ML19256F997
| ML19256F997 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/28/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Goode W PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912270192 | |
| Download: ML19256F997 (3) | |
Text
.
b0rgv) y
'o, UNITED STATES yyg j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 j
% %A /
%.s November 28, 1979 CHAIRMAN Mr. Wilson Goode, Chaiman Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
Dear Chairman Goode:
This letter is in response to your letter dated April 17, 1979 reques ting information regarding the future operation of Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-2).
I recognize that this response is being provided nearly six months af ter your letter was received. Unfortunately, this delay was necessary because i4RC has been preoccupied with events in the af termath of the TMI accident.
However, my response now is somewhat more complete than one which might have been provided earlier, since many of our staff's iritial investi-gations and analyses are now completed.
Any estimate at this time as to whether or when TMI-2 might be returned to an operational status is subject to considerable uncertainty. Studies recently completed by General Public Utilities Service Corporation (GPU) indicate that TMI-2 could possibly be operational by the summer of 1983, based on completion of the recovery operations discussed in the following paragraph and resolution of the technical issues that are currently defined.
However, that date for anticipated operation of TMI-2 is speculative because (a) significant new issues may arise as a result of the invertigation of the TMI-2 accident by the NRC; (b) the recovery operations may uncover conditions tha' could delay or inhibit restart; and (c) the legal and societal acceptability of a restart of TMI-2 is difficult to assess at this time.
The recovery oprations are:
(a) containment reentry and decontamination; (b) reactor coolant system decontamination; (c) reactor core vessel head removal; (d) fuel removal; and (e) requalification and in-service inspection of equipment.
Ary of the foregoing operations, because of uncertainties which exist at this time, could alter any schedule for placing TMI-2 in operation.
In addition, the recovery operations could affect the resolution of safety issues and completion of plant modifications needed to satisfy the NRC's technical requirements for restart of TMI-2. The disposition of radioactive materials and fuel assemblies which have been damaged are examples of operations which have the potential for seriously impacting any restart schedules.
Based on the summary information above, I will attempt to answer the three questions specified in your letter as stated below:
182%
069-
,' W g[ 791 n-
Mr. Wilson Goode (1) Will TMI-2 be permitted to operate again?
Based on information available at this time, there does not appear to be anything in NRC's regulations which would preclude restora-tion of TMI-2 to an operationally ready status.
However, as discussed above, a final determination regarding restart will depend on the outcome of the Commission's assessment and imple-mentation of the recommendations of the President's Commission and ongoing investigations by NRC, and, most probably, a hearing from which the Commission will determine whether any future operations will be permitted and, if so, under what conditions.
(2)
If allowed to operate, what is the time required to place the unit back in operation?
The uncertainties which exist at this time do not allow me to be able to provide you with a meaningful date for a possible restart of TMI-2.
For planning purposes, you may wish to use the mid-1983 estimate provided by GPU as the earliest possible date.
(3)
If the above questions cannot be answered at this time, when will answers be available?
I anticipate that answers to some of the key restart questions will be available in the following sequence:
(a) Consideration of the recommendations of the Presidential Commission may continue through early 1980.
(b) The recommendations of the investigation conducted by the NRC which may affect restart of TMI-2 should be available by early 1980.
(c) The status of the plant, and subsequent evaluation of the technical and economic feasibility of restart, should be known in mid-1981.
Since the date of your letter, several NRC actions have taken place regarding TMI which I believe are of current interest to you.
On July 2,1979, the Commission ordered that TMI-l remain in a cold shutdown condition until further order and that a hearing be conducted prior to res tart.
On August 9, 1979, the Commission issued an additional order on TMi-1 specifying the basis for the shutdown order and the procedures to govern the hearing regarding TMI-l restart. On the basis of this hearing, the Commission will determine whether any further operation of TMI-1 will be permitted and if so, under what conditions.
During the deliberations on the August 9,1979 Order, a meaningful date for expeditiously completing all tasks related to the Order which must be completed prior to any possible restart of TMI-l was estimated. At this time, I believe that the restart of TMI-l could not occur before September 1980.
182$ 070
Mr. Wilson Goode On July 20, 1979, tiRC issued an Order which suspended the licensee's authority to operate TMI-2 and required that the facility be maintained in a shutdown condition pending further amendment of the license.
I trust this response addresses the questions raised in your letter.
In the meantime, if you wish further comments, please feel free to direct them to me or Harold Denton, Director of the Commission's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Sincerely, G (,/
b Joseph M. Hendrie
Enclosure:
TMI-l Order dated August 9, 1979 1826071
Y J
UNITED STATES OF #iERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 574 4
C0f"USSIONERS:
g2 Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman O
%7 -3 Victor Gilinsky
-i 9
Richard T. Vannedy pOO d'
eg h j
1 Peter A. Bradford John F. Ahearne 4
i N
,\\
)
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Docket No. Eu-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit l'o.1)
ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING I.
The Metropolitan Edison Company (the licensee) is holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-50 which authorizes the operation of the nuclear power reactor known as Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1 (the facility or TMI-1), at steady state power levels not in excess of 2535 megawatts thermal (rated power).
The facility is a Babcock and Wilcox (8&W) designed pressurized water reactor (PWR) located at the licensee's site ten miles southeast of Harrisburg, Pennsyl-vania.
II.
On July 2,1979, the Commission ordered that the facility remain in a cold shutdown condition until further order of the Commission and stated that a hearing will be conducted prior to any restart of the facility.
On the basis of that hearing the Commission will detem DUPLICATE DOCUMENT mitted and, if so, under what cond Entire document previously basis for its concerns and the pro entered into system under:
h matter.
For the reasons later set ANO N o.
of pages:
Ag
&v,.i
.cs
- 5 w. a,-
m
@f ' '. ~C \\
s% e) es p 1*.. CM'# w
CF P C N A $ v LVA A i A M * = m s e., = c a c s s s sv. s..
W WILSCN GOODE April 17,1979 Tae Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie Chair an, Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Chairman Eendrie:
Tne purpose of this letter is to rea[uest info =ation centerning the future operation of Tnree Mile Island Nuclear Power 5:stien, Unit Sc. 2 (TMI-2).
he Pennsylvania Public Utility Cc-"-4 ssion (?UC) is an indepanden agency with statewide authcrity to regulate the rates, sa cic~e and f acilities of public utilities ir Pennsylvania, 66 Pa.
C.
. jj 101, e: seq.
As a consequence, it falls te the PUC te deter =ine
-#..e shall bear the direct costs of the inciden: at DC-2 which are aliccable to Pennsylvania ownership of that plant.
Tne PUC will act prouptly and af fir =atively to cake the decisions required under Pennsyl-vania law.
It is of i==ediate concern to the PUC te deter ine when and whether D:I-2 will be able to operate again.
Were this any other type of generating plant the PUC would have the authority and ability to determine the feasibility of further plant operation.
However, D2-2 is a nuclear plant, and one of the exceptions to the PUC's authority is Nuclear Regula: cry Com ission licensing and regulation of reactor cpera:icas.
Theref ore, we must request inforcation and assistance fro =
ccur cc.rissier.
ne PUC requests the prompt response of the Mclear Regula-
~~
tory Cc :ission to the following questions:
(1) Will Three Mile Island t;uclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 be permitted to operate again?
(2)
If the unit will be permitted to operate in the future, what is the esticated t=e required to place the unit back into service?
(3)
If the above questions canno: be answered at this time, when will answere be available?
Your prompt response to these questions will be greatly ap pr e cia te c, and will be of considerable assistence to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Co==1ssion.
' /'
Sincerely, m-p D
1 So w a)
W.
WILSON COODE p..,.,.
- w.,n w, -
.1. -
p
.;gg y3
~