ML20054K264

Informs of Ny State Energy R&D Authority Lawsuit Against Various Utils,Including Con Ed,Alleging Continuing Trespass & Breach of Contractual Agreements Due to Continued Storage of 215 Spent Fuel Assemblies from Unit 1

ML20054K264
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	06/28/1982
From:	Steptoe P ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Little L, Remick F, Wolf J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8207010350
Download: ML20054K264 (2)

Text

1 9

ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSELORS AT LAW THREE AR$TNATIONALMZA ceCAGO. R.LW015 60002 .

TELEPHont r2 Lwn00 a m ".f

• Ee'RT T CS*o'Ii E7. "'"'"" WASHwGTON ornCE witpau G. statt, tass.1923 g//[ "'"'WA" SHINu TON.s"$'

C.20038 June 28, 1982 '~

- U John F. Wolf, Esq.

3409 Shepherd Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Dr. Forrest J. Remick 305 East Hamilton Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Dr. Linda W. Little

~500 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Re: Commonwealth Edison Company (Dresden Station, Units 2 & 3) -

Docket Nos. 50-237-SP, 50-249-SP (Spent Fuel' Pool' Modification)

Dear 'dministrative Judges:

Pursuant to the duty of full disclosure, this letter is to inform you of a recent development which might possibly be considered relevant to this proceeding. On May 15, 1982 the New York State Energy Research and Develop-ment Authority ("NYSERDA") filed suit against Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Commonwealth Edison and certain~other electric utilities in the United States District Court for the Wes' tern District of New York (Civil Action File No. Civ. 82-0426E).

Insofar as it applies to Commonwealth Edison, the complaint.

alleges that approximately 215 spent fuel assemblies from -

Dresden Unit 1 have been stored at. Nuclear Fuel Services' West Valley Center since about 1973, when West Valley suspended reprocessing operations, and this continued storage is claimed to be a continuing trespass and a breach of contractual agreements. The relief requested is that Commonwealth Edison take back its Dresden Unit 1 spent fuel, and pay damages to NYSERDA. Commonwealth Edison has been granted an extension of time to file an answer, and negotiations with NYSERDA are taking place.

i pah7muoM%

0 3R3

r 1 John F. Wolf, Esq. j Dr. Forrest J. Remick i Dr. Linda W. Little June 28, 1982 Page 2 '

l This lawsuit might be considered relevant to this proceeding because if Edison were required to take back the Dresden Unit 1 spent fuel to Dresden Station, the fuel would probably have to be stored in the Dresden Units 2 and 3 pools, since the Dresden Unit 1 pool is full. The NRC has previously reviewed the practice of storing Dresden Unit 1 fuel in the Dresden Unit 2 and 3 pools and granted its approval by license amendments and accompanying safety evaluation dated January 30, 1978. However, a further safety review by Commonwealth Edison would be required pursuant to 10 CFR 550.59 before any Dresden Unit 1 fuel from West Valley could be stored in the new racks

.w hich are the subject of this proceeding. Such a review would address criticality, seismic, and other concerns to ensure that there were no unreviewed safety questions not considered by the NRC in 1978 and by the Licensing Board in this proceeding. Commonwealth Edison's 10 CFR 550.59 review would be made available for review by the NRC Staff, although we, of course, can not promise that the Staff would actually review it.

We wish to emphasize that the possibility that Dresden Unit 1 spent fuel from West Valley may be stored in the Dresden 2 and 3 pools is purely speculative at this time.  !

The New York lawsuit could have many other outcomes. For example, the federal court could find that Commonwealth Edison has no obligation to take the spent fuel back, or that Commonwealth Edison's only obligation is to pay a storage fee to NYSERDA. Commonwealth Edison.is unable,~'to'~

estimate when this litigation will be. resolved, or how it will be resolved. The Company is not making any plans _.to ..

receive the Dresden Unit 1 fuel from West Valley. Me do not believe that the possibility of an unfavorable outcome to the New York litigation raises any new issues which the Board needs to consider in this proceeding.

S nc 1 ',

/

veS es G2h.4%.9,yn 4 cc Service List t

l t

l

- - _ . _ . _