ML19351F439

Responds to Allegations That Met Ed Has Not Been Diligently Pursuing Legal & Procedural Remedies & Furnishing Info to NRC

ML19351F439
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	01/06/1981
From:	Dieckamp H GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To:	Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19351F437	List: ML19351F436 ML19351F439
References
NUDOCS 8101130045
Download: ML19351F439 (4)

Text

.

\

i h

g Prew O -

[

GENERAL

• f PUBUC ';

UTIUTIES CO M M '*

p,,[p9a,nyhjk07054 g

t 201 261 6500

[ TELEX 136482 Wmer s Direct Dial Number.

l t 201-263-6030 January 6, 1981 i

! The Honorable John F. Ahearne, Chairman i Nuclear Regulatory Comission

[ Washington, D. C. 20555 1

Deer Mr. Chairman:

l Our letter of December 1, 1980, requested the Commission to I

4 reconsider and modify its Orders of July 2 and August 9, 1979, and to restructure and expedite the administrative proceeding specified for the restart of TMI-l based on the long delays which have

' already occurred in the hearing, the potential for further delay, and the information developed since the Orders on the causes of l

the accident. On December 18, 1980, a group of Intervenors in the proceeding filed a joint response in opposition to my request. The l

i substance of the Intervenors comments vividly underscores the

' major point of my letter to you, namely, that the TMI-l restart hearings have not proceeded in accordance with the Commission's expectations at the time of the Orders. .

5 t

This letter is not intended to be a point-by-point reply to each of the Intervenors' arguments. It is addressed only to those l

4 5

allegations that Metropolitan Edison Ccmpany (Met Ed) has not been I diligent in the pursuit of its legal and procedural remedies and in furnishing to the NRC Staff information in support of the re-E start of TMI-1. It also deals with Intervenors' allegation that the relief requested incur letter of December 1,1980, would not I

significantly impact on Met Ed's ability to restart TMI-1.

Intervenors' first complaint is that the basic economic

' and public interest argument's in favor of expediting the proceeding had been made to and presumably considered by the Commission at E

the time of its July 2 and August 9, 1979 Orders. intervenors i make the further claim that Met Ed has been aware for some time

! of the incremental slippages relative to the Commission's target

' schedule for the restart hearing but has not heretofore formally 4

requested relief from these delays. Intervenors' claims totally ignore tihe dramatic difference between tha schedule implied in the f Order and the subsequent reality.

t 81011300 %

Jersey Camrat Power 1, tant Comoany/ MetrocoMan Ecson Company /Pennsytvarna E'ectnc Comoany n

l f.

January 6, 1981 Our request for reconsideration of the Commission's Orders was based on the slippages which have occurred in the hearina schedule. Intervenors' suggestion that Met Ed should have imme-diately sought reconsideration of the July 2 and August 9' Orders

• neglects the simple fact that the delays cccurred only as the hearing process proceeded and therefore could not have provided a basis for an immediate motion for reconsideration. As to

[ Met Ed's failure to seek from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board redress from the incremental slippages in the hearihg

[ schedule as they occurred, the slippages have largely been out-e side the control of the Board and beyond their ability to afford f relief. As in other NRC licensing proceedings, the controlling

$ element in the hearing schedule has been the submission of data

} and the preparation of the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report and

[ the readiness cf the Staff to present testimony. The availability g of design criteria with respect to the ' lessons learned" has been g particularly limiting to the accomplishment of the plant modifi-t g cations required for restart. Indicative of this condition is l the major rescheduling of these modifications in the September 5, l 1980 Eisenhut letter. The Licensing Board has emphasized on several j occasions its lack of authority to dictate Staff priorities and e

I schedules. At the same time the Board has, in oral instructions to the Staff and in Memoranda and Orders issued by the Board, strongly urged the Staff to bring to the Commission's attention l the fact that the Staff has.not given to the proceeding the l

, pricrities implicit in the Commission's August 9, 1979 Order and I

target schedule. It had been Met Ed's hope that the Commission would on its own initiative take cognizance of the hearing delays l , and act to expedite the proceeding. It is in large part the l t absence of any Commission follow-up or action that occasioned our

• December 1, 1980 letter.

Intervenors further claim that it is Licensee's own sug- ,

gested sequencing of the hearing issues that is to blame for any delay in the restart of TMI-1. Intervenors apparently refer to i

pl- the fact that under the Commission's August 9,1979 Order not all l requirements need be implemented prior to restart (although by

'. far and away the majority of the requirements are classified as I

j pre-restart requirements) and that certain requirements were i

~.' 'Intervenors also make the legal claim that any motion for recon-i sideration of the Commision's Orders should have been made within l ten days of the Orders pursuant to 8 2.771 of the Commission's

Rules of Practice. I am informed by Met Ed counsel that 8 2.771 1 deals only with motions to reconsider decisions following licen-( ing proceedings and that neither this section nor any other section of the Commission's Rules of Practice prescribes time limits for

[p motions to reconsider Commission orders of the kind involved in p the TMI-1 proceeding.

?

\

l,' -3 ,

'E January 6, 1981 long-term requirements on which only reagonable progress need be shown and which could perhaps have been deferred by the Board as hearingissues.Theypoint,forexample,jtothefactthatthe issues of management and financial capability (both pre-restart requirements) were proposed by Met Ed to'be addressed as the final issues in the hearing. The sequence of hearing issues pro-posed by Met Ed was in fact geared primarily to Met Ed's per-ception of the timetable on which the Staff appeared likely to be ready for hearing, i.e. the time it would taka the Staff to define the criteria by which the Staff would judge Met Ed's compliance with the requirements of the Order and to complete its Safety Evaluation Report and testimony. More importantly, the Com-mia,sion's August 9,1979 Order expressly permits Intervenors to contend that requirements designated as long-term by the Commission

order be reclassified as pre-restart requirements. This is in fact what several Intervenors have done, thus necessitating present

! Licensing Board consideration of these issues as well as a number

{ of other Intervenor contentions seeking to add new pre-restart g requirements.

l Intervenors next allege that much of the delay in the pro-I ceeding is "due to the Licensee's delays in providing the Staff l with materials which the Staff requested, and to the habit of the Licensee to repeatedly and significantly revise such information months after it is submitted." The allegation ignores the l realities of the Staff review process and in particularly the g problem emphasi:ed in our December 1, 1980 letter of having to t satisfy undefined criteria and of having to cope with moving i

targets. As to the successive revisions in materials supplied by l Met Ed to the Staff in support of the restart of TMI-1, Inter-t venors cite principally revisions pertaining to management struc-1 ture, financial data and emergency plans. Again, all three areas i are examples of uncertain criteria and of mcving targets. The h three versions of site emergency plans cited by Intervenors are j a prime example. The major cause of these revisions was the con-tinuing redefinition by the Staff.of its emergency planning re-quirements, exacerbated in this case by the Ccmmission's with-f I drawal of Regulatory Guide l'.101 cited in the Commission's

. August 9, 1979 Order, the substitution of subsequently prepared

[ guidelines, and the adoption of the Commission's new emergency f plan regulation.

f Finally, Intervenors claim that because of changes in hard-

ware and procedures remaining to be accomplished and the necessity p for NRC Staff inspections the restructuring of the proceeding pro-

- posed in our Decemter 1,198.0 letter could not in any event result I

l

[

i

..E *

{ ,

l i January 6, 1981 I

in restart "significantly before the end of the adjudicatory hearing."

t

[ The claim ignores the slow pace of the current hearings 5

and the potential for jfurther major slippages in the hearing

[

schedule. More importantly, the claim ignores the fact that under the procedures established by the Commission in its August 9, 1979

! Order restart of TMI-1 may not be authorized until months af ter s

' the close of the adjudicatory benving. Were the commission to adopt the procedures rtet. emended it. our December 1, 1980 letter, L

authorization to restart re"-l es97.d be advanced by a number of I months and I am confident inse rMI-l could, in the light of such an expectation, be re;4y at that time to restart.

We continue to urge the Commission to establish and stabilize i

criteria, assign staff priority, afford TMI-l treatment consistent with all other B&W plants, and take what other actions you deem f* appropriat. to provide assurance of the ability to safely operate TMI-l at the earliest date. '

Re

/ fully, e N h / j.A G w 3

b H. Dieckamp lda L -

0 cc: Governor Brendan T. Byrne .

! Governor Richard Thornburgh i . George H. Barbour, Pres. NJBPU g Susan M. Shanaman, Chan. PaPUC

' g Commissioner Peter A. Bradford

Commissioner Victor Gilinsky

[ Ccmmissioner Joseph M. Hendrie l  :

a 4

l t l L l  ?

e.

A l

l 5

5 pp we Tt s N . w. =' "==N*

• === = = = 4p"""P WW % "=

___ - _ . , _..w- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ + -