ML19249D949

Orders Extension Until 790810 for NRC to Complete Resolution of Legal & Technical Issues Re NRC 790702 Shutdown Order

ML19249D949
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	08/01/1979
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:
Shared Package
ML19249D941	List: ML19249D940 ML19249D945 ML19249D949
References
NUDOCS 7909250586
Download: ML19249D949 (1)

Text

!?'CL LM. RLGULA n ; y CU 'l n 4 vh W

~

C010'13S IO!;C f'S :

,._y M8 1-.

}

Joseph !!. Ucndric, Chair;.an

". '. AU G 1 137.; * ~ *e '-

V i c t o r C i 1. 4. n r. k y l.

"M'" y;',![P

~

Richard r. Kennely Peter A.

H rnMord q'

~

Jo hn', 'P. Ahearn's M(.c #N'

,b l *g'g./

)

)

In,the.Mattar of

)

)

~

HETROPOLITAM FD U.ON CCMPAh"f

)

Docket No. 50-289

)

~

(Titree Mila Te.J.,nd Nuclear S tation, )

Unit No. 1)

)

1

)

\\

MC N ORDER On July 2, 1979 the Commission issued an Order directibg that this faci.lity remain in a shutdown condition pending further order of the Commission itself permitting res tart.

It provided th 7 f: it would also issue an order within thirty (30) days speci.fying in detail the basis for its concerns,

~

and the proced'.$ res to govern further proceedings in this matter.

The Commission has not yet completed resol.u tion of 5,.

all of the legal and technical issues involved.

Accordingly, the Commission oxe. ads the period of time in which to issue that order en t il Friday, August 10, 1979.

It is so ORDERED.

For the Commis n

f

~

%k s

S N D.'EL J.,Q, Secretary oi tne Comm.tssion l

Dated at Washington, DC, f

\\ 4 this

\\

day of August, 1979 t-

.I 9 0 9g g0 Enclo wre 3 1019,334

e4suc omers.

At.LEN E. ERTEL.

trm aavascr. Pr eenvassa sa,ensmans tast Mau.

a v.,...,

Hannissume Poe.svtvansa 17111 1030 *

. Hauss Omes sumanee

• ^; M *b ~

Congress of tfje t!3nitch States

%)ouse of Representatibes w--

. -~~ irra

= = o~ ~ u c -o a =

(717) sas-za e a ano vnansromTarioM masf;ington, D.C. 20515

~

co-.r= o.c==

Seassway Pueesetwasea 17801 p

AND TECHNOLOGY June 11, 1979 t

Mr. Harold Denton Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street NW Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Denton:

I am writing to express my deep concern over GPU's recently' announced plans to reopen Three Mile Island Unit I by August, 1979.

I would like to outline for you the bases for my objections to this plan, a detailed discussion of which is contained in my letter to Herman Dieckamp, a copy of which I have enclosed:

--the design changes in all Babcock and Wilcox plants order-ed by the NRC apparently have not yet been implemented with respect to TMI Unit I;

--there has been no resolution of the larger issues associ-ated with the accident, such as operator training, the resi-dent inspector program, NRC oversight, among other issues.

While these deficiencies may apply to other nuclear power plants as well, they take on added significance in this case particularly because of the psychological factor;

--neither Met-Ed nor GPU seems to have any regard for the psychologir:al trauma experienced by the residents of the TMI area or for the added mental distress reopening Unit I would cause those living in the vicinity of the plant;

--it seems premature and ill-advised to bring Unit I back in-to operation at a time when actions are being taken in Congress to require the closing of plants in those states, such as Penn-sylvania, that do not have an NRC-approved evacuation plan;

--again, it seems ill-advised to discuss reopening Unit I while the debate on the causes of the accident in Unit II is far from over, and

--it is unconscionable that GPU would even consider reopen-ing Unit I under the sane management while serious doubts about the competency of the company still linger.

)(A0l 790615039' 7-G i f THis STATICNERY PRINTED ON PAPER M ACE W6TH RECYCLED F1BERS 1019 335

.MR.

HAROLD DENTON June 11, 1979 page 2 It is upon this last point that I would like to expand.

You are as aware as I am of the pervasive skepticism about the re-liability and competency of Met-Ed, a skepticism that arises from several sources.

For instan'ce, you know as well as I do that Unit II had a less than shining performance record prior to the beginning of commercial operations in December, 1978, and that a direct violation of NRC regulations greately ag-gravated the seriousness of events on March 28.

These and other questions about the operation of TMI Unit II overshadow the good operating record of Unit I; even this record has been called into question by reports that, on March 27, a closed valve on Unit I's auxiliary feedwater system--the same vio

• lation as occurred in Unit II--was discovered.

Finally, you yourself commented upon the difficulty you had in getting co-operation from Met-Ed; before Senator Hart's subcommittee, you testified, "We did not have from the very first day the kind of things we needed to get from the licen-see to judge what had occurred and what to do about it.

This utility was not prepared to cope with this kind of accident."

Does all of this suggest to you a utility company failing to display the requisite competence not only for dealing with the accident and its af termath, but also for operating a nu-clear power plant safely and reliably?

It does to me, for which reason I strongly urge you to investigate thoroughly the possibility and viability of revoking Met-Ed's license to operate a nuclear power plant.

Furthermore, I urge you to consider carefully the arguments I have made in my letter to Mr. Dieckamp; they are issues that must be fully explored and must figure into your deliberations regarding the advis-ability of reopening Unit I.

Finally, NRC ought to take the action of issuing a formal or-der that Unit I is to remain closed until further notice.

The resumption of operations at Unit I is not, under these circumstances, a decision that can be lef t entirely to Met-Ed and GPU.

Thank you for your time and attention to the mattera I have discussed.

Si.cerelv E.

Ert 1 MEMBER OF CONGRESS AEE/nb,

, 10l9 336 K

o'S' a'.' e' ' cs s

'.,~ ALLEN E. ERTEL T. P._.

......E..,~

......._s..

, _ _,.~..,~. -

'T~u 1"~

Cangtcgg of tDc Einitctr Stales

%;gggtOfMEpit$tntatibt$

w -

.e -.m.--

ir7ei couuiTTtt oa rusue woasts AND TRANSPORTATION gyg7)3;ggggg Gasfjington, D.C.

20515

~-c>

' a-comun rre ou scishc4 Seans v. P.ms.svama 17801 a

AND TEcMNOLOGY June 11, 1979

"' 7) """

Mr. Herman Dieckamp President General Public Utilities 260 Cherry Hill Road Parsippany, NJ 07054

Dear Mr. Dieckamp:

I was angered and alarmed by a recent news story that General Public Utilities plans to reopen Three Mile Island Unit I in August, 1979.

For some time now, my constituents have been contacting me to express their distress over rumors that Unit I would soon be reopened.

In responding to their apprehensions, I relayed to them the two assurances given to me by officials of GPU and Met-Ed that no such action was imminent.

First, on May 23, you yourself sat in my office and told me that Unit I would not be reopened until January, 1980, at the earliest.

Secondly, both you and Walter Creitz of Met-Ed assured me most vigorously that Unit I would not be reopened until all of the causes of the accident at Unit II had been discovered, anal-yzed, and corrections, if needed, made to Unit I.

I noticed in the report published in the June 1 edition of the Harrisburg Evening News that today you are to meet with Harold Denton of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to " dis-cuss design changes ordered by the NRC in all Babcock and Wil -

cox reactors following the March 28 accident... "

Can I assume that this means that those changes, which were ordered in April, have not yet been implemented with respect to Unit I?

How, then, can you even contemplate opening Unit I?

Furthermore, in addition to the very specific changes that are to be made to Unit I in compliance with NRC's orders, there are the very general yet important concerns about nuclear re-actor safety that have not yet been resolved, or have improve-ments in operator training, the resident inspector program, the quality of NRC oversight, among other issues, been effect-ed since I last spoke with you?

I think not.

I realize that there may be some argument about the presence of some of these same deficiencies in other nuclear plants cur-rently in operation, but at a minimum, they exist with respect to Met-Ed's operation of any nuclear power plant, especially THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER M AOC WITH RECYCl EQ FIBERS 1019 337

MR. HERMAN DIECKAMP June 11, 1979 Page 2 Unit I.

In addition, there is one outstanding factor that sep-arates TMI from all other reactors and does in fact make those deficiencies particularly acute in this case--the people liv-ing in the vicinity of those other reactors have not just gone through the most harrowing, psychologically devastating exper-ience of their lives.

The residents of the TMI area have.

I can tell you that it would tax their psychological well-being far beyond what we can reasonably ask anyone to endure for the sake of financially rescuing a utility company and providing a

" psychological boost for the company and the nuclear industry in general", as a Pa~tri~ot editorial characterized the announce-ment.

I am shocked that your company would have so little re-gard for the community surrounding TMI that you would place finances before all other considerations in making this decis-ion.

May I also apprise you briefly of the sentiment among some Mem-bers of Congress that favors shutting down all nuclear reactors in any state that does not have an NRC-approved evacuation plan.

Not only has this sentiment been incorporated into a bill in the Senate, but it has also found its way into an amendment to the NRC Fiscal Year 1980 authorization bill, which could come to the Senate floor by July.

A similar proviso was attached to the House bill.

Given this expression of some of the feeling here in Congress, and given the fact that Pennsylvania does not have an NRC-approved evacuation plan, I would encourage you to take account of these facts before suggesting the reopening of Unit I.

Additionally, I am quite familiar with NRC's findings early in its investigation and its enumeration of six factors believed to have caused the accident.

The role of these factors, in one way or another, has been substantiated by most of the testi-mony that has been generated by the various investigations into the accident.

~

However, additional Farious investigations are still ongoing.

We do not yet know what conclusions in addition they may reach.

Congressman Morris Udall, chairman of the House Interior Commit-tee and its subcommittee examining'the accident, has appointed a special task force that has not, to the best of my knowledge, completed its report.

The President's Commission likewise has not completed its report, and the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards is still meeting to discuss the status of Unit II and its recommendations with respect to it.

As a mat-ter of fact, the ACRS was still holding hearings as late as June 7.

I suggest that these investigations alone indicate t

1019 338

MR. HERMAN DIECKAMP June 11, 1979 page 3 that the conditions you established prior to reopening Unit I have not been met.

Most revealing of the incomplete state of defining the causes of the accident and the appropriate response to them is NRC's imposition on itself of a three month moratorium on the issu-ance of construction and operating licenses.

The reason for the moratorium:

Harold Denton estimated that it would take three months for reactor experts to evaluate the accident and to assess needed changes based on information from the acci-dent.

All this suggests to me that the NRC is not yet willing to set in stone its judgments on the causes of the accident and the steps that must be taken at present and future plants to prevent a repetition of events at TMI.

Met-Ed and GPU would be guilty of deliberate deception at worst, disingenu-ousness at best, if Unit I resumes operation while completion of the work of these investigatory panels is pending.

Finally, I would draw your attention to a factor which, if not directly bringing on the accident, certainly was a contributing factor:

Met-Ed's operating capabilities.

As I emphasized in my testimony to the President's Commission, Met-Ed, through its negligence and ignorance, substantially contributed to causing the accident.

The evidence establishes that the training of the personnel was inadequate.

I would also note, despite the controversy that has arisen over this issue, that the valves to the auxiliary feedwater system were closed, in direct violation of NRC regulations.

These facts, together with Met-Ed's f ailure to demonstrate the requi-site competence for handling the accident and its aftermath, suggest to me that, without substantial improvements, Met-Ed should not again operate these plants.

It is unconscionable to me that you would consider proceeding with returning Unit I to operating status under the same management while such doubts about the company's competency to handle this task persist.

While very little has been said about the possibility of re-voking Met-Ed's operating license, you can be sure that I will raise this very issue with Mr. Denton.

It is a question that must enter into his consideration of the advisability of re-opening Unit I.

I speak for my constituents when I express these objections to your plans; on their behalf, I would request that you reconsid-er your plans in light of the arguments I have presented here.

Sincerely, Allen E.

Ertel MEMBER OF CONGRESS 1019 s37

i P001.,0RIGINIL

.1 i.'

It, 1

9

'f 3

'*r.

I'

.ol 1 neuten

• 'U O i r..:I o c i ni t'i ce o f '; u:1.. i r Pc

.'m:

,.il.t i teen

w l ea r r

,o 1,i n y c.

..ii n.,i.va I, / L / !! d i. e.

t A01 N. 'l.io

.le i n g i.o n,

0.8?.

O '> 5 $

'f.

,. Il t

N l' i-n. ic :tc.

P. ofon:

3

"-l'nw op our conver ati."I oi

'. ' ct y,. Tun '

1I,

',H,Y

[

..t

.. i t i... j o

i. i i h..

p. e l: I o e,f. 2b j oc e i.o ns to GPU's p1'n to ce ope r. -

e I..is i t 'rh i. o

'li. l e rniand Unit I.

As /on tenow, I bad upoken with Co.nmi.us i on. c <1i i i n sy Lont the L os ;i b i 1 i.f.y o f h i s jo ining me a t a ii + n e i. i g in

.y eli s t ri c t.'

I feel I.ha t this..ould present the..esih nLa ot the i1E area with a telc oine oppor tonity to ovp rom; l 'u'i c i.. nce rm <1ir.cFly t o a

w..ab. c o f I he Couiinission, and I o goo :i.ii n hi"i 1sc o t the re-lhi.s will i.vening and oi.her issues steimai ng f tuia the.ccident.

i also a1Icw the Coiraniuu i.oner to dineuss,n.1 0:.9 ain ihe aotions

. 1 the NHC has taken and plans to t ake u i t-h t em'.:e t I.o those is-sues.

[t is enly th r cogh di rect er n+nnn i cal-i on I:ba t file ac-tions of Ihe NRC will have any etodibility with the eesidents of the area.

Tt is my understanding f rom ou r conve rsa tion that t he MitC and GPU have already initiaiad.li.;eussi.ons on chan.jos i n d.. : i,n and operating procedures.

You indicated to me as

.'11

. h. i t she NRC has considered conduc t.ing its examina tion of Ci'II's p e ro

-d

.o-opening 'o f Unit I befoto the public in the ;li d 11 e tt.s n a coa.

I I

e clai.nly encourage you in this ef fort to.oake :. o t e I h-i t the i

yblic is made full.y aware of all the i: : :es, t o '- :p ihe pub-

1. i c atep r ised o f any ac tr i.. ins L..';. n in conneeli-n

i. ; h.

.a op-toing..od to let thi.n kn.>w I ha t ave cy cens i do ra t i on is being

'J ivon to I. heir health and cafety.

I.:ppr ciate your taking t he t i me t o inform me about these

.oct of open discur tien wi L1 benefit everyone i.n -

pl.:ns; ibis volvud in and af fected by thecc de isions.

t Sincetot.b'

/

\\,.,n,i, !.

, n, o. c3.w..,,.,.x1

(.-

/

- 'f( i \\

1!

Alfr.n E.

Mctel As.-/.)

14. ".I11 M R o t.C O N G '.' E:i S

/

,f

,o a

'l

.x.....

iv/nb 1019 MO

.