ML20058A466
| ML20058A466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1981 |
| From: | Fitzgerald NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058A382 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436, TASK-AIA, TASK-SE SECY-81-223, NUDOCS 8110280664 | |
| Download: ML20058A466 (39) | |
Text
g p rm mumm
/pum o
l
- z([,s s
s.,
j ADJUDICATORY ISSUE April 7, 1981 SECY-81-223 (Aff.irmat. ion)
For:
The Commissioners From:
James A. Fitzgerald Assistant General Counsel
Subject:
REQUESTS FOR HEARINGS IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED DECONTAMINATTON OF DRESDEN UNIT 1 Purcese:
[
Discussion:
This matter involves requests for hearings by several persons and groups (Petitioners) 1/ with regard to Commonwealth Edison's (CECO) proposal to chemicall;' decontaminate Dresden, Unit One.
On January 8,1931, the Ccmmission asked the staff, CECO and the petitioners to brief three questions regarding the scope and format of any hearing on this proposal.
Eriefs have been received frcm all participants and are summarized below.(Tncurview.
C-We have developed 8110280664 930412 PDR FOIA CILINSK92-436 PDR m
.. _ _.. ~....
-1/
Petitioners are Citizens for a Better Environment, Prairie Alliance, Illinois Safe Energy Alliance, Kay Drey, Bridget Rorem, and Marylin Shineflug.
CONTACT:
Sheldon L.
Trubatch, OGC 634-3224
.l l
~
' r.d.M
+
t
'r li.,t i.;
1
,y ;, h _ w L 1
suozsowd aa, e
a ve Hls/
,,w
> y l.,a l
y:,
5 o-C i
i k
V f,
lI
/
/
f.
I I
t I
- mm...
The following discussion analyzes the issues in this proceeding and presents recernendations for Con =ission action.
~
1 O
)
i 13 l
W
[
i I
L 1
l 1
I Recommendation:
t-ll V
s
\\ PrA f
' -t -% I
,g y
James A. Fit erald Assistant General Counsel
Attachment:
Proposed Order
- 1. IJRC Staff Response to Comm. Questions
- 2. Applicant's Brief to the Commission
- 3. Response to Fetitioners to Comm. Order
- 4. Proposed Order i
Camissioners' cmrnents or consent shculd be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Tuesday, April 21, 1981.
Comission Staff Office uuents, if any, shculd be suW;ted to the Camissioners NLT April 14, 1981, with an infomation copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additicnal time for analytical review and cu.uent, the 02nnissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when ccreents may be expectai.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affinration at an Open Meeting during i
the week of April 27, 1981.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Ccmnission Schedule, Wen published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBtJrIOl:
02nnissioners Ctmnission Staff Offices Secretr iat i
i 1
_m J
l i
B r
1
. =.
?
e i
E k
t i
. a S
k 6
p t
4 P
t i
h t
6 i
ATTACHitENT 1 i
l
. 5is 1
i r
l I
i i
't
?
j t
w l
d4% 29 gggI e
%)
[9 E'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Orrice,f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OK4 7
/
5 BEFORE THE COMMISSION
- c In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-10
~
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit No.1)
)
i 1
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMISSION QUESTIONS J
I Lawrence Brenner Counsel for NRC Staff January 28, 1981 5
B UNITED STATES OF 41 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tiMISSION BEFORE THE C0!!!11SSIO!1 In the Matter of
)
)
C0f tt0NilEALTH EDISON C0!!PANY
)
Docket No. 50-10
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit No. 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO C0ft11SSION QUESTIONS The Commission, in its Order of January 8,1981, indicated that it was considering a petition for a public hearing / on the proposal of the Common-1 wealth Edison Company (CECO) to chenically decontaminate the Dresden Unit I primary cooling system.2/ The Commission, stating it required more infor-mation before it could address the petition, requested the NRC Staff, and invited CECO and the joint petitioners, to respond to three questions.
The Staff files this response to the questions:
-1/
The July 18, 1980 petition was filed jointly on behalf of:
Citizens for a Better Environment, Prairie Alliance, Kay Drey, Bridget Rorem, Illinois Safe Energy Alliance, and Marilyn Shineflug.
2/
The 200 MWe Dresden-1 unit, located near Morris, Illinois, received its full term operating license in 1960.
i l
?,
Question (a):
What, if any, license modifications in addition to the two Technical Specification changes sought by Ceco are required for decontamination?3/
Answer:
Although not strictly needed to carry out the physical decontamination, the Staff will require reasonable assurance that arrangements exist for the acceptance of the solidified decontanination radwaste by either the Beatty, Nevada or Hanford, Washington low-level waste burial sites.
Such a condi-tion would be inposed by modification of the license as part of approval of the decontamination.
Prior to decontamination, netal surveillance coupon specinens determined with the agreement of the Staff will be placed in the reactor for later use in a special metal surveillance program to be performed after decontamination.
r Although the post-decontamination surveillance program may be implemented by license modification, as noted below in response to question (b), it. is not expected that a license modification.will be required for. the selection and placenent of the specinens.
At this time, based on the decontamination plan proposed by Ceco, the Staff does not expect that any other license modifications will be required prior to the decontamination.
3/
The two Technical Specification changes referred to were requested formally by CECO on November 14, 1979.
They are:
(1) elimination of the requirement to maintain primary containment integrity during the chemical cleaning (2) exclusion of radioactive liquid storage tanks outage when all fuel is removed from within the containment; and located within the seismically qualified portion of the chemical cleaning building from the above grade storage curie limitation applicable to the total of all such tanks of all Dresden units.
.~
Ouestion (b):
What, if any, license modifications are required for a resumption of operation?
l Answer:
We interpret this question to be directed to those license modifica-tions required for a resumption of operation on account of the chemical decontamination.S/ There will be two such sets of follow-up requirements i
i 5
4/
CECO announced in May,1980, that it is deferring the restart of Dresden-1~
i until June 1986, due to financial considerations and uncertainty regarding regulatory requirements arising out of the NRC's Systematic Evaluation Program and the lessons learned from the Three Mile' Island accident (see letter to the Secretary of the Commission from Counsel for Ceco, dated November 14,1980).
In addition to license modifications required i
because of the ' chemical decontamination, there are a number of actions,
j which are not part of the proposed decontamination for which license _
amendments are required prior to resumption of operation, including:
1.
High-Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) design and Appendix K,-
10 CFR Part 50 review, in implementation of the final ECCS acceptance criteria, pursuant to NRC Order of August 22, 1975.
2.
Modification of the Reactor Protection Systen in light of IEEE-279 requirements, pursuant to NRC Order of June 23, 1976.
i 3.
Refueling application for next cycle.
4.
Installation of reactor recirculation pump trip as part of the requirements to protect against ATWS.
l 5.
Environmental qualification of equipment.
6 '.
Modification of in-service inspection (ISI) program pursuant l
to 10 CFR 6 50.55a to include components which will become accessible if the decontamination is performed.
7.
Implementation of applicable THI Action Plan requirements.
8.
Modifications arising out of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP).
(Continued)
,-e,
~,
s
~,.-m
-,w w
v
to monitor the effects of the decontamination on the integrity of materials in the Dresden-1 reactor.
One set will contain the special progran to with-draw and exanine the metal coupon specinens referred to in response to question (a) above.
fietal coupon samples will be examined periodically after decontanination and after resunption of operation.
The other set will contain requirements for a pre-service inspection program for the primary coolant boundary and related safety systens.
It does not appear that these post-decontaninatien follow-up requirenents will have to be implemented by license nodifications, although the Staff may elect to do so.
See Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263, 271-74 (1979) for the standard enunciated with respect to whether natters should be nade part of the technical specifications.
See also Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-616, 12 NRC
, Slip op. at 4-8 (October 2, 1980).
Ouestion (c):
If license modifications are required for both decontanination and return to operation, how should the hearing be structured?
Answer:
It should be noted at the outset that unless there is a reversal of the Staff's previous finding that approval of the chemical decontamination does not involve a significant hazards consideration, there is no requirement 4]
(Continued) 9.
Replacement of the unloading heat exchanger (this action may not require license amendments).
Several of these itens are referred to at page 5-1 of the Staff's Final Environmental Statenent (FES) issued in October,1980.
4.
e that an adjudicatory hearing be held prior to aoproval of the decontamina-tion.5/ Accordingly, if the Commission in its discretion decides to grant the joint petitioners an opportunity for such a hearing, there is also broad t
discretion to structure the hearing as the Commission deems appropriate.
i In the event the Conmission determines to grant the joint petitioners an opportunity for a hearing, the six petitioners, consisting of individuals and groups, who joined in the July 8,1980 petition should be required to continue their participation throughout the proceeding consolidated as one joint party.
With the exception of Ms. Rorem who is stated to live in Essex, Illinois, within 15 miles of the facility, there is insufficient informa-tion on the face of the petition from which it can be concluded that the other five individuals and groups meet the standing requirements of 10 CFR 6 2.714.5/ Accordingly, consistent with 6 2.714, each of the named joint petitioners other than Ms. Rorem should be directed by the Commission
-5/
If the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issues its mandate in j
Sholly v. NRC prior to approval of the proposed amendments required for the Chen1 cal decontamination, this situation will change.
6/
"The petition shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affecte( by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why petitioner should be pernitted to intervene, with particular reference to the factors in paragraph (d) of this section...." 10 CFR 6 2.714(a)(2).
The Staff is enclosing a copy of 5 2.714 in its entirety with the copies of this pleading being mailed to Mr. Goldsmith, Counsel for the joint petitioners, and to Mr. Fenske, who as discussed below has written a letter in support of holding a public hearing.
i 1
i e
, l 4
to set forth their interests with particularity in a joint anended petition l
in order to be permitted to participate as one of the joint petitioners.
l The Staff suggests that the Connission direct the filing of an anended joint petition before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board within a reason-able time after.the Commission's Order, ft.cl.,15 days after service of the
~
order.1/
The scope of any hearing should include those matters directly related to the environnental inpact and safety of the Dresden-1 decontamination.
l This should include an inquiry into whether there is reasonable assurance that follow-up requirements to monitor the effects of the decontamination on the integrity of naterials in the Dresden-1 reactor, discussed in response to question (b), can be developed to monitor properly the potential effects of the decontanination which may be reasonably postulated.
Such i
inquiry would not normally require that specific post-decontamination tech-nical specifications, if any, be exanined by the Board or be made part of the license before the decontamination -ca,n take place.. License amendments which may be required prior to resumption of operation which are not part of I
7/
By letter of January 11, 1981 to Chairman Ahearne, fir. Richard E. Fenske
~
supports the holding of a hearing, but is not clearly requesting one on his own behalf. His letter does not attempt to meet the requirements of 6 2.714.
If Mr. Fenske seeks to become a party and if the Commission decides to offer a hearing to the joint petitioners, Mr. Fenske should be directed to file an amended petition on the same schedule.
If he does so, and meets the requirements of 5 2.714, the Licensing Board should consolidate Mr. Fenske with the joint petitioners in the absence of any strong prejudice to the legal rights of the parties. Of course, if Mr. Fenske does not seek party status, or if he can work out his own arrangenents with the joint petitioners, there would be no reason for i
him to file a separate amended petition.
9 the decontamination, including those listed in footnote 4 above, should not be within the scope of a hearing on whether to permit the proposed decon-tamination.
Respectfully submitted, Q
Lawrence Brenner Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, fiaryland this 2Bth day of January,1931 6
p i
4 L
i
-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
l BEFORE THE COMMISSION l
In the Matter of
)
i
)
i COMM0fMEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No'. 50-10 i
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit No.1)-
)
]
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 1
Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the captioned matter.
In accordance with 52.713 -10 CFR l
Part 2, the following infomation is provided:
Name
- Lawrence Brenner Address
- Office of the Executive Legal Director i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Telephone Number
- (301) 492-7501 I
Admissions
- New York State Court of Appeals j
1 District of Columbia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals of Maryland i
United States Court of Appeals for the j
District of Coltrnbia Circuit United States Supreme Court Name of Party
- NRC Staff Lawrence Brenner Counsel for NRC Staff l
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION s
In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-10
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "hRC STAFF RESPONSE TO C0ftISSION QUESTIONS" and " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail, this 28th day of January,1981:
Robert Goldsmith, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Counsel for Joint Petitioners Boa;d Panel j
59 East Van Buren Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Chicago, Illinois 60605 Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Philip Steptoe, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Isham, Lincoln & Beale Appeal Board Panel One First National Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Forty-Second Floor Washington, D.C.
20555 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Docketing and Servic'e Section (12)
Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Secretary State of Illinois U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Environmental Control Division Washington, D.C.
20555 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Leonard Bickwit, Esq.
Chicago, Illinois 60601 Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Richard E. Fenske Washington, D.C.
20555 635 Forest Avenue Oak Park, Illinois 60302 Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary M'i h%
u -T M U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lawrence Brenner Washington, D.C.
205555 Counsel for NRC Staff l
i
+
i u
i I.
)
i b
t, i
j L
h E
i t
t ATTACHMENT 2 4
7 b
t F
it e
t e
?
t
.5 i
p t
?
~ I P
P L
t h
i BEFORE THE COWIss!9:;
l 2/ 16 / 81
~
/
\\
+
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 49 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION xrr -
N "S t..
FfgjMI981> --
BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
g COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-10 g
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power
)
Station,' Unit No. 1)
)
i APPLICANT'S BRIEF TO T'iE COMMISSION This matter involves a request for hearings by several persons and groups
(" Petitioners") in respect of Commonwealth Edison's
(" Applicant's") proposal to carry out a chemical cleaning of its Dresden Unit One reactor.
On January 8, 1981 the Commission asked the parties to brief three questions prior to its addressing the petition i
for hearings.
Those three questions and Applicant's re-sponses follow.
Question (a):
What, if any, license modifications in addition to the two Technical Specification changes sought by Ceco are required for decontamination?
i ANSWER:
Applicant agrees with the NRC Staff's response i
dated January 20, 1981.
Question (c):
What, if any, license modifications are required for a resumption of operation?
ANSWER:
Applicant agrees with the NRC Staff's
i 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 1/
The NRC Staff Response to Commission Ouestions 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 Unit One.
Applicant has not yet proposed,~nor is it possible to define pending completion of SEP and the other reviews listed in Attach-ment 1, the specific license modifications or tech spec changes to be made.
The list in Attachment 1 is certain to I
grow in the near future as the Staff continues to publish new requirements and ask further questions in respect of all t
operating reactors.
We think that Attachment 1 illustrates 1/
The other reason is certain short-term cash flow deficiencies currently being experienced by Applicant.
n t
1 e
that it would not only be premature, b.ut impracticable to l
address restart issues in any chemical cleaning hearing.
f Ouestion (c):
1 If license modifications are required for both decontamination and return to operation, how
-l should the hearing be structured?
j 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 4
Sholly v. NRC,2/ then the notice of hearing should direct l
i the licensing board, in the event Sholly v. NRC is reversed i
or legislatively corrected prior to completion of the hearings, j
to allow the chemical cleaning to go forward without further delay on the basis.of the Staff's "No Significant Hazards l
Finding and the Final Environmental Statement.
The hearings could continue as a justification of the Applicant's proposal and of the Staff's review, in accordance with what 'the Commission itself has argued is the appropriate interpretation
]
i of the "significant hazards" limitation in Section 189 (a) of i
the Atomic Energy Act.
i i
.2/
On December 3, 1980, as soon as it learned of the Shn11y decision, Applicant wrote to the Commission requesting that a licensing board be appointed so that 3
we could get on with the hearings which seemed required by the decision. 'At that time Applicant did not know that the NRC would seek an indefinite stay of the mandate in Sholly.
Applicant'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.
]
4
}
)
i !
- ~
Any hearing should address the chemical cleaning itself, together with necessarily related issues such as waste disposal or post-cleaning follow-up requirements.
(See NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions, text at pp. 3-4).
Since an environmental impact statement has been prepared, 1j it should be presented, along with the Staff's SER, at the hearings.
See Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. AEC, 449 F.2d 1109, 1117-18 (1971).
- However, 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 concerning alternative uses of available resources" within the meaning of Section 102 (2) (E) of NEPA, there will be no need to discuss alternatives to Applicant's proposal.
- See, e.g.,
Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 584, 11 NRC 451 (1980).
The restart and subsequent operation of Dresden Unit One should not b; addressed 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 for the license modifications necessary to restart the unit.
In this regard, note that Petitioners have not asked for a hearing on restart of Dresden Unit One.
The issues involved 3/
Final Environmental Statement related to Primary Cooling System Chemical Decontamination at Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, NUREG 0686 (October 1980).
in chemical cleaning and restart are clearly separable.4/
And no party will be prejudiced by this separation of issues, since Petitioners and other " interested persons" will have t
the opportunity for a hearing prior to restart of Dresden Unit One.
A number of suggestions concerning the conduct of any hearing have Deen made by the NRC Staff and Petitioners which we believe could be left to a licensing board.
But for the sake of completeness, Applicant responds as follows.
The NRC Staff urges the consolidation of Petitioners i
as one joint party.
(NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions at p.
5)
Petitioners have no objection.
(Response of Petitioners to Commission Order at p. 5).
Applicant supports this consolidation.
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 i
suggested by the NRC Staff.
(NRC Staff Response to Commission l
Questions at pp. 5-6).
I 4/
The issues raised by Petitioners to date in respect of chemical cleaning have primarily related to corrosion
~
and to the potential migration of chelated wastes following burial.
The issues which must be resolved, at least by the NRC Staff, prior to restart of the unit have to do with HPCI, Fire Protection, Environmental Qualification, l
Seismic Reanalysis, etc.
More generally, the obvious distinction to make is between cleaning and operating Dresden Unit one.
\\
l 1
Petitioners claim that if their petition is i
l granted their formal contentions need not be submitted until there is an opportunity for discovery under 10 CFR 52.740.
Applicant strongly opposes this suggestion.
The
)
Commission's Rules of Practice provide that " discovery shall begin only after the prehearing conference provided for in 52.751a and shall relate only to those matters in controversy which have been identified by the Commission or by the presiding officer in the prehearing conference order entered at the conclusion of' that prehearing conference."
As a practical matter, there are more than seven years of studies, experiments and correspondence supporting the pro-posed chemical cleaning, and it would be unreasonably burden-some for Applicant, its contractors, and, we think, for the NRC Staff to throw this extensive history open for discovery without some prior definition by a licensing board of the specific ma'tters in controversy.
Respec*#' lly submitted, 1
/'
ti 4
\\
' 9-l m
One
'f the Atto eys for!
Co... nwealth Ed @I$on Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE i
Suite 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/558-7500,
COMMONh'EALTH EDISON COMPANY 'S
SUMMARY
OF REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION/ COMMITMENTS REQUIRED AT THE PRESENT TIME FOR RETURN TO SERVICE Letter Description 1.
B.B.
Stephenson Letter Commitment 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.
Bolger 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.
Bogler letter to Commitment to modify the core spray Director of NRR dated system and the reactor protection January 12, 1976 system (RPS) to comply with IEEE Standard 279.
4.
G.A.
Abrell letter to Progress report on High 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 Commitment to repair valve problems K.R.
Goller dated with the modified gas system March 18, 1977 using new linkages and actuaters.
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 notifying Commonwealth R.L.
Bolger 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 interim license conditions.
ATTACHMENT 1
8, J.G.
Keppler letter to NRC Staff letter transmitting IE B.
Lee, Jr. dated Bulletin No. 79-07 which requires April 14, 1979 action on the part of Commonwealth Edison regarding seismic stress analysis of safety-related piping.
9.
J.G.
Keppler letter to NRC Staff letter transmitting IE B.
Lee, Jr. dated Bulletin No. 79-08 which requires April 14, 1979 action on the part of Commonwealth Edison regarding events relevant to BWR's identified during TMI incident.
10.
R.
Snaider letter to NRC Staff request for additional R.F.
Janecek dated information on combustible gas May 29, 1979 control inside containment.
11.
J.G. Keppler letter to NRC Staff letter transmitting IE B.
Lee, Jr. dated Bulletin No. 79-14 which requires July 2, 1979 Commonwealth Edison to submit written responses regarding seismic analysis for as-built safety related piping systems.
12.
C.
Reed letter to Letter stating Commonwealth Edison has J.G.
Keppler dated undertaken a comprehensive program July 5, 1979 to resolve concerns raised in IE Bulletin No. 79-02 regarding pipe support base plate designs using concrete expansion anchor bolts.
13.
D.L.
Ziemann letter to NRC Staff letter notifying Commonwealth C.
Reed dated Edison that the Commission issued August 9, 1979 Amendment No. 23 to the operating license for Dresden I which requires completion of fire protection modi-fications 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).
15.
C.
Reed letter to Commitment to demonstrate Dresden D.
Eisenhut dated Unit I's compliance with the require-October 18, 1979 ments of Enclosures 6 and 7 of D. G. Eisenhut's letter to all operating plants dated September 13, 1979 prior to Dresden Unit I start-up. l
16.
D.L.
Ziemann letter NRC Staff request for Commonwealth to D.L. Peoples Edison to submit 90 days prior to e
dated October 23, 1979 restarting Dresden Unit I a written commitment 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.
17.
D.L.
Peoples letter to supplementary Response to Commonwealth H.R.
Denton dated Edison's October 18, 1979 letter on November 30, 1979 Lessons. Learned Commitments which clarifies Commonwealth Edison's commitment with regard to staffing each operator shift with a technical graduate licensed at the Senior Reactor Operator level.
18.
R.F.
Janacek letter to Letter transmitting Core Spray Distri-l D.L.
Ziemann dated bution 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. I to IE Bulletin July 18, 1980 No. 80-17 which requires Commonwealth Edison to submit information and i
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 transmitting'IE C. Reed dated Bulletin No. 80-04' requesting i
February 8, 1980-Commonwealth to submit information I
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.
,.s
22.
R.F. Janacek letter Action plan proposal for resolving to D.L.
Ziemann dated seismic design issues which includes February 29, 1980 commitments 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 Unit 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 leak detection has already been scheduled.
24.
J.G.
Keppler letter to NRC Staff letter transmitting IE C.
Reed dated Bulletin No. 80-11 and requiring Commonwealth Edison to examine and May 8, 1980 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. 1 which includes information on the fire detection and water suppression systems to be installed.
26.
R.F.
Janacek letter to Commitment to forward information on D.L.
Ziemann 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 Unit I due to the retrofit program modifying the Emergency Core Cooling and Reactor Protection Systems, but committing Commonwealth Edison to supply the requested information J
when it becomes available.
_4
29.
D. L.
Peoples letter to Commitment to show Dresden Unit D.
Eisenhut dated 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 start-up.
30.
D.M.
Crutchfield letter NRC Staff letter requiring Commonwealth to D.L.
Peoples dated Edison to respond to the possibility June 11, 1980 of cracks low pressure turbir.a discs, and recommending a full UT inspection of at least one low pressure turbine prior.o restart of Dresden Unit I.
31.
D.G.
Eisenhut letter to NRC Staff letter describing its plan All Power Reactor for implementing NUREG-0577 which Licenses dated will require Commonwealth Edison to May 19, 1980 demonstrate the adequacy of the support structures of $ts nuclear facilities through the submittal of detailed reports by December 31, 1981.
32.
D.L.
Ziemann letter to NRC Staff letter requesting Commonwealth D.L.
Peoples dated Edison to submit information showing March 6, 1980 Dresden Unit I's compliance with environmental qualification guidelines set forth " Guidelines for evaluating environmental qualification of Class 1E Electrical Equipment in operating reactors - Enclosure 1 and 2 to NRC letter to licenses," dated February 15, 1980 by June 2, 1980.
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 evaluation program to demonstrate the seismic design adequacy of Dresden Unit I.
By letter dated September 11, 1980, Commonwealth Edison deferred its response to Staff's request until some fulcra date prior to Dresden Unit I restart.
34.
R.F. Janacek letter to Response to NRC Staff's request for j
D.G.
Eisenhut dated information and commitments for June 26, 1980 providing a second level of undervoltage
{
protection for the 4KV emergency power i
buses supplying safety related loads i
at Dresden.
l '
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-10
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance on behalf of Commonwealth Edison Company in the captioned matter.
In accordance with $2.713 of the Commission's Rules of l
Practice, the following information is provided:
Name:
David M.
Stahl Address:
Isham, Linc?in & Beale Suite 4200 One First National Plaza l
Chicago,. Illinois 60603 Telephone:
(312) 558-7500 Admission:
Supreme Court of Illinois United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals i
for the District of Columbia United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois i
I DATED:
February 16, 1981
/
/. I i/
(
\\
'q
',1
}*
l ' k.
David M. Stahl, One of the-Attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company i
m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-10
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance on behalf of Commonwealth Edison Company in the captioned matter.
In accordance with 52.713 of the Commission's Rules of i
Practice, the following infcarmation is provided:
Name:
Philip P.
Steptoe Address:
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone:
(312) 558-7500 Admission:
Supreme Court of Illinois Supreme Court of Virginia United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois DATED:
February 16, 1981
(
bAIe-<
L
,.n Attorneys fo$ toe 7 D6Efof the Phflip P'.
St
^.
r Commonwe!sith Edison Company
i I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSICN In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-10
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Brief to the Commis.sion," " Notice of Appearance" of David M. Stahl, and " Notice of Appearance" of Philip P. Steptoe in the above-captioned proceeding have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 16th day of February, 1981:
' Robert Goldsmith, Esq.
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary 59 East Van Buren Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chicago, IL 60605 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Lawrence Brenner, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Director U.S.
Nuclear Regu,latory 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 i
Richard E. Fenske Leonard Bickwit, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel 635 Forest Avenue Oak Park, IL 60302 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
t Chairman John Ahearne Commissioner Victor Gilinsky U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner Peter Bra?frrd Commissioner Joseph Hendrie U.S. Nuclear Regulato:,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 r
l
@'n(t6 Philip P. Step poe one of the Attorneys for( '
N Commonwealth Edison Company 0
1 m
b i
r i
e 1
+
A ATTACHMENT 3
/
- 1 i
t a
I
.P e
e I
t L
k s
3 5
rm
-*I
i
.y,g)ITi! 4 l
6
~.
\\
r-P, C'~i.,..,,' I ' fyN &
0
(.d UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
hy 3
i BEFORE THE COMMISSION
\\
d / q..gik In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-10
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power Station, )
i Unit No. 1)
)
t RESPONSE OF PETITIONERS TO COMMISSION ORDER On November 14, 1979, Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) proposed two amendments to Appendix A, Technical Specification, to the operating license for Dresden I in order to penform the P
primary system chemical decontamination.
Prior to and after that date, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (N RC) received various petitions from Kay Drey, Citizens for a Better Environ-ment, Prairie Alliance, Marilyn Shineflug and Bridget Rorem (hereinafter collectively referred to as " Petitioners") requesting that NRC prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The. petitions for an EIS were granted and at the end of
}
May, 1980, a draft EIS for the Dresden I_decontamina ion war- -
t issued.
Petitioners submitted comments 6n the draft EIS, and
~
on July 8, 1980, petitioned for a public hearing on the EIS and the proposed license amendments for*the decontamination.
On October 17, 1980, the final EIS was made available to the%(oS 5
/
o
(
i
- =..
J' 0 2 i P n *~-.
~
e public.
The Commission in an order dated January 8,
- 1981, requested briefing on several 1ssues.
To this date the Commis-sion has not ruled on the proposed license amendments nor on the petition for a public hearing.
Question (a) :
What, if any, license modifications in addition to the two Technical Specification Changes sought by CECO are required for decontamination?
Answer Since the Commission has made no determination on the petition for a public hearing, Petitioners are not a formal party yet.
There are no regulatory or procedural provisions govern-ing Petitioners' role prior to this determination.
Under S 189(a) of the Atemic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
522 39 (a),
the Commission shall:
grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding.
If Petitioners' petition is granted, S 139(a) requires that they be treated as a party without further ado.
On the other hand, this Commission, if it adopts the NRC staff's position, may require Petitioners to submit an additional petition to inter-vene and contentions.
Thus Petitioners do not want to prejudice their potential contentions,10 CFR S 2.714 (b), by listing specific i
issues they seek to litigate in this matter, prior to their formal submittal.
Moreover, it is Petitioners' position that if their petition for a public hearing is granted, then the Commission must admit them as a party under S 189(a) and formal contentions need not be submitted, at least until there is an opportunity for discovery under 10 CFR S 2.740.
q
i Finally, it is unclear whether the Commission's Order of January 8, 1991, excludes the issues relating to the EIS for the Dresden decontamination, for which Petitioners also requested a public hearing.
For that reason, Petitioners reiterate that all issues connected to the environmental impact of the decon- -
tamination are relevant issues for litigation at the public hearing.
These issues include both those addressed by the comments on the draft EIS and new issues arising since the close of the comment period.
Question (b):
What, if any, license modifications are required for resumption of operation?
Answer f
Although Petitioners do not wish to prejudice their potential contentions in this area as well, it can be stated that specific Technical Specifications or other license modifica-l tions necessary for a return to commercial operation of Dresden I will'probably n~ot be raised.
This does not exc'lude environmental implications of the decontamination upon Dresden's capability to be returned to service nor the evaluation of alternatives to return to service.
Additionally, Petitioners do not intend to waive their right to petition, at a later date, for a public hearing related to license modifications necessary for Dresden's return to service.
Question (c):
It license modifications are required for both decon-tamination and return to operation, how should the hearing be structured?
Answer At the outset Peritioners contend that this particular hearing shouli irr1.~4-
-'a
-c-ee
~
1 decontamination and all environmental issues related to the decontamination.
A separate hearing, later in time, may be necessary for issues surrounding the return to service.
Petitioners take issue with the NFC staff's position that no adjudicatory hearing is necessary if the mandate of Sholly v.
NRC, 15 ERC 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1980), is not entered prior to the approval of the proposed amendments required for the chemical decontamination.
Not only would this violate the intent of Shelly, supra, but it would also violate section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, which requires the NRC to grant a hearing upon the request of a person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding - whether or not the NRC has made a finding of
' "no significant hazard."
Petitioners requested such a hearing on July 8, 1980, before approval or disapproval of the Dresden decontamination, which to this date has not been decided upon.
To circumvent this statutory requirement, notwithstanding any
' entry of the mandate of Shelly, is a clear violation of the r
Atomic Energy Act.
Brooks v.
Atomic Enercy Commission, 476 F2d 924 (D.C. Cir. 1973) made it clear to this Commission's predecessor agency over seven years aco that the mere request by a person whose interest may by affected is sufficient unde r S 18 9 (a) to require a public hearing.
The Atomic Energy Act gives no indication whatsoever that a finding of "no significant hazard" by the NRC staff precludes a public hearing properly requested under 5 18 9 (a).
4
9 The hearing, since it will be considering a license amend-ment and the environmental impact of the proposed decontamina-tion, should be governed by 10 CFR S 51.52 as well as subpart G of 10 CFR Part 2.
These provisions provide no discretion to
" structure the hearing' as the Commission deems appropriate" (Staff Response at 5); as at any other hearing, the procedural rules of 10 CFR S 51.52 and subpart G of Part 2 must apply.
. Finally, Petitioners have no objection to their consolidation as one joint party.
Respectfully submitted, 1
Q
//
\\
,1e 4:
/s wm 2[j/h/
Dated:
Robert Goldsmith
~
Counsel for Petitioners Suite 1600 59 East van Buren Street Chicago, Illinois 60605 (312) 939-1530 9
5
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-10
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit No. 1)
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the un'dersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the captioned matter.
In accordance with 5 2.713, 10 CFR Part 2, the following information is provided:
Name Robert Goldsmith Address Suite 1600, 59 E. Van Buren St.
Chicago, Illinois 60605 Telephone Number (312) 939-1530 Admissions Illinois State Supreme Court Wisconsin State Supreme Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Name of Party Petitioners:
Citizens for a Better Environment, et al.
O r--
1 Robert Goldsmith Counsel for Petitioners
>f!> II Dated:
3 4
g519f f q, f
y.-
- 7,~
N, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
FES N'
% o[g;fyggI319
- 3 c
BEFORE THE COMMISSION k
I[.f?m@r dl !
In the Matter of
)
y
)
/le COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No.-50-10
)
(Decontamination)
(Dresden Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " RESPONSE OF PETITIONERS TO COMMISSION ORDER" and " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this //TI.
day of February, 1981; Lawrence Brenner Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Board Panel Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 j
Philip Steptoe, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Isham, Lincoln & Beale Appeal Board. Panel One First National Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Forty-Second Floor Commission Chicago, Illinois 60603 Uashington,
.D. C.
20555 Office of the Attorney General, Docketing and Service Section State'of Illinois Office of the Secretary Environmental Control Divisien U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 188 West Randolph Street Commission Suite 2315 Washington,10.C.
20555 i
Chicago, Illinois 60601 Leonard Bickwit, Esq.
Richard E. Fenske Office of the General Counsel-635 Forest Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Park, Illinois 60302 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Samuel J.
Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7
Washington, D.C.
20555
/'/
/
/)-t t4 o6 -
Roberr Goldsmith Counsel-for Petitioners
._y.s J
a a
p 5
k s
. er Tt h
t
. r 9
?
e k
l b
t
?
k 6
i p
k b
b ATTACHMENT 4 r
4 P
r b
t f
P I
n t
i 1
5 a
f I
i I
4 1
1 i
i I 1
i l
1
~
i 1
1 l
a l
.' J d
1
,