|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20207E0051999-03-0202 March 1999 Transcript of 990302 Public Meeting with Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-104.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20236H9381998-06-30030 June 1998 Transcript of 980630 Meeting W/Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-123.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20198P3001997-11-0404 November 1997 Transcript of 971104 Public Meeting W/Ceco in Rockville,Md Re Measures Established by Ceco to Track Plant Performance & to Gain Understanding of CAs Put Into Place to Improve Safety.Pp 1-105.W/Certificate & Viewgraphs ML20141K3801997-05-27027 May 1997 Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) for Dr Baudino for Period of Five Years ML20080A6081994-10-24024 October 1994 Refers to Pierce Actions Re Util Failure to Provide Adequate Training or Guidance Concerning Applicability of Doa 300-12 While Expert Present Directing Control Rod Movements ML20070B0081994-06-20020 June 1994 Response to Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-licensed Activities.* Informs That Order Will Have Negative Impact on Health & Safety of Public ML20059C2351993-12-17017 December 1993 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-21-2 Re Commercial Grade Item Dedication ML20245J0191989-04-14014 April 1989 Comment Re Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20235T9661989-03-0101 March 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors.Alternatives Provide No Enhancement of Reactor Safety & Will Reduce Experience Level of Senior Operators ML20235T8251989-02-28028 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rules Provide No Enhancement of Reactor Safety ML20235T8701989-02-28028 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants.Rule Will Cause Career Stagnation & Animosity Among Operators ML20235S8241989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors.Proposed Rule Alternatives Would Reduce to Nothing Reactor Operators Advancing to Senior Operator ML20235T1551989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Education & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors.Alternative Provides No Enhancement of Reactor Safety & Will Reduce Experience Level of Senior Operators ML20235T1231989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors.Alternatives Provide No Enhancement of Reactor Safety & Reduce Experience Level of Senior Operators ML20235S9791989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors.Both Alternatives Would Eventually Reduce to Nothing Reactor Operators Advancing to Senior Operator ML20235S8371989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants ML20235T8381989-02-22022 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants ML20235T1361989-02-22022 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors.Alternative Provides No Enhancement of Reactor Safety & Will Reduce Experience Level of Senior Operators ML20235T7951989-02-22022 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants.Both Alternatives Do Not Provide Enhancement of Reactor Safety ML20235T7041989-02-22022 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants ML20235T0911989-02-22022 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors.Alternatives Provide No Enhancement of Reactor Safety & Reduce Experience Level of Senior Operators ML20235T0461989-02-22022 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors.Both Alternatives Would Reduce Number of Reactor Operators Advancing to Senior Operator to Nothing ML20235S9541989-02-22022 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors.Alternatives Provide No Enhancement of Reactor Safety & Reduce Experience Level of Senior Operators ML20205T0891988-10-28028 October 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program.Proposed Rule Unnecessary as Utils Have Effective Fitness for Duty Program ML20205N0941988-10-24024 October 1988 Comments on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-50 Re Authorization of Reactor Licensees to Depart from License Conditions & Tech Specs in Emergency Situations.Young Criticism of Inerting Practices at Plant W/O Credence ML20155A6591988-09-0303 September 1988 Comment Supporting Petition to Rescind Paragraphs (X)(Y) of Section 10CFR50.54 Re Cases of Hazardous Practices Including Util Authorizing Senior Operator to Turn Off Safety Sys in Emergency Before Sys Has Finished Job ML20247N7531988-07-28028 July 1988 Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-53 Requesting NRC Action to Review Undue Risk Posed by BWR Thermal Hydraulic Instability.Nrr Should Issue Order Requiring All GE BWRs to Be Placed in Cold Shutdown for Stated Reasons ML20207T2351987-02-16016 February 1987 Endorsement 16 to Maelu Policy MF-114 ML20207T2281987-01-28028 January 1987 Endorsement 21 to Nelia Policy NF-277 ML20213D3501986-08-11011 August 1986 Endorsement 95 to Nelia Policy NF-187 ML20213D3491986-08-11011 August 1986 Endorsement 94 to Nelia Policy NF-187 ML20213D3461986-08-11011 August 1986 Endorsement 78 to Maelu Policy MF-54 ML20213D3421986-08-11011 August 1986 Endorsement 79 to Maelu Policy MF-54 ML20213D3511986-08-0808 August 1986 Endorsement 179 to Nelia Policy NF-43 ML20213D3521986-08-0808 August 1986 Endorsement 153 to Maelu Policy MF-22 ML20213D3591986-08-0808 August 1986 Endorsement 154 to Maelu Policy MF-22 ML20213D3681986-08-0808 August 1986 Endorsement 73 to Maelu Policy MF-64 ML20213D3791986-08-0808 August 1986 Endorsement 178 to Nelia Policy NF-43 ML20213D3761986-08-0808 August 1986 Endorsement 84 to Nelia Policy NF-201 ML20213D3691986-08-0808 August 1986 Endorsement 72 to Maelu Policy MF-64 ML20063M3061982-09-0101 September 1982 Response Opposing Reopening of Record Re Comm Ed Use of 9-ton Auxiliary Hook of Main Overhead Crane Sys During 1981 Installation of High Density Spent Fuel Racks.Incident Not Relevant to Proceeding.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20063A2551982-08-18018 August 1982 Response to ASLB 820728 Order.Requests Leave to Withdraw Application W/O Prejudice.Need for Transshipment in near- Term Reduced Due to Approval of Installation of High Density Spent Fuel Racks.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20055B4521982-07-20020 July 1982 Transcript of 820720 Hearing in Bethesda,Md Re Spent Fuel Pool Mods.Pp 1,192-1,284 ML20055A6681982-07-14014 July 1982 Notice of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054L9371982-07-0808 July 1982 Memorandum in Response to Applicant Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Notice of Hearing Re Issue of Whether Spent Fuel Pool Floor Can Withstand Loads Imposed by New High Density Fuel Racks During Seismic Event ML20054K6511982-07-0101 July 1982 Response Supporting Applicant 820616 Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Notice of Hearing.Aslb Should Render Final Decision on Basis of Supplemental SER & ASLB Former Findings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054L9591982-07-0101 July 1982 Testimony of Oo Rothberg & G Harstead.Spent Fuel Pool Expansion for Full 33 Rack Installation Is Acceptable.Spent Fuel Pool Floor Can Withstand Impact If All 33 Racks Tip During Seismic Event ML20054G0051982-06-16016 June 1982 Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Hearing Scheduled for 820713 by ASLB 820609 Notice of Hearing. Further Evidentiary Sessions Unnecessary & Improper.Final Decision Proper.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054F5391982-06-0909 June 1982 Notice of 820713 Hearing in Bethesda,Md,To Continue to 0714 If Necessary.Evidence Relevant to Issue of Whether Spent Fuel Pool Floors Can Withstand Loads Which Could Be Imposed by New Fuel Racks During Seismic Event Will Be Taken ML20054F7151982-06-0707 June 1982 Testimony of DB Davidoff & LB Czech on Commission Questions 3 & 4.NY State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan Discussed.Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-03-02
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20063M3061982-09-0101 September 1982 Response Opposing Reopening of Record Re Comm Ed Use of 9-ton Auxiliary Hook of Main Overhead Crane Sys During 1981 Installation of High Density Spent Fuel Racks.Incident Not Relevant to Proceeding.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20063A2551982-08-18018 August 1982 Response to ASLB 820728 Order.Requests Leave to Withdraw Application W/O Prejudice.Need for Transshipment in near- Term Reduced Due to Approval of Installation of High Density Spent Fuel Racks.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054K6511982-07-0101 July 1982 Response Supporting Applicant 820616 Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Notice of Hearing.Aslb Should Render Final Decision on Basis of Supplemental SER & ASLB Former Findings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054G0051982-06-16016 June 1982 Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Hearing Scheduled for 820713 by ASLB 820609 Notice of Hearing. Further Evidentiary Sessions Unnecessary & Improper.Final Decision Proper.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20010C2861981-08-13013 August 1981 Motion for Partial Initial Decision Approving Installation of Five Spent Fuel Storage Racks.Facility Must Begin to Shift Fuel to Prepare for Next Refueling Outage No Later than 810901 Unless Racks Are Approved.W/Certificate of Svc ML20010B2991981-08-0606 August 1981 Response in Opposition to Applicant Motion for Partial Initial Decision Re Issue of Sliding & Tilting of Proposed Spent Fuel Racks During Seismic Events.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19246C0671979-05-22022 May 1979 NRDC Response in Opposition to Comm Ed Motion for Reconsideration Or,In Alternative,For Clarification or Referral Re Adequacy of Safeguards for Spent Fuel Shipments. Motion Is Unwarranted & Inconsistent w/10CFR73 ML19246C0701979-05-18018 May 1979 NRDC Staff Scientist Statement Re Safeguards for Spent Fuel Shipments.Proposed Rule to Protect Spent Fuel Shipments Against Sabotage,Presented in 790429 Memo to Commission,Is Most Likely Adequate.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19241A9891979-05-17017 May 1979 State of Il Opposition to NRC 790504 & Comm Ed 790507 Motions for Reconsideration &/Or Clarification & Referral of ASLB 790419 Memo & Order Admitting Contentions 6 & 11 ML19241A9781979-05-10010 May 1979 NRDC Opposition to NRC Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 790419 Memo & Order Following Special Prehearing Conference.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19269D9271979-05-0707 May 1979 Applicant Motion for Reconsideration of 790419 Memo & Order of Clarification of 780419 Order Re Physical Security of Snm.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19274D6911979-01-26026 January 1979 Memorandum Re State of Il Contentions.Withdraws Contentions 10-12,14,15 & 17 & Submits Revised Contentions 3,10,& 11. Related Correspondence,Stipulation of Contentions,State Law & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19282A7571979-01-26026 January 1979 Nrdc'S Response to Applicant'S & Nrc'S Objections to Contentions.Urges That NRC Did Not Validly Challenge Its Contentions & That Its Contentions Should Be Admitted. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19289C9321979-01-12012 January 1979 Applicant'S Answer & Motion to Strike Re Contentions Filed by Petitioners to Intervene Nrdc,Citizens for a Better Environ & State of Il.Contentions Fail to State Claim for Which Relief May Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML19263B5221979-01-0202 January 1979 State of Il Contentions Re Amends to Operating License for Transport of Spent Fuel Between Units.Contentions Assert Applicant'S Submittals Are Insufficient.W/Affidavit & Certificate of Svc ML19269C3001978-12-28028 December 1978 NRDC & Citizens for a Better Environ Statement of Contentions.Asserts Action Would Violate Nepa,Provide No Adequate Analysis of Alternatives & Increase Exposure of Workers to Radiation.W/Certificate of Svc ML19259A9271978-12-19019 December 1978 Reply by NRDC & Citizens for Better Environ to Suppl Brief of Commonwealth Edison Co.Asserts That Util Errs in Claiming That Only Direct Personal case-by-case Authorization of Litigation Can Confer Standing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19263B5291978-12-0606 December 1978 NRDC & Citizens for a Better Environ Contentions Re Util'S License Amend Re Transport of Spent Fuel Between Units. Asserts Proposed Action Violates NEPA ML20064E5051978-10-30030 October 1978 Request by Comm Ed for Leave to File a Response to NRDC Brief Which Argues That Organizations May Show Standing to Participate in NRC Proceedings Merely by Alleging That They Represent Anonymous Members.Cert of Svc Encl ML20064E2511978-10-23023 October 1978 Natural Resources Defense Council Response to Commonwealth Edison'S & Staff'S Answers to Petition for Leave to Intervene.Intervenor Urges Bd to Establish a Schedule for Briefing Challenges to Contentions ML20062B4171978-10-10010 October 1978 Request for Leave to File Response to Applicant Contention Re Constitutionality of Forced Disclosure of Group Members Names in Order to Operate within State ML20064B9371978-09-18018 September 1978 Applicant'S Answer to Petition for Leave to Intervene Re Proceeding Filed 780908 by Attorney Gen of St of Il.Includes Notices of Appearance for M.I.Miller,J.R.Rowe,& P.P.Steptoe. Includes Designation of Person Upon Whom Svc Shall Be Made ML20058K5131973-12-13013 December 1973 Requests for Decision Re Immediate Derating of Nine BWRs & Implementation of Procedures to Be Followed for Consideration of Any Subsequent Action Concerning Safety Issue Raised About Plants 1982-09-01
[Table view] |
Text
MO a* ggLATED COM
-* DOCHETED USNRC y 9/1/82
~
fu SB)-3 #0:47 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS hG TShfh' ERANCil THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-237-SP COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) 50-249-SP (Dresden Station, ) (Spent Fuel Pool Units 2 & 3) ) Modification)
Dear Administrative Judges:
Enclosed are two letters relating to Common-wealth Edison's use of the 9 ton auxiliary hook of the main overhead crane system during the 1981 installation of 5 high density spent fuel racks at Dresden Station. This use was not contemplated by Edison's testimony in this proceeding, and was the subject of my telephone calls to Chief Judge Wolf and the other parties on August 26, 1982.
The first enclosure dated August 30, 1982 is a letter from Doug Scott, Station Superintendent at Dresden.
It explains what happened and why, the safety significance of the use of the crane and the corrective action taken. In addition, this letter indicates that the side of the pool l should have been marked with tape to indicate the safe load path but was not. However, I am informed that the correct load path was taken despite the absence of the marking tape.
1 i 8209100223 820901 PDR ADOCK 05000237 y <>
G PDR i
l
(']) V.C l
_ - _ _ _ _ - - __ . - . _ _ . . . _ . . .. = - ._ _ _ . - _ _ _ - _ . _- .- ___
i e
The second letter, dated August 26, 1982, from i
Tom Rausch to Darrell Eisenhut reflects Edison's reporting j
and discussion of this incident with the NRC Staff.
Commonwealth Edison believes that the incident described herein is a matter for NRC Region III, and does not require reopening the record in this proceeding. We sincerely regret the occurrence of this incident.
, Respectfully submitted, A./s l Sk&c /s, hp Philip'P. Steltoe l 'F G
RGP:es Enc.
cc: Service List 1
i i
w - -- .m ~.~..- ~w ,-. - - - - -m_ .- - , ,--m --__e - . _ - , , - - -. . _ _ . - _ , - - - - , - , - - , -
SERVICE LIST John F. Wolf, Esq. Federal Express 3409 Shepherd Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Dr. Linda W. Little Federal Express 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Dr. Forrest J. Remick Federal Express Apartment 205 The Carriage House 2201 L. Street N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20037 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Federal Express U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Regular Mail U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Richard Goddard Federal Express U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank Building 7735 Old Georget-wn Road Bethesda, Maryland 21202 Philip L. Willman Messenger Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Regular Mail U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D. C. 20555 Thomas S. Moore Regular Mail U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Regular Mail U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D. C. 20555
August 30, 1982 DJS LTR: 82-922
'IO: D. L. DelGeorge Director of Nuclear Licensing SUBJECI': Failure to Meet Ccmnit:ments Contained in Testimcny for Hearings on the Installation of High Density Spent Fuel Storage Racks at Dresden I. Description of Event On August 24, 1982, Cctmonwealth Edison Quality Assurance personnel at Dresden Station observed that the 9-tcn auxiliary hoist on the 125-ton reactor tuilding overhead crane was being used to rnove high density spent fuel racks still in shipping skids, and rnade an inquiry to deter-mine if the weight of a high density rack in a shipping skid might not exceed the rated capacity of the auxiliary hoist. The cognizant engineer for the reracking operation investigated the matter in response to the O.A. request. The loads and crane capacity are tabulated below:
9 x 11 High density rack 11,770 lbs., or 17,470 lbs. with skid 9 x 13 High density rack 13,825 lbs., or 19,525 lbs. with skid Shipping skid 5,700 lbs.
Old spent fuel rack 1,800 lbs.
9-Ton auxiliary hoist capacity 18,000 lbs.
While reviewing various affadavits and testimony to obtain the requested information, the cognizant engineer also discovered that a ccmnitment by the Station to use the redundant 125-ton main hoist for moving the high density racks was not being met. The reracking was halted and an investi-l gation into the matter was made.
The investigation revealed that following verbal approval of the NRC on September 11, 1981, for partial installaticn of 5 high density racks, the l
9-ton auxiliary hoist was used to install 5 racks in the Unit 3 spent fuel pool on October 8 and 9, 1981. Also, the side of the pool was not Irarked
[
with tape to indicate to the crane operator the safe load path to bring l
the new racks over the pool side. All other ccanitments were met (and continue to be met) including mandrel testing, neutron attenuation testing, corrosion surveillance program, etc.
T% ccanitznents to use the redundant 125-ton main hoist and to mark safe load paths are contained in the written affadavit of Scott C. Pedigo of Ccumonwealth Edison Ccutpany, subnitted to the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board on May 5, 1981.
The reascn for the aforenenticned ccrinitments was the need, during the hearing process, to address the unresolved safety issue of heavy load handling with respect to the reracking operation. The basis of the
The Staticn agreed in the hearings to meet h applicaticn comtitments is NUREU-0612. tiated NUREG-0612 guidelfneu for the reracking operation with the NBC. fi ystem NUREL-0612 guidelines call for either use i htofofaaredundant single li t ng s when handling heavy loads (anything more than the we g fuel assembly) in certain areas of a nuclear power ible plant, such as o fuel pool or reacter cavity, or else providing analyses The single failure proof criteria (redundancy) may bei h a safety fac for all poss load drops.
achieved by use of dual lead carrying equipnent, Theeach 125-tcn w main t
Reactor I
of 5, or single equipnent, with a safety factor of 10. ho l
Buihling overhead crane does not.
II. Safety Significance
_ 9-ton hoist
'Ihe possible irapact on public health and d theof safety worst using the was minimal since no loads were handled over spent fuel an be noderate result of dropping a high density rack in the pool iwouldDropping ent damage to the pool liner.2 f load path.
floor would not cause significant damage to any safety related equ since the entire refueling floor has been designated as a sa e III. Cause d for the The direct cause of Use the of event the 125-ten was inadequate main hoist was written proce ures not specified in reracking operation. Failure to include the aWriate conmitments in the the procedures.
procedures can be attributed to the following factors: d t lly 1.
The Station cognizant engineer on the project, who s coinci en a prepared the testimony on the heavy load handling issue, w f changed in May,1981 'Ihis change as occurred part of aafter normal career canpletion rotation o of the assigned duties.
first and second hearings (in Morris and Chicago The new O' Hare but before the procedures were written and inplemented. f proce-f cognizant engineer who was involved in the first-hand involvement in the hearing process. l The amount of correspondence, affadavits, i of transcripts of ora
- 2. testimony, findings of fact, partial and final decis cms be reviewed by the ASLB, and orders of the ASLB which had toto extract b bility the assigned SNED and Station cognizant eng that something could be missed.
Dresden Special Report #41 Testimony of Terry A. Pickens, paragraph 41, page 26.
. _3
,IV. Corrective Acticn_ f the The redundant 125-tcn hoist will beTheused hook h
for all futu hoist may be used in uprighting the skids holding the racks. l on the 125-ton hoist is so large that it interferes with otential the skid w en trying to tip the skid frca horizontal to vertical, creating a pThe safety hazard.
density racks away frcm the side of the Reactor Building t The where they ar ll away frcm uprighting operation and the repositicning are perf 1 the spent fuel storage pool. being All affadavits, transcripts, board decisicos and orders, etc. are Proce-reviewed This will ensure dures are alsotc check being thatagainst reviewed no other ccumitnents the ccumitments. have been mis king that all ccumitments will be met by the Staticn and that the rerac operaticn will be carried out as described during the hearing.
Prepared by 4//C S. C. Pedigo /
Technical Staff Approved by .D % cow.
D. J. Scott Qp Superintendent V Dresden Nuclear Power Station DIS:SCP:hjb cc: P. Steptoe J. Mcdonald D. Farrar R. Ragan J. Wulf J. Brunner S. Harris S. Pedigo File /IEA File / Numerical
l C:mm:nwe:lth Edis n one First Mt.one Pista Chggo lihno's .
Accress Reply to Post Othee Box 767 '
Ch cago. Ilknois 60690
'v .
Augus t 26, 1982 Mr. Darrell G. Eise nhu t , Directo r Division o f Licensing U.S. toc 16cr Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Dresden Station Units 2 and 3 Propose d License Amendment Concerning High Density Spent Fuel Racks NRC Docket Nos. 50-237/249 Re ference (a): Cordell Reed letter to E. G.
Case dated May 11, 1978.
Dea r Mr. Eisenhu t :
On August 26, 1982, Commonwealth Edison made initial notification to NRC Region III, Office of Executive Legal Director, Chief Judge Wol f, the State of Illinois, and the Dresden 2 NRR back-up Project Manager that the 1981 initial installation of five (5) high density spent fuel racks into the Dresden 3 spent fuel pool was made utilizing the auxiliary overhead crane. Testimony before the ASLB concerning this proposed amendment had stated that the redundant overhead crane would be used.
To preclude the possibility of a similar occurrence during the future installation and use of the high density fuel storage racks, Commonwealth Edison is taking measures as reflected in the j following proposed license condition to DPR-19 and 25:
Prior to the installation of high density fuel storage racks, the licensee shall review the testimony before the ASLB to ensure that commitments made by Commonwealth Edison regarding the installation and use of these racks will be complied with.
The redundant overhead cfrane will be utilized to install the high density fuel storage racks.
l Please address any questions you may have concerning this matter to this of fice.
5
'~
p
g D. G. Eisenhu t Augus t 26, 1982 One transmittal are(1) signedfor provided original your use. and thirty-nine (39) copies of this Very truly yours,
" v'g Thoma s J. Rausch M; clear Licensing Administrator 1m cc: Region III . inspector Dresden and Service List 4872N l
l l
l
- , - -