ML19343C857
| ML19343C857 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1981 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| CLI-81-3, NUDOCS 8103250437 | |
| Download: ML19343C857 (10) | |
Text
'
UN~.TED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q li&
43 COMMISSIONERS:
cCi" '.
2.
c m~
Joseph M. Hendrie, Chaiman N<3g p e
," g 7. 3 C
Victor Gilinsky g*[,5, '.M Y h3I Peter A. Bradford
. [*#
,/
John F. Ahearne y
I Qi j id'
)
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart) gtSR3 gg 3
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
O\\g g, / p3 L Yhl/
NNAi?
8/
ORDER D[
(CLI-81-3) 1>
I.
Backoround On December 1,1980 the President of General Public Utilities (GPU),
Heman Dieckamp, wrote the Commission requesting it to reconsider and modify its Orders of July 2,1979, and August 9,1979, CL,I-79-8,10 CFR 141, per-
~
taining to the restart of Three Mile Island Unit One.
Specifically, GPU requested the Commission to modify those orders to pennit GPU to restart TMI-Unit 1 prior to the completion of the ongoing adjudicatory hearings.
GPU proposed that the Director of the Commission's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation be pennitted to authorize restart upon detennining that Metro-politan Edison has taken all of the actions required of other Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) reactor licensees before B&W reactors were pemitted to resume operation following the shut-down orders issued by the Commission in the A
Spring of 1979.
In addition, the Director would be required to determine that Metropolitan Edison had perfomed satisfactorily those tasks listed in j) sos 8108250 4D1 sa[r G
2 Section II of the Commission's Order that are to be completed prior to restart.
Finally, the Director would be required to determine that Unit One was in compliance with the " lessons learned" actions applicable to other B&W plants that have been imposed by the Commission following the accident.
GPU emphasized that the restart hearings had taken far longer than the Commission originally contemplated and that the delay in authorizing restart was penaliz-ing the residents of its service areas and its investors.
In addition, lietropolitan Edison has filed three motions with the Com-mission. On January 26, 1981, it advised the Commission that it had filed an application for an amerdment to its operating license which would transfer from Metropolitan Edison to GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUNC) the authority to possess, use and operate the TMI-l facility.
On that date it filed a motion requesting the Canmission to modify its July 2,1979 Order as appropriate to extend to GPUNC the present restriction on Metropolitan Edison that Unit One be maintained in a cold shutdown condition. On January 26 it also filed a motion requesting the Commission to amend its August 9,1979 and March 6, 1980 Orders, CLI-80-5,11 NRC 408, to authorize the THI-l Restart Licensing i
l Board to consider the qualifications of GPUNC, rather than Metropolitan Edison, to restart and operate TMI-1.
A February 3,1981 motion requested the Commission to (1) amend the l
l July 2 and August 9,1979 Orders to permit hot functional testing of the TMI-1 systems and equipment using non-nuclear heat; (2) modify Section VI of the l
August 9,1979 Crder to provide that the Commission decision on the effective-ness of a licensing board decision authorizing restart be made within 35 days after issuance of the decision rather than 35 days after issuance of the L
3 decision and certification by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regula-tion, that those short-term actions required for restart have been completed; and (3) that the August 9 Order be modified to make clear that the Commission has the flexibility to defer until after restart licensee's implementation dates for NUREG-0737 action items where such deferral is consistent with implementation schedules for other operating reactors.
The Commission has received views from the parties to the proceeding on each of the GPU/ Metropolitan Edison motions.
In addition, Commissioner Ahearne on January 22, 1981 requested the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducting this proceeding to provide the Commission with the Board's views on actions the Commission might take to expedite the proceeding. On January 28, 1981, Chairman Hendrie and Commissioner Ahearne requested the Licensing Board to provide, after appropriate consultation with the parties, its best estimate of the future schedule for the proceeding. The parties were also asked to provide their best estimates on when Metropolitan Edison could be expected to be in compliance with a number of specified items which could be required for restart. These requests were considered at a special l
session of the restart hearing held on February 3, and the Licensing Board submitted its response on February 9.
The NRC staff and Petropolitan Edison subsequently provided estimates on when the licensee might be expected to be in compliance with the various items.
l t
4 II.
Rulines on the Motions 1.
The December 1,1980 GPU Recuest That Restart Not Be Tied To Comoletion Of Tne Hearina The intervenors in the proceeding urged the Ccmmission to deny the motion.
Procedurally, they argued that the motion to reconsider the July 2 and August 9 orders is untimely and that the licensee has presented no new facts that would cause the Commission to alter its Orders.
Cn the merits, inter-venors argued, inter alia, that Unit 1 is not ready to be restarted now and will not be prepared for restart for some time. They notad that modifications to the plant must be completed and the entire facility must be inspected by the NRC staff prior to restart.
The operators of the reactor must be requali-fied and relicensed.
It is intervenors' view that by the time all of these tasks can be accomplished, the adjudicatory proceedings will be nearly or totally completed, and therefore it is unnecessary to grant the GPU request.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania took the position that rather than grant the
~
motion, all efforts should be taken to expedite the hearing process consistent
, ith a full and fair adjudication of the -issues.
The NRC staff took.the posi-w l
tion that the Com;nission has the legal authcrity to take the action that GPU proposes, but took no position on whether the motion should be granted. The staff believed that the policy issue whether the public interest would be l
served by pennitting operation of the facility prior to the completion of the hearing is best left to the Commission for resolution.
The Commission has reviewed the submissions of the parties, the proposed l
l hearing schedule submitted by the Board, and the status reports on Metropolitan Edison's compliance with various items that could be required for restart.
5 The Commission has denied the GPU request of December 1 because it is unable to find that authorizing restart prior to the completion of the hearing would serve the public interest.
2.
Metrooolitan Edison's Recuest That The July 2 And Aucust 9 Orders Be Modified To Suostitute GPU Nuclear Corporation for Metropolitan Edison In its response to these mutions, the NRC staff requested the Commission to defer its rulings until the staff had tae opportunity to complete its review of Metropolitan Edison's proposed amendments to its operating license.
The Ccamission agrees with the staff that it would be premature to act at this time on the motions and will defer action until it has heard further from the staff.
3.
Metrooolitan Edison's Recuest That It Be Authorized To Commence Hot Functional Testing No party to the proceeding objected to Metropolitan Edison's request and the Commission has decided to per::.it Metropolitan Edison to begin hot l
functional testing using non-nuclear heat, subject to any appropriate NRCstaffreview.If l
In so ruling, the Commission is not now taking a position on a staff proposal, called to our attention by the Board, to allow low power testing E
The NRC staff has indicated that the licensee must review, in accordance with the requirements of Section 6 of the Technical Specifications for Tl11-1, the hot functional testing to be perfomed to determine whether l
such activities involve an unreviewed safety question or a change in the facility's technical specifications.
Staff noted that if the review produces an affimative answer, the licensee must submit an application for amendment of its operating license. Should the staff determine that an amendment is required, it should evaluate its suitability to the same extent as any other amends nat application.
l l
L.
6 prior to the completion of the hearing, if certain findings are made by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. We defer ruling on that question until we have had a chance to view other developments in this matter, including the progress of the hot functional testing program.
4.
Metrocolitan Edison's Recuest That The Commission Decision On The Effectiveness Of A Licensino Board Decision Be Made Witnin 35 Days After Issuance Of The Decision No party opposed the request.
The Commission believes the request is reasonable and consistent with the Commission's original intent.
The request therefore is granted.
5.
Metropolitan Edison's Reouest That The Commission, Where Appropriate, Defer Until Af ter Restart Imolementation Dates For NUREG-0737 Action Items Where Sucn Deferral Is Consistent With Imolementation Senedules For Operat-ino Reactors The NRC staff has filed-testimony in the restart hearing proposing that the licensee be required to implement a number of NUREG-0737 actions on the same schedules that are presently set for operating reactors, although it has generally taken the posicion that the licensee is to be treated as an appli-l cant for an operating license.
In its February 3 motion, licensee asserted that it is prepared to meet the same implementation schedules that are required for operating reactors, but expressed the concern that developments subsequent to the close of the hearing record (for example, delays in the procurement of necessary materials and equipment) may make it impossible for it to meet present schedules on all action items.
It therefore requested t!;c
l A
7 Commission to modify the August 9,1979 Order to make clear that the Commis-sion retains the flexibility to defer until after restart, upon the recommen-dation of the Director of the Office of Nuclear P.eactor Regulation, licensee's implementation dates for NUREG-0737 action items where such deferral is consistent with implementation schedules for operating reactors.
The staff did not object to Metropolitan Edison's request, noting that such deferral would be granted by the Commission only after it had heard staff recommenda tions.
The Commission in its August 9,1979 Order provided the Licensing Board with the discretion to determine, subject to Commission review, what matters must be retnived prior to restart.
In the Order the Commission did not indi-cate whether !!etropolitan Edison is to be treated as a licensee of an operating reactor or as an applicant for an operating license. The Commission believes that Unit One should be grouped with reactors which have received operating licenses, rather than with the units with pending operating license applications.
It emphasizes though that 'it expects the Board to find to the contrary when the record so dictates. Moreover, the Board should not reopen testimony or otherwise delay the proceeding in any way in order to apply this concept.
The Commission notes in this regard that whether Metropolitan Edison is treated as a licensee or an applicant, there may be items where due dates cannot be met for one reason or another, regardless of which category Unit One is placed in.
It is this prospect which prompts the licensee's motion.
Where developments occur which affect the ability of the licensee to comply with requirements recommended by the Board or proposed to be imposed by
8 the Commission, the Commission will consider those developments on a case-by-case basis in reaching its decisions on immediate effectiveness and ultimate review of the Board's decision.
Notwithstanding language in the original order which could be read to the contrary, we intend to retain our flexibility in this regard. To that extent, the licensee's motion is g ranted.
III.
Excediting the Hearino The Commission has considered various means to expedite the hearing schedule and is taking one action with that objective in mind. The NRC staff has concluded that the relationship between corporate finance and the technical departments of the licensee is such that financial considerations should not have an improper influence on technical decisions.
For this and other reasons, the staff has recommended that financial qualification need not be litigated prior to reaching a decision on the restart of TMI-1.
Counsel for the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania, representing the Governor of that State, believes that while it is important for the licensee to demonstrate its financial ability to operate TMI-l simultaneously with the cleanup of Unit 2, the Conr.onwealth l
believes that the return of TMI-l to commercial operation would improve, rather than impair, the licensee's financial health.
For example, return of the unit l
would produce operating revenues and return of the unit to the utility's rate i
base also might increase the licensee's credit rating and its ability to obtain i
capital. Therefore, the Commonwealth supports the staff position. The Pennsyl-vania Public Utility Commission also does not object to the staff proposal.
l 1
l l
l
9 Metropolitan Edison, of course, would not object to removing financial issues frcm the proceeding.
The intervenors take a contrary position, arguing that financial capability is an important safety issue that should be litigated prior to restart.
The Commission has considered the parties' views and detennined that, contrary to the position it took in its August 9 Order, the issue of the licensee's financial qualifications should not be litigated in this proceed-ing. The Ccmmission does not believe that, in this particular case, litigation of the issue would be productive.
In fact the Ccmmission is of the view that the treatment of financial qualifications in the licensing process as a general matter needs reexamination and is undertaking that examination at this time.
Although the Ccmmission is taking the financial qualification issue out of the hearing, the staff is directed to continue to monitor the licensee's financial resources as long as is necessary and to report any health and
~
safety ' implications to the Commission. _2]
The Licensing Board has also indicated at various times that the pro-ceeding might be expedited if staff gave the proceeding a higher priority and devoted more resources to it. The Commission has always considered the restart hearing to be one of staff's highest priority items and directs the Executive Director of Operations to ensure that sufficient resources E
Commissioner Bradford would not have removed financial qualifications as an issue in this proceeding without first giving those parties sponsoring contentions on this subject an opportunity to describe, in response to the staff SER, what they expected to establish in the course of. their presen-tation or on cross-examination.
O 10 are devoted to this matter so that staff documents, including SER supplements and testimony, may be thorough and timely filed.
It is so ORDERED.*
4 8
,ef '
't.9 s For the Commission
(
t'
'o, i
['l %
,r ? 'A.
'm?
o q
9,
\\
,h!
u.:uush
"* Q
\\;.
f)'
/
SAMUEL J. I:HILX
- H,. t-
- : ~,, 9 Secretary
- thq Commission Dated at Washington, D.C.
this m day of March
,1981.
l Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 5841, provides j
that action of the Commission shall be detemined by a " majority vote of the members present." Commissioner Bradford was not present at the meeting at which this Order was approved. Had he been present he would have voted to issue this Order.
Accordingly, the fomal vote of the Commission is 3-0.
f