance of solidified decontamination waste at either the Beatty, Nevada or Hanford, Washington low-iavel waste burial sites.
In addition, staff may seek a license amendment for a program of post-decontamination inspection of metal specimens (coupons) which will be placed in various I
parts of the primary system prior to decontamination.
However, staff does not expect to seek a license modification for the selection and placement of those metal specimens.
Staff does not expect to seek any other license modification prior to decontamination.
CECO adopted 1
staff's position on this issue.
Petitioners did not suggest any license amendments at this time because they do not want to prejudice their ability to file contentions if they are required to submit an additional petition to intervene.
Question (b):
What, if any, license modifications are required for a resumption of operation?
Staff interprets this question to be directed to license modifications required for a resumption of operation on account of the chemical decontamination and not to other license modifications required prior to start up but not related to decontamination.
At this time staff expects that no further license modifications will be required because it believes that the post-decontamination m'onitoring requirements do not satisfy the criteria for imposing technical specifications.
CECO agrees with staff's position, but emphasizes that it would be impracticable to address restart issues in a hearing on the chemical decontamination because of the uncertainties introduced by the
6 large number of other pending actions on modifications required for restart but unrelated to decontamination. 4/ Petitioners state that they will probably not raise specific technical specifications or other license modifications for return to commercial operation. However, they may wish to raise issues regarding the environmental implications of the decontamination upon Dresden's capability to return to service and the evaluation of alternatives to the return to service.
Question (c):
If license modifications are required for both decontamination and return to operation, how should the hearing be structured?
Staff believes that a prior hearing is not required because the proposed chemical decontamination does not present a significant hazards consideration. Accordingly, staff believes that any pre-amendment hearing would be at the discretion of the Commission and, thus, could be structured at the discretion of the Commission.
If a hearing is granted, staff recommends that the petitioners should be required to participate jointly as a single party. Moreover, because five of the six petitioners have not established their standing on the face of their petition, they should be directed to set forth their interests with particularity to allow a determination of their standing to participate.
As to the scope of any hearing, staff would include those matters directly related to the environmental impact and safety of the proposed
~
decontamination.
This would include an inquiry into whether there is
-4/
These include review of the high pressure coolant injection design, modification of the reactor protection system, installation of a reactor recirculation pump trip, environmental qualification of equipment, implementation of applicable TMI action plan requirements, and modifications arising from the Systematic Evaluation Program.
7 reasonable assurance that follow-up requirements can be developed to monitor the effects of the decontamination on the integrity of materials in Dresden, Unit One.
Howe,ar, such inquiry should not require an examination of post-decontamination technical specifications, if any.
CECO believes that the Commission has already decided to conduct a hearing, and suggests that if Sholly v. NRC (D.C. Cir. Nos. 80-1691, 80-1783, and 80-1784, filed Nov. 19,1980) is reversed, the chemical decontamination can be initiated prior to the end of that hearing because staff has made a determination of no significant hazards consideration. As to the scope of the hearing, CECc believes it should address the chemical cleaning and necessarily related issues including waste disposal and post-cleaning follow-up requirements.
In addition, they suggest that since an environmental impact statement has been prepared, it should be presented at the hearing.
However, CECO believes there will be no need to discuss alternatives if the Licensing Board initially finds that the proposed decontamination will have no significant impact on the human environment and also finds that the proposal does not give rise to unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.
Finally, CECO believes that the decontamination should be heard separately from the restart because the pendency of other modifications would render impracticable the consideration of any restart issues at this time.
Regarding procedural details, CECO agrees that pet' loners should be consolidated as a single party. Moreover, because one petitioner has established standing on the face of her petition, CECO believes it would be redundant and unnecessary to require the other petitioners to establish their interest in the proceeding.
8 Petitioners also recommend that restart be left for a separate proceeding, and would limit t' i; proceeding to license modifications and all environmental issues related to decontamination.
II.
The following discussion provides guidance on the conduct of any hearing which may be required.
Procedural Matters A.
Timing of Hearing A hearing is required if the petitioners satisfy the Commission's criteria for intervention.
Petitions for hearings have been received, and Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Act"),
provides that the Commission shall conduct a hearing at the request of persons whose interest may be affected.
If the petitioners are found to have standing and come forward with at least one litigable contention, the only remaining question is whether or not that hearing must be concluded prior to initiation of the proposed decontamination.
Staff and CECO believe that a prior hearing is not required because staff has made a finding of no significant hazards consideration.
Petitioners contend that staff's finding is immaterial because, in their view, Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 requires the NRC to provide a prior hearing if it is requested.
The Commission has interpreted Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to provide that neither prior notice nor a prior hearing is required in situations where staff makes a "no significant hazards consideration" finding.
In this case, the staff has
9 not yet issued its determination of whether the proposed technical specification changes raise a significant hazards consideration.
However, unless there is a reversal of the staff's previous indication that approval of the chemical decontamination does not involve a significant hazards consideration, an adjudicatory hearing need not be held prior to issuance of these amendments. We understand that the staff has prepared an updated Safety Evaluation Report.
By copy of this Order, the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is directed promptly to issue a decision on whether the proposed amendments present "no significant hazards consideration" and to include in that decision all supporting documentation.
The Licensing Board, which will be established pursuant to this Order, need not wait for the Director to issue his' decision before initiating a proceeding to determine which petitioners, if any, have standing.
If the Board determines that some of the petitioners have satisfied the intervention criteria, it shall initiate a hearing.
However, if the Director determines that the proposed licensing modifications present "no significant hazards consideration," then the decontamination may be initiated prior to the conclusion of any hearing.
B.
Parties The only issue here is the treatment of the petitioners.
Commission practice requires each party to separately establish standing.
Intervention may also be granted as a matter of discretion according to specific criteria. 5/ Participation by a person who is not a party is at the discretion of the presiding
-5/
Portland General Electric Co., et al. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CL1-76-27 FNRC 610, 616 (1976).
10 officer and can only take the form of a limited appearance.
10 CFR 2.715. Moreover, tne rules do not provide for the consolidation of petitioners who are not admitted as parties for the purposes of participation as a single party. The rules provide for the consolidation of parties only.
10 CFR 2.715a. Accordingly, the Licensing Board shall determine which petitioners have standing and shall then consolidate those petitioners for treatment as a single
, party.
Scope of the Hearing A.
Matters Unrelated to Decontamination If a hearing is initiated, the Commission believes that only decontaminaticn related matters should be considered.
As CECO states, many other modifications must be completed before '.he plant can return to operation. The Commission did not intend to addrass these other matters in this context.
B.
Scope of the Hearing The Commission believes that the scope of any hearing should include the proposed license amendments, and any health, safety or environmental issues fairly raised by them. We believe that this scope is consistent with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and NRC practice.
See, Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-516, 12 NRC 419, 426 (1980). As a practical matter, this formulation of the scope may result in the same scope of proceeding as the staff's directly related test, but will avoid arguments over the
" directness" of the relation between the proposal and an identified safety issue. Similarly, the proposed formulation avoids arguments over whether a safety issue is "necessarily related" to the proposal.
11 C.
License Modifications The scope of a hearing must be broad enough to include any issues related to the proposed license modifications.
However, because we believe that the hearing should be limited to decontamination related issues, there is no need to now consider license modifications which may be required for a resumption of operation.
Regarding the need for license amendments to conduct the decontamination, the participants have identified only the two Technical Specification changes sought by Ceco and a license requirement regarding arrangements for waste disposal contemplated by the staff. The scope of any hearing held on this matter will encompass these proposed license changes.
In addition, the Commission expects the Licensing Board to follow usual practice regarding consideration of the need for other license modifications.
Request for Hearing on the EIS In response to the request for a hearing on the EIS, neither the Atomic Energy Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, 6/ nor the i
Commission's regulations require that there be a hearing on an environmental impact statement. Thus, a Commission decision to hold public hearings on this document would be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.104, indicating that the Commission had found that such hearings are required in the public interest. The Connission does not so find.
Given that the staff has concluded that the decontamination project will have no significant impact on the human environment, members of the NRC staff held a public meeting on the Draft Environmental Statement in 6]
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRC, 435 U.S. 519, 548 (1978).
t' i
12 Morris, Illinois on August 14, 1980, and the Final Environmental Statement reflected the comments from that meeting as well as all of the written comments submitted to the NRC, the Commission finds that the public interest does not require a hearing on the Final Environmental Statement.
III.
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Part 2 of the Commission's rules of practice, the Commission directs the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel to appoint an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to rule on the Petitions for Public Hearings filed by the Petitioners.
If that Board determines a hearing is required, the Board is instructed to conduct an adjudicatory hearing in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, subpart G and the guidance provided in this Memorandum and Order.
Moreover, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.785(a)(2), the Commission directs the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel to appoint an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board for this proceeding, and authorizes that Board to exercise the authority and perform the functions which would otherwise have been exercised and performed by the Commission in this proceeding, subject to the possibility of later Commissioi review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.786.
The Appeal Board will be designated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.787 and notice as to membership will be published in the Federal Register.
f 13 f
it is so ORDERED.
1 4
For the Comiss.ic
/
\\
f i
(
/..,
m i
lll(W VCY (
~~ SMUEL J. [ClilLK N
i Secretary of tge Comission i
Dated at Washington, D.C.
this 28th day of September,1981.
t s
t i
i l
J e
f 4
_.. _ -.. _ - -. _. _ -..,. - _, _. _ _. _ _, _ _ -.. _..... _ _... -. -.,. -. - ~.. _ _, -.. _,, _ _.... -.
_.._ ~.-,,.-.-,,