ML20040D796

Comments on Immediate Effectiveness of ASLB 811214 Partial Initial Decision.Commission Early Action Necessary Notwithstanding Current Uncertainty as to Plant Physical Readiness.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20040D796
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	01/28/1982
From:	Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
References
NUDOCS 8202020262
Download: ML20040D796 (13)

Text

8 Licsn:co 1/28/88i ' 7

s. ., -

M'-? El,E ~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION *a t

• 3. : ' 25 N

S -

BEFORE THE COMMISSION _

ANCQYG K

/g

$$$ 7 In the Matter of ) '.g

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

LICENSEE'S COMMENTS ON IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION DATED DECEMBER 14, 1981 (PLANT DESIGN AND PROCEDURES, SEPARATION AND EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES)

In its Order dated November 30, 1981, as modified by its Orders dated December 23, 1981, and January 11, 1982,

^

the Commission invited comments by the parties to the TMI-l j restart proceeding on whether the Licensing Board's partial initial decision on design issues, emergency planning and i separation of TMI Units 1 and 2 should be made immediately ,

, effective.

1/ The Commission's Orders also asked the parties to address the question whether the Commission should defer its deci-sion on immediate effectiveness until after the Licensing Board has issued its decision on the implications of the cheating incident in the April,1981 NRC operator license examinations. The parties have already provided comments and reply comments on this latter question.

9 5c)3

/d e202O20262 e2012e PDR ADOCK 05000289 PDR g

l L J

v e ..

In addressing this question, we also address the companion question as to whether th'e Commission should now lift its immediately effective suspension orders of July 2 and August 9, 1979. In so doing we remind the Commission of its Staff's legal advice /2 and its own conclusion3 / that sus-pension of TMI-l's operating authority must be lifted if the concerns which prompted the Commission's original immediate suspension order no longer justify continuation of.that sus-pension.

Licensee submits that the Licensing Board's deci-sion of December 14, 1981, addresses thoroughly the design, separation and emergency planning issues which gave rise to the suspension of TMI-l's operating authority, as well as other issues raised in the proceeding, and supports convin~- c ingly authorization to restart TMI-1. On this score the de- .

cision speaks for itself.

This does not mean that there is no room for argu-l l ment or appeal as to any of the hundreds of detailed findings t

,and conclusions reached by the Board. Licensee itself is con-I sidering filing with the Appeal Board one or more exceptions

-2/ NRC Staff Comments on Immediate Effectiveness with Respect to' Licensing Board Decision on Management Competence / Operator Training, dated September 11, 1981, at p. 6.

_3/ Commission Order dated December 23, 1981 (CLI-81-34).

I l

s ..

to the decision.4/ Other parties can be expected to do the same. The question before the Comaission, however, as opposed to the Appeal Board, is whether any party's objections to the Board's decision and supporting reasons rise in the Commission's view to the level of concerns which would justify immediate suspension of an existing operating license or the continuation of immediate suspension of the TMI-l license. Licensee will, of course, respond to the comments of any other parties which seek to raise their objections to the Board's decision to this level of concern. -

Licensee has sought from the Licensing Board recon-sideration and elimination of one of the Board's short-term requirements relating to further small break LOCA analyses and has proposed certain clarifications to the Board's December 14, 1981 decision. The Licensing Board granted Licensee's requests.

in its Memorandum and Order dated January 26, 1982. Licensee considered the possibility of requesting further clarification of the Board's decision with respect to completion schedules for long-term requirements relating to the environmental qual-ification of equipment, but concluded that such clarification 4/ For example, Licensee may appeal the Board's decision that in the event of an emergency the functions of the Emergency Support Director, which are initially assumed by the on-site Emergency Director, must be transferred within one hour to an individual located in the near-site Emergency Op'erations Facility regardless of the availability of the senior offi-cials presently designated by Licensee to fulfill that func-tion. Licensee will, of course, abid'e by the Board's decision

_ pending the outcome of any appeal. .

l-

was unnecessary. In a proposed rule, to amend 10 C.F.R. Part 50 as to " Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants," 47 Fed. Reg. 2876, et seq. (January 20, 1982), the Commission announced a proposed extension of the deadline for compliance with criteria for the environmental qualification of equipment. Licensee has concluded, from its reading of the Licensing Board's decision and its reliance upon the Commission's generic decision-making in this area, that TMI-1, along with other operating reactors, will be bound by the outcome of the Commission's rulemaking as to the long-term requirements (e.g. , the identification and qualification of electric equipment needed to complete one path of achieving and maintaining a cold shutdown condition) and the schedule for compliance.5/ This assumption is consistent with the Com-mission's direction in CLI-81-3, 13 N.R.C. 291 (1981), cited by the Licensing Board (I.D., Y 1160), to group TMI-l with other operating reactors.

The alternative to making a decision on restart on the basis of the Licensing Board's decisions and recommenda-tions is to wait until after completion and consideration of the Appeal Board's review--a process which has barely begun and which is certain to take many months. Such a course would be inconsistent with the Commission's Order of August 9, 1979, 5/ Licensee recognizes, and has not opposed, the Licensing Board's conditions, on equipment qualification, for re-start of the plant. See I.D., 55 1163, 1174.

o .

which promised a Commission decision on lifting the suspension of TMI-l's operating license within.35 days after a favorable decision and recommendation of the Licensing Board. It would be equally inconsistent with the public interest in restarting TMI-l and the extreme financial hardship to GPU's consumers and investors due to the enforced shutdown of TMI-1 for.nearly three years. The nonavailability of TMI-l generation imposes on GPU customers and investors an economic penalty of approxi-mately $14 million per month. It is intolerable to permit that burden to continue one day longer than is absolutely necessary.

As the Commission's legal staff pointed out to the Commission approximately 30 months ago, the hearing process and related procedures adopted by the Commission in connection with consideration of TMI-l restart were not mandated by~the Atomic Energy Act. The action taken by the Commission in suspending the TMI-l owners' license to operate TMI-l and directing such hearings was, as the Commission's legal staff also then pointed out, an extraordinary act which must be lifted once the factual predicate upon which it was based no longer exists. The Com-mission has a corresponding obligation to make such determina-tion at the earliest feasible moment, given the great burdens that its action has placed upon GPU consumers and investors.

Licensee urges the Commission to reach the earliest possible decision on whether the concerns which led to the Commission's suspension of TMI-l's operating license have now O

i - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

s .

been satisfactorily resolved and whether the Licensing Board's partial initial decisions should be.made immediately effective.

While there are uncertainties in the date when restart can physically occur, waiting for a last-minute Commission decision would impact unfavorably on other actions which must fall into place prior to restart.

1. Restart cannot occur under the Commission's Aug-ust 9, 1979 Order until the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regula-tion has certified to the Commission that all short-term requirements imposed by the Licensing Board and Commission have been completed and that reasonable progress has been made on long-term requirements. This action by the Director involves a sign-off on hundreds of individual items and intense efforts by the Regional Office of Inspection and Enforcement comparable to those associated with completing the punch list for any new operating power plant. It is unreasonable to expect that the intensity of effort required of both plant and NRC personnel and which normally occurs once plant start-up is clearly in sight, can be sustained while uncertainty remains as to whether, I

I and on what terms, the Commission will authorize restart.

2. A portion of the restart requirements relating to emergency planning involves actions by local political en-tities of the Commonwealt) of Pennsylvania over which Licensee has no direct control. For example, the Licensing Board's decision requires that emergency plans'for each School District i

r l

o .

within the plume emergency planning zone be completed and re-viewed for adequacy prior to restart--a requirement that~has not been imposed on the start-up of new operating plants or required on the same schedule for existing licensees. Licensee will bend every effort to assist School Districts in preparing their plans and in persuading School Boards to act promotly on them. Commission authorization to restart, contingent on the

• completion and Staff review of those plans, would provide a helpful impetus in assuring timely action by the School Districts.

3. The Commission must anticipate immediate court challenges to any decision authorizing restart, commencing with requests for emergency stay of such a decision. While Licensee is confident that stay requests would not prevail, it is less confident about the time which may be involved in deciding the requests. Thus the potential for court challenges and delay is another important reason for a prompt Commission decision on restart.

These impacts are ones which have a direct and obvious connection with delay in the Commission's decision. Other subt-

• ler but even more far-reaching consequences could result.

One compelling public policy consideration that war-rants adherence by the Commission to the schedule established by it for its review of the two Partial Initial Decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is the clear nexus be-tween the restart of TMI-l and the ability of the GPU companies l

e to fund a portion of the clean-up of TMI-2. It has been gen-erally recognized that, under exist,ing circumstances, the GPU companies do not have the resources to fund any part of the clean-up of TMI-2 and that the insurance funds heretofore util-ized to maintain TMI-2 in a safe, stable condition and to make minor progress on clean-up are nearing exhaustion. On January 8, 1982, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission ("PaPUC")

issued an order settling the pending rate proceedings of Met-Ed and Penelec. That order makes provision for recognizing TMI-l costs in the base rates of Met-Ed and Penelec, when the follow-ing conditions have been met:

(i) An order has been issued by the NRC authorizing normal operation of TMI-1, (ii) TMI-l has achieved and maintained a capacity factor of 35% for at least 100 consecutive hours, and (iii) Met-Ed and Penelec have given 10 days' notice to the PaPUC and parties to the rate proceeding of the proposed rate change.

Simultaneously with and contingent upon recognition of the TMI-l costs in base rates, and the consequent reduction

• in the allowance for costs of replacement energy which operation of TMI-l will permit, provision is also made in such rates for provision'for TMI-2 clean-up costs at the level contemplated for Met-Ed and Penelec by Governor Thornburgh's, plan for TMI-2 clean-up'.

The PaPUC order adopts a settlement endorsed by vir-tually all the active participants in the rate proceeding.

l The Board of Directors of Edison Electric Institute

("EEI") has endorsed Governor Thornburgh's TMI-2 clean-up plan, including participation by the electric utility industry in

. clean-up funding at the level contemplated by that plan. It i

is unrealistic to expect that the industry will be able to do I this unless and until the portion of the TMI-2 clean-up funds l

I to be provided by Met-Ed and Penelec customers is available l which is dependent upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth .

I above. f Federal participation in TMI-2 clean-up funding is also provided for in a series of statements by Administration officials, including testimony presented to Congressional Com-mittees by Department of Energy Secretary James Edwards.

Now that this momentum for proceeding with the fund- f ing has at long last been established, it would be tragic to lose such momentum by reason of the unwillingness or inability of the Commission to meet its own long-established. schedule for action on the Initial Decisions of the Atomic Safety and 1 Licensing Board.

As previously indicated, the foregoing factors call for early action by the. Commission notwithstanding current uncertainty as to the physical readiness of the plant to re-start. Licensee has advised the NRC, based upon Licensee's present appraisal of a still on-going investiation of the causes and remedies for the steam generator leakage problem discovered in p

_g_

m _ . .

November, that restart will be delayed at least six months.

This technical problem, however, has no nexus to the TMI-2 accident or the TMI-l restart proceeding and should be left, as have other steam generator leakage problems at other plants, to Staff review and approval of remedial measures.

Licensee is, of course, aware that under the January 7, 1982 decision of the Court of Appeals on the cognizability of the psychological stress issue, the Commission cannot imme-diately authorize restart of TMI-1. Licensee intends to seek reconsideration and reversal of that decision, hopefully in concert with the Commission and on a schedule which would enable the Commission promptly to authorize restart. Even if this schedule cannot be realized, however, we urge the Commission to proceed quickly with its deliberations on restart so as to be in a position to advise the Court of Appeals that restart authorization is contingent only,on the Court's reconsideration of the psychological stress issue.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, P TMAN, PO TS C "ROWBRIDGE AMM n AA%I M Ge[rge F. Trowbridge[

Dated: January 28, 1982 9

e o .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

.di 3,N 28 pi :75 s, , . . ~ .

BEFCRE THE COMMISSION COL . , .

In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Comments on Immediate Effectiveness of the Licensing Board's Partial  !

Initial Decision Dated December 14, 1981 (Plant Design and Pro-cedures, Separation and Emergency Planning Issues),," dated.

January 28, 1982, have been served on the persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, or as indicated by an asterisk, by hand delivery, or as indicated by double asterisk by express mail, this 28th day of January, 1982.

N N/ s

[ George F. Trowbrid Dated: January 28, 1982 O

, , NOCtzAR FJh.uAM CCW.TSSICN .

. t--ux TEE O2NcMCN 7.n the Patter of ) '

)

-x-C-C.irIAN EDISCN CCMPANY ) Eccket No. 50-289

) (Best2:t) p- ee y4, e T=, =a N,c, a=- S'*4 m , )

thit No.1) ) -

SE UICE LIST .

St= -4m J. P=11=44".0,."&=4 N " DA4 Rdive. Juige Ivan W. S:::ith, &=4m D.S. Nscla=- BegulaM cm -4 =sica P -ie- Safety & T.4c- 87M Peh4ngt=n, D.C. 20555 UJS. Nuclea: Pegulato.:y c -4 =d m l . Washingt=n, D.C. 20555 -

Fic' ~ ci'4-eky, c m "4esicner -

tr.S. Nrla=* Fegulate:y Ccum4 =e4m J/-inietrative Jef=e Walter H. Jc:.*.an .

P ch'iMt=n, D.C. 20555 P~-4 c Safety &. T 4 meing Boe=d l . 881 W. Cuter. Drive -

Fe'** A. Bradfcrd, Om'"4 ed ma" Cak Ridge, 'Ibnnessee . 37830 -

U.S. P-1 a=- regulat==y &mi ce4 m .

Pekingt=n, D.C. 20555 37--4n4 etrative Jefce 7.4M= W. . Li"1a hcha F. Aba=ma, Cm-4 ed ma- P~-4 e- Safety & T 4I="e4ng M - ,

F.S. Nacia=+ Pegula'- y M esica -

5000 *- :itage Drive  :- .

~

1. ehingt=n, D.C. 20555 -

F='aigh, M=th Caroldma --27E12 1 .

' S: ras M. Tcterts, cmn-4 esicner I Jr--4n4 etrative Jufge Gary Li, P41kn11% -

5.S. Nela=- Tegulatory em' 4 =eim c/o Ivan W. Smith, Cui -n, )# nie Safety and Tira-e g Bes=d Achingtcn, D.C. 20555 U.S. N ela=" Begulatc y O>1 %4m V-ind etrative Jufge Gary J. Biles, &=4---=n Was'rdngton, D.C. 20555 o A.t=:ic Safety & Licensing Anp==' Scard .

F.S. N-i a=- Feg"1 = tory C=nmissicn

• Office of the Ex rive legal Dire::t::: (4) -

1. shington, D.C. 20mmo U.S. N-la=- Fegn1 =M C::m-d esica Washingt n, D.C. 205S5 A+4-dstrative Jufge Jchn E. Back

%_c:;3.c Safety & Licensing A p==' Ecard - Da:keting & Service Sectica (3) .

P.S. Nucla=- Fegulatory Cw.issicn Of.3.ce cf the S m .a.y

' shing:=n, D.C. 205.55

1. U.S. Nucla=- Fegulate:y C.u..issica .

l Washing'm , D.C. 20555 kd-ialst ative Ju=ge Chris'he N. Tchl ,

4. =-ic Safety & Licea. sing Arpeal Ecard At=nic Safety & Licensing Ecarf Panel

.S. Nacla=- Pegulatory C u issica U.S. Nacla=- Fegulat=:y C=r ce4 en d

Washing c , D.C. 20555 Washingten, D.C. 20555 Ai-istrative Jufge @21d L. Cet:iy At=-ic Sa#ety & Iicea. sing Appeal Sc :d Fanel C_=-ic Safety & Licensing A=pa=1 Eca-f U.S. Nuclear P.egulatcry C~_rissica

.S. Naclear F.egulatcry C=rissica Washing m , D.C. 20555

<as'.-i .gten , D. C. 20555 -

. l M Adle , Esq'4*e -

• • 1'yn R. Waies, Esq'i-e

.=:in W. Car = , Esquire W4ia S. JcMan, III, Isgaire ssis'=nt At =:ney C#'a' al - R"-' m & Waies .

95 E:ceccr.ive Ecuse 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506

. o. B=H: 2357 Washing'm , D.C. 20006

• --4 ch::: g, PA 17120

.

• Steven C. Shelly mey t#,=-al of New Jersey thiem of %-amad Ma + 4es

tn: ces J. ohm, Es,~uire 1346 rhnnaeticut Avenue, N.W. #1101 ep..ty Att==ney Ge:vfral Med:in g , D.C. 20036 .- 1 ti.vinica of Izw - B::cm 316 .

1.00 3 W Scalevard Mr. vin I. Imwis .

krwark, New Jersey 07102 6504 2:=* h l Ta m m Philada'phia, FA 19149

[chn A. Isvin, Esqui:n Lssistant- cc .sel Gr.il Phelps .

%::nsylvania Public U"4Tity Canninsica AIKEtt

,. C. 3::cc 3265 245 West Pb41=Aalnhia"St

' eet L=--4 ch g, PA 17120 Ye&, PA 17404 ,

icha E. Minnich, m=4'- 1

• • N~ man Aa:cdb .

b M n County 3cs=d of M nsioners R. D. 5 L

er. kin Count.y Cou::"Maca Coatesvil'e, PA 19320 M and .%'9.et Street.s -

'arris:urg, PA 17101-

• • M 4ee Bradfc d. -

'IMI ALERT tr.lter W. Cohen, Esquire . 1011 Green Ste .

Fs.=:er Mvecata Ma--4 ehrg, PA 17102 -

.f.

~

Wi~ of Ct :st:rer Mrecate .  ;- l 425 Stran:e...y Sqcare &-7 %5 ; -

t=-~4ch_' g, PA 17127 Judith J. Johnsrud -;

l

. Ihv:L.wAz.1. Coalition en N-la=* Power L J.an D. Cunninp2m, Esq'i e 433 &'=n n e Avenue -

t=c, Farr G o -nincham State College, PA 16801 -

320 N:::th Seccad Street -

omMnrg, PA 17110 R2ert Q. Pollard 609 %.=7 4a- Street Baltincre, MD 21218 . -

l .

l l

e te l

f * ,

- C e

. *